OS X is for girls?

[piratePenguin]

The OS that I wouldn't really use and can't really explain why is OS X. I guess it could be because it's interface is designed for girls imo, probably everything Apple ever produced gets this impression from me, that's what they get for over-designing things. A notable exception to this is the iPhone 4.

I don't think I'm alone as a fella who feels like too much effort at form and simplification isn't that appreciative. I think we want a bit of kludge on a device, and a bit of control over an interface, much different to girls.

Discuss.

(these obviously aren't facts, they're my thoughts, what do you think?)

[piratePenguin]

smooth:


in your face, fucking power design:


I just guess that the Apple design work doesn't appeal to all of us. Sometimes Apple users I talk to completely forget this. I'd be willing to bet that I'm right enough on the (small) boy-girl correlation. Before on different forums I started a poll suggesting gay people are more likely to buy macs, don't take too much from that, but I'd say that correlation is there too. It just means that they care a lot about form and they care a lot about simplicity in form - what Apple produces.

But those of us who dismiss Apples form (I'm also applying this to their OS), are just interested in different form. Better form

This explains why I actually don't think Apples products are much good even after all the other reasons I would never buy from them. That said, there's a blue ipod nano that my brother left in the house while he's travelling, and I use it for running. It looks pretty gay surely, and it has to stay in my shorts, but I don't think it's snappin pictures and sending them home to steve jobs so it's all ok with me.

[Refalm]

The design principles of Apple are that of what started with the washing machine.

That product was the first to use audiences to determine how the interface should look like. Apple's hardware and software I think still holds the conclusions of how a very difficult product like a washing machine can be turned into something that can be used by a housewife.
And because Apple has from the start focused a lot on design, their development took that path.

[hm_murdock]

I personally think that the shift in "design" in Apple has gone from "well-designed" to "stylish design."

The truth is that the swoopy, indulgent and over-the top blue G3 Power Mac from 1999 with its teal and white color scheme and bold "G 3" graphic was better designed than the minimalist Mac Pro. It has something to do with a unique case design that hinges the side down, with the mainboard built into the door so that the entire thing is laid out there ready to service. No side-panels popping off, no removing drive cages. It's just right there. The Mac Pro looks like a nightmare by comparison with everything shoved up inside so as to not interrupt the smooth chiseled lines or whatever.

The OS fortunately has followed a minimum of minimal. Aside from streamlining, OS X has gone through few changes since 2002 when 10.2 was released. As for its "design," it's a combination of NeXTSTEP and pre-System 7 Macintosh. Its appearance keeps getting tweaked, so there isn't much to say about that. Appearance does not equal interface.

But then, I couldn't care less what the box looks like. At one point I used a broken Powerbook from 1996. It had no screen so I had to hook up a monitor to use it. In 2002 my first iMac croaked. Again, dead screen. So I ripped it to shreds and ran the bottom half without the screen, using a VGA monitor plugged into the back. I had to drape a sheet over it for a week to keep dust from getting inside before I finally made a cover for it. How the box looks is immaterial as long as what's inside of it functions properly.

So I'll totally agree that Apple's "design" isn't  for everybody. I'm one of those people. I like the software, but hate the hardware. Leave it to fashion to say that a detailless gray box is stylish and not bland.

[piratePenguin]

The OS fortunately has followed a minimum of minimal. Aside from streamlining, OS X has gone through few changes since 2002 when 10.2 was released. As for its "design," it's a combination of NeXTSTEP and pre-System 7 Macintosh. Its appearance keeps getting tweaked, so there isn't much to say about that. Appearance does not equal interface.

The minimalist Windows, the sliding panels and hanging prompts . . . I don't like these touches, it isn't their appearance (which I don't like), to me they're a farce. Ubuntu doesn't have sliding panels but it has panels to the side, and that subtle touch is one thing that makes the interface a small bit less offensive.

OS X got the usability right, for sure, but that doesn't matter if you understand software. The smooth transitions might be helpful to someone who doesn't understand using a computer, but sometimes it's like the computer has a mind of it's own when I'm looking at it. I wonder if other people get this feeling?

I prefer my Ubuntu where, even though it's very simple (which is good), I don't need to deal with these things. I could possibly get used to them on a mac, but I'd much prefer if I could change the default appearance at least.

[hm_murdock]

There's some parts of it that in 2001 I thought I wouldn't like, I admit. Things like dialog sheets for instance.

But the truth is that they serve a purpose. Note something: Not every dialog is a sheet! Notice! Here is Safari's Preferences dialog...



It's a free-standing window. Modeless, even, because it need have no effect until dismissed. Now observe this! The Airport options sheet in the Network control panel



They show that a dialog is modal, attatching it literally at the titlebar of its parent window. You can't use that window until the sheet has been dismissed!

It's a bit of streamlining in the core UI concept, and it's a good evolution from both Mac OS and NeXTSTEP, as neither of them did that.

[piratePenguin]

It's a bit of streamlining in the core UI concept, and it's a good evolution from both Mac OS and NeXTSTEP, as neither of them did that.

It is exactly what you say, but it isn't attractive to me. When I mess around in my Firefox preferences no gimmicky shit happens. If you change views in your Safari preferences (and I'm sure this applies to Firefox on OS X too) you'll see the window changing sizes. Nice transitions to go with, but I don't need all this to distract my focus. I just want my windows open so I can do my job. Same logic applies to my indifference and dislikeness of the modal popup sliding down. On ubuntu you get a modal or modeless little window - I wouldn't even notice which btw, all I know is I don't need to dick around, and it doesn't dick around with me.

I'll never forget Safari doing some awful things to me when my connection died ANIMATE "we cannot reach this site" retry ANIMATE "we cannot reach this site" ...

It isn't really as frustrating as I'm making it sound, but it is memorable.