[voodoo]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
I'm sorry. This just invalidates your comments. The desktop is not a place for storing files. You are just a disorganised person with bad habits.

My desktop on a typical day. Notice how I use it for mounted drives *and* files/folders and yet keep it sqeeky clean? voodoo is an organized person with bad habits

[edit: to make this post slightly more on topic, a view how I typically navigate through the Finder in OS X]

Seriously, I hope you are joking. We can all use our Macs the way we like without personal abuse from people we don't even know, right?

Sarcasm doesn't travel well on text based forums, so you'll have to pardon me for asking if you are serious or what.

[LaGow]

Off topic, but I never tire of seeing non-English desktops. It's so much fun and a welcome jolt from the American-centric world view most of us in the States have.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

[JCS]

voodoo:
but with all these spatial features it is lacking the cornerstone feature: Never allowing the same item in more than one window at *any* given time. Ever.

lookmark:
Agreed, although my contention is that it's only "cornerstone" for the people who really, really care about UI and take part in geeky forums like this one. I suspect that a great majority of users are simply not paying attention to these things, and this is why it's fallen to the bottom of Apple's to-do list (if it's there at all).

That's not really "the conerstone", it's more like a "consequence." The requirements for a spatial Finder are simple:

1. Each window is unambiguously, inextricably linked to a particular folder.
2. Window state is always retained (size, position, etc.)

That's it.

And those aren't esoteric things. They're what allow the user to recognize a window based on its size, shape, the layout and coloring of the objects within it, etc.--IOW, they create a spatial interface. If you're willing to forego them or dismiss them as esoteric, then what's left? What's the point?

voodoo:
You can achieve it by pressing the oval button in the upper right hand corner of Finder windows. Then you enter spatial mode. Almost. It does everything except two things. It still allows one item to be displayed in two windows (although when in this mode such a situation is far less likely to happen) and it sure doesn't remember window positions or sizes. Even so that MOST CERTAINLY is a spatial mode in the Finder.

Not retaining window state already disqualifies it as spatial. But to be fair, it's not as dire as you make it out to be ("it sure doesn't remember window positions or sizes"). The Finder does try to retain window state (with varying degrees of success).

Lookmark did hit on one important issue:

I think a "never open a window in browser mode" checkbox would be essential for those to long to emulate the Classic Finder's behavior.

Browser-mode ("metal" for shorthand) Finder windows are simply inescapable. No matter what you do, and no matter what your settings are, they will repeatedly pop up, usually when you least expect them.

If you have the right prefs set, opening items within metal windows will still spawn new (possibly also metal, of course) windows, but that's not the issue. The first issue is that it's screwing with the appearance, and often the size and position of your windows. A "suddenly metal" window will usually have its content area squished or truncated in some way, and will also be bigger and sometimes positioned differently than it was before.

The second issue, of course, is that a metal window will have a sidebar (collapsed or otherwise) and a toolbar, which make it a "browser" window regardless of what happens when you double-click items in it. So basically you're suddenly in browser mode, even though you didn't ask to be.

Finally, that little button in the window title bar is perhaps the biggest culprit in this whole mess. The function it performs essentially destroys rule #1 of the spatial Finder: "Each window is unambiguously, inextricably linked to a particular folder." (How it does so is left as an exercise for the reader.)

Even so that MOST CERTAINLY is a spatial mode in the Finder.

Not by a longshot--theoretically, practically, or in any other way.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by JCS:


Not by a longshot--theoretically, practically, or in any other way.

Oh yes. I use the Finder (unmodified) in a completely spatial way. Only once in a while do I accidentally open a window that is already open (i.e. see 2 things at the same time) but that certainly doesn't mean the Finder isn't spatial to a large degree. If that would never happen, through a preference perhaps, then it would be completely spatial. I'd say that's pretty darn close to being the real deal.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Um why? I use the quote tag when appropriate, I think it is downright annoying to use it in a Zimphire-esque way like you want me to do. The text I wrote is most certainly readable, you just may not like what it says.

Because:

1. It makes it hard to tell what is original text and what is reply, which makes it take longer to read

2. It's annoying

3. It causes me to have to edit out all my original text when I reply to it, as opposed to if you'd just have used the quote tag, which would cause Reply to quote only your text. This also wastes my time.

Sigh... okay, here:

Originally posted by voodoo:
Well this sudden change into spatial certainly has never happened to me. Ever. Into icon view, yes - but then always in browser mode.

Great. I know people who use Windows and have never had to reformat their drive due to registry corruption, viruses, etc. Therefore, that proves that Windows never has these problems and is 100% stable. QED.

I have yet to meet the person who uses 'browse' in iTunes and I do know quite a lot of people.

But, in your never-ending quest to put words in my mouth, you also say...

Yes that is how I understood it as well, but I consider the search/Spotlight function to be a part of file browsing.

Okay. I consider them completely unrelated. But by following your 'logic', we can extend this to say that search in iTunes is a part of song browsing in iTunes. Therefore, since neither you nor anyone you know browses in iTunes, then, that means you never use Search either to find your songs! Instead, you just open iTunes and stare at the pretty brushed metal windows. QED.

What are you, some kind of music hater?!

