Honest question here: Why would anyone ever think OS X has "world-class interface design"?
It's missing basic interface features that have been bog standard in Ubuntu/Windows for years, like any sort of proper window management. Hell, the maximize button actually doesn't work- it has such inconsistent use that you have almost no hope of actually getting what you want out of it. To get even decent window management, you have to buy software off of the app store.
Then, you have the fact taht you still functionally have a folder-based OS, which feels a greater need to present me with buttons to alter the view of a given folder, how icons are arranged, etc- all useful things no doubt, but things you don't change on a per-folder basis that often- while literally not having an "up one level" button. At all. You either have to know the keyboard shortcut, or you have to go to the Go menu. The back button isn't always dependable for this interaction(especially if the finder was just opened), so of course this just screws the whole pooch.
Seriously, the most I can get anyone to offer as to what makes OS X such a great operating system, is that it's Unix with no driver problems. If that's the most we can claim, can we stop acting like the interface design is halfway decent? Windows Vista had better interface design than this. That's just sad.
It is Unix with no driver problems. It is unix with both all free software and all proprietary software (except games). It is unix with a consistent pretty unobtrusive desktop environment that is easy to use and has sane defaults. It is unix with an accelerated window compositor that's always responsive and has no bugs.
Anyway, that was what it was in 10.6. Nowadays Ubuntu does all those things too to a certain extent, and it works without painful maintenance on a desktop machine. (I ran OSX on my desktop for a few years, it was very painful to upgrade, and apparently not in accordance with the EULA)
Still a great laptop OS though. And it runs rather well on macbook pros, which are the superior hardware choice in the laptop market, in my opinion.
Saying it has "no driver issues" is a nonsense claim. What, did they include all possible drivers? Of course not. Instead, they've created a consumption pattern where their customers only buy their products.
I used to disagree with this assessment, but I have been using Linux and Windows these last few years (and trying to make them work and look as similar as possible), and nowadays I tend to agree. The worst thing I can say about Windows is that it lacks a Unix commandline and package manager, but on any decently powerful, modern machine, you can use (VirtualBox+Ubuntu|ElementaryOS)|Cygwin to remedy that for free.
The iPhone is still my favorite phone. But I wouldn't take a Mac OS X box over a Linux box for professional development. That said, my opinion on these things changes constantly, so who knows how I'll feel in a year.
Apple's thoughts on the matter (and on many other matters) is that the user shouldn't ever have to learn to do anything complicated, and rather than risk them not knowing how to do something, they'd rather remove the feature entirely. This is reflected in their window and file management: you get the bare minimum you need to do the job done.
The worst example of where this doesn't help is the Zoom button. Not the maximise button, as it's never been called that, and doesn't actually maximise - it resizes the window to the most useful size. For example, my BBEdit window gets resized to the width of the text, but the height of the screen. Of course, many apps just make it fill the screen (incorrectly), leading to the 'maximise' button instead.
(Also, you can command-click on a window title to get a menu that allows you to go up. Two clicks instead of one, but it's there. This works on folders, files, and URLs)
This is true, and after much frustration I did finally deduce the intended behavior. However, it still isn't quite consistent (or rather, wasn't the last time I worked on a mac, circa 2008) and still seems to be lacking in functionality that the user actually wants.
In all my years of working with text editors, I don't think I've ever found myself thinking "This viewport is too small. I wish I could quickly resize it to just the width of the text, and maybe the height of the screen, or maybe something else, depending on what I'm doing." When my window is too narrow or whatever, I usually just (a) maximize it (which you can't to on osx), (b) dock it to half the screen (windows+left or windows+right on Win7+/*buntu, but not on osx) or (c) just quickly drag it over. So Apple effectively forced us to use only option (c), which is probably the least useful of the three sane options. The only other option is to use a feature that doesn't really do what we (or I, anyhow) want.
> In all my years of working with text editors, I don't think I've ever found myself thinking "This viewport is too small. I wish I could quickly resize it to just the width of the text, and maybe the height of the screen, or maybe something else, depending on what I'm doing." When my window is too narrow or whatever, I usually just (a) maximize it (which you can't to on osx)
I use Sublime Text 2 on OS X. When I click on the zoom button, it maximises the editor window to the entire width and height of the screen.
Mind you, text-editing wasn't the designed-for use-case; document-editing was. Open up Pages.app, if you have it, and create a new blank document. The zoom button will set the window to an optimal size for working on the (fixed-ratio) document page. Same for a canvas in Photoshop.
Amusingly enough, the only things it doesn't really work well for are things that reflow their content arbitrarily to fill the window: text, HTML, and terminals. The three things developers spend all their time looking at!
Anyone frustrated with the same should check out Slate [https://github.com/jigish/slate] which lets you bind key commands to window positioning and sizing and even screen layouts.
"all useful things no doubt, but things you don't change on a per-folder basis that often- while literally not having an "up one level" button. At all."
Add the "path" menu to your Finder window toolbar. You now have access to all parent folders of the current directory in two clicks. It's one of the first tweaks I make setting up a new OSX install. Along with dumping "all my files" from the sidebar and as the new window default.
After using Ubuntu for most of the summer don't get me started on the UI inconsistencies I experienced there. I don't disagree with you that there are things in OSX which also don't make sense, by my overall impression is that the UI of OSX is much more refined than what's available for Linux out of the box. YMMV.
"You either have to know the keyboard shortcut, or you have to go to the Go menu."
As in, yes you can go up a level, but not in the way that many expect, and/or not without switching to the keyboard. Neither of which are marks of amazing interface design... which I think is his point.
As a long time Mac user, I never use the zoom button. It rarely does anything useful. And Finder really needs a Go Up button, as you say. So those are two valid points you raise.
I'll try to explain what I like about the Mac and what bothers me when I use Linux. Since you mentioned window management, I'll focus on that, comparing it to Ubuntu 12.
1. Window resizing in OS X is way nicer. It's actually possible to resize a window with a scrollbar from the lower right (on Ubuntu, the click target is literally one pixel wide). Resizing from the left edge doesn't result in weird tearing and graphics artifacts like it does in Ubuntu and Windows. The command key allows you to drag, resize, and do other interactions with windows without bringing them to the front. OS X also supports centered and fixed-aspect ratio resizing (shift and option keys); if this is possible on Ubuntu I couldn't find it.
2. The way hiding / minimization works in Ubuntu is very confusing to me. There doesn't seem to be a way to show all the minimized windows for an app, except for the weird and jarring Exposé knockoff that you get when you click on one of the icons in the Launcher.
3. Workspaces in OS X are much nicer. To move a window to another workspace in OS X, I just press it against the relevant side of the screen, or swipe up to enter Mission Control and drag it there. On Ubuntu, you can't drag windows to another workspace; you can instead use the context menu or press control-alt-arrow, which causes the window to disappear with no indication of where it went.
4. It's hard to distinguish the foreground window from other windows in Ubuntu. The only thing that seems to change is the titlebar. Even the text selection color is the same for foreground and background windows.
5. Focus stealing issues in Ubuntu are rampant. Click on a slow launching app like LibreWriter; when it finishes launching it will jump in front of the window you are currently using, and steal the keyboard focus. This happens occasionally on OS X and it bugs the hell out of me. I don't think I could stand an OS where that is the default behavior.
There's certainly some places where I find Ubuntu to be nicer, and some places that OS X falls down. My overall impression, though, is that OS X is more polished, and that Ubuntu has more clumsy knock-offs of OS X features.
One problem here is that you can't really compare OSX to Ubuntu because Ubuntu is not a desktop environment. It has a default desktop environment, but it isn't itself one, and you can swap in another effortlessly and there are typically a wealth of customization options. I'm using XFCE, and I can drag windows to other workspaces just like you, don't have the focus stealing issue, etc.
