Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jef Raskin On The Mac

Hemos posted about 10 years ago | from the them's-fighting-words dept.

Apple 539

der Kopf writes "Jeff Raskin, one of the creators of the Macintosh and inventor of the click-and-drag interface, states in an interview for the British newspaper The Guardian that "the Mac is now a mess. A third party manual (Pogue's The Missing Manual) is nearly 1,000 pages, and far from complete. Apple now does development by accretion, and there is only a little difference between using a Mac and a Windows machine."" While I think Raskin has some good points, I think there's a far cry between the Mac & XP.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not jaded at all (5, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 10 years ago | (#10620514)

And in this corner, we have Macus Nastolgious; a species of computer user who misses the way Macintoshes were before The Great Migration to a modern and flexible operating system. Be very cautious around this beast as it will use any information, no matter how irrelevant to the topic, to prove its supposed "point" about Mac OS being "superior" to Mac OS X. It is also very good at selective hearing, often ignoring words and phrases such as "modern", "virtual memory", "true multitasking", "protected memory", and "brushed metal".

If you are attacked by one of these creatures, your best course of action is to appease it with a lollipop and a Cherry iMac running Mac OS 9. Ignore the sobbing that may result, as it is only an opening for renewed attack.

In case anyone's interested, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] knows who Jef Raskin is.

Mac OS X "Manual" (5, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | about 10 years ago | (#10620678)

It's easy to write a concise Mac OS "Classic" manual when there's no command-line interface, nor are there any Unix underpinnings.

A default install of Mac OS X contains a full Unix environment. (You can opt to not install the "BSD Subsystem", which just doesn't install terminal.app and several Unix userland applications).

I've seen emacs books that are 400+ pages and I've seen a 700 page sendmail manual. There are entire volumes of perl manuals. One could easily write a 10,000 page Mac OS X "Manual".

Maybe Apple should team up with ORA to write a 100 page getting started / user manual, like NeXT did in 1988. The Mac OS X interface is actually pretty simple, and an average user can only initially see about 20 control panels, about 15 applications, and about 15 utility applications. As long as you ignore the command-line world and don't write chapters on file sharing fundamentals or netbooting, I'll bet a 100 page manual would be quite sufficent.

Re:Not jaded at all (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620685)

Instead of attacking the person, try to attack his points. Wow, look at that, you can't. This probably has to do with you not knowing anything about the actual topic of programming and user interfaces, and not another Mac OS vs Mac OS X vs Windows pissing match

Re:Not jaded at all (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 10 years ago | (#10620801)

Instead of attacking the person, try to attack his points. Wow, look at that, you can't.

You lose sugarpuff:

A third party manual (Pogue's The Missing Manual) is nearly 1,000 pages, and far from complete.

As another poster so helpfully expanded on for me, Mac OS X has an entire Unix subsystem and feature set that are designed for power users and developers. Your average user knows nothing of these, nor do they need to. That doesn't stop people from documenting all those extra "cool" features in OS X.

Apple now does development by accretion, and there is only a little difference between using a Mac and a Windows machine.

An unsubstantiated statement. I suppose he felt that his statement about the manual should have given him the right to make this statement, except for that statement being based on flawed logic.

My original vision is outdated and irrelevant.

He recognizes that the original Mac interface is unsuitable. But then he goes on to say:

The principles of putting people first, and designing from the interface to the software and hardware, are as vital today as they were then.

Ok. But what does that mean? He gives no examples of proper interfaces, nor does he explain why OS X fails to achieve the "People first" status.

And the iMac G5? Was the original iMac a step on the correct path?

The unfoldable portable-shaped box on a stalk?


Ouch. You'd almost think he doesn't like the thing. But then he says:

It is a practical and space-saving design.

So which is it?

The truth of the matter is that he didn't actually make a single significant point in the entire article. He made several claims to the effect of Mac OS X being "a poor user interface", but never once gave an opinion as to why or how to fix it. Granted, that may be the fault of the editor, but then we need a better article. There were NO points made in this one.

Re:Not jaded at all (5, Interesting)

William Tanksley (1752) | about 10 years ago | (#10620737)

Jef didn't like the old MacOS either, so your argument is beside the point. His problem with it was user interface, not technology. His complaint about the new interface is that it's more of the same, with a few inconsistencies thrown in just for good measure.

-Billy

The difference is (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620525)

XP lets you use two buttons on the mouse

Re:The difference is (2, Insightful)

crackshoe (751995) | about 10 years ago | (#10620557)

i'm using 5 mouse buttons on my mac - does that mean that mac is better?

Re:The difference is (1)

moonbender (547943) | about 10 years ago | (#10620657)

No, it means that you're using a mouse where 4 out of 5 buttons are not used to their fullest extend.
The primary application of the second mouse button on both platforms seems to be the activation of a context menu. However, from my experience it seems that the context menu of Windows applications is a lot better than that of Mac OS apps. Probably due to the fact that MS has embraces more than one mouse button from the start and has pushed for context menus, while Apple decided to stick with single mouse button mice and a fairly hidden context menu. My GF has an Apple laptop, I'm sure she doesn't even know there is such a thing as a context menu.

Re:The difference is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620567)

So does the classic Mac OS as well as OS X. So what's your point?

Re:The difference is (5, Interesting)

bigman2003 (671309) | about 10 years ago | (#10620599)

Actually, the Mac will let you use two buttons too. I bought my wife a wireless mouse, with two buttons, and she now enjoys the thrills of 'right-clicking'. And it really does work too! Just about every time I use her computer, I right-click (because that is what I would normally do) and the menu I would expect to come up...comes up.

On the other hand- as a person who used Macintoshes from 1985, until about 1999, when I switched to Windows...I find the Mac OS X to be completely confusing, and more difficult to use than either OS 9, or Windows XP.

I don't think is is a bad OS- but it suffers from the same problem that people complain about in Windows. There are just so damn many features now, that it is difficult to figure out where stuff is.

I'm sure that if I had been using the Mac for the last 5 years, everything would be fine. But right now, I would guess that the barrier to entry for a new user is very similar for either Mac OS X, or Windows XP.

Re:The difference is (3, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | about 10 years ago | (#10620713)

What, you mean you don't like emacs and perl? :)

I personally find Mac OS X to be rather simple (unless you dig into the NetInfo database or fire up terminal.app). There aren't that many applications or control panels in a default install. Adjusting settings are also much easier these days in 10.3 Panther than they were in the wild days of 10.0 Public Beta in 1999.

Mac OS X is only slightly more complex than NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP of 1988/1994. (Unless you're a developer... not just ObjC and NSAPI, now you have C++, Java, OpenGL, OpenAL, CoreThis and CoreThat, etc...)

Re:The difference is (3, Funny)

Thrakkerzog (7580) | about 10 years ago | (#10620796)

I plugged in two mice once. It worked fine. Both mice would fight over the pointer. :-)

GUI design (4, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | about 10 years ago | (#10620530)

Raskin has been suggesting for years now that the MacOS has failed the interface test. My impression is that he would prefer an entirely different machine that may perhaps be radically different than what we have now. If this is so, Raskin should go out and create his OS of choice. At that point, I will evaluate it but for now, I will stick with OS X. Sorry Jeff, but you appear to be concerned with designing interfaces for folks that do not know how to use computers. I know how to use computers and have found very efficient workflows that allow tremendous amounts of work to be accomplished (except when posting to Slashdot of course) using current computer interface designs. The current way of doing business with GUI's is somewhat efficient for noobies, quite efficient for intermediate users, and the GUI combined with the CLI is very efficient for advanced users. By the way, the combined GUI and CLI is done quite nicely in OS X.