To quote you after I commented on how the colum view is a GUI over the CLI:
"Which doesn't have a lot to do with the topic, really, which is the spatial Finder."
which is true enough but then you go straight to criticising ICON view in the next paragraph:

"To me, the reason was that I was able to arrange things exactly in such a manner, so I would know exactly where each often-used icon was. But, it was quite fragile and capable of really throwing me if it were disrupted. These days, the only things I use Icon View for are: [snip]"

Obviously this confuses me a lot because as I've said often enough in this thread: Icon view does NOT equal spatial view (metaphor) any more than a wheel equates a car.

Well, icon view is certainly a part of the spatial metaphor. You certainly seem to think so, since you post things like:

For me it works better because I remember the location of critical files by location. I usually don't even remeber what the folders are called that store said files are called, I just remember where they are. Naturally this makes it fantastically easy for me to navigate by sight and position. That is a spatial element.

My point is simply that if the icons get moved somehow, it throws you. It doesn't matter if icon view equals spatial mode or is a part of it: if the icons move, IT MUCKS IT UP.

Auto-sort by name doesn't help, because as soon as you add one more file to the folder, it bumps all the other files that come after it in the sort order.

Then you continue with: "The one point you brought up, about being more "visual", seems to apply more to icon view, which you keep insisting is not the point of a spatial mode."

So is it any wonder I'm a bit confused as to how extensive your understanding of the spatial metaphor is? It is clear as daylight that icon view is not spatial view. A makes B but B does not make A.

and in your last post you write: "this is purely a property of icon view, which you seem to keep trying to remove from the discussion..." having only a few posts ago written: ""Which doesn't have a lot to do with the topic, really, which is the spatial Finder."
-- really making it sound like you STILL think icon view IS spatial Finder. Either that or you've forgotten what the topic was spatial metaphor (that you decided btw - the topic is really "Will Apple ever make an OS that functions like OS 9 but has the feaatures of OS X?")

No, I'm pointing out that you keep talking about icon view, in the same breath that you yell at me for mentioning it.

Your beef is obviously with icon view and some strange experiences you've had with it (while sharing your computer with others).

No, it also pisses me off the way OS 9 dumps thousands of windows all over your screen when you browse through the file system. Like I said before, in OS 9, my left hand was permanently planted on the Option key when I was browsing through the Finder.

Whatever, we were discussing spatiality and not icon view. That's probably why you feel I'm avoiding icon-talk. That's just not what we were talking about. Icon view is already fully implemented in OS X. What is there to discuss there? The Finder shouldn't make it a default view against user prefs, sure but asides from that?

Because icon view is a critical part of the spatial metaphor. What, do you use Column View with the sidebar turned off or something?

PS: Just read the John Syracusa [sic] comment you made. I make up my own mind thank you, but I've read John's articles about the spatial Finder. He's just stating obvious things that are painfully wrong in OS X's Finder and his suggestions for the future range from silly to something Apple is already implementing (e.g. Spotlight and smart folders)

I've read all his articles, long ago, thanks.

Do you think Apple is putting those things into Tiger because John says so?? Hello!

I haven't tried the latest version of GNOME, the one I have hasn't been updated for at least more than a year! Glad to hear they are trying out the spatial metaphor!!

Well, ya see, I consider using GNOME to be a part of "defending the north side of the Korean border". Therefore, you're a pinko commie, and a music hater?! Care to retract that statement??? note: it's a joke.

I've had it with this thread. Feel free to post as many more personal attacks as you want.

[CharlesS]

Okay, two more before I go.

If you can't have a civilized discussion about the Mac UI.. well then you really shouldn't. I'm always game for a good discussion but it gets tired quick when it is obvious the one you're discussing with isn't interested at all in discussing anything, rather just look for some points where he can make cheap-shots at preferences!

Go back and read your earlier posts, and see the irony of this.

Also, this:

...a hard-core anti-icon view...

Here's the text of my original post on the topic:

Unfortunately, the spatial metaphor had several major problems:

1. If I accidentally selected the Clean Up menu item (or if some idiot I had to share the computer with did it on purpose), then all of a sudden I would not be able to find the file I wanted without digging around.

2. If I had to use someone else's machine, I would not be able to find the file I wanted without some major digging around.

3. When a folder had a very large number of files in it, it became a major PITA.

The tone is clearly "in retrospect, it had problems." That's all, nothing more. I wouldn't mind the damn icon view and/or spatial windows if there were a global override to keep them off. Other than that, I don't even really care that much. It's mainly the fact that you made me angry that caused me to even reply at all beyond the first post.

[jamil5454]

CharlesS, I think you win the award for the longest serious posts ever. Is it just me or is anyone else too lazy to read them?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
It's mainly the fact that you made me angry that caused me to even reply at all beyond the first post.

Ooookay.

Step away from the computer sir, realize that when other people (that you don't know at all) on teh interweb make you angry some serious reflection is in order.

You, for instance have not made me angry. We have been arguing tastes. Becoming angry at someone whom you don't know at all for liking the color blue more than the color green.. is strange to say the least. I could give you heck of a better things to get angry about.

Be cool buddy

[mAxximo]

Four years+ have already gone by and we are still discussing OS X's interface and functionality every day, in multiple threads, in multiple forums, all over the internet.

Funny how I don't remember having a single argument about the Mac GUI during the previous 16 years...

