Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?

[The Alma Mater]

Bad design is dirty. One can have a powerful program that isn't user unfriendly. It's been done, it will be done again, Vi, Emacs, and I will easily guess Latex given the Linux fanboy propensity for it, do not meet that standard.

LaTeX is the de facto standard for academic publications for the sciences. Not exactly limited to Linux fanboys
Then again, it is closer to a programming language than to an actual program - you can write LaTeX in notepad if you want

Of course,, the next question becomes " what is bad design" .

[The_pantless_hero]

Bad design is dirty. One can have a powerful program that isn't user unfriendly. It's been done, it will be done again, Vi, Emacs, and I will easily guess Latex given the Linux fanboy propensity for it, do not meet that standard.

LaTeX is the de facto standard for academic publications for the sciences. Not exactly limited to Linux fanboys
Then again, it is closer to a programming language than to an actual program - you can write LaTeX in notepad if you want

Of course,, the next question becomes " what is bad design" .

Design which does not provide easy access to and use of program abilities.

[The Alma Mater]

One cannot see what options a strange program provides without clicking on menus

There is a word... I believe it is " manual" . It has something to do with the "learning curve" mentioned previously.
Since when does vim HAVE clickable menus btw ? I have never seen those...

[Treznor]

Lol, Linux fanboy. I clicked every menu on vi that I pulled up on the Linux box. I don't see anything that significantly surpasses Notepad++ or Crimson. Emacs has more utilities, but it is even more user unfriendly than Vi is.

That's your problem. You're clicking on menus. I get things done a lot faster by running it from the command line, outside of the GUI.

...
One cannot see what options a strange program provides without clicking on menus

Unless, of course, you type :help within the program, or man vi at the command line.

Documentation is so last decade.

[The Tofu Islands]

Vi sucks

I disagree. Modal editing is actually quite useful once you get used to it (I do use vim though, which is slightly different).

the only thing emacs is good for is the built in side by side comparison utilities.

Nah, vim can do that as well.

Vi is great! I use it all the time!

It's a text editor. No computer today, or any made in the past 10 years, is going to run any editor noticeably faster than any other.

I'm pretty sure that UNI was referring to speed as in speed at which you can work, rather than speed at which the editor runs.

Unless you are confusing text editor and word processor.

I doubt that UNI would make that mistake...

I refuse to accept features over user friendliness.

I'm not interested in taking (subjective) "user friendliness" over speed & power.

...
One cannot see what options a strange program provides without clicking on menus

Yes one can.

Code: Select all

:help

Since when does vim HAVE clickable menus btw ? I have never seen those...

GVim has 'em (at least in version 7.{1,2}, which is what I use), it even allows you to create your own in roughly seven eighteen (I just counted...) different ways.

[The_pantless_hero]

I refuse to accept features over user friendliness.

I'm not interested in taking (subjective) "user friendliness" over speed & power.

Wow, it's like talking to Mac fanboys.
POWER AND USER FRIENDLINESS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Damn Linux fanboys.

[The Tofu Islands]

Wow, it's like talking to Mac fanboys.
POWER AND USER FRIENDLINESS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Damn Linux fanboys.

User friendliness is subjective. What you consider user-friendly and what I consider user-friendly are obviously different, since I include vim whereas you don't.

Plus vim runs on both Windows and Macs, so why do you assume I'm a Linux fanboy?

[UNIverseVERSE]

Bad design is dirty. One can have a powerful program that isn't user unfriendly. It's been done, it will be done again, Vi, Emacs, and I will easily guess Latex given the Linux fanboy propensity for it, do not meet that standard.

What, of not being user unfriendly, or of not being powerful? The first is subjective, and the second is flat out false.

I found emacs and LaTeX rather user friendly, as it happens -- certainly, they aren't trivial, but they simply assume the user is an intelligent person who wants to get work done properly and efficiently, and aim to help them in that. As for design, it's excellent -- commands are logically named, keyboard shortcuts sensibly assigned, large numbers of features conveniently accessible but unobtrusive, leaving the vast majority of the screen space for one's work, which is the important bit.