Also, Raskin's complaints about Windows and OS X being similar could come down to other explanations: 1) convergent evolution or 2) Microsoft blatantly ripped off Apple in look and feel and continues to do so. I am inclined to believe both options as there are simply efficient ways of interfacing with computers in a GUI paradigm. That said, how many times have we seen MacOS features show up in Windows some time later? I am by no means suggesting they are equivalent however. OS X is so much better than Windows in terms of function and interface, but Windows has made huge strides in the last few years, although I do find myself applying the "standard" Windows scheme on my XP machines.

Desktop Environments Ranked (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620587)

Ranked according to stability, features and available applications 1. Windows XP 2. Mac OS X 3. GNOME 4. CDE 5. KDE - Too Unstable

Re:GUI design (5, Insightful)

IAmTheDave (746256) | about 10 years ago | (#10620598)

Raskin has been suggesting for years now that the MacOS has failed the interface test. My impression is that he would prefer an entirely different machine that may perhaps be radically different than what we have now.

This is an interesting point - we have had, in essence, the same UI experience since Windows 3.x, GeoWindows, and the original Apple user interfaces - it's all, at this point - increased productivity features and eye candy.

Moving away from this UI-locked experience requires radically different thought. While not touting the technology-forward-seeing abilities of movie producers and directors, you'll notice that most "UI" in future computers stand more for "User Interaction" than "User Interface" - that is, interaction becomes more integrated with daily life. Computers track eye movements, "read" thoughts, anticipate needs, and almost always have overly-simplistic and well thought out data displays (my favorites are displays on panes of glass.)

Point is, as pretty as the Mac OSX interface is (and it is...) making it prettier and reevaluating the decades-old principals of PC user interfaces and user interactions are completely different topics.

Ripping off goes both ways (4, Funny)

59Bassman (749855) | about 10 years ago | (#10620609)

Remember, Windows has had the command line from the beginning. Apple only ripped it off recently!

/end feeble attempt at humor on a Monday morning

Re:Ripping off goes both ways (0)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 10 years ago | (#10620667)

You mean right after Microsoft ripped off the Apple II by creating a text based Disk Operating System? The shock. The horror.

*whatever*

Let's not even get into Xenix (Microsoft) and A-UX (Apple Unix).

Re:Ripping off goes both ways (0, Redundant)

hb253 (764272) | about 10 years ago | (#10620820)

Um, PC/MS-DOS was an evolution/ripoff of CP/M, not Apple DOS. CP/M was around at the same time as the first Apple II's, and you could get a Z80 card for the Apple that let you run CP/M.

Re:GUI design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620612)

"although I do find myself applying the "standard" Windows scheme on my XP machines."

And what does that prove?

Re:GUI design (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620681)

It proves that Windows XP interface design sucks and that end users would prefer things the old inefficient way they were rather than use the new crappy interface of XP.

Re:GUI design (2, Insightful)

GR1NCH (671035) | about 10 years ago | (#10620619)

Personally, I think all the arguements about user interfaces and ease of use are stupid. I think its more of a matter of what you have used in the past and are comfortable with in the long run. Personally I started off with DOS and Windows 3.1 and for me the migration to Win95 and WinXP were pretty easy. At this point I find most Mac GUI's confusing. But it's not because WinXP is more user friendly, its just because I'm used to all the things I've become comfortable with in WinXP. Same thing goes for linux, when I first transfered to linux, it was hard to use. After a short time it was incredibly comfortable. And after using Linux for several years with various Window Managers, going back to the XP system was even hard. Anyway, my point is the GUI's out there may be different, but all this crap about ease of use is exactly that... crap.

Re:GUI design (2, Interesting)

saider (177166) | about 10 years ago | (#10620749)

That's not so much as an interface, as a layout. You still use your mouse or keyboard to navigate a "desktop" which represents the paradigm that most people are familiar with. Jef is implying that a new paradigm is needed (although I don't agree).

The issues you stated are simply organizational issues. For instance, You know how to set up a printer, and most GUI's do well to present all the relevant information to you. You just need to know where to click to get that widget to appear. Same thing with menus. They have different names and such, but they all behave the same (click on it and it expands).

In that respect, MacOS, Windows, and Linux (with the appropriate window manager) are all the same.

Re:GUI design (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | about 10 years ago | (#10620800)



In that respect, MacOS, Windows, and Linux (with the appropriate window manager) are all the same.


Sometimes subtle things make a big difference. On my WinXP box at work, I've had to install various 3rd party apps to try and duplicate common Linux desktop behaviors (virtual desktops, rolling windows, sloppy focus, etc.). I was kind of suprised at how annoyed I was when I didn't have those features.

Re:GUI design (5, Informative)

Duke Thomas (684070) | about 10 years ago | (#10620633)

Raskin has been suggesting for years now that the MacOS has failed the interface test. My impression is that he would prefer an entirely different machine that may perhaps be radically different than what we have now. If this is so, Raskin should go out and create his OS of choice.

He did, though it was a long time ago. See information on Raskin's Canon Cat [landsnail.com] . It would be interesting to see him make a more modern computer interface, but he seems content to just make vague complaints nowadays.

Re:GUI design (1)

Amiga Lover (708890) | about 10 years ago | (#10620691)

Raskin parades on about a few things, one is his newer UI theories on making things simple and easy to use, and another is complaining about systems that are "bloated", where a simple text editor is half a meg, for example.

I think the credibility of his opinions comes into questions when he's put his theories into code, and they just end up a clumsy mess of UI that's painfully difficult to use, and he actually develops these ideas as code so damn slowly, because he's still using the archaic development methods that make for efficient results but long coding time.

Sure, something like Mozilla for example, may be far far bigger and less hyper-fast than it would be if it were written in assembler, but better to get it out, usable, completely workable and oversized in a couple of years than still be waiting for the same features for another decade while development goes along at the same sluggish pace that was OK in 1984, when apps were simple because RAM, cpu speed and storage space were at an utter premium.

Re:GUI design (3, Informative)

William Tanksley (1752) | about 10 years ago | (#10620724)

You don't have to rely on your impression of him, or consider a *possibility* that his ideal machine might be different than what we have now. You could instead read what he's written, but for free on his website and in his book; you could download his "The Humane Editor" and play with the second draft of his ideal interface.

And your claim that Jef designs interfaces for novices is purely ignorant. Jef designs interfaces almost completely without regard for novices; all of his calculations are designed to ensure ease of use, NOT ease of learning. He does give lip service (and work) to ease of learning, but all the math calculates and optimizes actual ongoing ease of _use_.

-Billy

Re:GUI design (4, Interesting)

Chief Typist (110285) | about 10 years ago | (#10620777)

Sorry Jeff, but you appear to be concerned with designing interfaces for folks that do not know how to use computers.

This is an important thing that I think Jef and many other UI researchers are missing. There aiming at an old target -- back in the 80's there were a lot of people who didn't know how to use a computer. Having a PC at home or school was rare.

These days, there are kids who have never known what it's like to live in a house without a computer. Or a school that has a computer lab. Like learning a language, it becomes second nature as you grow up. You get to the point where you don't even know that you know it.

As time passes, the proportion of the population that "gets it" becomes much larger than the part that needs a simpler UI.

Of course, there will always be people that need dead simple UI, and it's appropriate for many specialized interfaces (e.g. the iPod.) But it seems to me that research towards more complicated UIs (and how to manage the complexity) would be a better course -- that's where the "computing population" is headed.