[cpac]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Four years+ have already gone by and we are still discussing OS X's interface and functionality every day, in multiple threads, in multiple forums, all over the internet.

Funny how I don't remember having a single argument about the Mac GUI during the previous 16 years...

Funny how many people didn't use the internet at all during the first 10+ years of the development of the Classic interface.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by cpac:
Funny how many people didn't use the internet at all during the first 10+ years of the development of the Classic interface.

Or maybe no one was able to successfully post in a forum without the os crashing due to a memory leak in Explorer.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
Or maybe no one was able to successfully post in a forum without the os crashing due to a memory leak in Explorer.

Talk about denial...

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Talk about denial...

HA! The original topic of this thread was "Will Apple ever make an OS that functions like OS 9 but has the features of X?"

I have yet to hear anything convincing about the features of OS 9 besides speed.

Also, my post was meant to be a joke.

[IamBob]

Funny how many people didn't use the internet at all during the first 10+ years of the development of the Classic interface.

No kidding. I remember when 14.4 modems were fast (what was that, '92? I know I was using a Quadra and paid dearly for my modem...). It only took 2 minutes to load a page! It's a wonder why we even bothered at all. Especially when the OS would tank so easily.

All I ever did online was hang in Yahoo! Chat. Since it was a plugin (ironically, "ichat") for the browser it wasn't too painful, at least you only had to download the "client" once. I remember being pissed when they came out with the Java applet, it sent load time through the roof and was more crash prone.

If there were forums like this one I didn't know about them. Otherwise I would've been asking what the best set of extensions was to keep crashing to a minimum - I spent countless hours trying to find a stable set and never really got anywhere.

I have yet to hear anything convincing about the features of OS 9 besides speed.

Right, because there aren't any features of OS9 that we can't reproduce, besides the speed and constant crashing. I suppose with a sprinkling of crappy ram (or if you've got a rev A B&W - $3000 POS! ) you can get some of the crashing back though.

Talk about denial...

Look who's talking!

[Twilly Spree]

"Right, because there aren't any features of OS9 that we can't reproduce, besides the speed and constant crashing"

What's with all the trolls in this thread? Get a life trollboy.

[IamBob]

What's with all the trolls in this thread? Get a life trollboy.

Now you're no different, "trollboy", good job! By the way, the quote tag was invented for a reason.

Maybe my jabbing our dead friend (OS9) was too much for you but that doesn't change the facts; OS9 may have been fast but it's multitasking and tendency to crash were ridiculous, which totally negates any speed advantages you could claim it had.

[chris v]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Four years+ have already gone by and we are still discussing OS X's interface and functionality every day, in multiple threads, in multiple forums, all over the internet.

I would like you to reflect back on those four years of your life, arguing about an OS interface on multiple forums every day, and ask yourself: Was that time wisely spent?

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by IamBob:
Now you're no different, "trollboy", good job! By the way, the quote tag was invented for a reason.

Maybe my jabbing our dead friend (OS9) was too much for you but that doesn't change the facts; OS9 may have been fast but it's multitasking and tendency to crash were ridiculous, which totally negates any speed advantages you could claim it had.

Good thing your opinon is worthless

[IamBob]

OSX's multitasking is better and it's more crash resistant than OS9. Both of these claims are very widely accepted as fact.

The only piece of opinion is that those two factors alone make OSX faster than OS9. Feel free to think otherwise but it very obviously leans in my (OSX's) favor...

If you can do more than one thing at a time you can be more efficient and if your machine isn't rebooting itself you save time.

[Randman]

If you want an OS that functions like OS9 but has the features of X, use Classic.

[ibobunot]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Talk about denial...

Shouldn't you be back at thalo's little circle jerk forum Brother mAxximo.

[cla]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
What are the benefits of it, really? Why should we want this back, other than the fact that John Siracusa says so?

(This post is not at all aimed at CharlesS.)
I have no idea who John Siracusa is, but spatial navigation is one condition for eventually being able to navigate by using muscle memory. Spatialness also invites for navigation by prediction, making it superior in terms of speed.

This, of course, requires that you know your own file system.


Compare this to (say) getting cutlery out of kitchen drawers - before you open the kitchen drawer (which you can easily locate since it only exists in one place and in one shape), you already know the forks are on the left side. Even if you don't, you can easily localize the forks by just looking, and eventually you will have learned that forks are stored on the left side.

Adding non-spatialness to the same example would mean that you first have to locate the kitchen drawer. Even if you have a nice kitchen drawer in your mental model of the kitchen, you still have to associate it with the name "kitchen drawer" in order to find it. Eventually you open the kitchen drawer and see but cutlery labels - "forks", "knifes", "spoons" - and you are forced once again to recall what the thing you're looking for is called.

You will eventually open the non-spatial drawer again...

(that is, after you've located it, for who knows? That may be easier this time. Perhaps you're in a part of the kitchen close to the drawer? Or maybe the cutlery drawer is in the recent items list? Go and have a look, but beware - if it isn't there, you have to navigate to the kitchen drawer "from scratch").

...and you may figure that this time, at least you know exactly where to look...

(This is true only if you manage to find and open exactly the same representation of the kitchen drawer you used last time)

...BUT, you would then be using spatial navigation!

