Announcement

**Asher** · May 8, 2003, 15:19

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes it is. A dock ready application can display that sort of information in the dock icon. For example, the Mail icon tells me how many unread mail messages I have and Aquisition tells me when a download is completed. Photoshop's icon has a progress bar to tell you how far along it is. You can also download docklings that tell you the weather, etc.

Why bother having a separate icon when one will do everything? It's a waste of space. Or don't you understand the concept of "a waste of space"?

Apparently you don't understand the concept of "waste of space" either, since the dock is the one wasting the space. All of those applications I seldom use but need to have running that I mentioned take up precisely 0% of my screen realestate unless I click the arrow to display them. Under OS X, space is wasted since they show up on the dock just like everything else.

Further, it's not a separate icon, programs can either run with a tray icon and a taskbar entry, or just a taskbar entry, or just a tray icon.

If you actually took the time to think about it, you'd see not only does this save space, but it intuitively makes sense since tray icons are more or less background tasks that are accessed far less frequently.

You sound like a guy who wants two light switches. One for on and one for off.

The problem with this, of course, is it should not be a simple "on/off" functionality that Apple dumbs it down to. This is part of the reason Apple can't allow multiple instances of a program, which is another reason why it's a bad design.

And both Drake and I have clarified to you that one would have to be a visually impaired idiot to be confused in this situation. You still don't get it after all this time and still say it's confusing. It isn't at all, unless you are an idiot.

It may not be totally confusing, but it's certainly more confusing than how Windows has it set up. It certainly doesn't make any more sense, and it certainly does restrict computer operation since it dumbs down program launches to simple on/off switches and prevents you from having a Tray-like system for background programs...

A computer is a tool, not an end in itself.

Explain this relevance to me, please?
Computer scientists do far more for the people of this world than a modern philosophy major, especially one who so obviously has trouble thinking about things.

I don't use it but it works just fine.

It doesn't even have filetransfer capabilities.

Because there is no need for it. The uses you mentioned just aren't needed.

But there IS a need for it. What if I wanted to run two different scientific algorithm programs on two different datasets? I'd need to go out of my way to make the program an MDI, set up complicated threading systems, etc. That's just really, really stupid. I should be able to launch the program twice and tell each one to work on different datasets.

Presumably, Windows doesn't allow functionality for useless things.

Huh?

Why don't you just admit that you don't know how to use the OS X interface properly?

I know how to use it properly, I know how to use both interfaces properly. Apparently you don't understand much at all of how the Windows one works, however.

You've accused it of not having functions that it patently has.

Like what? Running multiple instances of a program? Having a "show desktop"/minimize all function? Having clear descriptive text next to icons on the dock? Having a nice list of windows open rather than just programs running? Having a keyboard navigation tool that previews the window you're about to switch the focus to?

OS X doesn't have any of that, and you've ignored it and had the balls to say it does have them in some umbrella statement.

In fact you can navigate through the dock just like the Windows taskbar if you want, but that option is for users with disabilties which pretty much tells you all you need to know about the Windows interface.

Really?
That's really interesting, I didn't know that.
So please attach screenshots of the following if it truly behaves like the Windows taskbar:

**tinyp3nis** · May 8, 2003, 16:10

Just out of curiosity, does this dock thing list the ones running separate from the other programs? If yes, then I guess it's ok, but it doesn't make it usefull, just ok.

**Agathon** · May 8, 2003, 18:41

Originally posted by Asher

Apparently you don't understand the concept of "waste of space" either, since the dock is the one wasting the space.

I've already told you that I and most other users run the dock in hidden mode. Therefore on my system it takes up precisely no screen real estate unless I need to use it. You can't ask for more.

Further, it's not a separate icon, programs can either run with a tray icon and a taskbar entry, or just a taskbar entry, or just a tray icon.

So what, there's still no point in having two spaces when one will do the job.

If you actually took the time to think about it, you'd see not only does this save space, but it intuitively makes sense since tray icons are more or less background tasks that are accessed far less frequently.