-ch

Re:GUI design (1)

Amiga Lover (708890) | about 10 years ago | (#10620791)

> Raskin has been suggesting for years now that the MacOS has
> failed the interface test.

I should also add that back in 1984, the idea of an 'intuitive' interface was absolutely central to the success of the mac.

Nowadays, there's no marketing the mac to a world that doesn't know how to use computers, that world barely exists. Kids are trained to use them just by their very saturation in everyday life, that by the time they're 10 that "intuition" in the form of translating common real world tasks to a computer's onscreen actions is meaningless now. The computer itself IS something people are used to in the first place. Ever felt like doing a /me in real conversation?

Re:GUI design (4, Informative)

TuringTest (533084) | about 10 years ago | (#10620809)

That's bullshit. Try reading about Raskin's opinions on user interfaces [sourceforge.net] before critizising him. A guy who invented the Mac interface deserves at least that.

My impression is that he would prefer an entirely different machine that may perhaps be radically different than what we have now. If this is so, Raskin should go out and create his OS of choice.

He is doing it. It's called The Humane Interface, and you can download it from sourceforge and give it a try.

Given that some strengths of this interface are the same which make the CLI a good tool for advanced users, you should at ponder about it for a while.

If you believe that the current GUIs is "quite efficient" for intermediate users then you have not seen many of then doing something even a little bit complex. This quote from the interview perfectly resumes the real situation:

" There has been immense progress, primarily in the richness of applications. But all this power is lost on many people, and impedes the utility of it for the rest, because of the unnecessary complexity of using computers. "

You have to bear in mind that the human brain is a processor with limited power, it's main bottleneck being it's small short-term memory. Also the Input/Output protocols are constrained by perceptive capabilities. A guy who promotes design ing software optimized for this restrictions is worthy of some respect, moreover given that he is able to provide some actual solutions.

Accretion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620535)

I had to look that word up

Funny... (0, Troll)

IchBinDasWalross (720916) | about 10 years ago | (#10620540)

Funny, that contradicts this report [google.com] .

Um, Yeah, but... (2, Insightful)

BlkPanther (515751) | about 10 years ago | (#10620544)

Yeah, sure there are differences between OSX and WinXP, when you really pick it apart. But basically they have the same components, perform the same functions, and even look somewhat similar. The biggest difference I see is the underlying engine OSX uses *nix, where as XP uses an NT core, but this is mostly invisible to the users.

Re:Um, Yeah, but... (3, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | about 10 years ago | (#10620751)

where as XP uses an NT core

XP *is* NT.

Well, OK, XP is NT 5.1.

Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) is NT 4 with minor kernel updates and modern DirectX support. (I think NT 4 was limited to DX4!) There are also some minor control panel and admin application updates.

Windows XP is NT 5.0 with minor kernel updates and a new appearance manager. There are also some minor control panel and admin application updates.

Interestingly, XP SP2 has a very significant update: out-of-the-box support for multiple simultaneous users, via the local console and/or remote desktop.

Re:Um, Yeah, but... (3, Informative)

TAGmclaren (820485) | about 10 years ago | (#10620799)

well, if you're talking about computer human interface (which we are, because this is about Jef Raskin), what you've said is not true. that's not what a review by Anand said when he reviewed his new PowerMac G5.

p.3 [anandtech.com] and p. 4 [anandtech.com] are particularly pertinent:

The fundamental difference between OS X and Windows is how applications and windows are handled. What OS X has going for it is uniformity between applications and windows; for example, the keyboard shortcut for the preferences dialog in any OS X application is Command and the "," key. So, regardless of what application you're in, the same keystroke combination will have the same expected effect - pretty useful.

Check the whole article out. There are some things he's got wrong, but not surprising for anyone whose just switched to a totally new platform.

The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (-1, Redundant)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#10620547)

OK, I can see why for novice users (especially those who have difficulty telling left from right) having only a single mouse button might be of benefit but what about the overwhelming majority of users who have no trouble at all using more than one button?

Why doesn't MacOS cater for those users out of the box? Not doing it is dumb, dumb, dumb.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (2, Informative)

HeghmoH (13204) | about 10 years ago | (#10620582)

what about the overwhelming majority of users who have no trouble at all using more than one button?

We tend to have lots of cheap USB mice with multiple buttons lying around the house, so not including one in the box is not a big deal.

not an issue (4, Insightful)

bobalu (1921) | about 10 years ago | (#10620627)

I bought a PowerBook about a year ago (my first Mac) and have found that this really isn't much of an issue. Every once in awhile I have to hit the Control key to bring up a pop-up menu but not much. It took about 40 seconds to get over it the first time, since then I haven't been pining for a 2nd button.

You can always use it with a two-button mouse if you want.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (1)

lou2ser (458778) | about 10 years ago | (#10620637)

Want a new mouse? I highly recommend http://www.macmice.com/themouse.html [macmice.com] . Keeps with the good lucks of your Apple and had 2 buttons and a scroll wheel. I know you want a solution out of the box, but since Apple is not going to do it, find your solution in this box.

This post is not a paid advertisment.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (2, Informative)

over_exposed (623791) | about 10 years ago | (#10620646)

When purchasing a mac (at least from the online store) you have the option of buying a mulitple-button mouse. I have no idea, but I'd be surprised if it weren't the same way at one of their retail stores.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (4, Insightful)

matthew.thompson (44814) | about 10 years ago | (#10620647)

MacOS does cater for this oput of the box.

It's the Apple Macintosh that doesn't. There is a difference between the operating system and the hardware - the combination provides an easy to use solution but does not restrict the user.

If you find a two or more button mouse that you like you are more than welcome to plug it into your Mac - and the buttons, scroll wheels and the like will work. Out of the box. Without extra software. In most applications.

All this because hte OS has been designed to cater for both modes of operation.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620648)

We in Mac-land would prefer that idiots who insist on whining about the mouse just stay away from our platform, thank-you-very-much.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#10620702)

We in Mac-land would prefer that idiots who insist on whining about the mouse just stay away from our platform, thank-you-very-much.

Is that why every Mac user who uses his/her machine professionally that I've ever met has ditched their one-button mouse in favour of something that has two, three or even more buttons? Because Apple's approach to the issue is beyond criticism?

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (0, Flamebait)

l4m3z0r (799504) | about 10 years ago | (#10620709)

Insightful? Who moderated this moron as Insightful? Want a two-button mouse on a Mac plug one in, there you go it works. In fact you can buy 2 button mice from the Apple store here [apple.com] notice that they have many different options, including track balls, wireless mice, and also mice with more than 2 buttons with/without scroll wheels. Mod down parent as troll because that what this is, uninformed troll garbage.

And for the record, as far as laptops go, the necessity for the second mouse button just isn't there, especially when the keyboard shortcuts are designed so well. I have a 2 button mouse plugged into my mac, and dont use the second button(unless gaming). It simply is a waste for me to move my hand to the mouse to do something with the second mouse button that would be better served as a keyboard shortcut.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (1)

EuropeanSwallow (662253) | about 10 years ago | (#10620711)

I don't see Apple's choice of single buttoned mice to be worth the flamewars. I use both a PC and a Mac (iBook) and adapted quickly to the ctrl-button thing. I don't miss the second button much.

Where I think Apple is being stubborn and partisan is in not accepting that scroll-wheel mice are a better paradigm. This I do miss.I don't think I will be buying an Apple branded mouse until they start providing scroll-wheel enabled ones.

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (2)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | about 10 years ago | (#10620718)

The argument about one button mice is a moot point. Just buy a multi-button mouse.

