Mac Mini vs. Comparable Spec PC


Recommended Posts

Unless you have raise windows when following mouse, you can't do that in Windows either. You have to click to the open application, then click again to use that menu. Not to mention, as I've seen so far, OSX is much better about interfacing between programs. For instance, iTunes controls that work wether iTunes is in focus or not, drag and drop that almost universally works, and hover that is not active window specific. For instance, if I want to check someones away message in Adium, I don't have to focus that Window.

I don't think that's true.? First of all, unlike the Mac, Windows is designed to have multiple windows open on the desktop at the same time.? Whereas a window on the Mac "owns" the whole screen while it's active, windows on Windows (yeah, i know) are self-contained and only own the space that they currently occupy.

...

One of my biggest sticking points when it comes to the Mac UI is definitely the "active window owns the screen" philosophy.? In my mind, this makes it much harder to work with multiple applications simultaneously.?

For instance, if I'm writing an e-mail in an Outlook/Word window, and I decide to do something like change my away message in Trillian - I can already see the "File" menu in the Trillian window - click on it - and have the option I want.? I can see before I click on anything what menu options Trillian has.

If I were on a Mac, I could see the Trillian window, but I wouldn't know what menu functions it has.? If I want to click on the "File" menu, I have to first click on the application window (or press some other key combination until that window is active) first.?

It may seem like a small difference, but in my mind it adds a huge layer of seperation between applications - which is something that I do not like one bit.

585634584[/snapback]

While I can understand what your are saying with your example, I think your idea that the current application "owns the screen" is far from accurate. The active application "owns" the menu bar, but you can still see other applications that are open. You have picked up on one example of how the Mac way of doing things could be harder for an experienced user, but for a new user, it would actually be more logical to only have one set of menu bars that stays in the same place for all applications. The menu bar always has the name of the current application to the left of the menus (and it is in a bolder font, to make it more obvious).

Contrary to what has been said earlier (by you, I believe), Apple has invested quite a bit of money in user interface research. They also have taken advantage of years of research that has been done by others on the subject. Look up Fitts' Law sometime. Having application menus anchored to the edge of the screen is considered by UI research to be a very good thing.

If I were on a Mac, I could see the Trillian window, but I wouldn't know what menu functions it has.  If I want to click on the "File" menu, I have to first click on the application window (or press some other key combination until that window is active) first. 

It may seem like a small difference, but in my mind it adds a huge layer of seperation between applications - which is something that I do not like one bit.

585634584[/snapback]

right on...I started using OS X recently (not 'switched'...I use both) and this has been one of the major problems I face, here are others I can think of..

1. Fixed menubar on top. I somehow can't get adjusted to it. Really speaking its not fixed...since all the menus move once you change applications...so even if two apps have same menus...say File Edit View...then they "can be" in different places...cause the application name comes before everything else. So if one application is "Preview" and other is som "Randomcompany Randomname" then it defeats the whole purpose of having a fixed menubar + the point note above.

2. Dock magnification...it is just a marketing feature IMO. Its completely useless and distracting if kept ON...any mac I use...turned off immediately. It also cause unnecessary movement of other icons.

3. In order to be useable...the dock has to be atleast around 100 pixels I think otherwise the icons are too small...this in turn takes up too much space on the screen.. No auto-hiding is not for me.

4. :D this one is funny. I compulsively change my wallpaper everyday..sometimes every 2/3 hours....and I set wallpapers from my browser window...except Opera..neither Safari not Firefox allow me to simply right click on any image and set it as wallpaper. I have to goto Sys prefs and change the wallpaper. This in turn probably means I have to save every image on my computer. (Also if you prefer on using only one button i.e. no right click...then this process is even longer.)

5. Trash.

a) Why can't I just delete some documents instead of putting them in trash ? Windows gives me this option. OS X doesnot. Then again I need a key-combo to delete files.

b) I can't selectively empty trash. its everything or nothing

c) If you combine a & b and imagine using a thumb drive...what you get ? you have to either jump to command line or empty all of your trash!!!

6. Display System Prefs. This is kinda weird...it starts a new applet for every monitor I have connected to my system (max 2)...which I thing is serious design error. The moment I click display in sys prefs...it throws out 2 windows.. Again on my iBook if I have an external monitor connected (can only mirror)...and if I change my wallpaper...disconnect the monitor...my wallpaper is reverted back to what it was. Why? :huh: :wacko:

if somehow my language is offensive I apologise no such intentions. :unsure:

Unless you have raise windows when following mouse, you can't do that in Windows either. You have to click to the open application, then click again to use that menu.  Not to mention, as I've seen so far, OSX is much better about interfacing between programs. For instance, iTunes controls that work wether iTunes is in focus or not, drag and drop that almost universally works, and hover that is not active window specific. For instance, if I want to check someones away message in Adium, I don't have to focus that Window.

