Computer Technology: What do we REALLY want?

Good printer.

Good word processor.

Good internet.

And with no crashing.

I'm a simple person.

 

Hal!

 

daisy, daisy...........................................

 

I want to be Hal. I want us all to be Hals. Except about a million times more advanced.

 

I want to be a massively multiplayer online pornstar!

 

Wow, remarkable for one day... considering I tried aborting this post.

Anyway, I was going to say that I recently upgraded my operating system to OS X (yes, I'm a rabidly loyal Mac user, because everything I do with my computer is audio, visual or both). After I checked out the competition, Windows XP... both systems got me thinking...

We're still using virtually the same desktop, keyboard and mouse setup that's been the status quo since the Mac popularized the graphical user interface in 1984. So, we've got desktop machines with more horsepower than supercomputers of recent years... and yet we're still using them to send text emails that we have to input via a keyboard?

What the hell? Where's my HDVR brainjack input? Where's my thought-powered navigation? And what the hell happened to speech recognition? It's here, but in a relatively mediocre way.

I'm wondering why Windows XP didn't come out 10 years ago? It looks like it belongs in the early 1990s. Basically, it looks like someone took Win95 and europeanized it... you know, how europe's roadsigns have the "universal sign" logos in obnoxious bright colors. Not to say that doesn't look good but... just out of curiosity, has anyone else here tinkered with OS X? No comparison, in my opinion. But I guess everyone has different tastes... everyone has a different vision of the future.

I like OS X better than I like any Wintel, Linux or Solaris system I've tinkered with... and it's by far, closer to the future of computing... more than I could have expected a computer interface to be at this point in time, given the developmental strides we've made so far.... but for god's sake, we're still a long way away from where we could be.

I guess Teniel has a point, though. We ought to strive for a computer system that actually doesn't crash while performing the most basic functions... you know, email, word processing, and downloading porn.

 

I want a fully functional VR planet. The ultimate in MMORPG games, a place that simulates the earth near perfectly, except allowing us to do things like flying by will. I would also like a Star Wars Universe, and I am sure Lucas will be happy to oblige as it will make tons of $. Of course such a planet would be pretty crappy with a regular comp. and 56k modem, so obviously we need to progress just a little farther. I also want a droid to clean up my house, but not a computer-controled house because TV has shown they always go evil.

 

OS X is based on the Unix kernel. Not much different than Linux really just has a unique GUI.

 

I want a fully functional VR planet. The ultimate in MMORPG games, a place that simulates the earth near perfectly, except allowing us to do things like flying by will. I would also like a Star Wars Universe, and I am sure Lucas will be happy to oblige as it will make tons of $. Of course such a planet would be pretty crappy with a regular comp. and 56k modem, so obviously we need to progress just a little farther. I also want a droid to clean up my house, but not a computer-controled house because TV has shown they always go evil.

I'd be first in line to walk through a VR Coruscant or Rivendell

 

A drink dispenser.

 

I've been tinkering with OS X for about a year and change now, starting with developers previews in late 2000. It's so captivated my attention that I haven't done any significant work with other Unix implementations in months. I still have some complaints about its underpinnings -- I don't like NetInfo much, for one -- but overall it is a truly stunning piece of work. I never thought anyone would ever manage to put a decent GUI front end on Unix, but Apple has.

But yeah, even the most advanced OSes of today are a far cry from what I envision as the Goal. My head dances with dreams of technological singularity.

 

Ok, so... let me throw this out there... Of the current operating systems out there that everyone's using... what's most important to you?

It seems Microsoft in particular, like many other companies, has this problem that they like to tell people what it is they want, without really paying attention.

So, let's hear it from the JC: What elements are most important to you in a computer operating system?

Some have already answered this question, but I wanted to steer the discussion in this direction for the time being since the topic is wide open to all kinds of other issues.

 

What elements are most important to you in a computer operating system?

Above all else, a comfortable default GUI. I like to use shell extenders/replacers (Desktop X, NextStart, etc.), but when I go back to the standard GUI, I want it to be intuitive. For my money, Windows gives me this. The combination of the quicklaunch bar and the good ol' taskbar is heavenly. Apple tried to do something similar with the dock, and failed (in my eyes). Aqua looks very pretty, but it doesn't "feel" right.