In OS X such icons exist and they are, as I told you before, in the menubar next to the clock. I have display settings, chat, ethernet and weather programs running. I could put these in the dock if I wanted, but it is more convenient to have them in the menubar. Windows can't do this since the tray and quicklaunch are both in the taskbar.

The problem with this, of course, is it should not be a simple "on/off" functionality that Apple dumbs it down to. This is part of the reason Apple can't allow multiple instances of a program, which is another reason why it's a bad design.

I don't get this. Either an application is running or it isn't. Apple isn't dumbing it down at all, they are merely, like the rest of humanity, responding to the fact that if an app is closed it isn't running.

It may not be totally confusing, but it's certainly more confusing than how Windows has it set up. It certainly doesn't make any more sense, and it certainly does restrict computer operation since it dumbs down program launches to simple on/off switches and prevents you from having a Tray-like system for background programs...

It makes much more sense to have everything run through one icon than through more than one since only one is really needed. Or should I have five different icons for no reason?

Computer scientists do far more for the people of this world than a modern philosophy major, especially one who so obviously has trouble thinking about things.

Just because you are losing.

Computers are instruments for performing certain tasks. The things computer companies create have only instrumental value. For example a computer might help someone to write a book - you guys just make tools to make people to make more important things.

It doesn't even have filetransfer capabilities.

Oh, I'm sure they'll get around to it. Hardly the most important thing, though, is it?

But there IS a need for it. What if I wanted to run two different scientific algorithm programs on two different datasets?

Then you'd buy a program that can do two at once. That's the sensible solution.

Huh?

Ha - too subtle for you.

I know how to use it properly, I know how to use both interfaces properly.

Then why have you persisted saying that the dock can't do things that the taskbar can, when it is patently obvious that it can do them?

Like what? Running multiple instances of a program? Having a "show desktop"/minimize all function?

I think there is an option to do that, though I haven't used it.

Having clear descriptive text next to icons on the dock?

Here you are again harping on about the same thing. You can move your cursor over them if you are too dumb to know what they are, but in most cases it's patently obvious.

Having a nice list of windows open rather than just programs running?

Again OS X has this and you can customize it so as to increase the usability of it, even though there is no need.

Having a keyboard navigation tool that previews the window you're about to switch the focus to?

I've no idea what this is, but the dock shows thumbnails of each minimized window.

OS X doesn't have any of that, and you've ignored it and had the balls to say it does have them in some umbrella statement.

I haven't said that it is the same as the taskbar, though I have said that it has the same functionality.

**Agathon** · May 8, 2003, 18:48

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Just out of curiosity, does this dock thing list the ones running separate from the other programs? If yes, then I guess it's ok, but it doesn't make it usefull, just ok.

The programs running have an indicator on their icon. I'd like to see Apple give an option to make this a bit bigger but it works fine in practice.

Basically the dock makes everything revolve around one icon. It's useful because it's a space saver. It hasn't really reached its potential yet. Perhaps someone will release a program to enable you to customize dock menus, or Apple will expand the dock preference pane. I wouldn't complain if either of these happened.

Look, this is all a storm in a teacup. Like Drake said, you get used to it fairly quickly and I personally find it very useful.

**Asher** · May 8, 2003, 18:57

Originally posted by Agathon
I've already told you that I and most other users run the dock in hidden mode. Therefore on my system it takes up precisely no screen real estate unless I need to use it. You can't ask for more.

It's still different -- it clutters the dock with inactive things you rarely use. Even if the dock is hidden, when you show it you've got lots of useless **** on it.

So what, there's still no point in having two spaces when one will do the job.

Why not have one single space organized so the running programs are on one side and un-launched on the other?

In OS X such icons exist and they are, as I told you before, in the menubar next to the clock. I have display settings, chat, ethernet and weather programs running. I could put these in the dock if I wanted, but it is more convenient to have them in the menubar. Windows can't do this since the tray and quicklaunch are both in the taskbar.