Spatial navigation eventually renders the declarative knowledge of the kitchen drawer secondary to the task of opening it, making way for an autonomous stage in retrieving cutlery out of kitchen drawers.
(process from J R Anderson - The Architecture of Cognition, 1983)


Folders hosting a large number of files pose a problem no matter what representation you use - probably because 1000 files in a folder can't be called "organized".

Spatial navigation is in our nature, and not an Apple invention (even if Apple was first to apply it to computers). The desktop is entirely spatial, so why shouldn't the desktop metaphor be?

Anyway, predictability is the key word, and is by far the thing I lack the most in OS X (especially in key interaction elements such as the dock and exposé).

[lookmark]

The place where I differ from people who sorely miss OS 9's Finder is that while I find spatiality an important factor in UI design, it's simply not the overwhelming factor. Location of objects and items is useful information, for example, but I don't particularly enjoy constantly rearranging items to know where they are (that includes moving around, and opening and closing a great deal of windows), nor the clutter that, for example, a spatially rich (aka messy) desktop is associated with. I prefer to allow the computer to do the minutia of folder-level organizing for me (e.g. column view, or icon view w/ sort by name) so I can focus on either higher-level organization or (drum roll) my work.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by cla:
(This post is not at all aimed at CharlesS.)
I have no idea who John Siracusa is, but spatial navigation is one condition for eventually being able to navigate by using muscle memory. Spatialness also invites for navigation by prediction, making it superior in terms of speed.

This, of course, requires that you know your own file system.


Compare this to (say) getting cutlery out of kitchen drawers - before you open the kitchen drawer (which you can easily locate since it only exists in one place and in one shape), you already know the forks are on the left side. Even if you don't, you can easily localize the forks by just looking, and eventually you will have learned that forks are stored on the left side.

Adding non-spatialness to the same example would mean that you first have to locate the kitchen drawer. Even if you have a nice kitchen drawer in your mental model of the kitchen, you still have to associate it with the name "kitchen drawer" in order to find it. Eventually you open the kitchen drawer and see but cutlery labels - "forks", "knifes", "spoons" - and you are forced once again to recall what the thing you're looking for is called.

You will eventually open the non-spatial drawer again...

(that is, after you've located it, for who knows? That may be easier this time. Perhaps you're in a part of the kitchen close to the drawer? Or maybe the cutlery drawer is in the recent items list? Go and have a look, but beware - if it isn't there, you have to navigate to the kitchen drawer "from scratch").

...and you may figure that this time, at least you know exactly where to look...

(This is true only if you manage to find and open exactly the same representation of the kitchen drawer you used last time)

...BUT, you would then be using spatial navigation!

Spatial navigation eventually renders the declarative knowledge of the kitchen drawer secondary to the task of opening it, making way for an autonomous stage in retrieving cutlery out of kitchen drawers.
(process from J R Anderson - The Architecture of Cognition, 1983)


Folders hosting a large number of files pose a problem no matter what representation you use - probably because 1000 files in a folder can't be called "organized".

Spatial navigation is in our nature, and not an Apple invention (even if Apple was first to apply it to computers). The desktop is entirely spatial, so why shouldn't the desktop metaphor be?

Anyway, predictability is the key word, and is by far the thing I lack the most in OS X (especially in key interaction elements such as the dock and exposé).

Damn fine post!

[cla]

geeee, thx Twilly! =D

[das]

All I have to say is this:

Future of Mac OS 9

I have used Macs every waking free moment for over 21 years.

And all I can say is that I saw the immense promise with the first developer release of Rhapsody, and within six months of the release of Mac OS X, I could literally no longer stand being forced to use Mac OS 9 for any reason: that's how much better Mac OS X was. Granted, it wasn't really ready for prime time for everyone until Jaguar, but Mac OS X is what is growing the Mac market again in so many areas it had never been, or had long been forgotten: servers, enterprise storage, scientific/engineering/research - just go to most IT conferences and look around.

To everyone still clinging on to Mac OS 9: to be frank, we don't care about you, and neither does Apple. I appreciated Mac OS 9 for what it was. Now it's gone, and something much, much better has taken its place.

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
http://www.thalo.net is probably the best place for you to go at this point.

I have respect for other peoples opinions but who ever started that site is just a plain moron and doesnt have a clue about OSX.

Im a Senior Designer at a large interactive agency in NYC. I work on OSX and so does the rest of the department. No problems at all. OSX is more than adequate for professional use. Without OSX we would have serious problems reaching hard deadlines. OSX is amazingly stable and seamless.

Ive figured out that users who have issues with OSX and prefer OS9 over it all have one of the following issues. Sometimes both.

1. They are just too scared to sit down and actually learn OSX which in reality isnt that hard to adjust to after using OS9. These people are scared of chang.

OR

2. They are just too dumb and shouldnt be using a computer.

Again, I respect everyones opinion but to say that OS9 is better than OSX and that OSX isnt adequate for professional use is just absurd.

OS9 in no way can compare to OSX. OS9 was a joke of an OS and it just amazes me that so many designers worked on an OS like that, including myself. Im glad OS9 is dead.

[cpac]

Originally posted by cla:

[extended explanation about why spatial organization is intuitive]

Sure it can be.

The question is whether it makes sense to use in computers any more.