 

The Dock does need some work, but this is the first time I have ever heard the Windows taskbar described as "heavenly".

 

Heheheh. I'm sure the kinks will get worked out of the dock, but i do like many things about it, among others:

Transparency
Apps Only - Multiple windows of each app don't clutter up the dock, except when you minimize them (this makes sense because you can see the list of windows within each application's menu bar anyway)
Free arrangement - You can set the order of the apps in the dock whichever way you like
Sizing - You can increase proportion of icons, and not just the space (unlike Windows taskbar)
Dual Function - Dock can hold live apps/files, minimized documents and shortcuts to apps

I run Windows NT at work... and even Win2k looks and feels about the same. Windows XP seems like a cheap attempt at getting to where OS X is... Their idea of better visual presentation seems to be using brighter, more obnoxious colors... instead of actually making key functions practically jump off the screen and come alive. In OS X, I've seen both superficial and systematic enhancements that make the user experience most unlike the usual point-and-click routine. Just because Windows tends to be the leading business platform doesn't mean it has to resemble all the grandeur of an office cubicle in its visual design.

One thing that really impresses me is the quality of Apple's hardware. But I don't know, without polling the population, what it is everyone else is looking for. I tend to choose quality over quantity, almost consistently. A lot of shoppers, on the other hand, seem to want a machine that gives them plenty of mileage at low cost, without much quality in the hardware or the experience. Compaq's idea of copying the Mac experience was to slap a few easily-breakable, translucent plastic panels on the sides of an otherwise "beige doorstop" tower. Somehow, I think if customers knew they could get better than this they wouldn't be afraid to spend a few extra bucks for the quality.

Every time I check out the PC stores, it's the same... people come in, try to work the best deal they can get, get their stuff and get out... On the other hand, I walk into the Apple Store and see people acting like it's some sort of religious temple... crowding around Titanium powerbooks and iPods like they've seen the face of god in them or something. And I'm not just talking die-hard Mac users... a lot of first-time Mac shoppers are looking for an Alt-F4 escape route out of their industrial Wintel existence. I think this signals a paradigm shift.

More than 20 years ago, an IBM executive asked, "What does the average consumer need with a home computer?"

Well, here we are 20 years later and most computers are still designed largely like industrial tools... with a few exceptions. I think the concept of the computer being an electronic appliance hub... which is something Steve Jobs preaches on a regular basis... is a great idea. The problem is that technology often strives to simplify, when all it does is complicate... With every new device comes a host of new intrusions into our daily lives.

Both Jobs and Gates, who are decidedly the two most influential minds in the design of personal computing, have visions of how computer technology will permeate into everything we do. But I think where they differ is that Gates wants everyone to see the merits of Windows applications as they are and as Microsoft wants them to be. Jobs demands his designers to come up with stuff that resembles and fluidly works with nature, instead of developing hardware and applications that require every element of nature, including ourselves, to conform around it.

 

Question: Does OSX allow the running of Linux aps?

 

Gandolf: I don't know. I don't use Linux apps. But I will say this: OS X is rooted in BSD UNIX... I don't see much of a reason it couldn't be adapted to run Linux if it doesn't already. But then, one can get RedHat Linux PPC, too.

 

I run Windows NT at work... and even Win2k looks and feels about the same. Windows XP seems like a cheap attempt at getting to where OS X is...

To each his own... I love the "Homestead" color scheme on XP. Aqua is too "cold" for me to use for long (I have an Aqua theme I use sometimes on Windows.)

Their idea of better visual presentation seems to be using brighter, more obnoxious colors... instead of actually making key functions practically jump off the screen and come alive.

I could do without the superflous visual effects, thankyouverymuch.

In OS X, I've seen both superficial and systematic enhancements that make the user experience most unlike the usual point-and-click routine. Just because Windows tends to be the leading business platform doesn't mean it has to resemble all the grandeur of an office cubicle in its visual design.

No, but any OS aspiring to lead the market should be willing to sacrifice cosmetic bells and whistles if they get in the way of an efficient work session.