Why do you think Windows can't do that? I don't understand. You could very easily put them all into a menubar...

I don't get this. Either an application is running or it isn't. Apple isn't dumbing it down at all, they are merely, like the rest of humanity, responding to the fact that if an app is closed it isn't running.

Dear God Agathon, using a Mac has damaged your ability to reason with computers.
On OS X, an App is running or it's not. On virtually every other operating system in existance, programs can run multiple times. This is because it makes no sense to restrict you to one instance at a time, like Apple has chosen to do.

It makes much more sense to have everything run through one icon than through more than one since only one is really needed. Or should I have five different icons for no reason?

Ah, but you see, Windows lets you do both!
I personally think it makes much more sense to have a list of windows in the taskbar rather than just programs. But if you set the grouping threshold in WinXP to "1", it'll behave just like OS X in that it'll show the program, and when you click it, it lists the windows it has open. It just requires more clicks and is less efficient.

Computers are instruments for performing certain tasks. The things computer companies create have only instrumental value. For example a computer might help someone to write a book - you guys just make tools to make people to make more important things.

Which therefore makes the computers important things, don't you think?

Oh, I'm sure they'll get around to it. Hardly the most important thing, though, is it?

You said it works just fine. An IM client w/o file transfer capability certainly doesn't work just fine in my books.

Then you'd buy a program that can do two at once. That's the sensible solution.

Why is that sensible? I'd need to develop a needlessly complex program (and one that is more inefficient). The two simulations I'm running are entirely independent, why must I link them together under the same program? What if the program crashes, now I just lost both of my datasets rather than just one?

It makes much more sense to act like all other OSes and allow multiple instances. You can't win this argument, Agathon, you can only try to rationalize Apple's decision by saying "well you can develop it to use an MDI, who cares if it costs more and is much more complex??", but that's skirting around the issue.

Ha - too subtle for you.

Not subtle, it was nonsensical. Even you have no idea what you said, it seems.

I think there is an option to do that, though I haven't used it.

There's not, as far as I know and my mac-user friend knows.

Here you are again harping on about the same thing. You can move your cursor over them if you are too dumb to know what they are, but in most cases it's patently obvious.

It doesn't matter -- you can get ToolTip text in Windows like that too. It's just needless, extra steps that don't make any sense from an efficiency and functionality POV.

Again, an example is how easy it is in Windows to switch between multiple Trillian conversations when all the windows show up labeled in your taskbar, versus how rather painful it is under OS X because it requires so many clicks. And what if I wanted to get the desktop? How many clicks does it take to minimize all those?

Again OS X has this and you can customize it so as to increase the usability of it, even though there is no need.

Are you sure?
Can you attach a screenshot of the dock showing all windows running rather than programs? If so, is it at all useful in that it tells you what the window title is without having to mouse-over to check?

I haven't said that it is the same as the taskbar, though I have said that it has the same functionality.

It clearly doesn't.

You can control itunes from its dock icon.

How? Yet another right-click on it? Jeez.

The display thing sounds nice, but it seems a pointless piece of eyecandy.

It's not pointless, it's a very nice touch. When WMP switches to the next song, this little billboard type thing slights up (never stealing focus), and says the Artist, Album, and Song of the next song playing, then slides back down again. You can disable it, of course.

If there's a point here it is that itunes should have more functionality from the dock, but that's a problem with Itunes rather than the dock since it can be done.

Are you sure the dock can have buttons in each dockling? This is an honest question. I've just never seen one like that before.

I've got no idea what Samurize is so I have no idea.

I just told you what it did...

On OS X you either look in the dock or use the program icon. Presumably this is similar to Windows organising open windows by type.

The dock lists active programs, not windows. Do you comprehend the difference or not?

I don't know about the rest, but you can connect to ftp in the Finder. There's also a search field in every Finder window should you desire one.

This isn't the same thing. In Explorer I can type in a http/ftp address and it'll convert to IE and open the page, and in IE I can type in a filepath and it'll convert to Explorer.