585634678[/snapback]

wrong. under windows (xp I tried) you just click on the menu directly and it opens the menu automatically switching the apps (something like closing backgroun windows in OS X ...only here it switched to that app).

The adium thing you mentioned is common across all platforms ?

wrong. under windows (xp I tried) you just click on the menu directly and it opens the menu automatically switching the apps (something like closing backgroun windows in OS X ...only here it switched to that app).

The adium thing you mentioned is common across all platforms  ?

585634856[/snapback]

Sorry, I did it on 2k here, and it doesn't work. Point is, to get to another menu, you have to pull focus no matter what.

It's another design element that some people like, some people don't. I'm not sure how old you guys are, but people who have used computers for a long time seem more familiar with a fixed menu location than the Windows system.

Although you must admit, grouping the clock+tray with the menu makes more sense the lumping the clock+tray with the taskbar and start menu.

4.  :D this one is funny. I compulsively change my wallpaper everyday..sometimes every 2/3 hours....and I set wallpapers from my browser window...except Opera..neither Safari not Firefox allow me to simply right click on any image and set it as wallpaper. I have to goto Sys prefs and change the wallpaper. This in turn probably means I have to save every image on my computer. (Also if you prefer on using only one button i.e. no right click...then this process is even longer.)

5. Trash.

a) Why can't I just delete some documents instead of putting them in trash ? Windows gives me this option. OS X doesnot. Then again I need a key-combo to delete files.

b) I can't selectively empty trash. its everything or nothing

c) If you combine a & b and imagine using a thumb drive...what you get ? you have to either jump to command line or empty all of your trash!!!

585634837[/snapback]

4. That is more application-specific than an OS X flaw. Firefox doesn't allow this on Windows either as far as I am aware. You could configure a Folder Action for the desktop folder that allowed you to drag an image from your browser to your desktop and make it your wallpaper.

5. b) It's the same with Windows, isn't it? How do you selectively empty the trash in Windows?

c) In OS X, files on removable media (thumb drives, network shares, etc.) are deleted immediately anyway.

4. That is more application-specific than an OS X flaw.  Firefox doesn't allow this on Windows either as far as I am aware.  You could configure a Folder Action for the desktop folder that allowed you to drag an image from your browser to your desktop and make it your wallpaper.

5. b) It's the same with Windows, isn't it?  How do you selectively empty the trash in Windows?

c) In OS X, files on removable media (thumb drives, network shares, etc.) are deleted immediately anyway.

585635142[/snapback]

well atleast Safari is an Apple app (! :D) so ..neway...Firefox-Windows has set as wallpaper option which is better than IE!...

I didnot think about Folder action but will try... although I feel I will still end up with a file in my desktop (or any other) folder

To selectively empty trash in Windows...just open recycle bin and delete whatever file you want...also is there a restore option for Trash in OS-X ? I miss it when I accidently delete files.

I remember once one of my friends deleted files when he had his thumb drive connected to my iBook, when he tried to copy other files onto thumb drive...there was not enough space since the damn files were still under .Trash !!! :no:

Adium is basically the Mac equivalent of Trillian.

585635153[/snapback]

I know what is Adium :D use it everyday ;) I was replying to his comment that since Window is not maximized he can see adium's user list etc etc...what I mean is the behaviour he was talking about :)

I just did it on Windows XP and it works fine.

585635419[/snapback]

Yeah, I got it, I don't have an XP box around. But my point still stands, you always have to pull focus to get to a menu. So what difference does it make if it's at the top, or in frame?

Although you must admit, grouping the clock+tray with the menu makes more sense the lumping the clock+tray with the taskbar and start menu.

585635067[/snapback]

why does it make more sense to group the clock and tray with the menu? to me they are completely different things, a menu is a set of commands for an application, the tray and clock are universal to the OS... so they don't group together well, single app dependent menu vs. global tray and clock... it makes more sense to have global stuff grouped together like the dock and a clock / tray... and then toolbars and menus grouped together then you have consistancy across it, app specific with app specific and global os with global os

Yeah, I got it, I don't have an XP box around. But my point still stands, you always have to pull focus to get to a menu. So what difference does it make if it's at the top, or in frame?

585635732[/snapback]

Its very simple...in OS X...you first have to switch to the app and then click on the menu...minimum 2 clicks (via expose/dock/cmd+tab whatever)

In Windows...directly click on the menu. single click !!! There is a difference.

Because Windows doesn't allot nearly enough space to the taskbar. If you place with Gnome, which is basically windows with two taskbars, you'll notice this very quickly.

