#513084, By Pandora-Panorama So... how long till Microsoft's next OS?

  • Pandora-Panorama 16 Nov 2004 02:17:41 55 posts
    Registered 14 years ago

    Cool! Let's see if it takes another 24 hours before you fail to grasp my responses to this little set of lovelies!

    aww come on, cut me some slack ... English is not my native tongue. Still, you could be a little clearer as well ;-)

    Having said that, Windows users get free updates presented in an excellent (we use it for server updating it's that reliable) Windows Update feature. I seem to recall Mac users having to pay for the most significant recent update to their OS. No doubt that all adds to the pleasure. :)
    Erm, up till now you have displayed quite a good knowledge of the computing world. Surely you know that Apple issues security updates for free, I have yet to pay for any of them. Surely you know that the paid 'updates' always add a bunch of new (not security-related) features that - to me - were always worth the money and very 'pleasurable'. Don't slack Apple off because they innovate at more regular intervals than MS.

    The 'system settings' - hmmm, it does feel as if you've not actually used XP much at all. Almost as if you're trying to make it up as you go along. Anyhoo, giving you the benefit on the doubt on this, can you give examples? As 'System Settings' seem fairly clear to me. You know, such inconprehensible doozys as 'Mouse' and 'Automatic Updates', I mean damn! Pass the Enigma will someone?

    Enigma? Not really an enigma it is, XP. An example ... minor but irritating, because I cannot work out the logic of it. When I left click a disabled network connection icon, the connection get's enabled. Hmm, i found that puzzling in the first place. After all, I thought it was a control panel, but okay, maybe it isn't. Now I left klick again, and suddenly it IS a control panel and I can modify the settings i wanted. All the while, no matter whether it is enabled or not, right clicking it would have also allowed me to modify the settings, but jumps across one intermediate control panel stage.

    So where's the consistency in this? What I am missing is consistency to the other control panels, and what a click does to this one control panel. Or am I missing some ingenous metaphor that would have explained to me the panel's behavior before I even clicked it?
    You might find my puzzlement to this behavior quite puzzling yourself, but then I would urge you to try OS X for some time. There, all items of a certain category behave the same when clicked. That's nice, predictable, and makes for an enjoyable customizing experience.

    Pray, present some better examples of finger tangling complexity for me to debunk. I'm looking forward to it. :D

    what i miss in XP is that you cannot just drag any file from any open window directly into a load/save dialog and acess it. That saves a lot of time in OS X. In XP, it's pretty annoying to wander through the file structure to find the one folder youre looking for. I think as long as you're used to it, it's no problem. But if you're used to OS X, these are just unneccesary steps.

    What I miss is that i cannot just DRAG any folder to the Dock and then have the complete sub-hierarchy from that folder onwards availabe at the click of the right mouse button. Comes in handy if you decide to work on one of many projects.
    Example: I need to do some literature work... i drag my folder of articles into the dock. Right click on it, and then i can move up (as through the Start Menu) through the different subfolders, to find the files I'm looking for.
    If you don't want it anymore, just drag it out and it's gone. Again, in XP you can put the folder it in the Start Menu, but that costs much more time... and if you want to access it you first have to navigate the Start Menu up to that folder. If you want to get it out, again many clicks needed ... much more than a simple drag.

    What i miss is Expose. One click/key press zooms you out of the desktop so that you can see thumpnails of all your open windows. Not comparable to XP were even the, how's it called, the task bar does not give you much information if many windows are open. And even if there are few windows, problems come up if all have similar names... and what do you end up with then? Click (was it this one ... no), Click (this one, no)...

    Interesting tangle you get yourself into here. Which structure do you speak of? I have a Start Menu with a group of installed programs. They are installed where I like (or need them according to disk space) - I don't need to worry about 'the structure' because everything is still all in one place. And if you are bricking yourself about the 'structure', simply install it elsewhere, or does OSX not even give you the choice if installation locations? And once you no longer need a program, go to uninstall it in the (and I'll take this slow for you) 'Add / Remove Programs' utility.

    What i mean is, for instance, a Folder where all my sound-apps are in, one for the graphics apps, one for the office apps. I know I can do something like this in the Start Menu (as i can in OS X' dock), but I'd like to have such a structure at the actual file level. And I want to be able to build this structure or change it after everything is installed. Is this so hard to understand? Add to this that the installers like to add their own paths to the programs (Microsoft Games/Halo) if you don't pay attention. Sorry, but this annoys me, not strongly, but one of the little irks with XP that you so love to read as being great pains in the a$$.
    Of course, you will say that this is my problem for not paying attention in the first place, but OS X does not make me pay this attention, which is kinda nice of it, don't you think?

    All of that can be summed up pretty much with a line from Nemesis:

    Using OSX for a time and then coming back to XP...you can feel it; you can see it. It irritates, not because 'we don't like change', but because it fails on small details or makes illogical leaps or an additional few steps.
Log in or register to reply