| >> |
07/06/11(Wed)07:21:00 No.339054539>>339052086
>>By
your standards, I have tried to learn to like every version of the
Windows UI since 2.0/NT 3.51 and so far it has just made me want to not
use Windows.
>Personal bias is your restricting factor.
And you have no bias, right? Heh..
The
Windows UI is shitty and clunky, if you can't see that you may just
have gotten so used to it that you don't see all the issues it has.
>>Actually,
when looking at research into user interfaces and
man-machine-interfaces Mac OS X has generally been closer to the
"optimal" choices than other operating systems (MS have never been very
good at this, they're good at "good enough" and not changing things too
much)
>First, I feel it necessary to
put forth the point that most anyone who knows their ass from their
elbows when it comes to computers can make a PC have the exact same
desktop/shell UI as a Mac, or even install OSX on non-apple hardware.
No
they can't, if you think so then you are clearly blind or retarded.
There are plenty of "ZOMG IT LOOKS JUST LIEK TEH MACOXS!!1" skins for a
variety of operating systems and window managers, but none of these
actually replicate the UI, they just make it look like OS X at first
glance (there used to be an Amiga Workbench WM for X a long time ago
which had the same issue, if you walked by a machine running it while
"idling" at the desktop it looked like workbench but even 20 seconds of
using it and it was painfully obvious it wasn't workbench).
>Second,
you're arguing with a PC enthusiast, not a
computer-illiterate-douchebag. When it comes down to usability and ease
of use in the man-machine-interfaces debate, your point is rendered
missingno.
You sure seem computer illiterate. Although by
your standards I'm sure you think you're "1337". Usability and ease of
use should be important to anyone with a brain, only teenage g4m3rz who
think they're über1337 h4ck3rz think it's a good thing to have an
environment which is hard to use.... |
