Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Why Does Most Software Suck?

Why Does Most Software Suck? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Re: the world of difference

People really aren't getting that iOS just threw overboard a handful of fundamentals and abstractions that the last 25 years of computing were based upon?
It's a touch based device with neat animations and a sandboxed environment. No reason Mac OS X couldn't be just like that, it's just that then people wouldn't buy Macs. The fundamentals and abstractions you speak of are, at the end of the day, nothing that wasn't available on the Atari ST back in the 80s, sans the touch interface and app store and internal storage.

To run an app, insert disk and turn on machine. Every app sandboxed, limited functionality and easy enough for anyone to understand. Now it's just in a virtual environment, with a touch interface and very mobile. That's all the revolution, and quite frankly it isn't all that amazing.

There's nothing new here, just the same familiar paradigms, refined and repackaged. Impressively small and impressively mobile, but that's it.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Re: the world of difference

People really aren't getting that iOS just threw overboard a handful of fundamentals and abstractions that the last 25 years of computing were based upon?
Ummm. We still point and click on an iPad, don't we?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I suppose it's less obvious than the command-line to window-menu-mouse interface, because it's still a graphical interface - and even less obvious to the people constantly dissing iPads as crap or toys, because they're obviously not actually using them.
I constantly diss the iPad yet use mine every day. I diss it because it's useless except as a replacement for the bathroom magazine stack.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
A reasonable discussion is automatically dismissed when your reply starts with the words "That's a ridiculous statement."
That would be a civil discussion being automatically dismissed, arguably, but reasonable? Not so much..

Furthermore cancelled by " the idea that good UI is the UI that people want to use all the time is just dumb."
Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree with your premise, that an iOS device is inherently different from a PC. A microwave is different from a stove. I'm saying you're going to want to use the stove with the UI that "is literally a WORLD ahead of [other stove] in user interface."

The phrase I don't agree with is "the iPad literally a WORLD ahead of Macintosh in user interface." Besides, the form factor is an inherent part of the UI, it's more than just what you see on the screen and how you interact with the screen.
All of this came in response to your original comment about the better UI being the one that we want to use, that is it. Since you have problems with the stove comparison, see my iPhone comparison. The device and the appropriateness/convenience/properties/context in which it is used all play a role.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Ummm. We still point and click on an iPad, don't we?
Actually, no, and Apple's literature is extremely careful to avoid that terminology.

Pointing and clicking on a computer involves shoving around a plastic box on the desk, causing analogous movement to a small collection of pixels somebody decided to call a "cursor" on the screen.

You point directly AT an iPad and tap directly on the screen.

Seems like a small thing, but it's actually huge (and it's one of a number of things).
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I constantly diss the iPad yet use mine every day. I diss it because it's useless except as a replacement for the bathroom magazine stack.
Well, you appear to agree that it does some things rather better than a computer, as otherwise, you'd be using a laptop to replace that stack, wouldn't you?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Actually, no, and Apple's literature is extremely careful to avoid that terminology.
I don't care what terminology a bunch of geeks in California avoid... ...I point at my iPad and "click" the screen. Point and click.
In the old days before WIMP, you pointed at the keyboard and clicked.
In the days of WIMP, you used a mouse to point and click.
In the days of IOS, you point at the screen and click.

There's nowt new under the sun. Except the bullshit marketing that departments come up with.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 01:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I don't care what terminology a bunch of geeks in California avoid... ...I point at my iPad and "click" the screen. Point and click.
In the old days before WIMP, you pointed at the keyboard and clicked.
In the days of WIMP, you used a mouse to point and click.
In the days of IOS, you point at the screen and click.

There's nowt new under the sun. Except the bullshit marketing that departments come up with.
You can go and call any two disparate things the same name — that's mostly done when you're replacing equivalent functionality.

That doesn't mean they're the same.

You can "ride" a plane, but that doesn't meant that you saddle it and tie it up outside the saloon.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 01:32 AM
 
What the hell is wrong with this place? All u same usual suspects just bicker.
     
facethefacts68
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 04:39 AM
 
Because most software companies do not value design.