One cannot see what options a strange program provides without clicking on menus

Yes one can. One could, for example, follow the instructions given as the program starts to access the documentation, including quick start guides, more extensive tutorials, and detailed and easily searchable help about any part of it. But I suppose using the logical, well organised, and extensive help system is so much less sensible than clicking around the menus for a bit.

Design which does not provide easy access to and use of program abilities.

In which case emacs is perfect design, as any program ability whatsoever* can be accessed and used with only a few keystrokes. If one happens to be hunting one particular ability, the help system is similarly powerful.

*M-x type-it-in RET, with tab completion etc. Anything at all. Quite a useful feature, really.

[The Alma Mater]

I refuse to accept features over user friendliness.

I'm not interested in taking (subjective) "user friendliness" over speed & power.

Wow, it's like talking to Mac fanboys.
POWER AND USER FRIENDLINESS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Damn Linux fanboys.

"I refuse to read the manual because everything worth something should be immediately obvious and easy to understand without any effort on my part whatsoever" is indeed a very popular mindset. Similar reasoning forms the basis of e.g. young earth creationism, soap operas etc.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Wow, it's like talking to Mac fanboys.
POWER AND USER FRIENDLINESS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Damn Linux fanboys.

User friendliness is subjective. What you consider user-friendly and what I consider user-friendly are obviously different, since I include vim whereas you don't.

Plus vim runs on both Windows and Macs, so why do you assume I'm a Linux fanboy?

That's not true. The task & context of use are far more important.

Although humans have their own individual cognitive resources, they also do share a lot in common.
There are also tons of usability rules which most of us would like.

If usability was a personal matter then software couldn't be assessed as user-friendly by a group of users. By instance, an overwhelming majority feels that a GUI is more user-friendly as a text-only based environment.

[Intangelon]

Why is it that when some decry the cost of a Mac, they fail to include the cost of operation. I've never needed a new sound card, virus subscription, etc. I don't think that makes the costs of Mac v PC equal, but it makes them much closer than the figures some like to bandy about. Especially over time. I've not dropped a dime on my Mac in four years, and it's still doing everything I need and want it to do.

[North SimNewtonia]

If you compare Macs and PC's, I think it is an obvious choice. Macs are really expensive, if you buy a PC that is just as expensive, it will outperform the Mac easily. Most people just think Macs are better because they compare them against cheaper PC's.

Here is just a few reasons why PC's are better:

- Gaming
- 2 mouse buttons
- Broadband works better on PC's
- Better customization
- More companies make PC's, So your not just stuck with one company
- Better media capabilities
- More Freeware
- Pain in the ass to find shit on Macs
- Don't need as much RAM
- PC's are greener


I can go on

PC's aren't greener and how does broadband work better on a PC than on a MAC? that's just stupid...
You can also use a 2 mouse button mouse on a mac.
Mac's r supposed have excellent media capabilities.
Although I agree that Mac's have very limited gaming capabilities unless you get a top of the line one.
Not to mention some little kid in Taiwan in a poisonous factory might have assembled some of the parts in ur CPU...

1. Both would be about the same.
2. Yeah, this is true, just buy a new mouse.
3. Both are probably about the same out of the box.
4. Problem isn't so much the capability, as the variety available (though this is improving for Macs thanks, ironically, to EA).
5. So is your Mac. Most types of modern computer hardware come from a handful of Taiwanese manufacturers - particularly memory and LCD screens. The exceptions are Intel and AMD, who also have factories outside Taiwan.

I don't understand all the complaints about Vista. It isn't half as bad as the first version of Win98 *shudders*... I've personally not seen a BSOD on a computer that was my own (or if it was, that wasn't already on its last legs) since Win 98.

Win7 does look like it'll be better than Vista overall, but I don't think it's going to be the revolution that all the hype is saying it'll be. I say this from experience - I have a vm of Win7 RC on my computer for evaluation purposes.

Long-term, I'll be a Linux user anyway. I already spend most of my time on the computer in that OS.