I'm talking about having a convenient address bar on the taskbar.

The start menu is a piece of junk. In OS X the Apple Menu controls some of them, the dock the rest. You can create your own menu folder and open it the same way the start menu works for apps in Windows.

The Start Panel in XP is great for the apps I don't launch very often. It's also very handy how it has shortcuts to My Music, My Pictures, My Documents, and the 10 most-run programs all on the panel.

**Zylka** · May 8, 2003, 18:58

Oh guys... come on now, honestly

**Asher** · May 8, 2003, 19:01

Originally posted by Zylka
Oh guys... come on now, honestly

This is what Agathon does for a living.

**Zylka** · May 8, 2003, 19:16

I don't know if that was meant in a literal sense, but some degree of explanation is needed so that someone can be shot in the face with rubber ammo

**Agathon** · May 8, 2003, 19:37

This is getting boring.... you still seem unable to accept the idea that some people find OS X easier to use.

Originally posted by Asher

I personally think it makes much more sense to have a list of windows in the taskbar rather than just programs. But if you set the grouping threshold in WinXP to "1", it'll behave just like OS X in that it'll show the program, and when you click it, it lists the windows it has open. It just requires more clicks and is less efficient.

How is one click less efficient?

Which therefore makes the computers important things, don't you think?

I didn't say they weren't, just that they are less valuable than the products we make with them.

Why is that sensible? I'd need to develop a needlessly complex program (and one that is more inefficient). The two simulations I'm running are entirely independent, why must I link them together under the same program? What if the program crashes, now I just lost both of my datasets rather than just one?

I still don't see the point of this. Why should I bother running photoshop twice when once is enough.

Not subtle, it was nonsensical. Even you have no idea what you said, it seems.

Nah.

Again, an example is how easy it is in Windows to switch between multiple Trillian conversations when all the windows show up labeled in your taskbar, versus how rather painful it is under OS X because it requires so many clicks.

It requires one click to maximize a window from the dock and one and a run up the dock menu to access it if you have too many windows open.

And what if I wanted to get the desktop? How many clicks does it take to minimize all those?

Uh... "Hide all"? Or "Hide others".

Can you attach a screenshot of the dock showing all windows running rather than programs? If so, is it at all useful in that it tells you what the window title is without having to mouse-over to check?

I already posted a picture of what I was talking about. If you click on the program icon it gives you a list of Windows and indicates which one is frontmost (I don't know if Windows does this - I read somewhere that it doesn't, which can lead to minimizing the window you want to get at).

It's not pointless, it's a very nice touch.

So it's pointless when Apple does something like this, but a nice touch when MS does it.

Are you sure the dock can have buttons in each dockling? This is an honest question. I've just never seen one like that before.

It displays information on each icon. For example, one chat client puts four bubbles around the icon to show how many buddies are online for each service. Each dock icon has a menu which you can access to control the app without bringin it onto the screen. I use this all the time - I wish that more programs would take advantage of it.

For example, I don't have to maximize Mail in order to compose a message I just use the dock menu - it's quicker and it means I don't have to unhide or maximize the Mail window.

The dock lists active programs, not windows. Do you comprehend the difference or not?

Why are you deliberately being obtuse? iI lists both. When windows are minimized they appear on the right side. If you have five or six it isn't a problem, if you have more it is easier to use the dock menu from the program icon. This is the same reason Windows groups windows.

I agreed in a previous post that it would be useful in some circumstances to have a feature that allowed you to navigate windows qua windows rather than through the application icon. In addition to that it would also be useful to have a shortcut key that cycles windows qua windows. There isn't a major barrier to either of these things occurring and it would easily negate your criticism of the dock.

However, I can't think of when I'd use them. Which isn't to say that other people couldn't.

This isn't the same thing. In Explorer I can type in a http/ftp address and it'll convert to IE and open the page, and in IE I can type in a filepath and it'll convert to Explorer.