I think that Spotlight has the potential to replace much of this interaction completely:

- I think "fork"
- I use my muscle-memory to go to the upper right of the screen, click, (or hit a shortcut key), then type "fork"
- I instantly have a list of all "forks" on my system.

Ultimately it's a lot fewer steps than (1) organizing your files in the first place (and keeping them that way as they are generated) and (2) navigating the file system every time you want to open one of them.

[z|gzag]

NeEd... mOrE.... UI... *CONSISTENCY*!!!

[cla]

Originally posted by z|gzag:
NeEd... mOrE.... UI... *CONSISTENCY*!!!

I know THAT feeling... :>

What happend this time? Was it the Inconsistent Save-dialog? The Inconsistent Auto-complete? The Inconsistent Get info window? The Inconsistent Extension Handling?

[PSST]

Hey guys,

I'm back... I had to throw this out there, but what IS this for OS 9, and what does it do? What is it good for?
http://www.tenon.com/products/machten/

[PSST]

SEE ABOVE POST....


I think that Future of OS 9 movie is beyond DUMB!!!!!!

To think that someone paid that guy to appear and speak at that conference.

[goMac]

Originally posted by PSST:
Hey guys,

I'm back... I had to throw this out there, but what IS this for OS 9, and what does it do? What is it good for?
http://www.tenon.com/products/machten/

That is an application which emulates a UNIX terminal on Mac OS X.

Mac OS 9 will never ever come back. The interface was deplorable. I much rather prefered the Windows UI over it. Mac OS 9 was not built for new technology such as the internet, large amounts of applications, networking, or anything else modern for that matter. Rhapsody tried combining the Mac OS 9 UI with the power of X and it failed. Mac OS 9's UI scales very poorly and does not work well for a modern OS.

[Brass]

Originally posted by goMac:
Mac OS 9 ... interface was deplorable. I much rather prefered the Windows UI over it. Mac OS 9 was not built for new technology such as the internet, large amounts of applications, networking, or anything else modern for that matter. Rhapsody tried combining the Mac OS 9 UI with the power of X and it failed. Mac OS 9's UI scales very poorly and does not work well for a modern OS.

I dissagree entirely. The interface was the best part of Mac OS 9, and in fact, towards the end, was the only good bit. I found it to be the only thing it had that was better than other OS's of the time. And yet, the interface was SO much better than that of other OS's, that it was still my prefered OS at the time (although I was looking around for alternatives).

It was everything apart from the interface that sucked, with Mac OS 9.

Of course, when it comes to UI, it is all opinion. People work in different ways, and different UI's suit different people in different ways.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Brass:
It was everything apart from the interface that sucked, with Mac OS 9.

Actually, everything else sucking destroyed what originally made the Mac a Macintosh.

It was all the stuff that kept being bolted on over time that turned Macintosh into the hideous monster that was OS 9.

Try to configure a DSL connection, or even a network setup, under OS 9, and then try the same thing under OS X. Then come back and tell me which interface is better.


System Extensions were great. Interface/interactive nightmare.


The interface was the only thing Mac OS 9 had going for it, which is a sad testament to its competitors at the time, but boy, am I glad - since Panther - that it's gone.

-s*

[goMac]

Originally posted by Brass:
I dissagree entirely. The interface was the best part of Mac OS 9, and in fact, towards the end, was the only good bit. I found it to be the only thing it had that was better than other OS's of the time. And yet, the interface was SO much better than that of other OS's, that it was still my prefered OS at the time (although I was looking around for alternatives).

It was everything apart from the interface that sucked, with Mac OS 9.

Of course, when it comes to UI, it is all opinion. People work in different ways, and different UI's suit different people in different ways.

Here are problems I ran into as an admin with teachers who used Windows at home:

1) They couldn't find applications (solved by dock and applications side thing in 10.3 Finder)
2) They'd save documents in every place they could find (Root of the hard drive, applications folder, office folder, desktop). Solved somewhat by home folders.
3) They couldn't find the internet (solved by dock again)

The only thing that saved OS 9's interface was that Apple had UI guidelines. While Windows was all over the board in regards to UI, Apple made things stay consistant. However, the OS 9 interface scaled very very poorly. This lead to Apple creating many custom interfaces in iTunes, Quicktime, etc. Keeping track of minimized windows was a pain. I personally would always end up with a few million Finder windows open, while OS X keeps this under control.

My mom started on Macs when they first came out. She started with a Mac 512ke. She did tons of desktop publishing, and made a living in Photoshop and Aldus Publisher. I don't think shes quite as pro these days, but she doesn't even know how to use OS 9 anymore and finds it annoying ever since I converted her to X a few years ago. OS X is just so much easier to use. The first thing she demanded about when she started her new job about 6 months after she converted to X was that her work machine be converted to X as it was unusable for her. This is someone who used Mac classic for nearly longer than I've been alive (I'm 18). OS 9 makes little sense, and in the end was just a bunch of interfaces for new technologies piled on a interface built for minimalism.

The only thing I miss from 9 is compatibility with old games.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by goMac:
1) They couldn't find applications (solved by dock and applications side thing in 10.3 Finder)
2) They'd save documents in every place they could find (Root of the hard drive, applications folder, office folder, desktop). Solved somewhat by home folders.
3) They couldn't find the internet (solved by dock again)

1 and 3 are just as true of the Apple menu, and 2 isn't really solved at all except that now there are some places people aren't allowed to save files (but still almost limitless places they could save them).