Have you ever tutored truly novice user? Someone with absolutely no clue about technology or computers in general? They constantly click the wrong button and get confused when a right click menu appears as opposed to opening the document or program. You have to keep reminding them that it's the left click unless otherwise indicated.

People like you and I are practically hardwired for dealing with computers, (heck I learned to type on a computer before I could write with a pencil.) But many many people out there do not instinctually click the appropriate mouse button, know how to react to different prompts, menus, windows, stimuli, depending on which window has focus, etc. It's hard to imagine what using a computer is like without these intuitive and deeply rooted understandings. Apple simplifies the number of possible responses to these things and reduces user confusion by reducing the number of possible responses.

And when the lusers graduate out of cluelessness, they can simply acquire a multi-button mouse. :)

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (2, Insightful)

lintux (125434) | about 10 years ago | (#10620719)

Ok, I can see why for novice users (especially those who can't count to ten) having only two mouse buttons might be of benefit, but what about the overwhelming majority of users who have no trouble at all using ten buttons?

The answer is simple. One button is usually enough. Mac OS and all the available programs can live perfectly with "just" one mouse button. So why bother?

Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go... (3, Interesting)

Bricklets (703061) | about 10 years ago | (#10620786)

Why? Usability. It forces software developers to not dump anything and everything under the right-click contextual menu unless it is necessary. Seems smart, smart, smart to me. ... Oh yeah, and if you really want a multi-button mouse for a Mac, just get one. They are supported you know.

Forget the novice users! (1)

green pizza (159161) | about 10 years ago | (#10620807)

I used to say that Apple should keep the one-button mouse to help the novice users, but times have changed. **VERY FEW** novice users even have access to Macs. Face it, Windows is the new Mac. Newbies buy $399 HP specials at WalMart, they don't buy Macs. Most new-to-Apple users are switchers / curious users who have experience with Windows (or are Unix greybeards).

The NeXT machines had two button mice, it's time for Apple to ship a modern scroll wheel mouse with their Macs. (And maybe try to invent a multi-button laptop trackpad that doesn't require the user to dislocate their thumb to hit the right button).

Boinc has a diffrent view (5, Insightful)

stecoop (759508) | about 10 years ago | (#10620551)

The quest for CPU power has been largely defeated by bloated software in applications and operating systems. Some programs I wrote in Basic on an Apple II ran faster than when written in a modern language on a G4 Dual-processor Mac with hardware 1,000 times faster.

That is quite odd of him to say. I just checked on seti@home [berkeley.edu] , climate prediction [ox.ac.uk] and predictor@home [scripps.edu] via boinc, I don't see any Apple IIs on top of any lists. Well maybe the distributed computings teams should hire Jef Raskin and his Amazing Basic programming abilities - right?

I think sometimes, you wake up for an interview and haven't had coffee yet and say things that are not quite what you intended - it happens to me all the time ya know...

Re:Boinc has a diffrent view (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620642)

and you missed his point. Jeff is talking about BLOATED software, not seti, and not CPU performance. Jeff is talking about a simple program that now takes much longer to open files because they are filled with all sorts of information the user does not care about, etc. What he is saying is that a similar program that used to run on his Apple II executed it's much simpler tasks faster than today's counterpart. For a guy who focuses on simplicity, it comes as no surprise that he doesn't feel he needs faster CPUs.

Re:Boinc has a diffrent view (5, Interesting)

benhocking (724439) | about 10 years ago | (#10620675)

Yeah, I'm not buying it either. Certainly we all know where he's coming from - the boot up time on an old Apple II was faster than the boot up time on a modern Mac or PC. However, I cannot imagine how a useful program can be faster on an Apple II than any modern language on any modern hardware. I suspect he's taken the boot-up analogy and way over extended it.

I remember having an old program that calculated bifurcation trees that used to take 24 hours to complete on my old Compucolor II (which as you all know, was made by that wildly successful company Intecolor). When we got an Apple II, I ported it over to Apple Basic (from Compucolor Basic, the graphic commands of which are horrifyingly delicious) and got about a 20-fold increase in speed. Now I only had to wait a couple hours. If I run that same program today on a modern computer (using a modern language and a modern compiler) it finishes too quickly to time without using a timing macro. (I haven't run it in 5 years or so, and even then it was too fast to accurately time - less than a couple seconds, as I recall.) Granted, I might be misremembering some details, and I might have improved the efficiency of the program myself. However, it was a fairly simple program, so I'm not sure how I could have written it that inefficiently.

Re:Boinc has a diffrent view (1)

Octagon Most (522688) | about 10 years ago | (#10620767)

Of course Jef means programs written in Apple Basic and run on an original Apple or Apple II computer (i.e., simple programs on a simple computer platform). I suppose this was true partly because there was so little overhead then in terms of loading graphics, libraries, and such, as well as maintaining background processes and preemptively multitasking other applications. And the programs did so much less. Running an app written in BASIC on a primitive computer to print "Hello, World" can be faster than launching an app written in C++ under XP or OS X that does the same thing. As the application gets more complicated the modern faster hardware will eventually overcome the burden of the initial launch and the increased overhead and beat the old platform on a program that does the exact same thing. But that's all academic anyway since modern applications on modern computers usually do so much more. I think Jef is pining more for simplicity than the actual computers and OS of yore.

Re:Boinc has a diffrent view (5, Insightful)

russellh (547685) | about 10 years ago | (#10620779)

Remember hotjava? Sun's first introductino to java? we all made fun of it because hey, tic-tac-toe on expensive 1996 Sun hardware, at 1979 speeds. And it still looks like crap. Yet another new interface. What the hell have we done in the meantime? That's what Jef is talking about. Not scientific number crunching and transistor count.

Hooray for the Grauniad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620552)

Other hard-hitting factual stories in the Grauniad this week include an interview with the Loch Ness Monster, in which the Monster savages that beastly cowboy's foreign policy and observes that all Americans are murderous Baptist fanatics.

For fuck's sake, the Guardian has the the fact-checking of the National Enquirer combined with the objectivity of Pravda. It's a joke.

Re:Hooray for the Grauniad (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620700)

You are pure bullshitting sir. Just because its a 'leftie' paper doesnt mean it doesnt tell the truth.

Unlike Bush and the US media who lied the US into a phony war thats killed more civilians than all terrorist attacks in the last 50 years!

The Future of Trolling (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620559)

Trolling is dead. This place is dead. This place has been dead for far too long. The Revolution and The Rebirth are coming.

Trolling will be re-born.

A New Era dawns. The future grows near.

The Revolution will be devastating. The Rebirth will be glorious.

The End Is Near.

The Revolution: December 31st, 2002
The Rebirth: January 1st, 2003

Trolling is dead.
Trolling will be born again.
Trolling will return.
Trolling will return with FIRE.
January 1st, 2003.
Mark your calendars.
Clear your calendars.
Reschedule your life.
Everything you know is a lie.
Everything you know is going to change.

This is not the end.
This is not the beginning of the end.
This is the end of the beginning.

The Third Age of Trolling is about to begin.

January 1st, 2003.

It's coming. The Rebirth.
You are powerless to stop it.
Only a fool would try.
If you are a troll, rejoice.
The time of our supremacy is at hand.

The Revolution is coming. The Rebirth draws near. The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth. It's all about to change... forevar. THE END: December 31st, 2002. THE BEGINNING: January 1st, 2003. History has come full-circle. Get ready to troll, motherfuckers.

~ The New True Troll High Council

It's coming.
You are not ready.
You can't stop it.
TROLLING BEGINS:
January 1st, 2003.
It's coming.