585635816[/snapback]

I hope you know that the taskbar is resizeable to about half the screen size....( :D I am not suggesting you have to but you can...) so if you've toooooooo many windows that the taskbar cannot group (diff apps) then just increase the taskbar to twice or thrice of its normal height. (I personally don't like a taskbar that tall :no: )

So if one application is "Preview" and other is som "Randomcompany Randomname" then it defeats the whole purpose of having a fixed menubar + the point note above.

This is one of the biggest 'complaints' that grey-beard mac os users have but that doesn't mean that the top-of-screen menu bar is completely useless.

On Windows a menu bar target is (for example) 100 pixels by 18 pixels. You have to focus on both the X and Y position in order target the menu. On OS X the X position of the menu items will change but you never have to concentrate on getting the height correct; just throw the mouse to the top of the screen.

For instance, if I'm writing an e-mail in an Outlook/Word window, and I decide to do something like change my away message in Trillian - I can already see the "File" menu in the Trillian window - click on it - and have the option I want.? I can see before I click on anything what menu options Trillian has.

If you want to interact with Trillian's file menu you're going to change focus to do it. Whether you do that by clicking a menu bar or clicking on part of it's window and then it's menu bar is pretty minor. OS X will force you to click twice (once on the window/icon to switch, once on the menu bar) because there are situations where click-through would be dangerous.

For this specific example OS X and the relevant applications would actually be "more efficient" than Windows. You're working away in Word/Entourage - you decide to change your iChat status so you hold command click on the "available" move the mouse down to the "I'm writing email" message and let go. Return to writing your email having never actually switched focus in the first place; 1 mouse click.

On windows you would "click through" to the menu, drag to the new status menu, then search the task bar for the word/outlook window you were working with and click again to restore focus. You may need a third click to make sure the cursor is in the correct location.

For as often as these situations are likely to happen I don't think it's worth worrying about. I have no interest in making up work flows that will favor one operating system or another in order to prove a point.

also is there a restore option for Trash in OS-X ? I miss it when I accidently delete files.

If you accidently send a file to the trash then edit -> undo will restore it to it's former location.

Sorry, I did it on 2k here, and it doesn't work. Point is, to get to another menu, you have to pull focus no matter what.

A minor difference, and arguably insignificant in the same way that OS X allowing you to interact with background windows/controls without switching focus is pretty insignificant.

The reason OS X doesn't send the click through to the window when switching focus is because it can be dangerous. If a dialog/window/toolbar is partially obscured then you may accidently click a button that erases a document, quits an application, or destroys your work some other way. It's possible to work around this behavior by holding down the command key as mention above. The idea that you never do anything destructive without the users consent is called the principal of least surprise. Dismissing an "are you sure you want to quit without saving?" dialog when the user simply wanted to switch applications to read that dialog fits the definition of surprising perfectly.

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it's not like Apple made this decision without careful attention.

Because Windows doesn't allot nearly enough space to the taskbar. If you place with Gnome, which is basically windows with two taskbars, you'll notice this very quickly.

585635816[/snapback]

how does that make mac better though putting it all together? you have just as limited space with the menu and the app title and the apple menu plus any tray apps running on that same small bar, and windows one isnt small mainly because its resizable as big as you want it up to 50% of the screen size

I did not think about Folder action but will try... although I feel I will still end up with a file in my desktop (or any other) folder

585635373[/snapback]

Under any OS (Linux, Windows, or OS X), the file has to be saved somewhere on your computer for it to be used as wallpaper. Yes, IE does hide this fact from you when you set a picture as your wallpaper, but it saves it to your hard drive somewhere.

Because Windows doesn't allot nearly enough space to the taskbar. If you place with Gnome, which is basically windows with two taskbars, you'll notice this very quickly.

585635816[/snapback]

You can make the taskbar in Windows almost as big as you like (half of the screen is as big as it will go, I think). You can fit a LOT of stuff in there, but it makes Windows a little harder to use when you are devoting half the screen to your taskbar LOL :p

Sorry, I did it on 2k here, and it doesn't work. Point is, to get to another menu, you have to pull focus no matter what.

585635067[/snapback]

This works on all versions of Windows since 95. And I'm fairly certain that it even worked back in 3.1.

Unless you have raise windows when following mouse, you can't do that in Windows either.

Not true. You can interact with any part of a window that you can see without switching focus first.

You have to click to the open application, then click again to use that menu.

Only on a Mac.

Not to mention, as I've seen so far, OSX is much better about interfacing between programs. For instance, iTunes controls that work wether iTunes is in focus or not, drag and drop that almost universally works, and hover that is not active window specific. For instance, if I want to check someones away message in Adium, I don't have to focus that Window.

That's not an advantage to OSX since Windows does all of those things as well.

On Windows a menu bar target is (for example) 100 pixels by 18 pixels. You have to focus on both the X and Y position in order target the menu. On OS X the X position of the menu items will change but you never have to concentrate on getting the height correct; just throw the mouse to the top of the screen.