One thing that really impresses me is the quality of Apple's hardware. But I don't know, without polling the population, what it is everyone else is looking for. I tend to choose quality over quantity, almost consistently. A lot of shoppers, on the other hand, seem to want a machine that gives them plenty of mileage at low cost, without much quality in the hardware or the experience. Compaq's idea of copying the Mac experience was to slap a few easily-breakable, translucent plastic panels on the sides of an otherwise "beige doorstop" tower. Somehow, I think if customers knew they could get better than this they wouldn't be afraid to spend a few extra bucks for the quality.

I don't find the differences between Apple's hardware and top-of-the-line PC hardware to be big at all. I'm willing to spend money for a quality system, it's just that WIntel gives me what I want without requiring me to be a slave to one company's philosophy.

And knocking Compaq for mimicking the iMac/G3 look is kinda silly, considering the throngs of newfound Mac devotees whose concept of "thinking different" is to buy the same old Mac in a shiny new case. There's no deeper meaning than that to Apple's iMac campaign.

Every time I check out the PC stores, it's the same... people come in, try to work the best deal they can get, get their stuff and get out... On the other hand, I walk into the Apple Store and see people acting like it's some sort of religious temple... crowding around Titanium powerbooks and iPods like they've seen the face of god in them or something.

Now THAT is scary. Computers are tools. I'm always weary of people who treat them as a bride.

And I'm not just talking die-hard Mac users... a lot of first-time Mac shoppers are looking for an Alt-F4 escape route out of their industrial Wintel existence. I think this signals a paradigm shift.

It just signals consumers are as dumb as ever and can be easily hooked by translucent cases and a pretty-but-useless OS.

More than 20 years ago, an IBM executive asked, "What does the average consumer need with a home computer?"

Well, here we are 20 years later and most computers are still designed largely like industrial tools... with a few exceptions. I think the concept of the computer being an electronic appliance hub... which is something Steve Jobs preaches on a regular basis... is a great idea. The problem is that technology often strives to simplify, when all it does is complicate... With every new device comes a host of new intrusions into our daily lives.

For example?

Both Jobs and Gates, who are decidedly the two most influential minds in the design of personal computing, have visions of how computer technology will permeate into everything we do. But I think where they differ is that Gates wants everyone to see the merits of Windows applications as they are and as Microsoft wants them to be. Jobs demands his designers to come up with stuff that resembles and fluidly works with nature, instead of develop

 

Jorus: I'm not going to debate your opinions, since there's no argument there. Everyone has different tastes. I will however try to address some of your perceptions about Apple.

I could do without the superflous visual effects, thankyouverymuch.

Well, that argument is partly a difference of opinion. One person might believe that computers should contain only substance, not style. Another might believe precisely the opposite. Generally, the average home user doesn't seem to be the kind of purist who believes that nerds with MCSE certifications should be the only ones allowed to touch, much less look at, a PC. The target market for Mac isn't that kind of person at all. Granted, they'll take the extra customers if they come, but it's clear that their core focus is on individuals who believe using a computer should be an experience as fluid as, say, playing a piano. Generally, people who pay for a Steinway aren't looking strictly for "anything that works". They want excellent sound, phenomenal response, and an instrument that's as pleasing to look at as it is to interact with.

No, but any OS aspiring to lead the market should be willing to sacrifice cosmetic bells and whistles if they get in the way of an efficient work session.

I don't want my computer supplier to be aspiring to be the moneymongering profit-machine that Microsoft is. I just want them to make the kind of computers that enhance my lifestyle. Otherwise, I'll go find someone else who does. This is precisely what happened to Apple when Gil Amelio tried to send them down the licensing path. The idea was to make the OS readily available to as much of the overall home computing market as possible.

Jobs refocused Apple on doing what it does best for the kind of customers who appreciate that... and actually listening to what they want and refining it as much as possible. Much of the "bells" and "whistles" of OS X, including the visual ones... most of them have very functional purposes. My question is... has Windows' infamous Mr. Paperclip, master of the ubiquitous, ever done anything other than annoy the living hell out of everyone with his blinding glimpses of the obvious?

I don't find the differences between Apple's hardware and top-of-the-line PC hardware to be big at all.