I've also tried Xubuntu (= Ubuntu + xfce) and I preferred it to Ubuntu, although Xubuntu's window resizing is even more busted.
Your post prompted me to give it another try. I found that you can drag windows between workspaces in the "mini workspace viewer" in the upper right, which is definitely an improvement over Ubuntu. However, you can't move them by simply pressing the windows against the side of the screen.
The focus stealing issues are the same as in Ubuntu. Start launching an app and switch to another window; the app will jump in front when it's done launching. Argh!
In XFCE, you can move windows by pressing them against the side of the screen. Go to Settings, WindowManager, Advanced. Click "Wrap workspaces when dragging..." and choose your desired edge resistance.
However, I prefer to re-map CapsLock to <Hyper>, and define <SHIFT>-<HYPER>-Up to move window to workspace up, and so on.
Hmm...I found the setting and it sure looks promising. I can switch between workspaces by moving the mouse cursor, as long as I am not dragging a window. If I am dragging a window then it refuses to switch.
>Start launching an app and switch to another window; the app will jump in front when it's done launching. Argh! //
In common it seems with most features of the UI KDE has a setting for that!
It's in the settings with the "focus policy" slider (click at one end, hover at the other) labelled as "focus stealing prevention". IIRC it was in KDE3 too.
XFCE and Unity both allow you to move/resize windows without using the title bar or the ridiculously small drag handles. Both of them support alt-click+drag for moving windows from any point inside, and also resizing from the edge/corner nearest to where you click using alt-middleclick+drag (Unity) or alt-rightclick+drag (XFCE). I've rebound Unity's to use the right button as well, for consistency.
I can't speak for other DE/WMs, but I didn't want to leave someone suffering the pain of trying to resize using the corner/edge drag handles - they really are unacceptably small.
Edit: I can also add that clicking on the workspace switcher or pressing Super/Windows+s in Unity brings up a screen that lets you drag windows between viewports. I'm sure it's not what you're used to, but I find it to be sufficient.
Regarding #1 on your list, no other OS I've used requires precise window resizing. For a vast majority of programs I use, I want them to be fullscreen or half the window. Ubuntu allows you to easily drag to a side to full/half-screen things.
#3. When I do ctrl-alt-left/right/up/down, it moves the workspace with me, so you retain focus on the window the whole time, plus it shows a brief display and arrow showing the window moving. It might still be weird to use hotkeys, but I definitely know where the window went at all times.
To go up one level press Command and click on the title bar. Pretty standard metaphor across the OS. Or alternatively if you are drilling back and forth through the folder hierarchy then switch to Column View.
And if you actually think that Ubuntu's woeful file manager is anyway comparable to OSX Finder then I really can't help you.
What exactly do you need your file manager to do? All I need is some handy buttons and icons to click in order to move around easily. Nautilus even has the ability to go directly to a specific directory by typing it out (with tab completion) and supports browsing remote file systems through a variety of protocols. I recognize my needs are different from the average user's (I actually mostly just use the terminal and xdg-open instead of a file manager). But what features in particular do you think Nautilus is missing?
> while literally not having an "up one level" button
Huh. I have honestly never taken notice that the OS X Finder lacks an 'up one level' button, and I've been on board since 10.0. I guess it's because I have used column view exclusively since day 1, so I just scroll left to see the entire hierarchy, and can one click to almost anywhere off the $PWD.
Icon and list views are awful - I was glad to leave them behind with Mac OS 9 (which also did not have an 'up one level' button, now that I think about it)..
It's the hardware and the fact that it's Unix. Seriously, the Macbook Pro is a beautifully designed machine. The only things that could compete with it would be similarly priced Thinkpads etc, but you have to install and customize your OS on them.
I agree that the OS X interface is overhyped but most of the problems you mention can be fixed in a couple of minutes. I use a free window manager to do basic manipulation and enabling the folder hierarchy view in Finder offers a better solution than the up-button. These are insignificant tweaks compared to what one would need to get a Linux desktop set up just so (although that has gotten easy enough to the point that it isn't a big deal for slightly technically literate users, but I still wouldn't install Ubuntu on my parents' notebook).