Most user studies say the exact opposite, for two reasons:

1) Users almost always prefer not to have to move the mouse as far. Simply "throwing" your mouse up to the top of the screen isn't as easy for a novice as it is for you and me. I see employee's at my clients' offices every day who move the mouse probably 1 on-screen centimeter a second, or slower. While it's painful for me to watch, they don't have the video-game trained reflexes that some of us younger folk do ;)

2) Most new users (not those coming from single-task systems like the Mac) see the window borders as the edge of an applicatoin's "domain." Having desktop space between the top of an application window and it's menu bar confuses many users. If you're going to do that, you might as well force the active application to always be full-screen.

New users prefer "encapsulated" programs. That's one thing AOL discovered long ago. "Average Jane" feels more secure about exploring this new internet thing when it all happens within the borders of one application. When you seperate the dialer, the buddy list, and multiple browsing windows... users are immediately more intimidated. How many times have you seen a relatively new dial-up user confused when you tell them that by closing their browser window they are NOT disconnecting from the internet. For me, the answer is countless.

The same goes for seperating the menu bar and multiple windows without encapsulating them in a common container.

If you want to interact with Trillian's file menu you're going to change focus to do it. Whether you do that by clicking a menu bar or clicking on part of it's window and then it's menu bar is pretty minor.? OS X will force you to click twice (once on the window/icon to switch, once on the menu bar) because there are situations where click-through would be dangerous.

click-through? I'm talking about visible windows. There is no click-through involved. On Windows, having a window in focus means very little. It simply tells you where the keyboard focus is. The mouse can interact with any window elements that are visible, regardless of which program owns them.

For this specific example OS X and the relevant applications would actually be "more efficient" than Windows.? You're working away in Word/Entourage - you decide to change your iChat status so you hold command click on the "available" move the mouse down to the "I'm writing email" message and let go.? Return to writing your email having never actually switched focus in the first place; 1 mouse click.

I knew someone was going to do that. Clearly, most IM programs have several ways to change the away message. In Trillian I don't need to use the File menu, that was just an example. There are usually several functions that are accessibonly/i> through an application's top-screen menu.

Oh, and dragging the mouse through menus is another cumbersome design. I hate it, and I know countless new users who find the process unwieldy.

Thankfully, Windows menus do not work that way.

On windows you would "click through" to the menu,

I said the Trillian window was already on screen - so you aren't "clicking through" anything at all.

drag to the new status menu

Like I said, you would move the mouse there, no dragging involved in Windows menus. You point to "File," click on what you want, you point to "Status" (which opens up the status menu), you point to "out and about" and then click on it.

then search the task bar for the word/outlook window you were working with and click again to restore focus. You may need a third click to make sure the cursor is in the correct location.

No, no, no. That was my whole point. BOTH windows are visible. Switching to Trillian doesn't cover up any portion of the Outlook window, so why would I have to give the focus back to it? I don't, I just go back to working on it. If I need the keyboard input to move back, I can just click in the body of the message where I want the cursor to go, or click on the titlebar and have the keyboard cursor returned to wherever it was the last time that window had the focus. I never once look at the taskbar. I never once think about "switching" applications.

A minor difference, and arguably insignificant in the same way that OS X allowing you to interact with background windows/controls without switching focus is pretty insignificant.

Not a minor difference at all. As I said, this gives work on the Mac a single-task mindset, whereas with Windows I can be working in several applications simultaneously.

The reason OS X doesn't send the click through to the window when switching focus is because it can be dangerous. If a dialog/window/toolbar is partially obscured then you may accidently click a button that erases a document, quits an application, or destroys your work some other way. It's possible to work around this behavior by holding down the command key as mention above. The idea that you never do anything destructive without the users consent is called the principal of least surprise.? Dismissing an "are you sure you want to quit without saving?" dialog when the user simply wanted to switch applications to read that dialog fits the definition of surprising perfectly.

So you're saying the user would be surprised if they clicked on a button that said "Exit" and the program exited? I think you're confused. In fact, I didn't know that click messages were not sent to a window that doesn't have the focus... I'm astonished that they aren't - and I'll check on it with my neighbor's Mac to be sure.

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it's not like Apple made this decision without careful attention.

585636307[/snapback]

I never said ttried to make a cumbersome UI, just that (in my opinion) they did.

Edited by threedaysdwn

I've had a good few beers, yet I cannot get my head around your idea of a Mac being 'single task orientated'. Think for a moment about what you are saying. Ok, done? - Good.

The windows within all applications aren't parented by a larger window (do they call it MDI, in Windows?) not once is this an issue, thus meaning, Windows are free flowing, and you can see an interact with other windows beneath and around the windows you're working on. With a simply mouse gesture you have the power to switch to an alternative document, by means of Expos? - if you can't click the window from those in the background.