1. I never said anything about the top end PCs... but then, since the return of Jobs, Apple doesn't build their brand equity by designing different levels of models with the same features, but varying levels of inferior quality control... If they can't throw a DVD-RAM drive in their lowest model, keep it cheap and still maintain a level of quality equal to the more feature-packed models, they won't ,ake the mistake of doing it... because their target audience would shun it. Conversely, if they tried making a compact, unexpandable model and couldn't get the price down to a level respectable for such a moel, they'd eat it there, too. (*ahem*G4 Cube).

I'm willing to spend money for a quality system, it's just that WIntel gives me what I want without requiring me to be a slave to one company's philosophy.

2. It does? You must be amongst the one percent that uses Lotus instead of MS Office. I'm not saying Office is completely horrible... In fact, the Mac version, according to Microsoft's own people, is a better implementation than their own Windows version. But then I didn't spend over $1000 for a 450MHz tower just so I could email and type letters...

And knocking Compaq for mimicking the iMac/G3 look is kinda silly, considering the throngs of newfound Mac devotees whose concept of "thinking different" is to buy the same old Mac in a shiny new case. There's no deeper meaning than that to Apple's iMac campaign.

Yeah, so much for taking a good idea and improving it once the technology was cheap enough to allow you to make such leaps. We should all drive Edsels... they had four wheels and an engine. Compaq copying another company for lack of innovation has nothing to do with a company improving it's own desig

 

Why can't Microsoft change their name to Orange, so you are comparing 'Apple' to 'Orange'....


Just Kidding

 

"I guess Teniel has a point, though."-Darth_SnowDog

Thanks!

 

Well, that argument is partly a difference of opinion. One person might believe that computers should contain only substance, not style. Another might believe precisely the opposite. Generally, the average home user doesn't seem to be the kind of purist who believes that nerds with MCSE certifications should be the only ones allowed to touch, much less look at, a PC. The target market for Mac isn't that kind of person at all. Granted, they'll take the extra customers if they come, but it's clear that their core focus is on individuals who believe using a computer should be an experience as fluid as, say, playing a piano. Generally, people who pay for a Steinway aren't looking strictly for "anything that works". They want excellent sound, phenomenal response, and an instrument that's as pleasing to look at as it is to interact with.

That's the thing. The belief that a PC just can't match an equivalently-equipped Mac is not valid. I built my current system from scratch, didn't buy an off-the shelf system. It can trounce pretty much any machine in the home computer level. And I didn't have to sell my soul to afford it.

What of the entry-level user who doesn't KNOW how to build a system for him/herself? There are plenty of specialty retailers who'll custom-build you a system tailored to your needs. Companies like Falcon and Alienware don't mess around.

I don't want my computer supplier to be aspiring to be the moneymongering profit-machine that Microsoft is.

I didn't say I wanted that. All I want from the people behind my OS is that they understand that productivityt and ease-of-use come first. Everything else is optional.

The dock looks gorgeous in screenshots, but it's more than a little cumbersome in actual use. Granted, I don't use Macs nearly as often as I use my PC, so maybe I just haven't had enoug time to "get used to it."

I just want them to make the kind of computers that enhance my lifestyle.

Exactly.

Otherwise, I'll go find someone else who does. This is precisely what happened to Apple when Gil Amelio tried to send them down the licensing path. The idea was to make the OS readily available to as much of the overall home computing market as possible.

Jobs refocused Apple on doing what it does best for the kind of customers who appreciate that... and actually listening to what they want and refining it as much as possible. Much of the "bells" and "whistles" of OS X, including the visual ones... most of them have very functional purposes. My question is... has Windows' infamous Mr. Paperclip, master of the ubiquitous, ever done anything other than annoy the living hell out of everyone with his blinding glimpses of the obvious?

I guess I'll chalk this up to personal opinion. The Mac OS, while nice, has never struck me as being as intuitive as its alledged copycat, Windows. I can get by with it, if I have no other choice, but Windows either already has the ideal interface, or allows me to change it just enough to accomodate my habits.

