jove
Member
Hello,
Articles and posts on many forums have been throwing around the term "Mac-Like." What does that term mean?
Aesthetics.
Apple pulled back on themes support in MacOS 8 through 9. Brand recognition is important. Platinum and Aqua define brand recognition - not what is Mac-Like. A Mac running Kaleidoscope can still be Mac-Like.
Functional UI.
The desktop icons have been moved off the desktop. The Apple and Process Menu's functionality has been dispersed. Classic has changed similarly. Through the years we have seen the addition of the hierarchic Apple Menu, spring-loaded folders, aliases, tabbed folders, button icons and a kludge of other functional UI elements and changes. The result is an inconsistent set of quirky tools. What sets are active and not does not define Mac-Like.
Stability.
MacOS 9 is not stable. Common system crashes is not acceptable. The MacOS, long ago, rarely ever crashed. We have lost all rights to claim stability as Mac-Like. MacOSX is stable, very stable.
Simplification.
Over the MacOS's 15 year history it has moved from simple to complex; a natural progression. For a novice user, unfamiliar with the Mac, it is nearly as convoluted as Windows. MacOSX is a clean slate where many tasks have been simplified and/or refined.
Integration.
Finally something we can all say is Mac-Like; true plug and play; the fruits of Apple's whole widget design. But wait - MacOSX's driver support blows Classic's away.
Conclusion.
Mac-Like cannot be modeled from System 9. Mac-Like is a set of intangibles, of design qualifications. Classic has become more un-Mac-Like as the years have progressed. MacOSX, though different in many ways, returns us to the original ideas of the Mac.
Jove
[Edited by jove on 11-29-2000 at 11:52 AM]
Articles and posts on many forums have been throwing around the term "Mac-Like." What does that term mean?
Aesthetics.
Apple pulled back on themes support in MacOS 8 through 9. Brand recognition is important. Platinum and Aqua define brand recognition - not what is Mac-Like. A Mac running Kaleidoscope can still be Mac-Like.
Functional UI.
The desktop icons have been moved off the desktop. The Apple and Process Menu's functionality has been dispersed. Classic has changed similarly. Through the years we have seen the addition of the hierarchic Apple Menu, spring-loaded folders, aliases, tabbed folders, button icons and a kludge of other functional UI elements and changes. The result is an inconsistent set of quirky tools. What sets are active and not does not define Mac-Like.
Stability.
MacOS 9 is not stable. Common system crashes is not acceptable. The MacOS, long ago, rarely ever crashed. We have lost all rights to claim stability as Mac-Like. MacOSX is stable, very stable.
Simplification.
Over the MacOS's 15 year history it has moved from simple to complex; a natural progression. For a novice user, unfamiliar with the Mac, it is nearly as convoluted as Windows. MacOSX is a clean slate where many tasks have been simplified and/or refined.
Integration.
Finally something we can all say is Mac-Like; true plug and play; the fruits of Apple's whole widget design. But wait - MacOSX's driver support blows Classic's away.
Conclusion.
Mac-Like cannot be modeled from System 9. Mac-Like is a set of intangibles, of design qualifications. Classic has become more un-Mac-Like as the years have progressed. MacOSX, though different in many ways, returns us to the original ideas of the Mac.
Jove
[Edited by jove on 11-29-2000 at 11:52 AM]