Now consider the same, in the PC world -

You have no Expos? to call upon, you don't even have nice, colourful, visual icons like those in the dock, you have a tired old selection of tabs with small text and 16x16 writing - anyhow this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that when Windows fall into this 'MDI' (which I assume, probably means 'multiple document interface' ?) there's always a parent window, which borders and makes home for these Windows. Now in an application such as Word, or in Photoshop this is restrictive as it probably means you're working fullscreen - thus meaning you have no access to an alternative window - other than through the taskbar.

If needs must, i'll grab a screen cap of Word running fullscreen, and you do the same in Windows - It would be easy then, to see really who is 'single task' orientated out of the two OS's. Frankly without sounding too harsh - this talk of such is just BS, mate.

Okay, just tried it... Clicks to an inactive window DO register in OS X, just like in Windows.

I figured that's how it was.  Your thing about "dangerous clicks" didn't make any sense to me.

585636848[/snapback]

I was thinking the same thing - because Applications resond to user input, without actually being the active application, iChat and iTunes are example of applications in which I do, do this.

Most user studies say the exact opposite, for two reasons:

1) Users almost always prefer not to have to move the mouse as far.? Simply "throwing" your mouse up to the top of the screen isn't as easy for a novice as it is for you and me.

Hitting a target with infinite height is easier than hitting a target with a small height. Menu bars at the top of the screen have infinite height, menu bars in the middle of a screen do not.

It's a basic tenant of interface design

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/des...i/fittslaw.html

The time to acquire a target is a function of the proximity and size of the target.

The corners and edges of the screen are prime real-estate. They are ideal locations for buttons, menus, toolbars, taskbars, etc. Any objects on?the bottom and top of the screen have infinite height. Objects in the corners have infinite width and height.

Macintosh-style menus, which are pinned to the top of the screen, are known to be much faster than MSWindows-style menus, where the menu is contained within the floating window.

2)? Most new users? (not those coming from single-task systems like the Mac) see the window borders as the edge of an applicatoin's "domain."

Maybe you do, but on all modern operating systems the applications domain is the area marked out by it's views including the toolbars, menus bars, windows, pallets, dialogs, etc.

? Having desktop space between the top of an application window and it's menu bar confuses many users.

New users prefer "encapsulated" programs.

The same goes for seperating the menu bar and multiple windows without encapsulating them in a common container.

Can you cite any published work to back these claims?

click-through?? I'm talking about visible windows.

I should have been a little more clear, I assumed you had more experience with both systems.

In Windows a click that changes the focus of an application will be sent to the control under the pointer whether that application is in the foreground and focused or not, that control will behave as if it were focused whether that is a good idea or not. On OS X a click will not cause a control to do something unless that action is "safe" (or the developer has gone out of his or her way to receive that click event and do something dangerous).

Example:


  • 1. Start internet Explorer
    2. Open Word
    3. Create a new document
    4. Add some text
    5. Click the "close window" icon in the title bar.
    6. Switch to Internet Explorer.
    7. Position the Internet Explorer window so that you can clearly see the entire "Do you want to quit without saving changes".
    8. With the internet explorer Window active Click once on the inactive "Yes" button on the Word dialog.

On Windows Word will quit because the click that both switches focus to Word and flows through to the "yes" button on the icon (causing word to exit destroying your work). On OS X the Word window will become focused but the button will not receive the click event.

Replace the "yes" button with the "delete selected files" toolbar icon in finder/explorer/nautilus for another example where this could be a problem.

The mouse can interact with any window elements that are visible, regardless of which program owns them.

And that has the potential to be dangerous for the reasons mentioned above

Oh, and dragging the mouse through menus is another cumbersome design.? I hate it, and I know countless new users who find the process unwieldy.

Click on File, drag down to "exit" (or "application name" -> "Quit application name" if you're on a mac). Both work fine. The click file, click exit method of using will also work in both operating systems.

I said the Trillian window was already on screen - so you aren't "clicking through" anything at all.

The click event is passed through to the control. I am using the term "click through"to describe the click event being passed through to whatever control that has the highest position in the window stack that is located under the cursor.

Windows will pass that event to any control under the pointer and they will perform their action, OS X controls will not respond unless their action is non-destructive: scrolling a text view, displaying a drop menu, toggling a checkbox, etc. A button will not click, a toolbar button will not fire, and the cursor will not change position unless the controls parent view is focused or the user is holding the command key.

? As I said, this gives work on the Mac a single-task mindset, whereas with Windows I can be working in several applications simultaneously.

You haven't show that.

All you've shown is that Windows will pass click events to any control on the screen and (by default) they will respond to them.