~ The New True Troll High Council

Re:The Future of Trolling (-1, Offtopic)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 10 years ago | (#10620580)

... psst dude it's 2004. Get with the times.

It's one thing to troll, but when you do a bad job of trolling... well that just makes you some kinda idiot. I bet you rode the "special" bus to school right?

Tom

He sounds like me (2, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | about 10 years ago | (#10620560)

Old, cynical, unhappy with what the world has become, or more specifically the Macintosh.

It makes me wonder how much of my negative view on computing is perception.

Re:He sounds like me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620630)

It's all perception. The world has always been the same, it's just as you get older, you pick up on things that didn't bother you before, you see the realities behind apparently benign happenings, etc...
It's never going to change. So get a beer and enjoy. You could have been born in Iraq...

Raskin's Bitterness (4, Insightful)

bstarrfield (761726) | about 10 years ago | (#10620717)

Jef Raskin has good reason to have been bitter about the way the Macintosh has turned out. His description of the Mac's history ( http://mxmora.best.vwh.net/JefRaskin.html) provides a good introduction.

However, UI's have had to change as computing technologies have become more complicated. When the Mac was introduced, the Internet was still in its developmental stage; computer graphics were limited; and hardware devices were essentially permanently connected to the computer (no plug-and-play type technologies). The world changed, and the interface had to change with it.

It would be great to follow Raskin's advice and reevaluate the Mac GUI - however, it's apparent that Apple is constantly trying to do this. The X GUI has had changes (remember the purple window-shade type button in the X beta's?), and will no doubt continue to change. Right now we're looking at a (I'd say) fairly succesfuly merger of Mac OS 9 and NeXT UIs. But things can always get better.

I respect Raskin tremendously, but I would take his opinions with a grain of salt. His comments should be appreciated and considered, but I certainly don't believe that Apple has abandoned its quest for usability.

conventions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620565)

I think the win/mac comparison is a generalzation of conventions. Look, things that work well for a UI just get adopted and adapted for a diff system. Once it's found that something works (icons, double click, max window) why rock the boat? There are still plenty of differences, but the similarites will always be there, it's part of progress.

My slacks don't looked like the ones back in the 1800s, but they're still made of cloth, they still have a zipper, and beltloops.

Cab$@*#(

Anti-MS jabs (-1, Troll)

nam37 (517083) | about 10 years ago | (#10620577)

"While I think Raskin has some good points, I think there's a far cry between the Mac & XP. "

Are the stupid anti-MS jabs ALWAYS required?

Re:Anti-MS jabs (4, Funny)

jmays (450770) | about 10 years ago | (#10620595)

Are you new here?

Re:Anti-MS jabs (-1, Troll)

Special_K_21 (821393) | about 10 years ago | (#10620604)

Well it's true. Using XP for more than 15 minutes is painful in most cases. Its multitasking capabilities are subpar to say the least for one thing.

Re:Anti-MS jabs (2, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 10 years ago | (#10620624)

How the hell is that a jab?

When I fire up my PC with Win XP and compare it to my G5 with 10.3.5, there's a fair bit of difference between them.

It's not a jab if it's the truth.

Re:Anti-MS jabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620651)

"While I think Raskin has some good points, I think there's a far cry between the Mac & XP. "
Are the stupid anti-MS jabs ALWAYS required?


Perhaps it was an anti-OSX jab.

Is This Personal? (5, Interesting)

cyngus (753668) | about 10 years ago | (#10620579)

People on other websites have pointed out that Jef may be a bit off the mark and is still taking things personally from back when he was on the original Macintosh design team. Reportedly he was against the mouse driven interface and other things we've grown quite used to. It seems to me that Jef is very much an interface purest, promoting the most highly efficient and cleanest interface possible. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily translate to the most user friendly experience. I've tried his humane computing environment and while I'm certain that my productivity would jump once I got into the proper thinking mode, I don't really have time to learn the mental model for proper interaction with it. At the end of the day his opinions on interface design tend to me far more academic and far less pragmatic. What he says may be *right*, but impractical for mainstream computing.

Re:Is This Personal? (2, Informative)

lysander (31017) | about 10 years ago | (#10620672)

Reportedly he was against the mouse driven interface and other things we've grown quite used to.
If you take a look at The Humane Interface book, you'll see that this is wrong. He spends one section talking about how the Mac's application pulldowns at the very top of the screen are superior to pulldowns at the tops of each window.
It seems to me that Jef is very much an interface purest, promoting the most highly efficient and cleanest interface possible. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily translate to the most user friendly experience.
He is more concered about consistency and having the interface be easy to learn. He doesn't believe in "intuitive" interfaces, but instead interfaces that once learned should be applied everywere the user thinks would be appropriate.

Vladequacy - The Secrets REVEALED (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620589)

Who is the true enemy of all trollers?

What is the evil force behind all wrongdoing in the universe?

It never had a name. Until now. Until we identified it and studied it while making ready to destroy it.

Its name is VladeKua5y !

VladeKua5y (pronounced "Vladequacy") is the root of the problem. VladeKua5y is the root of all problems. VladeKua5y is the enemy. VladeKua5y is what must be destroyed.

Kuro5hin + Vladinator + Adequacy = VladeKua5y !!

Who is the enemy? VladeKua5y ! VladeKua5y ! VladeKua5y !

What must be destroyed? VladeKua5y ! VladeKua5y ! VladeKua5y !

Who is the enemy of all trollers evarywhere? VladeKua5y ! VladeKua5y ! VladeKua5y !

Here is some information on VladeKua5y . Expect more people like Rusty Foster to be added soon.

NAME: Burdge, Jonathan E-MAIL: jlb@io.com [mailto] , jlbatdarc@w-link.net [mailto] , elby@adequacy.org [mailto] , darc@w-link.net [mailto] ALIASES: lb, jlb, Elby

NAME: Casillas, Luis E-MAIL: casillas@stanford.edu [mailto] , em@adequacy.org [mailto] ALIASES: em, Estanislao Martinez, Sylvain Tremblay

NAME: Corrigan, Barry E-MAIL: barry@bjcorrigan.fsnet.co.uk [mailto] , bc@adequacy.org [mailto] ALIASES: bc, ktb (Kiss the Blade), Lover's Arrival, Euroderf, Erbert Paget-Paget, Anya

NAME: Dickson, Craig E-MAIL: crd@inversenet.com [mailto] , mendaxveritas@yahoo.com [mailto] , mendaxveritas@pacbell.net [mailto] ALIASES: mv, Mendax Veritas

NAME: Flickinger, Dan E-MAIL: flikx@geekizoid.com [mailto] , flikee@xmission.com [mailto] ALIASES: flikx

NAME: Haberberger, George E-MAIL: ghaberbe@frontiernet.net [mailto] , George.Haberberger@usa.xerox.com [mailto] ALIASES: GeorgeHa, Hairy_Potter

NAME: Huston, Bill E-MAIL: bozoman@vlad.geekizoid.com [mailto] , ALIASES: bozoman

NAME: Johnson, Peter E-MAIL: peter.johnson@voicestream.com [mailto] , shoeboy@adequacy.org [mailto] ALIASES: Shoeboy, Peter Johnson

NAME: Lockwood, Scott E-MAIL: wsl3@attbi.com [mailto] , vlad@geekizoid.com [mailto] ALIASES: Vladinator, Lonesome Cowboy Burt, Quick Star, Pinkerton Floyd, etc.

NAME: Linwood, Rob E-MAIL: rcl@cs.csoft.net [mailto] , rcl211@is9.nyu.edu [mailto] ALIASES: AuntFloyd, Con Troll

NAME: Mann, Warren E-MAIL: broken@warmann.com [mailto] ALIASES: osm, OpenSourceMan

NAME: McPherson, Craig E-MAIL: craig@laceyonline.com [mailto] ALIASES: craig, naked&petrified guy

NAME: Nelson, Brian E-MAIL: elenchos@adequacy.org [mailto] ALIASES: Elenchos

NAME: Osborne, Michaell E-MAIL: osborm@yahoo.com [mailto] , dmg@adequacy.org [mailto] , michaellosborne@netscapeonline.co.uk [mailto] ALIASES: dmg, Dumb Marketing Guy, Lord Hugh Toppingham

NAME: Sassaman, Esther E-MAIL: esther@antioch.edu [mailto] , perdida@adequacy.org [mailto] , reva_altamira@yahoo.com [mailto] ALIASES: Perdida, Reva Altamira, etc.

NAME: Skinner, James E-MAIL: spiralx@spazmail.com [mailto] , spiralx@adequacy.org [mailto] ALIASES: SpiralX, Manifold, Jon Erikson

NAME: Stanton, Matt E-MAIL: matt@madeforchina.com [mailto] , serf@adequacy.org [mailto] ALIASES: Serf

NAME: Zikowski, Zachary E-MAIL: zikzak@io.com [mailto] , zikzak@adequacy.org [mailto] ALIASES: Zikzak, kp

NAME: ???, Ernie E-MAIL: trollmastah@hotmail.com [mailto] ALIASES: Trollmastah

IMPORTANT NOTICE: It's coming. You are not ready. You can't stop it. TROLLING BEGINS: January 1st, 2003. 11:59PM. It's coming.

SEELE loves yuo!!!

An invisible enemy can't be attacked, but an enemy that you can see can be destroyed. The enemy was hidden until now. But evarthing has changed. Now we know who the enemy is. It is time for The Great VladeKua5y Purge to begin.

Have you ever seen Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust in such movies as Schindler's List, The Boys from Brazil, and Triumph Of The Will? That's the style of genocide we practice, and we're getting ready to give evaryone not on our side a free demonstration of our Final Solution Stance.

What are our demands? There are none! What do we want? Nothing! How can you appease us? You can't! What are we after? Nothing! Why do we do this? Because we can! How can you stop us? You can't! What do we care about? Nothing! What ethics do we have? None!

Don't try to reason with us. You have nothing we could possibly want. Just drop your pants, bend over, and think of England.

William Scott Lockwood III (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620590)

Before you visit the new crapflooder website, www.sporks-r-us.com [geekizoid.com] , there are a few points you should review about the owner and administrator of SRU, Vladinator. Scott (Vladinator's "real life" handle he goes by in public) won't tell you any of the following facts because he's afraid you'll be put off by his sordid, depraved, criminal past and close your browser window before he can log your IP address and password!

It is my duty to you, gentle reader, to make sure all of the relevant knowledge is out in the air before you do something you may regret, like registering an account or posting in a discussion on www.sporks-r-us.com [geekizoid.com] .



PLEASE review the following facts about Vladinator:


  • morbidly obese!
  • "recovering" alcoholic!
  • "recovering" smoker!
  • swings (i.e., seeks promiscuous sex with strangers!)
  • divorced three times!
  • current wife (#4) weighs over 400lbs!
  • can't hold employment for more than a few months!
  • high-school dropout!
  • dishonorably discharged from the Navy after eight years of failure!
  • leader of the Slashdot crapflooder gang!
  • incites others to hack innocent websites!
  • perpetually flatulent!
  • prescription and illegal drug abuser!
  • uses the following aliases all over the Internet!

    ( and often posts communications between them to make them appear to be more than one person!!! ):

    • Lonesome Cowboy Burt
    • Pinkerton Floyd
    • Quick Star
    • Reza ( supposedly his wife!!! )
    • William Scott Lockwood III
    • wsl3
    • Vladinator

  • restraining order against him by his own children!
  • callous software pirate and user of hacker tools!
  • uses Linux, a known homosexual operating system!
  • laid waste to message forums on Kuro5hin, MacNN, MacSlash, MsGeek, and Slashdot!
  • paid over $50 for tools to abuse Kuro5hin into mojopacolypse Hell!

That _is_ a nice sharpener (5, Insightful)

laird (2705) | about 10 years ago | (#10620594)

That is a nice blade sharpener [garrettwade.com] .

I think that he's right that MacOS X is too complex to be a simple appliance. But I think that general purpose computers are by definition complex, because they can be used for *anything*, and his vision holds more true for specialized devices. For example, the iPod is elegant and transparent to use.

That being said, I'm sure that usability could always be improved. But I don't agree that there's not much difference between XP and MacOS X -- while they're similar at a very high level (mouse/windows/icons over multi-tasking OS, etc.), MacOS X is better in almost every detail. But it's best not to get into a religious war here. I can only guess that Jeff has such a radical vision for how computers could be that from his perspective XP and MacOS X aren't too different.

Hmm, kinda like Nader! :-)

Can you say bitter, angry, rejected, scorned? (2, Insightful)

Power Everywhere (778645) | about 10 years ago | (#10620601)

Jef Raskin has been at this for years. Every 18 months or so we see an interview with him in which he poo-poos the current Mac talking about how it diverged from its original tenets of usability. Well no shit, Apple has learned a lot since 1980. They're realizing that now is a time to experiment and change the interface even if it means chaos for a while.

If he's so damn pissed that he got fired and the Mac UI is in the toilet, maybe he should go and work on some Open Sores desktop project and get it right for Apple. Perhaps he'd like to modify the Apple Human Interface Guidelines (yeah, guidelines, not commandments) and then share his changes with the Mac community to point out what it is that Apple needs to change so desperately.

Otherwise, Raskin is just being a whiny bitch.

Re:Can you say bitter, angry, rejected, scorned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620727)

Angry and bitter maybe, but flamebait? Raskin does have a pattern of speaking out against the current Mac team which doesn't do much for his image. Mod back up!

...but Windows copied Mac, right? (1)

balaam's ass (678743) | about 10 years ago | (#10620607)

Regarding Raskin's comment that "there is only a little difference between using a Mac and a Windows machine.:

Is he accounting for the fact that a fair amount of the similarity is due to Microsoft incorporating elements of the innovative Mac interface(s) into Windows?

Re:...but Windows copied Mac, right? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620750)


Is he accounting for the fact that a fair amount of the similarity is due to Microsoft incorporating elements of the innovative Mac interface(s) into Windows?


Naaah. He's talking about the features they both stole* from Xerox.

*OK, so no one stole anything from Xerox. You would have to be a total idiot to steal from Xerox. All you have to do is be at the right place at the right time and Xerox will give you stuff. No theft there.

Apple today is NeXT (5, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | about 10 years ago | (#10620613)

When Apple bought NeXT (and Steve Jobs) in 1997, the joke was "NeXT was paid to take over Apple". Indeed, Apple today is just a consumer/prosumer version of NeXT.

The original Macintosh and the original Macintosh OS had input from Raskin, but also from a whole score of designers working to make a GUI-based computer for "the rest of us". (http://www.folklore.org). Over time, Apple added more and more features to Mac OS until it became the Mac OS 9 horrible mess.

Mac OS X **IS NOT** the "Classic" Mac OS by any stretch of the imgination, the GUI and system design are 90% NeXT. Even most of the codebase is derrived from OpenStep 4.x. (And updated, obviously, also borrowing from newer versions of Mach and BSD). If you run across something about Mac OS X that seems un-mac-like or just plain weird (and isn't a true bug), it's probably an intentional NeXTism.