Well we all know why that is.

It sounds like a nifty feature but not one I'd use. A cursory look tells me that there are various X freeware apps for this.

I'm talking about having a convenient address bar on the taskbar.

Like a menu of your favourite URLs and ftp sites? I can do that from either the menu bar or the dock.

The Start Panel in XP is great for the apps I don't launch very often. It's also very handy how it has shortcuts to My Music, My Pictures, My Documents, and the 10 most-run programs all on the panel.

The Apple Menu and Dock can do the same thing. Frequently used apps go in the dock; recent items in the Apple menu and I stick my apps folder in the dock which does the same job.

Here's a page that compares them.

404 Not Found

http://www.xvsxp.com/dockvstaskbar/#managingWindows

I'm sure you'll find lots to gripe about.

Actually this has been a useful debate - it's made me think of new ways of doing stuff.

**Drake Tungsten** · May 8, 2003, 20:14

I was going to get back into the "debate", but I couldn't make it through the numerous Berzerker/David Floyd-esque posts. I can't be arsed to care any more, so Asher wins again via sheer moronic repetition. Wasn't I right about him and panag being the same?

**Zero** · May 8, 2003, 20:34

My god this is pointless...

Who gives a ****? Just use what you want.

Geek boys that like PCs just accept the fact that Mac exists. Just live and let live. And Mac losers gotta get the whole inferiority complex out of your system guys.

Those Mac commercials are seriously irritating. "Boohoo, those PC guys are bashing us, Lets bash them here in this commercial"

**Boris Godunov** · May 8, 2003, 20:39

To answer the question posed in the thread title:

Based on the users posting in this thread, clearly not much.

**Asher** · May 8, 2003, 21:04

Originally posted by Agathon
How is one click less efficient?

Well here in the magical land called reality, people generally consider things that require 0 clicks more efficient than things that require 1 click.

I still don't see the point of this. Why should I bother running photoshop twice when once is enough.

I guess I expect too much of you. I'll make a mental note to remember that.

So it's pointless when Apple does something like this, but a nice touch when MS does it.

When did I say something like that was pointless that Apple did?

It displays information on each icon. For example, one chat client puts four bubbles around the icon to show how many buddies are online for each service. Each dock icon has a menu which you can access to control the app without bringin it onto the screen.

That's not the same thing, Agathon darling.

Like a menu of your favourite URLs and ftp sites?

No.

The interesting thing about that article you linked to is it's obvious that the guy is mostly a Mac users rather than Windows. He's quick to point out that some of the dock annoyances can be averted by changing preferences, but he doesn't seem to understand that you can change preferences in XP to get around "annoyances" he had too (ie, disabling grouping)

**Asher** · May 8, 2003, 21:12

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Wasn't I right about him and panag being the same?

The difference being panag copy/pastes marketing, and I address issues.

Your role here is to butt in occasionally with some smartass remark, and Agathon's role is to continually feign ignorance about why people sometimes need to run a program more than once, or why most people think the dock is crap.

BTW, that page Agathon linked to had some cool things.

It's the little things that make Windows more enjoyable for me, like GUI responsiveness:

And efficiency in general (file deletion):

**Drake Tungsten** · May 8, 2003, 21:19

Your role here is to butt in occasionally with some smartass remark, and Agathon's role is to continually feign ignorance about why people sometimes need to run a program more than once, or why most people think the dock is crap.

And your role is to make up **** like "most people think the dock is crap" and pass it off as fact.

At least we can agree that the site Agathon linked to is excellent. It has lots of cool graphics for you to pull out to support your weak arguments and it has an objective final judgement in favor of OS X for me to savor.

It also has a decent forum. Found this quote on there and it couldn't be more true...

"People forget to think about what's included in the cost of the Macs--a OS that proves to be a symbiot to its hardware and not like Windows which acts more like a transplanted organ in which you have to take rejection medicine on a daily basis."

Announcement

What separates a Mac from a PC?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment