Originally Posted by shifuimam 

People buy Macs because they look cool. Apple charges a premium because there's a market for it - yes, there is a demand, but it's a small market that worships the mighty Mac, which means that if Apple wants to charge $3,000 for a desktop workstation and then refuse to support Windows 7 on it two years later, they can and people will be more than happy to make excuses for them on their behalf.

Funny how you swear up and down that you are more productive on Windows, but yet keep spouting the same nonsense why people choose Macs instead of addressing the Mac's productivity factor.

Your argument would be taken more seriously if you actually posted reasons why you are more productive on Windows, and stopped pretending the only reason people buy Macs is for cool-factor or fanboyism.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You know, one of the things that has turned me off to Macs is the rampant fanboyism.

Mac fanboyism is no more rampant than Windows fanboyism. If you go to a Windows forum, you'll find the same thing. Why didn't the Windows fanboyism doesn't turn you off? Don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Fanboyism shouldn't be a factor if you are making a logical decision based on productivity. Did you really think to yourself "I'd try a Mac but some people like the platform too much?" That's a shallow reason to choose a platform.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm with Shif here. I've been Mac at home and Windows at work for years. Recently, our team switched over to Macs. I haven't found that the switch made me more productive. Do I prefer working on my MBP? Sure. But, I'm not more productive. I may actually be less productive since I spend more time showing all of the Windows users the neat things I can do and fending off all of the wanna-be-mac-users.

Ha ha - a funny anecdote, but once that stops happening, do you think you won't be more productive? Why?

[sek929]

I'd still like her to address productivity as it stands with having to reformat and re-install Windows every year or so. She seems to be ignoring my previous comment on how I've never had to re-install my MacOS, or anyone else's, ever.

[besson3c]

Shif, if you are into web programming, here are some benefits to a Mac/Unix machine, FWIW:


- Git (extra emphasis)

- Javascript toolkits such as Prototype and other MVC based frameworks (CakePHP, CodeIgniter, etc.) that borrow concepts from Ruby (I know you can run Ruby on Windows, but who does?)

- Mirror your Linux/FreeBSD based web server (unless you are into IIS)

- SSHfs/FUSE

- rsync/scp

- PostgreSQL, MySQL

- remote GUI-less access to a rich CLI environment, symlinking

- Linode/Slicehost


I'm sure there are some hardcore Windows-based web programmers doing neat stuff in .NET and ColdFusion, but so much mre of the useful web based tools that are built, in my estimation, revolve around Unix. This doesn't make OS X better, but these might drive one to stick in a more Unix-centered environment.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Windows does plenty that OSX doesn't. Do a job that requires Flame or Softimage on a Mac. You can't. Are those reasons Windows or Linux is better than OSX? No.

Yes, actually. For workflows involving Flame or Softimage, Windows is much better suited than Mac OS X. I have advised people to get Windows PCs before because it isn't some woo-woo matter of personal opinion, it's actually possible to quantify how well one system or another will support a particular workflow.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

All this stuff is subjective, and one can go back and forth all day long about what can be done better on one platform/OS or the other. In the end, it's all a wash and declaring one overall better than the other is just an opinion. The right tool for the right job.

Please stop introducing vague weasel words like "overall" whenever it turns out that a position is indefensible. I probably couldn't prove that OS X is superior "overall" to Windows 3.1, just because it's such a fuzzy concept. But nobody in their right mind would freely choose Windows 3.1 over OS X. It's OK to admit that maybe one platform or another does have particular strengths.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The most talented people know their way around whatever computer/OS you put in front of them and know the value, strengths, and weaknesses of any given tool of their trade and don't dismiss anything that can be utilized effectively. Posers hiding a lack of the same level of skill behind some lameass platform war nonsense don't even compare. And that IS a fact.

The idea that wasting your time learning every minor version of every OS on the planet is a prerequisite for being talented at anything is just bizarre.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'd still like her to address productivity as it stands with having to reformat and re-install Windows every year or so. She seems to be ignoring my previous comment on how I've never had to re-install my MacOS, or anyone else's, ever.

It's maintenance that can be done overnight while you sleep, much like installing Apple's 5 million mandatory-restart system updates. Can't imagine it affects your productivity that drastically if you're prepared for it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's maintenance that can be done overnight while you sleep, much like installing Apple's 5 million mandatory-restart system updates. Can't imagine it affects your productivity that drastically if you're prepared for it.

A fresh install of XP SP2 (that I slipstreamed a couple years ago) leaves me with assloads of updates that seem to install a few at a time, so I'm constantly being asked to restart my computer.

OS X has a single combo update and maybe a Quicktime and iTunes update. I've never had to restart more than twice after installing and updating OS X.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not really trying to argue against OS X so much as I'm trying to figure out why some of the more vehement fanboys here are incapable of seeing that one's operating system preference is a personal preference or opinion and not an objective fact that applies to everyone.

It isn't that OSX is better, it's that windows is that god damn awful. Viruses, BSOD, glitchy driver issues, defragging, spyware, etc all sorts of fun things you don't have to worry about when you rock the TRULY BETTER OS.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Funny how you swear up and down that you are more productive on Windows, but yet keep spouting the same nonsense why people choose Macs instead of addressing the Mac's productivity factor.

Your argument would be taken more seriously if you actually posted reasons why you are more productive on Windows, and stopped pretending the only reason people buy Macs is for cool-factor or fanboyism.

No, it's just that whenever I try to explain my reasons to a fanboy, I'm told I'm flat-out wrong.

Things I like about Windows:

The file browser. I hate not having a real tree view pane in OS X's Finder. I realize that the Finder has a quasi-tree view, but I don't like it. Windows Explorer makes it far more easy for me to deal with my files.

Being able to resize my windows from any side. Seems like a tiny detail, but it's damn annoying to try and get my mouse on one tiny corner just to resize my window.

Application switching. I don't like Expose. I don't like the wacked-out combo of needing both Cmd+Tab and Cmd+~ to be able to switch applications and windows within an application. I like the Alt+Tab application switcher that's been around since at least Windows 95.

The taskbar and system tray. I prefer all my stuff to be on one toolbar on one side of my screen, rather than spread between both the top menu bar and the dock.

Being able to *actually* maximize a window entirely. I have been told by Mac users that window maximization is a "broken" way of doing things. It's not. I use multiple monitors, and I like being able to maximize my windows on my different displays.

Customization options. I have very particular ways of using my computers in a work environment, and Windows has the customization options to its GUI that make my life a lot easier. OS X doesn't.

The parent-child window model. I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how applications like Photoshop and Word in OS X don't have a neutral container window that provides a blank background to my windows. I don't want to be able to see my chat, browser, file manager. and porn windows open behind the image I'm working on in Photoshop. It distracts me. If I click a little too far outside the document window, instead of just clicking back, it switches to whatever application is in the background. I realize that the newest version of Photoshop sort of attempts to deal with this, but the fact is, the parent-child model that is present in Windows simply doesn't exist in OS X, and this drives me crazy.

Context menus. I love context menus. They make things incredibly easy to access on the fly. While OS X has gotten better at exploiting the power of context menus, Windows is better at it.

Remote Desktop. RDP runs rings around VNC, no matter how you spin it. Not to mention that Apple's built-in VNC is retardedly limited compared to VineVNC Server.

That's the stuff I can think off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with some other reasons if you really want.

Things I like about OS X:

Application packages. Aside from a few big apps like Adobe CS and Microsoft Office, I really like that I can move my applications anywhere I want without it breaking anything.

The UNIX backend. There have been a couple times where, for some reason or another, I haven't been able to get to my main machine. Being able to SSH into my Mac and use SSH tunneling to get to different things has been very handy.

The aesthetics. Freeware Mac applications tend to look better than Windows applications. I doubt it's impossible to make an ugly OS X application, but the OS GUI itself lends to better-looking applications.

The built-in bootloader. This is a big one. I bought a FW/USB2.0 enclosure and now have a hard drive from which I can boot installations of OS 9, Tiger, and Leopard, boot fully functional copies of all three OSes, and boot a partition manager in the event that one of my machines is nonbootable for whatever reason.

Target Disk Mode. Absolutely brilliant.

When it comes down to it, Windows just allows me to work more efficiently than OS X. I've used Windows for years and years now, and I know how to make it do exactly what I want it to do in the most efficient way possible. Sure, there are probably third-party applications for OS X that can provide the same behavior, but Windows does what I want, and I don't have any real justifiable reason to switch to OS X as my main OS.

I'm sure someone is going to come up with some snappy answer to every single one of the reasons why I like Windows, but my point remains - it's an opinion and a preference. One is not objectively better than the other.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The taskbar and system tray. I prefer all my stuff to be on one toolbar on one side of my screen, rather than spread between both the top menu bar and the dock.

But you can't forget that the menu bar in XP is inconsistent in both content and location.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, it's just that whenever I try to explain my reasons to a fanboy, I'm told I'm flat-out wrong.

Things I like about Windows:

The file browser. I hate not having a real tree view pane in OS X's Finder. I realize that the Finder has a quasi-tree view, but I don't like it. Windows Explorer makes it far more easy for me to deal with my files.

Being able to resize my windows from any side. Seems like a tiny detail, but it's damn annoying to try and get my mouse on one tiny corner just to resize my window.

Application switching. I don't like Expose. I don't like the wacked-out combo of needing both Cmd+Tab and Cmd+~ to be able to switch applications and windows within an application. I like the Alt+Tab application switcher that's been around since at least Windows 95.

The taskbar and system tray. I prefer all my stuff to be on one toolbar on one side of my screen, rather than spread between both the top menu bar and the dock.

Being able to *actually* maximize a window entirely. I have been told by Mac users that window maximization is a "broken" way of doing things. It's not. I use multiple monitors, and I like being able to maximize my windows on my different displays.

Customization options. I have very particular ways of using my computers in a work environment, and Windows has the customization options to its GUI that make my life a lot easier. OS X doesn't.

The parent-child window model. I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how applications like Photoshop and Word in OS X don't have a neutral container window that provides a blank background to my windows. I don't want to be able to see my chat, browser, file manager. and porn windows open behind the image I'm working on in Photoshop. It distracts me. If I click a little too far outside the document window, instead of just clicking back, it switches to whatever application is in the background. I realize that the newest version of Photoshop sort of attempts to deal with this, but the fact is, the parent-child model that is present in Windows simply doesn't exist in OS X, and this drives me crazy.

Context menus. I love context menus. They make things incredibly easy to access on the fly. While OS X has gotten better at exploiting the power of context menus, Windows is better at it.

Remote Desktop. RDP runs rings around VNC, no matter how you spin it. Not to mention that Apple's built-in VNC is retardedly limited compared to VineVNC Server.

That's the stuff I can think off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with some other reasons if you really want.

Things I like about OS X:

Application packages. Aside from a few big apps like Adobe CS and Microsoft Office, I really like that I can move my applications anywhere I want without it breaking anything.

The UNIX backend. There have been a couple times where, for some reason or another, I haven't been able to get to my main machine. Being able to SSH into my Mac and use SSH tunneling to get to different things has been very handy.

The aesthetics. Freeware Mac applications tend to look better than Windows applications. I doubt it's impossible to make an ugly OS X application, but the OS GUI itself lends to better-looking applications.

The built-in bootloader. This is a big one. I bought a FW/USB2.0 enclosure and now have a hard drive from which I can boot installations of OS 9, Tiger, and Leopard, boot fully functional copies of all three OSes, and boot a partition manager in the event that one of my machines is nonbootable for whatever reason.

Target Disk Mode. Absolutely brilliant.

When it comes down to it, Windows just allows me to work more efficiently than OS X. I've used Windows for years and years now, and I know how to make it do exactly what I want it to do in the most efficient way possible. Sure, there are probably third-party applications for OS X that can provide the same behavior, but Windows does what I want, and I don't have any real justifiable reason to switch to OS X as my main OS.

I'm sure someone is going to come up with some snappy answer to every single one of the reasons why I like Windows, but my point remains - it's an opinion and a preference. One is not objectively better than the other.

And it sounds like many of the things you like about Windows could be categorized as preferring the document centric model over the application centric model, which is fair. I also find that it makes switching between the two very hard, I have difficulty getting used to the fact that this task I'm switching to is simply a window within an application, not the application itself, but that's only because I've grown up with a Mac.

I will say though, that I think that the application centric model is the more sane way to think of the different tasks on your computer in terms of understanding how your OS works. There are all sorts of reasons why I might want to close a window without quitting an app, for instance.

[angelmb]

Respect, people!. You must learn from the mistakes of others since you can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself. Joking aside, the OS wars is over and as result both are good enough for most people needs.

To me this goes so beyond just operating systems that to label an OS as a lifestyle has nothing to do with reality, see how the iPod or the iPhone don't care if you run Mac OS X or Windows.