[goMac]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
1 and 3 are just as true of the Apple menu, and 2 isn't really solved at all except that now there are some places people aren't allowed to save files (but still almost limitless places they could save them).

Except the Apple menu, believe it or not, isn't easy for the newbie user to find. They like having huge icons right in front of them. It's not very self explanatory that you go to the Apple menu. The Apple menu worked when you had very few applications, but I saw machines where it became completely unusable once applications piled on. Don't forget, the Apple menu was home to a lot more past applications.

The classic Mac OS was designed when to run an application you had to boot off a separate floppy. Classic Mac OS was really just built to provide a framework for drawing GUI's. Back on the original Macs when you wanted run a program you either a) built it its own system on floppy so it was the only application installed on the boot floppy or b) the program came on floppy with a Mac OS boot already installed on the floppy. When you wanted to run a program, you turned on the machine, put in the proper floppy, and the program ran itself. Mac OS was never really originally designed with the idea that many apps would run together on the same boot disk. You might have a boot disk for your office apps, a few boot disks for games (I remember I had to have two disks for MS Flight Simulator, one to boot from and one for game data). Although Mac OS did make it pretty well into an era of hard disks with maybe a half dozen apps, it never scaled well past that.

Windows was extremely simple for new users and light years beyond Classic Mac OS for new users. (Dons flame retardant suit). Users had a central place to look for apps in the start menu, and knew newly installed apps would be there. OS 9 forced users to jump though one too many hoops. Yes, there was the Apple menu. But you had to move an app there yourself. In addition, in Windows you had a nice heads up display of what windows were open.

In my experience, users had no trouble using the start menu on Windows but had a heck of a time finding their apps on OS 9. On OS X a users can run on their machine, see a bunch of icons at the bottom of the screen, and start exploring.

[Brass]

Originally posted by goMac:
Here are problems I ran into as an admin with teachers who used Windows at home:

That's an exceptionally poor way of testing any OS's UI. Giving it to people who are entirely trained on a completely different UI, and saying, well, they find it more difficult to use the one they've never seen before, than the one they've been using for years, therefore it must be bad UI.

[Brass]

Originally posted by goMac:
Except the Apple menu, believe it or not, isn't easy for the newbie user to find. They like having huge icons right in front of them. It's not very self explanatory that you go to the Apple menu. The Apple menu worked when you had very few applications, but I saw machines where it became completely unusable once applications piled on. Don't forget, the Apple menu was home to a lot more past applications.

Again, this is not a great argument. Saying that complete newbies pick up one system's basics better than another, is such a small part of a UI.

I'm guessing that Mac users would become more advanced users very quicly, whereas Windows users are more likely to never progress past those very basics.

In any case, this still does not say that one is a better UI than the other for power users, who in the end are the majority.

By the way, the Apple menu was very configurable. Submenus, etc were very useful. I could keep zillions of things in the Apple menu all well organised so that no one menu or submenu contained too many items. Having huge icons in from of me all the time would be a major pain. I always deleted aliases off the desktop as soon as any installer created them.

Also, I don't think anyone here (except perhaps the person who started this topic) actually thinks that the Mac OS 9 UI is better overall than the Mac OS X UI. Yes, the Mac OS 9 UI sucks in comparison to X. But for me, it was vastly superior to Windows at the time (again, it's a matter of personal taste).

[goMac]

Again, from a power user perspective OS 9 was fine. But from a newb perspective, it was nothing but trouble. Users were not used to navigating a file system to open programs. In fact most users don't even know about the file system. You install a program, there it is in the start menu. Easy for the user to deal with. OS 9 made the user have to decide where the program was going to be installed, and then the user had to hunt it down once it was installed. OS 7.5 and higher had the applications folder, but this was still alien to the user.

One other problem that I have seen many converts to OS X have is problems with running programs from CD, namely games. On Windows, you put in the CD, it autostarts, then you tell it to play the game. Mac doesn't have autostart, which kinda throws them at first. So they open the cd. The only thing they see on the cd is the installer. So they open the installer and proceed to reinstall the whole program. Then the program again doesn't launch. They don't understand navigating the file system to open the program off the hard drive. At this point they usually complain about how Macs suck and they're way too confusing. I don't think Macs should have autostart, but software vendors on Mac should at least have a way the installer can tell the program is already installed and ask the user if they want to run it.

If the Mac wants to gain broader acceptance it needs to make some concessions. It's great that we all know how to use a computer, and the Mac works great for us. However, a lot of people can't deal with the file system and just want their programs to run. Mac OS X makes some good strides in the right direction with this. OS 9 had really no way of dealing with these issues, and Windows really does overkill in dealing with them.

It's great that we can say everyone should be advanced computer users, and the Mac has a better learning curve, but the reality is a lot of people don't want to be advanced computer users, they just want it to work, and that is what the Mac is trying to promise.

As for someone being trained in a different UI, Mac OS X is very easy to pick up for most Windows users. They get the applications alias on the sidebar. To them its kinda like the start menu. They get the dock. There are some applications down there, and windows minimize down there. Eventually they even figure out they can drop applications down there. Whether we like it or not there is a reason Windows is the most prevalent GUI out there, it was very easy for users to pick up.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents. I just jumped in the middle here. I got the impression that the topic starter has been referring to UI by mentioned ease of use.