This is no more a "multi-app mindset" than OS X's hold CMD to send mouse events to background applications without switching focus.

So you're saying the user would be surprised if they clicked on a button that said "Exit" and the program exited?

Re-read the example.

On Windows version of word the dialog's buttons are "yes" "no" and "cancel", a miss-click can trigger the control of the inactive window and destroy data, likewise a user can click a toolbar icon and destroy data. The same miss-click in OS X will simply bring the parent window of the control to the foreground, switching applications if necessary.

I have access to a mac here (there is some good having a fruity designer in the home after all) and here's the a screenshot from the latest version of both operating systems and microsoft word for each platform.

If you miss-clicked on the close-window widget for the bottom window in each of the scenarios the Windows machine would happily quit word and lose your document where the mac would only bring word to the foreground.

Edited for clarity.

post-86500-1111213120_thumb.jpg

post-86500-1111213138_thumb.jpg

Edited by macssuck
In Windows a click that changes the focus of an application will be sent to the control under the pointer whether that application is in the foreground and focused or not, that control will behave as if it were focused whether that is a good idea or not. On OS X a click will not cause a control to do something unless that action is "safe" (or the developer has gone out of his or her way to receive that click event and do something dangerous).

Actually it's entirely dependent on the software developer's implementation, for both systems.

For the most part, controls respond to clicks regardless of whether their parent windows have the focus.

Exceptions can be found for both systems:

On the Mac, finder windows don't respond to clicks on their forward/backward buttons.

On Windows, Office programs don't respond to clicks to their main menus.

I suppose it probably has to do with the custom menu controls that Office employs. The default behavior for Windows common controls is to always accept clicks - which is something that I personally prefer.

On Windows Word will quit because the click that both switches focus to Word and flows through to the "yes" button on the icon (causing word to exit destroying your work). On OS X the Word window will become focused but the button will not receive the click event.

See, that's the distinction I'm talking about. When I click on a window that isn't active, I don't consider the click to be switching the focus to the clicked window. I consider it to be an interaction with a window control. In my mind, the switching of window focus is an effect of that control firing. And in some cases controls can be clicked without changing the focus to the target window.

That's quite a contrived situation you have there. In order for that dialog to appear, the user must first choose to exit the program (either in the menu, alt-F4, or clicking the big X). When they do, the dialog immediately jumps to the foreground and a sound (or visual alert) is displayed.

If the user ignores the question, and then later clicks on a button that says "No" without reading the dialog... They're kind of asking for it.

Still, I never said that Windows was perfect. I was just (as requested) discussing issues that I have with the UI of OSX. I'll happily discuss issues I have with the Windows UI another time.

