What separates a Mac from a PC?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

If you understood how harddrives work, even mechanically (ignoring the filesystems),

Presumably, the filesystem used will have some effect on the severity of fragmentation.

Nuff said.

Again, this is complete bull and completely unrelated to Fitts' Law. Read the damn law for yourself, it simply gives the average time to move the cursor to an area on the screen. And seeing as the mouse cursor is most frequently near the MIDDLE of the screen, Fitts' law states that having it far-and-away at the very top of the screen will have higher access times.

You have a lower probability of missing something if it is at the edge of the screen (esp in the corner). This is really just common sense rather than a major league technical issue. I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone who professes to be all knowing about computers.


[/QUOTE]Why don't we just rebuild our car engines every two to three years, too? [/QUOTE]

If it didn't waste any more time or resources we would.

Nuff said.

It's so blatantly obvious to anyone who understands how harddrive works, that it's hard to find links which prove that defragmentation is needed on OS X.

Apparently it isn't blatantly obvious to everyone but you.

It's hard to "prove" online

Nuff said.

Yawn.... I think I'll find a more interesting debate. After all you'd argue that black was white if Microsoft put out a press release saying that it was.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Presumably, the filesystem used will have some effect on the severity of fragmentation.

Nuff said.

Presumably, if I jump high enough, I could land on the moon.

Nuff said.

You have a lower probability of missing...

What do you find so hard to read about Fitts' law?

Fitts' law says nothing about probability, nor absolute screen location.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone who professes to be all knowing about computers.

You have to explain your reasoning to me, because it's completely unrelated to Fitts' law, but you keep saying it's a corrolary for Fitts' law, which is nothing short of laughable.

If it didn't waste any more time or resources we would.

Nuff said.

And it doesn't waste more time and resources to install all your programs again? Restore data from backups?

Apparently it isn't blatantly obvious to everyone but you.

Most people probably agree with me, amazingly the people who don't are the guy who copy/pastes from an Apple marketing website for "proof" of things and talked out of his ass for Bluetooth crap, and you (which I don't think I need to explain).

Yawn.... I think I'll find a more interesting debate.

Try looking for one where:
1) You have at least some clue what you're talking about
2) You argue with people who won't tear apart your arguments bit by bit for the pure enjoyment of humiliating you, even though you haven't a clue how badly your ass was just handed to you

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You argue with people who won't tear apart your arguments bit by bit for the pure enjoyment of humiliating you, even though you haven't a clue how badly your ass was just handed to you

Well it is you who has been humiliated. From asktog.com

Remember that Fitts's Law states that access time is a function of distance and target size. If the target size is larger, then the time is reduced. It is reduced for a simple reason: the user need not slow down when approaching the target for fear of overshooting.

Now consider the screen edge. How deep is the target? If it were really only the one pixel it appears, it would be very hard to hit. However, the screen edge is, for all practical purposes, infinitely deep. It doesn't matter how fast that mouse is going when it hits the screen edge, that pointer absolutely will not overshoot. Having to hit a pixel two pixels in from the screen edge takes much longer than hitting the edge itself. Use that edge. It is your friend.

Here's your ass.

[Agathon]

The silence is deafening....

[Boris Godunov]

3 minutes, ooooh. You are aware of the concept of a message forum vs. instant chat, aren't you?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well it is you who has been humiliated. From asktog.com

That's someone's interpretation of Fitts' Law, but it's by no means Fitts' Law, and I would disagree with it.

And seeing as Bruce Tognazzini worked for Apple for 14 years, and actually was the guy who decided to put the menu-bar at the top, I'm going to just remark how convenient his interpretation is.

[Zero]

OMG guys... this is incredible.

This whole argument is actually getting interesting though (just to see how long it will go)

[Zero]

We need a What separates a Mac from a PC? Part II very soon too!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


3 minutes, ooooh. You are aware of the concept of a message forum vs. instant chat, aren't you?

I have 4 MSN windows open, one of which with a very important boy, he's taking a back seat as far as my priorities go.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

That's someone's interpretation of Fitts' Law, but it's by no means Fitts' Law, and I would disagree with it.

It's an instance of Fitts' Law, when it is applied to a plane with edges. Or do you think that interface designers habitually design for screens of infinite height and width?

If you can't distinguish between an instance and an interpretation then there isn't much hope for you. It's a simple point - areas at the edge and corners of the screen are easier to capture. You can call it whatever you like, it's still a fact.

And slagging the guy's point because he worked for Apple is simply absurd. And for the record he doesn't like the Dock either, so it isn't as if he's a fanatic like you.

Just admit you were wrong on this one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Calc II
We need a What separates a Mac from a PC? Part II very soon too!

I hope not.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I first read this as "What separates a man from his PC?" and I thought "Dammit has interactive porn come down to this...?"

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's an instance of Fitts' Law, when it is applied to a plane with edges. Or do you think that interface designers habitually design for screens of infinite height and width?

If you can't distinguish between an instance and an interpretation then there isn't much hope for you. It's a simple point - areas at the edge and corners of the screen are easier to capture. You can call it whatever you like, it's still a fact.

And slagging the guy's point because he worked for Apple is simply absurd. And for the record he doesn't like the Dock either, so it isn't as if he's a fanatic like you.

That's because he designed the Mac Classic interface, duh. He's proud of his work, not OS X.

Just admit you were wrong on this one.

I'm not wrong on this one. I just took a ****ing class on it -- Fitts' Law has absolutely nothing to do with what Bruce was implying. He's saying that it takes longer because of overshoots, and therefore BY Fitts' Law, it's more efficient to have a single menubar.