Instead, they value performance/efficiency (engineers/programmers) and features (marketing!).

Marketing wants to gloat about some feature that the competition doesn't have, regardless of how useful it is, so programs get bloated and harder to use with too many functions.

Engineers/programmers want to do things the easiest way possible for themselves, or cannot separate how they, the programmers, would use the software compared to someone who wasn't used to it. They went to school for code, and did not go to school to study how people interact with things, what makes something intuitive, what makes something enjoyable to use, etc.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You can go and call any two disparate things the same name — that's mostly done when you're replacing equivalent functionality.

That doesn't mean they're the same.
If anything, one points and clicks even more literally than ever before with iOS. It's nothing new, and please spare us the marketing speak. Save it for people gullible enough to think pointing one's finger and pushing, isn't pointing and clicking.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 09:23 AM
 
Right, an driving a car is the same as remote-controlling one. Any difference is just imaginary hype and marketing bullshit.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Right, an driving a car is the same as remote-controlling one. Any difference is just imaginary hype and marketing bullshit.
You're not very good with analogies. Unless somehow you remote control your iPad?
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 09:47 AM
 
No, but you're remote-controlling your computer. That's what the mouse/pointer interface is.

*You're* not very good with analogies, apparently.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 10:06 AM
 
I think "a world ahead" is a meaningless metric, so the entire debate here is pointless. Different devices demand different interfaces.

The iOS interface is fantastic for touch devices. It is certainly "a world ahead" of what other touch devices were trying to do before it: map the PC GUI onto a device without a mouse or keyboard.

So the iOS GUI is shite? Could you provide an example of a touch computer interface that's not shite?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 10:22 AM
 
I have yet to find a first person shooter or a driving game for the iPhone/iPad that wouldn't be 3000 times better with a mouse/gamepad.

I imagine "Cut the Rope" would be pretty stupid with a mouse.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 10:40 AM
 
Yeah. I've been having trouble with Dance Dance Revolution. Just can't get my trackball calibrated right.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 11:06 AM
 
I've had pretty good luck using my NES Zapper for Photoshop.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Never said it was. Just pointing out how unreasonable the statement "the iPad is literally a WORLD ahead of Macintosh in user interface."
And as evidence, you pointed out how someone wasn't posting from their iPad.

I don't disagree with your premise, I'm only saying this particular piece of supporting evidence is (for our purposes) false.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
No, but you're remote-controlling your computer. That's what the mouse/pointer interface is.

*You're* not very good with analogies, apparently.
No, *you're* not very good with analogies - or witty retorts for that matter.

And your finger is remote-controlling the iPad, through that glassy-thingy. It is a simulation of touch, not actual touch - witnessed by it's mediocre precision and often misinterpretation of the iPad.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And as evidence, you pointed out how someone wasn't posting from their iPad.

I don't disagree with your premise, I'm only saying this particular piece of supporting evidence is (for our purposes) false.
I'm not posting this from an iPad, Windows XP, a Linux distro or my cell-phone; because the Mac has the best interface for posting here. TBH browsing in Chrome on Windows and OS X is probably the same, but regardless. I choose the Mac above the others because of the interface. Thus the iPad is not worlds ahead or even just ahead of Mac interface.

At least not in that scenario. In a scenario where you need to use your finger to point at things, in general an iPad would be better, but a Mac equipped with a touch-screen or a touch surface equivalent to the iPad and you'd have something that would easily dismiss the iPad as a touching device.

Already the Mac is so much better than an iPad it easily dismisses and iPad as a computing device.

The fact that the iPad is ill-suited for writing or posting on forums, really should be pretty evident for a poster of thousands and thousands of posts (i.e. that one who claimed the iPad was worlds better than anythingzor!!11) that it's user interface leaves a lot to be desired. In fact where that poster wastes so much of his time, the iOS is darn inconvenient.

That's why I chose that comparison to demonstrate that indeed the iOS is just another thing (probably better than other touch OS, I don't know, I've just tried iOS) and not that remarkable. It's a dumbed down OS X with touch interface.