Edited by threedaysdwn
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hands-on with BOOX Tappy: cute little reading accessory by Taras Buria Page turners are quite popular accessories for e-readers, as they enable a hands-free reading experience, which is particularly useful with large readers featuring 10-inch or larger displays. The BOOX Tappy is a new accessory that was introduced earlier this year, and we took this cute-looking thingy for a spin. The Tappy comes in a small box, with two additional buttons and a user manual. The device is made of glossy green plastic and resembles old appliances from the nuclear age. Material quality is great, and each part feels quite premium. Plastic is high-quality, the switch is nice to flick, and the buttons are not rattly. At the bottom, four rubberized feet prevent slipping when used on a desk. Unfortunately, there are no color options, and the Tappy is only available in green. It looks good, but I wish there were other options as well. There are two removable buttons, an on/off switch, and an LED indicator that displays connection mode, charging status, and more. The buttons resemble those of an old typewriter, with quite a long travel distance and a pleasant clack. In the box, you have four buttons with different icons: heart, coffee, O, and X. You can easily swap buttons by simply pulling them upwards. Tip: buttons come with plastic covers, but they are quite tricky to remove. It is hard to call the Tappy the most ergonomic remote control, but after fiddling with it for a few hours, I managed to find a comfortable hand position. Attaching a lanyard to it can make it more comfortable in use without the fear of dropping it, but unfortunately, the Tappy does not come with one. The Tappy connects via Bluetooth 5.2, and it works in three modes, which you can toggle by pressing and holding both buttons for about five seconds: Reading Mode Multimedia Mode Browsing Mode Next / Previous page Next / Previous Track Up / Down scroll If you pair the Tappy with a BOOX device (I tested it with the BOOX Go 10.5 Gen 2 Lumi), you will get small pop-ups indicating the current mode. Plus, you can customize what each button does when pressed one time, two times, or held for a few seconds. The list of available actions and features you can use is massive, and I like that BOOX lets you map stuff like brightness adjustment, app launching, screenshot-taking, screen rotating, navigation, and more. Note, however, that while you can use the Tappy with other readers, its customization is only available on BOOX devices running firmware version 4.2 and newer. I could not connect the Tappy to my computer (Windows 11 claims a driver error when I try), but it worked with the DuRoBo Krono that I recently reviewed. My Kindle Paperwhite refused to work with the Tappy, though, just like my iPhone. The Tappy uses a non-removable Li-Ion battery, which can be recharged with a Type-C cable. BOOX rates the remote for "weeks of use," and I can say that it indeed has very good battery life. While there are no battery indicators on the remote, you can see the current level in the status bar or in Input settings in the BOOX firmware. After a few days of active use, mine still shows about 95%. Overall, the Tappy left a nice impression. It is well-made, and the integration with BOOX devices is great. I also like that BOOX decided to have some fun with its design and swappable buttons. I cannot say I am a fan of its odd shape, though. Still, I managed to find a way to use it comfortably. And when not in use, it just looks neat sitting on the table doing nothing or serving you as a small clacky fidget. Buy BOOX Tappy - $29.99 on Amazon US As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • AdGuard Family lifetime deal now only $14.97 by Steven Parker Today's highlighted Neowin Deal comes via our Apps + Software section, where you can get a lifetime subscription and save 91% on a lifetime AdGuard Family Plan. AdGuard is a unique program that has all the necessary features for what they claim to be "the best web experience." The software combines the an advanced ad blocker, a privacy protection module, and a parental control tool—all working in one app. This software deals with annoying ads, hides your data from a multitude of trackers, protects you from malware attacks, and even lets you restrict your kids from accessing inappropriate content. Install AdGuard and see the internet as it was supposed to be: clean and safe. Get rid of annoying banners, pop-ups & video ads once and for all Hide your data from the multitude of trackers & activity analyzers that swarm the web Avoid fraudulent and phishing website and malware attacks Protect your kids online by restricting them from accessing inappropriate & adult content Good to know Family Plan Length of access: lifetime This plan is only available to new users Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Max number of devices: 9 Access options: desktop & mobile Software version: AdGuard Family Updates included A lifetime subscription of AdGuard Family Plan normally costs $169.99, but this deal can be yours for just $14.97, that's a saving of $157.02. For full terms, specifications, and license info please click the link below. Get this AdGuard Family lifetime deal for just $14.97 (was $169.99) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support! Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. Why we post these deals We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. So for those that keep moaning and complaining, be thankful we're still online for you to even do that. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
    • Passkeys: Think of them like a broken heart necklace. Imagine one of those heart necklaces that breaks into two matching pieces. One person keeps one half, and the other person keeps the other half. With passkeys, the website has one half, and you have the other half. If the website gets hacked and someone steals its half, that stolen piece is useless by itself. It cannot unlock your account without your matching half. This particular heart necklace is one of a kind, there is only one in existence. Your half of the necklace has to be stored somewhere. It might be stored on your phone, tablet, computer, security key, or a password manager that can sync it between all your devices. A security key is a small physical device that you keep with you, kind of like a house key, car key, or flash drive. I would not usually recommend a security key as the first option for the average person. For most people, it is easier to use their phone, computer, or a password manager that can sync passkeys between their devices. A security key is more like a spare key you keep in a safe place, just in case you lose access to your other devices or your password manager. Some security keys plug into your computer. Some plug into your phone or tablet. Some get tapped against your device. The idea is simple: a security key can hold another passkey for the same website. Think of it like creating a second one-of-a-kind heart necklace for the same account. One necklace could be paired with your password manager, while another necklace could be paired with your security key. That means the website has more than one matching half on file. One half matches the