As for being elitist, Microsoft is here as guilty as Apple is. MS has fallen into the trap of being 'the generic' of the computer world. Sure Apple reinforced, damn cleverly, the difference with the 'I am a Mac' campaign, but then MS, as crazy as usual, went to the 'I am a PC' campaign, the Mac became the exclusive and the PC the generic, which shows you how MS keeps focusing on the competitor instead of the customer.

IMHO the current Apple wants to drive the brand at people who choose to be happy, rather than just right. Branding positivity is gaining in popularity and consumers are increasingly receptive to such campaigns. I find it difficult to use "Microsoft" and "happiness" in the same sentence, is rather hard to find a Mac user disgusted with his-her system, besides the 15 first minutes after a Keynote, and even so, they're mostly annoyed about the upcoming models lacking, or not, any given feature; it is not that hard to find a Windows user displeased with his-her computer, I don't think MS can overcome that fact easily.

Due to this (not being able to focus on the customer) Microsoft keeps lacking innovation, they just carbon copied what did work for the tobacco industry years ago: how to brand an unwanted, unbreakable addiction. Give them several apparent choices, regular, light and ultra light. I wonder if they follow Mad Men. LOL.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, it's just that whenever I try to explain my reasons to a fanboy, I'm told I'm flat-out wrong.

One is not objectively better than the other.

You're flat-out wrong. Sorry.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But you can't forget that the menu bar in XP is inconsistent in both content and location.

Sure, but when I've got two high resolution displays, I don't want to have to move my mouse to the top left corner of my left monitor to get to the file menu of a small IM window I have open in the bottom left of my right monitor.

I have never liked the one-menu-bar-to-rule-them-all model that OS X uses. It just doesn't do it for me.

[Chuckit]

The menu bar should exist on every screen. Beyond that I don't see a proben there.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, actually. For workflows involving Flame or Softimage, Windows is much better suited than Mac OS X.

No duh. That doesn't make it better than Mac OSX. So, once again, no actually.

I have advised people to get Windows PCs before because it isn't some woo-woo matter of personal opinion, it's actually possible to quantify how well one system or another will support a particular workflow.

Again, more evidence that one OS isn't better than the other- they just each have their own strengths and weaknesses. This really isn't rocket science.

Please stop introducing vague weasel words like "overall" whenever it turns out that a position is indefensible.

I'd ask you to stop butting into conversations you don't understand, and then trying to dictate my words for me. You have people in this very thread INSISTING that one OS is better than the other OVERALL.

I probably couldn't prove that OS X is superior "overall" to Windows 3.1, just because it's such a fuzzy concept.

I really don't doubt you couldn't- but most people could. Actually, yes, OSX is superior OVERALL to Windows 3.1 in virtually every meaningful way. It's not however superior to Windows XP or Windows 7. (Virusta is another story, however).

The idea that wasting your time learning every minor version of every OS on the planet is a prerequisite for being talented at anything is just bizarre.

That's not what I said, but it doesn't surprise me that you would make a silly statement that had nothing to do with what I actually did say. I know plenty of people that have no problem sitting down with a Windows machine, a Mac, or a Linux workstation and turning out fantastic work with any of them. Such people don't make lame excuses for poor performance based on the tools they are given, rather they just get the job done as its required using the software, hardware and tools a job demands. In much of the real professional world, there's not actually a whole lot of value placed on silly platform war nonsense and it's been that way for a long time.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The menu bar should exist on every screen. Beyond that I don't see a proben there.

Agreed. The single global menu bar has been proven time and again to me quicker than the "menubar in window" method. Shif may prefer it, but it's not quicker to use - she can call me a fanboy all she wants, but the global menu bar at the top of the screen is still better.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Agreed. The single global menu bar has been proven time and again to me quicker than the "menubar in window" method. Shif may prefer it, but it's not quicker to use - she can call me a fanboy all she wants, but the global menu bar at the top of the screen is still better.

Please explain how it's quicker when your application is on one monitor and your menu bar is on the other?

[Doofy]

@ nobody in particular...

Who the heck goes on about the menu bar and "productivity" in the same discussion? If you're properly productive, it doesn't matter where the menu bar is, you're using keystroke shortcuts anyway. If you're not using keystrokes, then you're in no position to be arguing about productivity.