Raskin didn't like the NeXT in 1988, there's no reason why he'd like Mac OS X in 2004.

Re:Apple today is NeXT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620689)

Wow, aren't you quite the little idiot.

Spend some time GETTING A FUCKING CLUE here:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/

Kinda lame "interview"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620615)

....yes, lame and it sounds slapped together from a 5 minute Q&A...with no follow-ups to side-stepped questions.

How do you rate today's Mac user interface?

My original vision is outdated and irrelevant. The principles of putting people first, and designing from the interface to the software and hardware, are as vital today as they were then.


Way to sidestep the question. Sounds like someone is a little pissy that OSX is viciously easy to use and pleasing to the eye. Lame interview...little content...bleh, happy Monday.

I fear that Raskin has made himself irrelevant (5, Interesting)

Dragonfly (5975) | about 10 years ago | (#10620618)

I admire his work on the original Macintosh and recognize that he was instrumental in creating the modern GUI as we know it.

However, by failing to recognize the changes in HCI introducted by the pervasive, multi-modal, non-linear interface known as the world wide web, along with the slow but steady increase in users' basic knowledge, his comments have become more and more out of touch with reality.

It is worth noting as a postscript that his theory for a Humane Interface was strikingly similar to vi: interact with the computer by memorizing an array of keystroke commands.

Re:I fear that Raskin has made himself irrelevant (1)

allanc (25681) | about 10 years ago | (#10620803)

No he wasn't. He fought tooth and nail against Steve Jobs decision to take Raskin's Macintosh project (which he was planning to make into, basically, a brain-damaged Apple II that couldn't be upgraded and which couldn't run any third-party software) and turn it into a mini-Lisa. He wanted the machine to be text-based and cheap, and so Jobs pretty much forced him off the project and took over.

Raskin's only lasting contribution to the Macintosh is the name.

What i like about XP (-1, Flamebait)

cybrthng (22291) | about 10 years ago | (#10620622)

Is I know how it works, and on what hardware. I can buy an old PC and know it will be slow - but it will work - and with everything plugged in.

After experimenting with OS X i've found that there is a bunch of stuff you have to play the upgrade game on and you have to be smart about which "old" hardware is supported.

IE a Pentium 2/3 CPU with enough memory runs XP just fine - i expected an appropriately configed G3 to do the same with OS X - and i was wrong.

And now that i've moved on to Athlon64 and i'm running XP X64 (which is 2003 with XP "laf") and it runs great - stable as a can be - and with recognizeable performance increases (bye bye 16 bit legacy support)

I'm also burnt out on the brushed metal look, the costly updates and dodgy performance unless your willing to fork out big $$$

like others have said.. until there is a "white box" or generic - i can't afford the upgrade game and after my experimenting around i won't bother until prices come down on more capable OSX systems.

I want a workstation to learn from, experiment with and have fun on - not necessarily just to look cool on my desk

Re:What i like about XP (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620746)

Who gives a fuck about your feelings about XP???

Re:What i like about XP (4, Insightful)

tomcio.s (455520) | about 10 years ago | (#10620752)

i expected an appropriately configed G3 to do the same with OS X
Did you read the install notes on the box, or the website or during the installation process??? No.. Right that's your problem. All the info and minimum requirements are posted there.

I'm also burnt out on the brushed metal look, the costly updates and dodgy performance unless your willing to fork out big $$$
Explain to me how $999 iBook is expensive? or $799 eMac? If you don't like the look of the hardware. Well, tough. I guess you can buy anything in the gray ai32 world.

I can buy an old PC and know it will be slow - but it will work - and with everything plugged in
I won't even begin to digest this erronous statement. I will say one thing tho - minimum requirements. I have been burned by this before on the ai32 platform. Or have you ever tried using a scanner that had a proprietary pci card? I didn't think so.

Re:What i like about XP (0)

stubear (130454) | about 10 years ago | (#10620822)

"Explain to me how $999 iBook is expensive? or $799 eMac? If you don't like the look of the hardware. Well, tough. I guess you can buy anything in the gray ai32 world."

What if you're a graphic designer like me? I work with large image files and an iBook, while ok for light work, really isn't well suited for this type of work. In Macland if I want a new G5, the old Mac becomes almost worthless. In PCland, I can purchase small hardware upgrades and get a whole new computer for the same $800, or even less in some cases, and spread the cost out over a far greater period of time. My older G4-like system in PCland can be upgraded to a G5-like system at a much cheaper cost without the need to sacrifice quality. I'm not going to go so far as to suggest Apple adopt the white box strategy that the PC world has but $799 iBooks are only great if you don't need the power of a workstation.

What is it with one-button mice? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620625)

Why do macs still ship with one button mice? Is it anything more than stubborness? Seriously. Here's the reasons I've seen:

1) One button is all you need.

In a way that's true but two buttons sure as hell are more convenient. You don't need digits on a keyboard or a keypad either but they're also sure as hell convenient.

2) You can buy a replacement mouse anywhere/we have other mice laying around.

That's nice. Part of the purchase price for your Apple machine went towards the manufacturing and design cost of your mouse. If Dell shipped useless 12" monitors with their computers I don't think people would be too pleased if they added a cent to the purchase price.

3) Some people still like the one-button mice.

Is it a majority? I doubt it.

-- Posting anonymously as not to face the wrath of zealot mods.

Re:What is it with one-button mice? (4, Interesting)

balaam's ass (678743) | about 10 years ago | (#10620761)

You said it.

As a Mac user, I'm annoyed that I have to "Option-Click", "Control-Click" and "Command-Click" --- i.e. make motions which require two hands, when a simple 3-button mouse would let me do all of these quickly and easily. How are these key-click combinations "more user-friendly" than single clicks on a multi-button mouse?

And I like your response to those who say "You can always buy a multi-button mouse". Yea. I have a Logitech USB scrollwheel mouse that I use, but why did I have to buy one??? Why didn't I just GET one that came with my Mac?

Not worth it. (3, Interesting)

jonathanduty (541508) | about 10 years ago | (#10620631)

I can't believe we are giving this much press to a six question interview. It really sounds to me like he is more interested in expressing his grudge torwards the direction Apple has gone (much the same way /.ers do towards Microsoft posts).

Apple is making money again selling their new products. They must be doing something the public wants.

The difference (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 10 years ago | (#10620632)

While I think Raskin has some good points, I think there's a far cry between the Mac & XP.

Agreed, OS X has a usable shell.

Seems like people want a mess... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620654)

With the success of OSX and XP, it really seems like people want a mess. So KDE and Gnome are doing the right thing ;-)

Jef Raskin's involvement with the Macintosh (5, Interesting)

allanc (25681) | about 10 years ago | (#10620673)

Jef Raskin is always introduced as "one of the creators of the Macintosh" when in fact the only lasting contribution he made was the name. He wanted to make a machine that was basically a brain-damaged Apple II--something that would only be able to run the applications built into its ROM, couldn't be expanded, and basically limited the hell out of its own usefulness.

He was strongly against giving it a GUI at all, that was Steve Jobs' influence.

The closest widely-marketed computer to Jef Raskin's vision of How Computing Should Be was the Commodore Plus/4.

--AC

Re:Jef Raskin's involvement with the Macintosh (2, Informative)

allanc (25681) | about 10 years ago | (#10620698)

(Source, Insanely Great [amazon.com] by Steven Levy)

--AC

Die, mice, die! (5, Insightful)

nonmaskable (452595) | about 10 years ago | (#10620674)

Um before anyone follows Jef's vision of the future of human-computing interfaces, you might want to consider that he was opposed to the use of a mouse on the Macintosh.