[Pure Metal]

Why is it that when some decry the cost of a Mac, they fail to include the cost of operation. I've never needed a new sound card, virus subscription, etc. I don't think that makes the costs of Mac v PC equal, but it makes them much closer than the figures some like to bandy about. Especially over time. I've not dropped a dime on my Mac in four years, and it's still doing everything I need and want it to do.

apart from some work-related software (upgrading to Adobe CS4, for eg), i haven't spent a penny on my PC in 2 and a half years either. antivirus, for example, is readily available for free all over the place (Avast, AVG). ditto photo edting (GIMP, Picasa, IrfanView), sound editing (Audacity), anti-malware (Ad-Aware), compression (WinRAR, 7-Zip), graphing and office (Open Office, EDraw), utilities (CCleaner, Glary Utils), PDF writing (goPDF, many more), video editing (Windows Movie Maker (lmao)), media management (WMP), media players (VLC)...

people who spend money on basic software like these on PCs either, a) have a specific need not covered by free software, or b) should get on the internet/read PC magazines more.

worth noting though, a lot of these examples were developed on nix and ported to Windows

i'm not being a Windows fanboy, just i've heard this arguement before and the notion that you'll have to spend a fortune to get your Windows machine up to scratch before you can use it is nonsense. http://gizmodo.com/5220277/cnbc-is-ridi ... l-as-a-mac

I don't understand all the complaints about Vista. It isn't half as bad as the first version of Win98 *shudders*... I've personally not seen a BSOD on a computer that was my own (or if it was, that wasn't already on its last legs) since Win 98.

ditto, though XP gave me the odd one.

[Tiny plaidville]

You people are all stupid!
Linux is king! Its a much smarter and more intuitive product than windows or mac, its free for you to do whatever you like with, there's different versions depending on what you need, where as microsoft has a one size fits all approach.
And importantly, it's so free, you can go and download it off the internet!
Problems are fixed within days by geeks around the world with too much time on their hands.
The problems that plague linux, i.e. software incompatabilities and an undeserved bad reputation are not linux's fault. And plus, there are solutions to work around the software.
But the only problem in my opinion is gamers, who have to pay 5 us bucks to get their games to work. Apart from that, linux has solutions for all your other needs, free of charge. I don't see what the problem is.

All in all, for the smart user, linux is king.

[Hairless Kitten II]

You people are all stupid!
Linux is king! Its a much smarter and more intuitive product than windows or mac, its free for you to do whatever you like with, there's different versions depending on what you need, where as microsoft has a one size fits all approach.
And importantly, it's so free, you can go and download it off the internet!
Problems are fixed within days by geeks around the world with too much time on their hands.
The problems that plague linux, i.e. software incompatabilities and an undeserved bad reputation are not linux's fault. And plus, there are solutions to work around the software.
But the only problem in my opinion is gamers, who have to pay 5 us bucks to get their games to work. Apart from that, linux has solutions for all your other needs, free of charge. I don't see what the problem is.

All in all, for the smart user, linux is king.

"Problems are fixed within days by geeks around the world with too much time on their hands."

If you are lucky. Sometimes they will never be fixed by geeks.

[Intangelon]

You people are all stupid!

...*snip the rest*

Why? Well see, if you start your point off by insulting everyone, you tend to lose your audience. Try not doing that, and I'll bet more people will listen to you.

[Treznor]

You people are all stupid!
Linux is king! Its a much smarter and more intuitive product than windows or mac, its free for you to do whatever you like with, there's different versions depending on what you need, where as microsoft has a one size fits all approach.
And importantly, it's so free, you can go and download it off the internet!
Problems are fixed within days by geeks around the world with too much time on their hands.
The problems that plague linux, i.e. software incompatabilities and an undeserved bad reputation are not linux's fault. And plus, there are solutions to work around the software.
But the only problem in my opinion is gamers, who have to pay 5 us bucks to get their games to work. Apart from that, linux has solutions for all your other needs, free of charge. I don't see what the problem is.

All in all, for the smart user, linux is king.

Mmm...yeah. You can stop helping now.

[Lord Tothe]

Are there any drafting programs for Mac or Linux that can compare with AutoCAD, Solidworks, Chief Architect, Revit, etc. without needing to emulate ur run under the Windows OS?

[Dakini]

Vi sucks and the only thing emacs is good for is the built in side by side comparison utilities.

Both vi and emacs have one thing in common -- they hammer any (every) other editor in terms of features and speed of operation.