So perhaps you don't appreciate the comparison I made, but then again it was made for this one specific user, because I know he posts a lot on these forums.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 12:27 PM
 
I'm trying to tell you: it's not as ill-suited as you think. Once you get used to it, you can even start to prefer it.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
No, *you're* not very good with analogies - or witty retorts for that matter.

And your finger is remote-controlling the iPad, through that glassy-thingy. It is a simulation of touch, not actual touch - witnessed by it's mediocre precision and often misinterpretation of the iPad.
This is bordering on bickering... and derailing the thread. Guys, everyone... please, no dogmatic arguing.

Whatever you think the iPad interaction should be called, whatever.

I like touch interface, and I think software comes "alive" with this paradigm. It comes alive in ways it just can't with point and click devices like Desktops and laptops. That's why I like the software so much. It's different, and that's good. The good is it's much more tactile.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm trying to tell you: it's not as ill-suited as you think. Once you get used to it, you can even start to prefer it.
I'm convinced the human being can get used to everything. That's what we used to think when we were using Macs in the 90s and 95% of the computer using population was using Windows 3.1.1 for Workgroups.

I know iOS, I use it almost every day to some extent and I realize I could get used to it, posting short-ish posts on the forums, but I don't want to get used to it and I don't want to accept the inherent limitations and difficult typing.

People got used to type on a cell-phone, pretty darn fast (considering it was a numeric keyboard), it was a compromise. The iPad and iOS are a better compromise, but still a compromise. Hence the absurdity of the "worlds ahead" claim. Even on forums, and especially on forums because (though one can get used to it) the user in question hasn't, and doesn't use the iPad to post. Yet he claims this.

It was just an example, don't get too stuck on it. Enjoy your iPad and may it be wonderful for you.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
This is bordering on bickering... and derailing the thread. Guys, everyone... please, no dogmatic arguing.

Whatever you think the iPad interaction should be called, whatever.

I like touch interface, and I think software comes "alive" with this paradigm. It comes alive in ways it just can't with point and click devices like Desktops and laptops. That's why I like the software so much. It's different, and that's good. The good is it's much more tactile.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "tactile", for indeed the iPad and iOS devices are just about 0% tactile.

Call it what you want, but people who think something comes "alive" with a "paradigm" aren't being serious.

(do you even realize how bizarre it is to speak like an Apple advertisement?)
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "tactile", for indeed the iPad and iOS devices are just about 0% tactile.

Call it what you want, but people who think something comes "alive" with a "paradigm" aren't being serious.

(do you even realize how bizarre it is to speak like an Apple advertisement?)
Voodoo: go away.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 03:51 PM
 
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "tactile", for indeed the iPad and iOS devices are just about 0% tactile.

Call it what you want, but people who think something comes "alive" with a "paradigm" aren't being serious.

(do you even realize how bizarre it is to speak like an Apple advertisement?)
That's just embarrassing, now.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Voodoo: go away.
Yeah I'll get right on that. Oh wait..

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That's just embarrassing, now.
The thick brushstrokes give the painting a tactile quality. In other words, something that's perceptible to the touch; tangible.

The smooth glass of an iOS device, has 0% tactile response and has no apparent tactile qualities. The virtual keyboard of an iOS device has no tactile feedback at all, which makes it impossible to e.g. type without looking.

tactile feedback: Definition from Answers.com

(computer science) In haptics, devices that provide a user with the sensations of heat, pressure, and texture.

What is embarrassing is that you consistently overestimate your knowledge of english and do so without even considering that you are blatantly and utterly wrong.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 04:14 PM
 
A voodoo post wouldn't be complete without a passive aggressive insult. We were not let down here.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
A voodoo post wouldn't be complete without a passive aggressive insult. We were not let down here.
As if I was replying to a serious and genuine post, no I was just responding to one of Spheric's myriad of snide remarks, his potshots at me.

Notice: I reply in the same manner as I am addressed. Not with you of course, you're my special friend here.

Now stay on topic: why does software suck?

Because people are happy with it sucking perhaps? Case in point: FCP X
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm trying to tell you: it's not as ill-suited as you think. Once you get used to it, you can even start to prefer it.
You're posting from an iPad.
I'm posting from a Mac Pro.