[Brass]

Originally posted by goMac:
Again, from a power user perspective OS 9 was fine. But from a newb perspective, it was nothing but trouble. Users were not used to navigating a file system to open programs. In fact most users don't even know about the file system. You install a program, there it is in the start menu. Easy for the user to deal with. OS 9 made the user have to decide where the program was going to be installed, and then the user had to hunt it down once it was installed. OS 7.5 and higher had the applications folder, but this was still alien to the user.

I still think it's all just a matter of opinion. Some users work better the Mac OS 9 way, some work better the Windows way.

browsing through folders is very intuitive for some novice users. I've seen many users pick this up very quickly.

However, it's value is not so much for the novice user, but rather how it empowers people to quicly progress beyond being a novice, and to easily learn more about the system they are working with, without really realising they are learning. I think this made it a good UI, not a bad one.

But as I keep saying, that just my opinion.

It amazes me how people keep expressing their opinions as fact ("this UI is better because of such-and-such, and that's final").

[Brass]

Originally posted by goMac:
One other problem that I have seen many converts to OS X have is problems with running programs from CD, namely games. On Windows, you put in the CD, it autostarts, then you tell it to play the game. Mac doesn't have autostart, which kinda throws them at first. So they open the cd. The only thing they see on the cd is the installer. So they open the installer and proceed to reinstall the whole program. Then the program again doesn't launch. They don't understand navigating the file system to open the program off the hard drive. At this point they usually complain about how Macs suck and they're way too confusing. I don't think Macs should have autostart, but software vendors on Mac should at least have a way the installer can tell the program is already installed and ask the user if they want to run it.

Are you still talking about OS 9 here? Because it did have autostart. It was rarely used towards the end of the Classic Mac OS because it is a potential security flaw (as evidenced by the "autostart worm").

[Brass]

Originally posted by goMac:
Whether we like it or not there is a reason Windows is the most prevalent GUI out there, it was very easy for users to pick up.

Do you really believe that Windows' popularity has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with it's GUI's quality? Are you serious???

Remember, that when Windows first became popular, it was version 3.1. Do you remember what Windows 3.1 was like in comparison to the Macintosh at the time?

EDIT:

DOS became popular by marketing (including being bundled on IBM PCs). I think it's more likely that Windows became popular because it was the successor to DOS, and again, by marketing, and most of all, simply by inertia - "everyone else is using it, so I will too". Not because of it's good qualities (even though it does have some).

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by goMac:
One other problem that I have seen many converts to OS X have is problems with running programs from CD, namely games. On Windows, you put in the CD, it autostarts, then you tell it to play the game. Mac doesn't have autostart, which kinda throws them at first. So they open the cd. The only thing they see on the cd is the installer. So they open the installer and proceed to reinstall the whole program. Then the program again doesn't launch. They don't understand navigating the file system to open the program off the hard drive. At this point they usually complain about how Macs suck and they're way too confusing. I don't think Macs should have autostart, but software vendors on Mac should at least have a way the installer can tell the program is already installed and ask the user if they want to run it.

http://www.macintouch.com/hkvirus.html

BTW, to get a Start menu, just drag the Applications folder into the Dock (or put it into the Apple menu in OS 9).

[Twilly Spree]

All these kids under 20 who claim to know OS 9 and talk trash about it at the same time just piss me off.

If anyone claims OS 9 had a bad UI compared Windows (through XP and likely through Longhorn) that person is deranged and comlpetely nuts. That's putting it nicely. When all was accounted for the OS 9 GUI was the single most powerful feature of the Mac. It was the ONLY THING that kept people on the FU-KING PLATFORM! Sure wasn't the FEATURES of OS 9!! Sure wasn't the HUGE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE available for OS 9!! Idiots.

OS X brought in a lot of powerful features that OS 9 didn't have while breaking the spine of the Mac GUI at the same time. Trust me, it was because of these features most Mac users kept pretty much silent about the crap UI in OS X, waiting for Apple to finish developing it.. OS X was in beta until 10.3. Then we expected Apple to put an effort into GUI again - and trust me they will.

Those of you who keep whining and trolling against improved GUI in OS X make me sick. You don't realize that the Mac had died in 1996 had it not been for the fuc-ing GUI in System 7 to OS 9! Gah!! That was because it was unrivaled until the very end in 2001 as the single best GUI ever made. Still is.

The ignorance is astounding when some are describing their problems!
Whiner 1: "Whaaaa I always lose my files when someone messes up the alpabetical order or whatever but I don't realize I can make the OS keep files always in alphabet order because I'm an idiot"
Whiner 2: "Whhaaa! Games don't autostart when I put them in the drive like on the Windows but I don't realize that the option is there in OS 9 so developers are to blame if anyone!"
Whiner 3: "Whaaaa! Spaciality is dead geet over it even if that is just my opinion and projecting it like that upon others is completely meaningless"
Whiner 4: "Whaaaa OS 9 sucked when you wanted to go to the internet because there wasn't a dock but I don't realize that people had to learn it on Windows and they had to learn it on the Mac that things were not always done exactly the F-CKING same"
Whiner 5: "Whhaaa OS 9 crashed a lot but I don't realize that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUI because I'm dumb as bread"
Whiner 6: "I refuse to understand what people like about spaciality and I'm going to act really obtuse because I have this really childish agenda (probably because I'm not 18 yet - at least mentally)"
Whiner 7: Whaaaaa I always ended up with a lot of windows everywhere when using OS 9 but I didn't realize that using search, pop-up folders, spring loaded folders, aliases and the Apple menu would save me a lot of headache but I am too dumb to learn"
Whiner 8: "Whaaaa People used to save files everywhere but in OS 9 that doesn't really matter and I'm going to pretend it does"
Whiner 9: "Whhaaa I don't understand why these people like OS 9 and I don't have the mental maturity to accept that so I'll just whine and troll a lot every time I encounter these people on teh Intarweb I'm so 1337 I use column view!"