It's a text editor. No computer today, or any made in the past 10 years, is going to run any editor noticeably faster than any other. Unless you are confusing text editor and word processor. And Vi looks like it has nothing on either Crimson Editor or Notepad++. Like I said, the only thing Emacs has for it is the ability to compare multiple documents side by side. Otherwise I can't stand using it. I refuse to accept features over user friendliness.

Just get the emacs cheatsheet.

I swear, nothing is more convenient than the rectangle edits.

Oh, and the psychotherapist is good for boredom.

[Dakini]

vi (and Emacs) hammers the programs you gave as examples, in terms of feature set, configurability, extensibility, and speed of use. They do language specific hilighting, integrate with debuggers, connect with shells, interoperate with external programs, feature multiple extension languages, contain comprehensive inbuilt help, etc.

But they have a learning curve. People need to invest time to learn how to use them.
That when one actually can use them they can outperform the competition easily, to that degree that the time "lost" learning how to use them is quickly regained and even becomes neglible by comparison is considered insignificant by many. Cause learning is dirty.

Bad design is dirty. One can have a powerful program that isn't user unfriendly. It's been done, it will be done again, Vi, Emacs, and I will easily guess Latex given the Linux fanboy propensity for it, do not meet that standard.

I find LaTeX is much easier for making documents look "pretty" than word. Word will always have these random little glitches that don't go away and shouldn't be there (plus it lacks the ability to export to .pdf so all your formatting will go to waste when it's sent to a different machine with a different OS or different version of word). In LaTeX, while it might require a bit of time to figure some things out, but once you do, it's much more convenient to make things like bibliographies or to insert figures or completely change the formatting of an entire document than in word (e.g. you don't have to highlight all your text, you just have to change your stylesheet or change a couple of lines in the header and BibTeX is a godsend).

[The_pantless_hero]

"I refuse to read the manual because everything worth something should be immediately obvious and easy to understand without any effort on my part whatsoever" is indeed a very popular mindset. Similar reasoning forms the basis of e.g. young earth creationism, soap operas etc.

So your counter for accusations half-assed design by pretentious asshats is a strawman? Good job.

[The_pantless_hero]

Why is it that when some decry the cost of a Mac, they fail to include the cost of operation. I've never needed a new sound card, virus subscription, etc. I don't think that makes the costs of Mac v PC equal, but it makes them much closer than the figures some like to bandy about. Especially over time. I've not dropped a dime on my Mac in four years, and it's still doing everything I need and want it to do.

1) No one needs a new soundcard, they were always nonrequired upgrades. And didn't they stop being popular 10 years ago?
1a) Never mind the fact that to upgrade a Mac you have to buy overpriced Apple parts AND Apple discourages users from upgrading their Macs.
2) I don't need a virus subscription either. There are at least 3 free antiviruses. And if you arn't an idiot, you can get away with using the free scanners for the big names (they don't charge you to scan, only for protection and removal of less than ohfuckinggodtheworldisdoomed threats, depending on the company)

And no, it doesn't make their costs anywhere closer.

[The_pantless_hero]

I swear, nothing is more convenient than the rectangle edits.

I looked it up and still not sure what this is but I assume it is column editing (as opposed to line editing). Crimson already does this and I don't know if Notepad++ does because I don't ever use it.

[The Alma Mater]

So your counter for accusations half-assed design by pretentious asshats is a strawman? Good job.

No, that was the counter to your claim what "good design" is. Your expectation that one should not need to read a manual or else it is "poorly designed" is silly.

[Dakini]

I swear, nothing is more convenient than the rectangle edits.

I looked it up and still not sure what this is but I assume it is column editing (as opposed to line editing). Crimson already does this and I don't know if Notepad++ does because I don't ever use it.

No, not just column editing (though it can be used for this too), it can be used for column and line editing (like editing in a box). Like I can add a character in each line down a column, I can delete in a rectangle, I can make something like this:

aaa
aaa
aaa
bbb
bbb
bbb

into something like this:

aaa bbb
aaa bbb
aaa bbb

(or vice versa) with relative ease by cutting and pasting the desired parts in a rectangle, I can insert spaces, strings, replace sections, whatever. I know there are a lot of other tricks that I don't know, but this one is pretty useful.