You haven't even acquired the wobbly stars yet. I think that speaks for itself as to the efficiency of the iPad compared with the Mac Pro.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "tactile", for indeed the iPad and iOS devices are just about 0% tactile.

Call it what you want, but people who think something comes "alive" with a "paradigm" aren't being serious.

(do you even realize how bizarre it is to speak like an Apple advertisement?)
I agree he misused the word tactile, but to simply diminish the importance and usability of a direct manipulation based interface is foolish. While his language may sound like an ad, that doesn't mean he's wrong. I've seen 80 year olds take to iOS devices that refused to use a computer their whole lives.

So yes, iOS isn't a great device to do a lot of typing on due to lack of tactile feedback, but the advantages outweigh that if you have light typing requirements. And well, there's a reason you can get keyboards that work with iOS devices. If you typed a lot every day, get a Mac. If you don't type a lot and want the portability, get an iPad. If you sometimes type a lot but only for short periods of time and want the portability, get an iPad and a keyboard.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
You're posting from an iPad.
I'm posting from a Mac Pro.

You haven't even acquired the wobbly stars yet. I think that speaks for itself as to the efficiency of the iPad compared with the Mac Pro.
You mean to say the guy with the iPad actually is so busy he has less time to post here than you do...valid point.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You mean to say the guy with the iPad actually is so busy he has less time to post here than you do...valid point.
Translated:

"The iPad is so inefficient that you have to work longer hours to earn your crust".

Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 08:39 PM
 
But with the iPad I can post from my BarcaLounger sipping strawberry lemonade. Or something like that.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
But with the iPad I can post from my BarcaLounger sipping strawberry lemonade. Or something like that.
Only if it's not sunny. I can't see a thing on mine outside if it's anything other than a regular British overcast day. And that's with the anti-glare cover on it.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Only if it's not sunny. I can't see a thing on mine outside if it's anything other than a regular British overcast day. And that's with the anti-glare cover on it.
Good thing David Cameron said the sun is too expensive to keep around.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Only if it's not sunny. I can't see a thing on mine outside if it's anything other than a regular British overcast day. And that's with the anti-glare cover on it.
Do what I do, refuse to use technology outside. (beside a camera, obviously)

Though the iPhone4 does have a great direct sunlight screen.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 10:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Do what I do, refuse to use technology outside. (beside a camera, obviously)
lol

Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Though the iPhone4 does have a great direct sunlight screen.
Bizarre. The current iPod Touch is terrible outside. OK, to be more accurate, my current iPod Touch is terrible outside. I wonder if they put a different screen on it than on the iPhone?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 11:01 PM
 
New slogan, straight from the mothership:

When verbal diarrhea strikes...

Choose Mac OS.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 11:49 PM
 
FCP... how bad is it? Anyone have any experience.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 12:45 AM
 
iPod touch and iPhone have very different screens.

Also, matte screens are unusable in direct sunlight. Glossy screens are not.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 05:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Also, matte screens are unusable in direct sunlight. Glossy screens are not.
Please post that sentence in one of those discussions where "graphic designers" and "photoshop artists" complain that their new MBP with a glossy screen isn't usable in the park!
(before someone doesn't get it - I don't think that either screen is usable outside in the sun for professional work)
***
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 06:24 AM
 
I post it every time SierraDragon goes off on his usual diatribe.

If you consider text editing, writing bills, and correspondence part of general business, regardless of profession, then a glossy screen is DEFINITELY usable for "professional" work. I wouldn't do anything image-based on it.

I do find it highly amusing that graphics people have their heads and flashlights so far up their rear that nothing non-image-based apparently constitutes "professional" work.

Glossy and matte screens sound the same to me, and a primary difference is that the glossy screen actually allows me to WORK outside, even in sunlight. Granted, this isn't a killer feature to me, either way.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 08:14 AM
 
Oh I wouldn't recommend anyone to use a glossy screen, but if one does use a glossy screen on a mobile device, well don't expect to be able to see very well what's on the screen on a bright day. The brightness outside will always interfere, but the gloss makes it double as hard to read.