[analogika]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
All these kids under 20 who claim to know OS 9 and talk trash about it at the same time just piss me off.

If anyone claims OS 9 had a bad UI compared Windows (through XP and likely through Longhorn) that person is deranged and comlpetely nuts. That's putting it nicely. When all was accounted for the OS 9 GUI was the single most powerful feature of the Mac. It was the ONLY THING that kept people on the FU-KING PLATFORM! Sure wasn't the FEATURES of OS 9!! Sure wasn't the HUGE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE available for OS 9!! Idiots.

OS X brought in a lot of powerful features that OS 9 didn't have while breaking the spine of the Mac GUI at the same time. Trust me, it was because of these features most Mac users kept pretty much silent about the crap UI in OS X, waiting for Apple to finish developing it.. OS X was in beta until 10.3. Then we expected Apple to put an effort into GUI again - and trust me they will.

I'm over thirty, and I've been a Mac user for over fifteen years.

Yes, the UI was the *only* thing that kept people on the Mac, but as mentioned, that is really nothing but a sad testament to the quality of its competitors, because the original Mac interface ethic went right out the window some time between System 7.5 and 8.6.

The actual Macintosh - the device whose purpose, and soul, was to make complex processes point-and-click simple - had all but completely disappeared until Mac OS X.

Most everything that people complain is missing from X were crutches bolted on to deal with the fact that OS 9 simply did not allow for an elegant and simple solution. Either that, or they're bitching about functionality that OS 9 never even *had*. Font management in OS X is nasty (as of Panther). But only compared to OS 9 with - Suitcase, or ATM. Neither of which were Apple software.

Fer cryin' out loud, there's even morons who complain that you can no longer manually allocate memory to applications using the "Get Info" box in Finder!

The Apple menu in OS X finally makes sense - for the first time since System 6. There is FINALLY a clear, logical menu hierarchy of Global (Apple) --> Application --> Document --> Selection (Edit).

Yes, some stuff has been missing, but most concerns are moot either due to the restructuring in OS X, or since Panther.

-s*

[Randman]

After Tiger, I can see Apple throwing all this progress away and going back to OS9.

But gee, why is this thread still alive?

[cla]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
If anyone claims OS 9 had a bad UI compared Windows (through XP and likely through Longhorn) that person is deranged and comlpetely nuts. That's putting it nicely. When all was accounted for the OS 9 GUI was the single most powerful feature of the Mac. It was the ONLY THING that kept people on the FU-KING PLATFORM! Sure wasn't the FEATURES of OS 9!! Sure wasn't the HUGE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE available for OS 9!! Idiots.

Thanks Twilly Spree. Best post so far. =]

I would also like to add to the discussion above - it's obvious a lot of people are spreading personal layman opinions without neither having studied HCI nor read several books about the subject. That's quite alright with me, as long as you emphasize these are personal opinions. But, you should consider the following question:
Is an interface good just because it's designed for beginners?

[cpac]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
All these kids under 20 who claim to know OS 9 and talk trash about it at the same time just piss me off.

27, been using macs since 1985 (I remember it was a huge deal when my family got a "hard drive" for our mac -crazy!)

Whiner 3: "Whaaaa! Spaciality is dead geet over it even if that is just my opinion and projecting it like that upon others is completely meaningless"

I don't follow this one.

Whiner 5: "Whhaaa OS 9 crashed a lot but I don't realize that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUI because I'm dumb as bread"

(1) The original poster was not complaining about the GUI in the limited sense that you imply here, but of the more global changes to how the OS works.

(2) As long as you understand "GUI" to mean the larger changes (i.e. not just the different in folder icons from 9 to X, but how the hard disk is organized, etc., then you're wrong to say that it has nothing to do with stability:

One thing many new 9 to X converts complain about is the concept of having to work within their user space (i.e. their home folder); being confused about how /Library differs from ~/Library and why they are both there, or why Applications should be put in the Applications folder. Essentially, many 9 to X converts are bothered by the multi-user nature of OS X, which has quite a bit to do with stability.

Whiner 6: "I refuse to understand what people like about spaciality and I'm going to act really obtuse because I have this really childish agenda (probably because I'm not 18 yet - at least mentally)"

It's possible to understand what's nice about spaciality, and still think that it is (a) becoming obsolete (with huge file numbers, global powerful/fast search (spotlight) and specialized file broswers (iPhoto, iTunes)) and/or (b) implemented in OS X in a "close enough" way that any complaining amounts to mere nit-picking and is not the fatal flaw many spatial-zealots make it out to be.