But underneath the interface is good old BSD-flavored Unix. Macports is an okay solution for package management. That combined with iterm and vim is all I care about - all running on rock solid hardware.
> Macports is an okay solution for package management.
People give macports a hard time, but I've never been sure why. It does binary or source distribution. It finds and fixes broken library linkage after upgrades. You can prune your install tree easily with the leaves target. All the functions are under one command, and it comes with a clear and concise manpage. I've used ports, pkgsrc, apt and rpm, and am generally very happy with macports in comparison, especially since default binary installs..
Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything - your opinion is your opinion. Besides, even if OS X users don't like macports for package management they can always use homebrew (or fink, I guess).
> it has such inconsistent use that you have almost no hope of actually getting what you want out of it
I disagree wholeheartedly. It does everything I want and I get out of OS X exactly what I want - namely, it gets out of the way. It's uncluttered and I don't have anything distracting me. All I see on my desktop is my currently running application and the dock (with icons set to tiny). I don't want system profiling tools flashing and dancing away. I know if my system isn't performing at its peak - it runs slowly.
You say it's inconsistent - I couldn't disagree more with this. It's absolutely consistent. I have never been caught out with unexpected behaviour because it just doesn't happen. There is so little to the UI that it couldn't possibly be inconsistent.
Great points. OS X default window management is definitely lacking in some respects. However, as mentioned by others, you can fill the gaps with a few free and cheap apps (e.g. TotalFinder, TotalSpaces, Moom, Witch, Alfred). Those combined add most of the lacking features plus the additional power of flexible spaces and quick keyboard fuzzy-searching.
Though I agree with the idea of your post, in case you weren't aware, pressing Shift while clicking the maximize button causes a Windows-style maximize that fills the screen.
For me, the algorithm is too opaque and the results too inconsistent across apps to reason about. You could say, "This is consistent behavior, it sends off a request to mechanical turk for the optimal dimensions then resizes the window when the job is done." And you'd be right that the behavior would be universal, but it's not universal in the sense of consistency where the user will be able to guess what is going to happen if they press a button, and additionally want the result that they get.
Because i comes with almost everithin we need to develop out of the box . Also rock solid systrm. And if you got sone problem and inst at a google search of beign solved . Then just go to the apple store and get help. I never needed te second one
I guess it because, quite many people can rely on Mac or Windows for their daily work. All required things have pretty polished interface where as Linux distros have getting better, but there are still lot of unpolished, or missing interfaces.
With Windows there is too much and ugly chrome around everything, slow and buggy views.
Apple's view on the maximize button is that it should maximize the window to the width of the available content, and not to the screen. Today lot of the widescreen resolutions and screensizes are much bigger, so doesn't necessarily make sense to maximize every app. It's designed that way, even you might disagree.
So what's the excuse for no decent window management, then? That even despite making 27" displays, and not letting us maximize a program, they want us to only use one program at a time?
It's missing basic interface features that have been bog standard in Ubuntu/Windows for years, like any sort of proper window management. Hell, the maximize button actually doesn't work- it has such inconsistent use that you have almost no hope of actually getting what you want out of it. To get even decent window management, you have to buy software off of the app store.
Then, you have the fact taht you still functionally have a folder-based OS, which feels a greater need to present me with buttons to alter the view of a given folder, how icons are arranged, etc- all useful things no doubt, but things you don't change on a per-folder basis that often- while literally not having an "up one level" button. At all. You either have to know the keyboard shortcut, or you have to go to the Go menu. The back button isn't always dependable for this interaction(especially if the finder was just opened), so of course this just screws the whole pooch.
Seriously, the most I can get anyone to offer as to what makes OS X such a great operating system, is that it's Unix with no driver problems. If that's the most we can claim, can we stop acting like the interface design is halfway decent? Windows Vista had better interface design than this. That's just sad.