But it's an incredibly naive and short-thought statement.

#1) When the small window has the menubar near the center of the screen, where the mouse cursor usually is, it takes far longer to navigate to the top of the screen to access the menu bar (and, by Fitts' Law, it has longer access time -- also by common sense, mind you)
#2) When you're multi-tasking, in Windows with the bar on each window, you can simply click that menu right away. Oh the Mac, you need to go click on the window, and THEN go click on the top menu bar. Again, length is longer, and again, by Fitts' law, access time is longer.

MS claims their OS is considers Fitts' law, and so does the guy who designed MacOS' original UI with the menubar. Go figure that they disagree.

Unfortunately for Bruce, he's in a very small minority.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher


I'm not wrong on this one. I just took a ****ing class on it -- Fitts' Law has absolutely nothing to do with what Bruce was implying. He's saying that it takes longer because of overshoots, and therefore BY Fitts' Law, it's more efficient to have a single menubar.

If you read it carefully he is saying that overshoots are one reason, not the only reason. He's claiming here that the edges and corner of the screen are easier to capture. That's what I claimed and it's a fact.

And you are still wrong. You said it wasn't an instance of the law when it patently is, unless you don't understand the meaning of the term "instance".

#1) When the small window has the menubar near the center of the screen, where the mouse cursor usually is, it takes far longer to navigate to the top of the screen to access the menu bar (and, by Fitts' Law, it has longer access time -- also by common sense, mind you)

In practice it is easier to capture stuff at the corner and edges of the screen. In fact the benefits of being at the edge of the screen are so good that it outweighs the distance. In fact I just tested this myself - it's much quicker.

#2) When you're multi-tasking, in Windows with the bar on each window, you can simply click that menu right away. Oh the Mac, you need to go click on the window, and THEN go click on the top menu bar. Again, length is longer, and again, by Fitts' law, access time is longer.

We've already discussed this some pages back and I've told you why this isn't a problem in practice, given that for most people accessing menus within one application is a more frequent occurrence than accessing them across apps. Again this is just common sense.

MS claims their OS is considers Fitts' law, and so does the guy who designed MacOS' original UI with the menubar. Go figure that they disagree.

This week MS considers it innovative to have a screen with movie-like dimensions and to have transparent windows. Old news....

Oh and did you check out "Athens"? There's a mac ripoff if ever I saw one. They even ripped off the Aqua desktop picture.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
If you read it carefully he is saying that overshoots are one reason, not the only reason. He's claiming here that the edges and corner of the screen are easier to capture. That's what I claimed and it's a fact.

Still has absolutely nothing to do with the law, if you actually read the damn thing.

And you are still wrong. You said it wasn't an instance of the law when it patently is, unless you don't understand the meaning of the term "instance".

Strawman once again from Agathon.
I said it's not the law, and it's not. It's an INTERPRETATION of the law, a very liberal interpretation at that. And you don't think it's a bit odd that he's also the guy that designed the original MacOS GUI with the single menubar at the top? Jeez.

In practice it is easier to capture stuff at the corner and edges of the screen. In fact the benefits of being at the edge of the screen are so good that it outweighs the distance. In fact I just tested this myself - it's much quicker.

No matter how many times you say this, it doesn't change the law to say that. The law doesn't say that, the law has never said it. Bruce used the law because he claims overshoots increase distance, which by the law, mean the access time is higher. He conveniently ignores everything else about the single-menu-bar-at-top design which makes the access times longer in the process.

Again, you don't understand the law. The law is a simple mathematical law to determine average access time. It says nothing about "probabilities", or "screen edges being easier to find", or anything like that. That's all people's extensions and opinions which they believe affects the "distance" variable only.

We've already discussed this some pages back and I've told you why this isn't a problem in practice, given that for most people accessing menus within one application is a more frequent occurrence than accessing them across apps. Again this is just common sense.

Again, that avoids the issue. I multitask a helluva lot, for one. And another thing: that doesn't change the fact that the "distance" variable is a helluva lot longer for that.

This week MS considers it innovative to have a screen with movie-like dimensions and to have transparent windows. Old news....

Windows has had transparant windows forever...you completely missed the point, and the importance, of that demonstration.

Oh and did you check out "Athens"? There's a mac ripoff if ever I saw one. They even ripped off the Aqua desktop picture.

How is it a Mac ripoff?

Because it has a widescreen LCD? For your info, that's a 120dpi LCD -- way higher than Apple's Cinema Screens.
If you'll notice, the PC is encased in a mini-tower.

I especially love everyone claiming the new Windows GUI is an Apple ripoff, considering no other OS interface has ever been done like it before.

Once Apple renders the desktop as a 3D scene, let me know.

If anything, Apple will be ripping off MS with it with OS 11 or something.

[The Vagabond]

Agathon and Asher, your dialog is usually far more exciting when you discuss philosophy.

[Asher]

One more thing: If you're such an ardent supporter for Fitts' law, how come you also make fun of XP's Luna for having large default buttons?

Don't you know they did that because of Fitts' law?

Or do Mac users only use Fitts' law when they misinterpret it and twist it around to make the single-menu-bar-at-the-top sound like a good idea.

Why do you think no other desktop does something that stupid?

The only reason the Mac still has it is Mac users are used to it. It was a stupid design then, it's a stupid design now. By Fitts' law, access times are higher. The only advantage is saving screen realestate, but seeing as the things are like 15px high and resolutions are 1024x768 or higher, it's a non-issue. It's a relic from a time when resolutions were pathetically small, and I think it's about time Mac users admitted it and sought something more functional.