If he hadn't been replaced by Jobs as the team lead, the Macintosh would have no mouse, using keyboard function keys instead.

Lack of Content (3, Funny)

R.Caley (126968) | about 10 years ago | (#10620693)

I wonder if he didn't actually say anything, or if the journalist/editor just cut out all the content.

The result is pretty much nothing but `Jef Raskin is a grumpy old man'.

InkWell's Black History (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620755)

Recently, Microsoft announced "Digital Ink," a handwriting-recognition technology that many compare to Apple's InkWell, both respectively set to debut in the next major revisions of Windows and Mac OS X. As whenever similar technologies pop up at Microsoft, Apple Mac zealots ask a few questions: Was it developed in-house at Microsoft? Was it bought from a third-party? Grabbed from a sub-licensor?

The answer is that Digital Ink came directly from Apple, but the story behind how Microsoft was able to so simply buy InkWell and rename it for use in Windows is a tale of moral depravity and sordid carnal desperation that few are privy to -- until today! Read on to discover how Microsoft came to own yet another key Apple technology in the most sordid of political maneuverings.

It all began in the late Seventies. Steve Jobs, after a night of smoking marijuana and tripping on lysergic acid diethylamide, conceived of a way to interact with computers using only the mind. Well-known at Stanford for his telekinetic abilities, such as making entire fields of grass sway with but a thought, Steve wanted to move the "mouse" and "menu" (bizarre, alien concepts to anyone outside of his clique of 2600 hackers and EE alcoholics) with nothing but the power of his mind. Of course his compatriots -- the peaceful, bearded Steve Wozniak and the illegally immigrated Avie Tevanian -- dismissed the idea as yet another episode of harmless drug-induced rambling.

Twenty-six years after his messianic user interface vision, Steve Jobs was hard at work in the deepest part of Apple's labs, personally overseeing secret user interface experimentation. It turns out that Steve had never forgotten about his psychedelic user-interface dream and was tirelessly attempting to realize it thirty miles beneath Cupertino, Califnornia. Down here, in his "dungeon," the attempts to connect silicon to carbon were in full force and without regard to their subjects.

Some men had industrial-grade alligator clamps attached to their nipples and testicles which were randomly jolted with millions of volts of electricity in order to stimulate their brains. Other men had deadly mixtures of cocaine and heroin ("eight-balls") injected into their penises while being forced to watch gay porn. Another group endured horrible procedures in which their arms, legs, and scrotums were replaced with chimpanzee equivalents. One smaller group were forced to smoke opium eight hours a day while being whipped and beaten until they managed to move the cursor a pixel or two. The most successes, however, had come from Steve's own bizarre device dubbed "handJobs."

handJobs was a series of wires and electro-sensitive pads placed on the fingertips that allowed one to manipulate elements of the Mac OS GUI with simple motions. Steve Jobs, being telekinetic from years of tripping acid, wielded it more powerfully than anyone else in his R&D dungeon. In fact, so powerful was his mind that he like to hook the wires and pads up to his own penis and controlled his Power Mac by means of pelvic thrusts and lewd gyrations of his hairy penis and scrotum.

Bill Gates, on a visit to the Apple Campus, accidentally stumbled onto handJobs in a moment that would change UI in computing forever. Feeling that he simply owned the Apple Campus as he did the rest of the world, Mr. Gates walked into Steve Jobs's private office without knocking. Steve was in the middle of "making love" to thin air, pants in a puddle at his ankles, hands on hips, thrusting his engorged member at the monitor! He had decided to take his latest revision of the device to his office to test out when Mr. Gates had walked in on him! Gates knew what he liked and liked what he saw, and began immediately bargaining with Jobs.

By the end of the day, Jobs had created a new technology agreement with Gates. Apple would begin partnering with Microsoft on alternative input technologies, and by late June MS would announce "Digital Ink" for Windows. In reality Digital Ink was a front, and both it and InkWell for Mac OS were place-holders for what handJobs would eventually become. Until handJobs was ready, however, the masses would be fed OCR capabilities from the operating system. Before the ink on the contract was signed, however, Jobs had finagled Gates into receiving a "technology preview" of handJobs, with Jobs attempting to control Gate's breathing with nothing but his leathery scrotal sack and Gates's chin as a "touch pad."

Now you know the immoral, homo-erotic history behind InkWell, Digital Ink, and the next generation of OCR and handwriting-recogntion. I hope that Apple Macintosh zealots everywhere think about this before they blindly evangelize their operating system of choice, inadvertently infecting the minds of the masses with years of sweating gay R&D and "bleeding edge" (of anus) techno-faggotry.

Waah waah (1)

burnin1965 (535071) | about 10 years ago | (#10620780)

Considering Jef's vast knowledge and experience there is good reason to listen to his opinions, however, I must say he seems to be exagerating significantly.

Some programs I wrote in Basic on an Apple II ran faster than when written in a modern language on a G4 Dual-processor Mac with hardware 1,000 times faster
This is just plain bull. I used the old Apple II and the various other "inexpensive" computers of its day, in fact I have an Atari 130xe setup behind me at my desk and it is fully operational. I've written programs in both BASIC and 6052 assembly on the box and I'm sorry but Jef is very wrong with that statement. The computers of the Apple II era are so mind numbingly slow at BASIC execution that his statement is simply laughable.

And just to pick on him a little more, how can he whine about the interface and then have a picture of himself with some techno gadget hanging in front of his face with only his glasses to protect his eye from almost certain lacerations. Yeah that has to be a really "Humane Interface".

He is correct about one thing, he is a footnote.

burnin

It's nice to hear some criticism of the Mac (-1, Troll)

DougDew (94589) | about 10 years ago | (#10620781)

It's nice to hear some criticism of the Mac, especially of the Mac's user interface.

Too often all that we hear in the press is how beautiful and superior the Mac's UI is compared to the UI of Windows. I've never been able to understand such claims. In my opinion, the Mac UI is way worse than the UI of Windows and of KDE and of Gnome.

I mostly use Windows, and occasionally use Linux with KDE or Gnome. I'd like to switch to Macs so that I could have the benefit of using a *nix-based OS on a tightly-integrated OS/hardware combination. However, despite spending hours in front of Macs in Apple stores and in university labs, I just can't find a way to get along with the Mac UI. It seems to be primitive, poorly-designed and of relatively poor quality. I almost always conclude my Mac sessions by scratching my head and wondering why anybody would want to use a computer that has such a poor UI. In short, I try to like the Mac, but I just can't. The poor UI gets in the way.

I'd switch to Macs right now if the Macs had a UI more like the Windows UI. But given that such a change will probably never happen, I'll guess that I'll stick with Windows and Linux.

Re:It's nice to hear some criticism of the Mac (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10620806)

Oh joy! Another I'm a fucking retard and here's why and I want to buy a Mac but won't.

What a pathetic dork.

What does the program do ? (2, Insightful)

iMaple (769378) | about 10 years ago | (#10620798)

Jef saysSome programs I wrote in Basic on an Apple II ran faster than when written in a modern language on a G4 Dual-processor Mac with hardware 1,000 times faster.
which is BS unless he specifies what his program did. I mean a simple "Press any key to continue" is going to be so much more effeicient tha na dialog box with "Do you want to save your settings? --- Yes No OK Cancel SaveToDisk Abort "

How much more 'good old days' can he spread? (3, Funny)

overmeer (823768) | about 10 years ago | (#10620813)

Jeff Raskin, Inventor of the click-and-brag interface.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?