As for glossy computer monitors, well I agree with badidea and SH, don't use them for image work (any kind of design really or precision work) - however I'm sort of happy with them because they remind me of the CRTs of the 80s and 90s, when all monitors were glossy and we had to be constantly moving the monitor depending on how the glare affected what was on screen.

Wonderful nostalgia and certainly a very ineffective way to work, but I like it

I can't imagine what's wrong with the people who like the gloss and don't have the same 80s nostalgia as I do. That's just weird, because glossy really does give an inferior viewing experience to matte.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 08:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
FCP... how bad is it? Anyone have any experience.
Yes it's bad, it's bad because it crashes, it's bad because it is iMovie Pro, it's bad because it lacks the features needed to do the work because Apple didn't implement the features - i.e. bad by choice.

The interface is neither worse nor better than FCP 'classic'.

It's like this: if Apple would make Mac OS X 10.8 a complete rewrite and just use iOS 5 as a foundation, so basically make an iOS++ for the Mac and call it Mac OS X 10.8

It would look more iOS-y for sure, but it would also be vastly feature incomplete compared to the older version of Mac OS X. But it would open a file just beautifully. Apple would then tell you that all the features missing are not needed for the "future" and won't be supported.

That's FCP X. A dumb application, sold cheaper than FCP 7, but still far to expensive for what it is. Maybe a 100 bucks and on a physical media, then yes. This is a major downgrade from FCP 7. One was professional, the other prosumer.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Oh I wouldn't recommend anyone to use a glossy screen, but if one does use a glossy screen on a mobile device, well don't expect to be able to see very well what's on the screen on a bright day. The brightness outside will always interfere, but the gloss makes it double as hard to read.

As for glossy computer monitors, well I agree with badidea and SH, don't use them for image work (any kind of design really or precision work)
We're not agreeing. I meant OUTDOORS in DIRECT SUNLIGHT. I wouldn't do image work on a glossy monitor there, but considering you couldn't do ANY work on a matte display in such circumstances, no matter how hard you tried, I'm not seeing how that could be a disadvantage for glossy.

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I can't imagine what's wrong with the people who like the gloss and don't have the same 80s nostalgia as I do. That's just weird, because glossy really does give an inferior viewing experience to matte.
Except that the image quality is actually better, with deeper contrasts and richer colors.

I know exactly what's "wrong" with them: They're not you.

For a large part, they're professionals who understand that any tool comes with its own set of trade-offs and advantages.

Matte comes at the price of limited contrast and lower saturation, and complete blindness in direct sunlight.

Glossy comes at the price of reflectiveness.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
We're not agreeing.
Oh good, thank the heavens. And I didn't mean Spheric Harlot when I wrote SH.

I meant OUTDOORS in DIRECT SUNLIGHT. I wouldn't do image work on a glossy monitor there, but considering you couldn't do ANY work on a matte display in such circumstances, no matter how hard you tried, I'm not seeing how that could be a disadvantage for glossy.
It's bad on any monitor, but on a glossy you will not see anything. At. All. Working outside in direct sunlight, doesn't work. But at least on a matte screen, one could check the mail or something.

Except that the image quality is actually better, with deeper contrasts and richer colors.
Did I ask for the Apple brochoure, SH? The image quality is not better if you can see less and I call bullcrap on "deeper contrasts" and "richer colors". I've used both types extensively, and one feels like a LCD without a glossy glass cover and the other one does, with everything being slightly darker. Perhaps that's how you're tricked to think there's more contrast, there's just less light.

How dumb would you have to be to think that the glass changes the monitor underneath, the actual displaying mechanism? Did you ever complete that thought? Perhaps you confuse this with glossy and matte paper, where there is actually a difference in the surface tightness of the paper - resulting in a sharper contrast and richer colors on GLOSSY PAPER. A photo doesn't become all glossy, with rich colors and deeper contrasts by putting this stupid reflective glass that now covers all Mac products over it!



There is no, absoloutly no, difference between the glossy iMac screen with that glass cover and when I remove the glass - except the reflection disappears and it's not covered by glass anymore.