[Wiskedjak]

Sometimes clicking File>Save for Web & Devices is easier/quicker/less-awkward than pressing command-option-shift-s.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, it's just that whenever I try to explain my reasons to a fanboy, I'm told I'm flat-out wrong.

Sure, but who cares what a stupid fanboy says.

Things I like about Windows:

The file browser. I hate not having a real tree view pane in OS X's Finder. I realize that the Finder has a quasi-tree view, but I don't like it. Windows Explorer makes it far more easy for me to deal with my files.

You could argue that it's windows that has the quasi-tree view - since list view puts everything in line. But fair enough - you prefer the windows way. FYI, there's a product for the Mac (MacExplorer, perhaps?) that does that.

Being able to resize my windows from any side. Seems like a tiny detail, but it's damn annoying to try and get my mouse on one tiny corner just to resize my window.

Uhm... the "tiny" corner is wider and taller than the borders on a window in Windows. But fair enough.

Application switching. I don't like Expose. I don't like the wacked-out combo of needing both Cmd+Tab and Cmd+~ to be able to switch applications and windows within an application. I like the Alt+Tab application switcher that's been around since at least Windows 95.

OK - you like the doc centric model rather than the task centric model. Fair enough.

The taskbar and system tray. I prefer all my stuff to be on one toolbar on one side of my screen, rather than spread between both the top menu bar and the dock.

Fair enough. I'm surprised there aren't more dock utilities to emulate this.

Being able to *actually* maximize a window entirely. I have been told by Mac users that window maximization is a "broken" way of doing things. It's not. I use multiple monitors, and I like being able to maximize my windows on my different displays.

Maximize is huge waste of space. Why maximize a window when you only need half the screen? I don't get this one. You can zoom your Mac windows on different displays too, but I don't see the productivity advantage to sizing a window more than it needs to be.

Customization options. I have very particular ways of using my computers in a work environment, and Windows has the customization options to its GUI that make my life a lot easier. OS X doesn't.

Such as...

The parent-child window model. I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate how applications like Photoshop and Word in OS X don't have a neutral container window that provides a blank background to my windows. I don't want to be able to see my chat, browser, file manager. and porn windows open behind the image I'm working on in Photoshop. It distracts me.

One of the Mac's most underrated features is "Hide Others" Windows doesn't really have this. Most Windows users coming to Mac don't realize it either. I use hide all the time, but I don't need my windows taking up the whole screen just to contain some palettes and a single document window. Then I can't get to the desktop if I need to.

If I click a little too far outside the document window, instead of just clicking back, it switches to whatever application is in the background. I realize that the newest version of Photoshop sort of attempts to deal with this, but the fact is, the parent-child model that is present in Windows simply doesn't exist in OS X, and this drives me crazy.

If you use Hide, then it's not a problem, just click back into the window, like you said. Or a quick Command-tab and you're back.

Context menus. I love context menus. They make things incredibly easy to access on the fly. While OS X has gotten better at exploiting the power of context menus, Windows is better at it.

Windows is better as it because...?

Remote Desktop. RDP runs rings around VNC, no matter how you spin it. Not to mention that Apple's built-in VNC is retardedly limited compared to VineVNC Server.

Don't complain about the built-in MacOS screen sharing without acknowledging third party alternatives on the Mac. And does RDP run rings around VNC? I don't know - when I want to share a screen, the built-in one works, easy to engage over a LAN and over WAN, it's easy to do through iChat. I can help relatives without having them open a hole in their firewall, using a third party site, etc. To me, that's the killer feature.

That's the stuff I can think off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with some other reasons if you really want.

No, all I wanted was you to post reasons and not the stupid invalid "fanboy" argument. Some of your points are perfectly valid, and you've shown that people value different things about an OS.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

@ nobody in particular...

Who the heck goes on about the menu bar and "productivity" in the same discussion? If you're properly productive, it doesn't matter where the menu bar is, you're using keystroke shortcuts anyway. If you're not using keystrokes, then you're in no position to be arguing about productivity.

That's just plain wrong.

Keystroke fans never take into account that it takes more time to remember keystrokes when there's a keystroke for everything. Muscle memory + well designed menus + keystrokes only for commonly used commands are often faster than using keystrokes exclusively.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

That's just plain wrong.

Keystroke fans never take into account that it takes more time to remember keystrokes when there's a keystroke for everything.