And mentioning Mr. Paperclip was just a cheap shot

1. I never said anything about the top end PCs... but then, since the return of Jobs, Apple doesn't build their brand equity by designing different levels of models with the same features, but varying levels of inferior quality control...

Less features in exchange for a more palatable pricetag does not equal inferior QC. As long as you build every system using the same components, of course.

If they can't throw a DVD-RAM drive in their lowest model, keep it cheap and still maintain a level of quality equal to the more feature-packed models, they won't ,ake the mistake of doing it... because their target audience would shun it.

Same as with the PC market. Not counting independent clone manufacturers, of course. Your guess is as good as mine regarding what you'll get if you buy one of those.

Conversely, if they tried making a compact, unexpandable model and couldn't get the price down to a level respectable for such a moel, they'd eat

 

Jorus: The following is not to grow a Mac-PC debate out of nothing... but mostly just to respond to your concerns....

I think one thing that sums up my opinion is this experience: I had a PC user who was dead set on getting a PC setup for video editing. When I showed her just how impossible it is to get a color match between screen and print on a PC compared to a Mac, that was step 1. Step 2 was showing her, in a matter of less than 5 minutes, how ridiculously easy and intuitive a multiple-monitor system is on a Mac.

There's plenty of ways to Frankenstein your Mac... and I've done a fair bit of tweaking to mine... both system and hardware. But what blew this girl away was when I connected a second monitor to the computer, restarted it without touching the configuration settings at all, and the computer instantly recognized, configured and activated the 2nd monitor into a multiple-screen setup where the 1st monitor acts as the primary, the second is an extension of the same desktop space, instead of being a duplicate image of the first. I can't begin to explain to you the sense of relief on this person's face when they saw how brutally easy this is. I've set up a LAN, and it's just as insanely easy to do that as it is to set up multiple-monitor desktop environments.

As for the applications thing, at last count there are over 2500 applications native to OS X, and a total of 15,000 that will run either in OS X or OS 9 which runs extremely smooth even when in OS X... at least on my 450MHz G4 anyway (which, by today's standards, is an ancient CPU).

I would like to see even better integration between OS 9 and OS X, but I think it's remarkable that they have done everything they could to make the OS backwards-compatible. I have this eerie feeling that if Ballmer and Gates ever tried to compromise the Windows monopoly by making as radical a shift as OS X was for Apple... they'd either fail miserably by not protecting their monopoly, or forge ahead and expect everyone in the market to just surrender to their whim and upgrade everything, no backwards-compatibility scheme offered. I think that's two very possible scenarios of what could go down if Microsoft ever made such a radical shift... of course, they're not idiots.. they let Apple do the innovating, because they do it better, and Microsoft sticks to capitalizing off it by bundling IE 5 and selling their best versions of Office to Apple users first.

And yes, Maya has been out for OS X since Sept. 19, 2001. OS X Photoshop beta was previewed at Macworld... but remember, Adobe are perfectionists. Photoshop is God... given Apple's stringent demands on how many features must be standard on all third-party apps (a quality-control thing that, trust me, makes a huge difference when you're trying to integrate files from different apps)... I'm sure the Adobe team is waiting until they have a substantially robust Photoshop to beat all previous versions before they even put it on the street. That's Adobe for you. However, you want to hear something really bizarre... Photoshop not only runs just as fast in OS 9.2 "Classic" mode on my computer, while OS X is running on top of it... but it actually starts up much faster in Classic mode with 9.2 than when I ran it in 9.1 alone! My Photoshop (v5.5) started up slower after I installed four drive partitions... I think it's because it automatically searches for plug-ins across all four drives. For some reason, though, it runs faster than ever in Classic Mode (v9.2).

The iMac is not the machine for me, because I need the flexibility of the G4 tower... but I've seen a comparison piece for piece that showed you'd have to spend $2200 for an equivalent Dell that compares to the flagship $1799 iMac with the DVD-Superdrive. One of the neatest things is the gyrostatic arm. Don't laugh. I thought this thing looked goofy at first... and I still do. First, it's made entirely out of chrome... and very lightweight, well balanced. The idea was to have the screen "float" in mid-air instead of be attached to some stupi

 

Sheesh, what a wussy PC vs Mac debate. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.