I know exactly what's "wrong" with them: They're not you.
So you're saying they're Apple sycophants like you are, not just Apple fans like I am?

Matte comes at the price of limited contrast and lower saturation, and complete blindness in direct sunlight.
Wrong, wrong and completely wrong. Matte comes at no price of contrast or saturation, and comes with the benefit of some visibility in direct sunlight, while glossy makes it impossible to see anything (anything at all except reflection) in direct sunlight.

So with glossy, people just lose visibility and gain nothing. Two exactly identical LCDs one with the glossy glass and the other without are exactly the same in contrast and color. Except one has an annoying glass cover.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
It's bad on any monitor, but on a glossy you will not see anything. At. All. Working outside in direct sunlight, doesn't work. But at least on a matte screen, one could check the mail or something.
That is completely, 180° opposite to my real-life experience, having tried both.

I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Did I ask for the Apple brochoure, SH? The image quality is not better if you can see less and I call bullcrap on "deeper contrasts" and "richer colors". I've used both types extensively, and one feels like a LCD without a glossy glass cover and the other one does, with everything being slightly darker. Perhaps that's how you're tricked to think there's more contrast, there's just less light.
Do you make up *everything* as you go along?

ALL panels are glossy, but matte displays are COATED with an EXTRA LAYER that diffuses light and results in LESS light emission.

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
How dumb would you have to be to think that the glass changes the monitor underneath, the actual displaying mechanism? Did you ever complete that thought?
This is the third time you've insulted me in this thread, but I've let it slide so far because at the same time, you've made it so obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about that there really isn't any need for me to get testy.

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
There is no, absoloutly no, difference between the glossy iMac screen with that glass cover and when I remove the glass - except the reflection disappears and it's not covered by glass anymore.
The reflections do not disappear when you remove the glass.

The panel underneath is glossy. Slightly less glossy, but still glossy. Look at all 13" plastic MacBooks and all MacBook Airs for examples of naked panels. It's also unprotected and less easy to keep clean, which is probably why Apple chose to add a glass panel across the front.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 09:23 AM
 
I'm sorry - I didn't want to turn the thread in a glossy vs matte debate!
I like glossy. (not because of nostalgia but because when the reflection makes it hard to see what's on the screen, I can still see something I like!)
***
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2011, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That is completely, 180° opposite to my real-life experience, having tried both.

I'll leave it at that.
Completely opposite to my real-life experience, having tried BOTH. But my real-life experience doesn't fit the Apple-mantra of glossy being better.

Do you make up *everything* as you go along?
Do you?

ALL panels are glossy, but matte displays are COATED with an EXTRA LAYER that diffuses light and results in LESS light emission.
Wrong, but Apple's offering on the MBP are glossy screens coated with an extra layer that reduces gloss. Normal LCDs don't have that glossy skin.

This is the third time you've insulted me in this thread, but I've let it slide so far because at the same time, you've made it so obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about that there really isn't any need for me to get testy.
you sure like to dish insults, and think that anyone disagreeing with you is insulting you, perhaps you need to look in the mirror a little bit if you're looking for the one doing the insults.

The reflections do not disappear when you remove the glass.
It's significantly less glossy, in fact so much so that it's not really noticeable, but like everything it does reflect something. It's not matte like before, but close enough.

I can clean the screen of dust without problems without that mirror-y glass and on a desktop machine there's no need for a glass cover for protection. Apple chose style over substance. Can you make any argument without resorting to making up excuses how Apple is actually "trying to make things better for you" or that everything serves some obscure need that no-one has?

Apple jumped the shark a long time ago and hasn't been concerned with making things better for years - now it's about looking better, and ironically though the iMac looks a lot better with that glossy glass, it only does so with the machine turned off. As soon as one actually starts using it, then it becomes annoying, distracting and prevents one from seeing what is actually being displayed.

Again, there's no difference in image quality between a glossy screen and a matte screen. An actual matte screen is covered with non-reflective plastic, and doesn't sacrifice any image quality by doing so. Modern LCDs are just that much better than before, something you try to convince yourself is because they are glossy, not in spite of it.

Which is the truth.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,