Sorry, my bad - I keep forgetting that not everyone's eidetic.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

That's just plain wrong.

Keystroke fans never take into account that it takes more time to remember keystrokes when there's a keystroke for everything. Muscle memory + well designed menus + keystrokes only for commonly used commands are often faster than using keystrokes exclusively.

It doesn't take a lot more memory to recall "command-shift-]" rather than "Window -> Select Next Tab". The latter is more discoverable, but if you're still needing to rediscover an application's interface after using in constantly for five years, either you or the application has a serious problem. As you use them, you build up both your normal memory and muscle memory, making it faster for you. And one keystroke will always be faster than any menu selection, which is at best a click, hold and release. This will work even if you have a really wretched memory like me. The only reason anybody with a functioning brain might not remember how to use an app quickly is that they don't use it much.

[mattyb]

I was just wondering if shifuimam would love Windows and the Microsoft products as much if she actually paid for them.

IIRC, there was a thread a while back in which she basicaly said that she hadn't so ...

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It doesn't take a lot more memory to recall "command-shift-]" rather than "Window -> Select Next Tab". The latter is more discoverable, but if you're still needing to rediscover an application's interface after using in constantly for five years, either you or the application has a serious problem.

Nope, but those are single instances of a single keystroke, out of context that statement doesn't really say much.

As you use them, you build up both your normal memory and muscle memory, making it faster for you. And one keystroke will always be faster than any menu selection, which is at best a click, hold and release. This will work even if you have a really wretched memory like me. The only reason anybody with a functioning brain might not remember how to use an app quickly is that they don't use it much.

And that's the big misconception. You assert that a keystroke will always be faster, but it simply isn't true:
AskTog:

Interesting part:

We’ve done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts:

Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than mousing.
The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.
This contradiction between user-experience and reality apparently forms the basis for many user/developers’ belief that the keyboard is faster.

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Please explain how it's quicker when your application is on one monitor and your menu bar is on the other?

She won't respond to this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

This reminds me of the gripe that always gets me cussing first (before other gripes) when I have to use Windows, and hopefully someone can tell me how to avoid it:

Half the menu items are "hidden" somehow, and they pop into and out of existence without my say-so (especially in Office). How the F do you turn that off? Or alternatively, does anyone know what I'm referring to and what it's called? It's related to that little double-arrows at the bottom of the menu.

[Stogieman]

Yeah, that's a stupid feature in office. To turn it off go to Tools>>Customize>>Options tab. Make sure that "Always show full menus" is checked.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Nope, but those are single instances of a single keystroke, out of context that statement doesn't really say much.

What more context is required?

Originally Posted by hayesk 

And that's the big misconception. You assert that a keystroke will always be faster, but it simply isn't true:
AskTog:

If you read further, this is predicated on the assumption that it takes more than two seconds to strike a key command. If you'd like, I will take out a stopwatch right now and prove that it does not take me that long. Basically, I think Tog is agreeing with me: The mouse is faster for inexperienced users, but it has a higher time floor as well. If you have been using a program for years, you should be much faster with the keyboard than the mouse. That's muscle memory, not higher cognitive functions.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What more context is required?
If you read further, this is predicated on the assumption that it takes more than two seconds to strike a key command. If you'd like, I will take out a stopwatch right now and prove that it does not take me that long. Basically, I think Tog is agreeing with me: The mouse is faster for inexperienced users, but it has a higher time floor as well. If you have been using a program for years, you should be much faster with the keyboard than the mouse. That's muscle memory, not higher cognitive functions.

Well, someone's reply agrees with you, not the research itself. I agree that the two seconds is an average for beginners and that recall of a keyboard shortcut becomes shorter, the time to use the mouse goes down too due to muscle memory and the concept of infinite height on Mac menubars. But my point is not that keystrokes are bad, it's exclusive keyboard use is bad. No matter how much you use a single app, there's always apps you don't use as often, or have so many functions you can't possibly use all of them on a regular basis. And what you use often, may not be used as often by someone else. Because of this, I contend that well designed menus + keyboard shortcuts for only the most commonly used commands is a better overall solution.

And if you find you use a function that isn't considered "commonly used" you can still add keyboard shortcuts to any menu command in MacOS X or you can change the existing ones that you find awkward. I don't know how easy this is to do in Windows, since MS has chosen "Alt+random letter in menu, then random letter in command" is a good solution.