passkey in your password manager. Another half matches the passkey stored on your security key. So, if you lose access to your phone, computer, or password manager, you would still be able to log in using the passkey stored on your security key. Think of it like keeping an extra special necklace piece on a tiny keychain, stored somewhere safe. The website still has the matching half for that security key, but your half is safely stored inside the little key. A passkey does not automatically exist on every device you own. It lives wherever you save it. If your half is stored on one device, then that device is the one that has the matching piece. For example, if you create the passkey on your Windows computer and it is only saved to that computer, your iPhone does not automatically have that same half. If you create it on your iPhone and it only stays on that iPhone, your Android phone does not automatically have it either. That is where password managers come in. A password manager can act like a protected jewelry box for your passkeys. Instead of your half of the necklace being locked to only one device, the password manager can securely sync that half to your other approved devices. For example, Apple Passwords and iCloud Keychain can sync passkeys between your Apple devices. Google Password Manager can sync passkeys with your Google account. But password managers such as 1Password and Bitwarden can sync passkeys between everything, your phones, tablets and computers. Now, you might ask: “What happens if I lose access to the device that has my passkey?” That depends on where your passkey was saved and what recovery options the website gives you. If your passkey was synced through a password manager, you may be able to sign in from another device that has access to that same password manager. For example, if your passkey is saved in iCloud Keychain, Google Password Manager, 1Password, or Bitwarden, another approved device may still have access to it. If your passkey was saved only on one phone, computer, or security key, and you lose that device, then you may not have your half of the necklace anymore. In that case, you would usually need to use the website’s backup login or account recovery options. A lot of websites that support passkeys still let you fall back to your regular password. So if you lose access to your passkey, the site may still let you log in with your password, a code sent to your email, a text message, a recovery code, or some other account recovery process. That is convenient, but it is also important to understand: if the website still allows password login, then your password still matters. Passkeys are safer than passwords, but if your account still has a password as a backup, you should still use a strong, unique password and turn on two-factor authentication if the website offers it. This is why it is a good idea to have more than one safe way back into important accounts. For example, you might keep your passkey in a syncing password manager, add a second trusted device, save recovery codes somewhere safe, or set up a backup security key. A passkey is very secure, but just like a real key, you need a backup plan in case you lose access to it. Now, you might ask: “What stops a hacker from copying my half of the necklace?” That’s the important part: your half is protected. It is not something you type in, and it is not something the website gets to keep. Think of your half as being locked inside a tiny safe on your phone, computer, security key, or password manager. That safe only opens when you approve it with your fingerprint, face, PIN, or device password. When you log in, the website does not need to see your half. It only needs proof that your half matches its half. Your actual half is not handed over to the website. This is different from a password. With a password, you type the secret into the website. If you type it into a fake website, the hacker now has it. With a passkey, you are not typing your secret into the website. Your device is proving you have the matching half without giving the half away. That also helps protect you from fake websites. If someone makes a fake login page that looks like the real site, your device can tell it is not the real match. It will not use your passkey there. Now, could someone use your passkey if they stole your device, got into your password manager, or somehow unlocked the safe that holds your half? Yes, that is why your device password, PIN, fingerprint, face unlock, and password manager security still matter. But a hacker cannot just steal your passkey from the website or trick you into typing it into a fake page like they can with a password. That is why passkeys are safer than passwords. The two matching pieces have to come together, like two lovebirds who were once separated and are finally reunited.
    • Newegg offers insane combo deal on Amazon Prime Day 2026 that beats Steam Machine by Sayan Sen Building a PC is undoubtedly difficult nowadays but with this epic combo deal, Newegg is trying to make it as easy for you as it is possible. If you are making a new one or even upgrading an old system to a new Windows 11 device, this combo bundle is truly unmissable as you get AMD's Ryzen 9800X3D, a compatible X870 motherboard, a 240mm AIO liquid cooler and finally a Samsung 990 PRO SSD all for under $1000 (purchase link under the specs table down below). This should beat out the newly launched Steam Machine from Valve in terms of performance and performance per dollar especially if you are willing to set Linux up on it. Essentially with this combo you will get the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D 8-core 3D V cache CPU, Samsung's 990 PRO 2TB NVMe SSD, the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX Motherboard, and finally the Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240. Thanks to that massive vertically stacked L3 cache, the X3D desktop processors, including the 9800X3D, also come with the benefit of not needing fast memory. Even DDR5-5600 should be plenty for it. The technical specifications of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D are given in the table below: Specification Value Architecture Zen 5 Cores / Threads 8 / 16 Base Clock 4.7 GHz Max Boost Clock Up to 5.2 GHz L1 Cache 640 KB L2 Cache 8 MB L3 Cache 96 MB Total Cache 104 MB CPU Core Process TSMC 4nm FinFET I/O Die Process TSMC 6nm FinFET Socket AM5 Default TDP 120W Max Temperature (Tjmax) 95°C Thermal Solution Not included Memory Type DDR5 Max Capacity 256 GB Memory Speeds 2x1R: DDR5-5600 2x2R: DDR5-5600 4x1R: DDR5-3600 4x2R: DDR5-3600 PCIe Version PCIe 5.0 PCIe Lanes (Total/Usable) 28 / 24 USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10Gbps) 4 USB 2.0 1 Graphics Cores 2 CU RDNA 2 Frequency 2200 MHz DisplayPort over USB-C Yes Overclocking Unlocked Up next we have the tech specs for the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI Motherboard: Specification Value Chipset AMD X870 CPU Support AMD Ryzen 9000 / 8000 / 7000 Series Desktop Processors Socket AM5 Memory Slots 4 × DDR5 UDIMM Maximum Memory Capacity 256GB Memory Support DDR5 8400–5600 MT/s (OC), DDR5 5600–4800 MT/s (JEDEC) Integrated Graphics Outputs 1 × HDMI 2.1 FRL (up to 8K 60Hz) 2 × USB4 Type-C with DisplayPort 1.4 HBR3 (up to 4K 60Hz) Expansion Slots PCI_E1: PCIe 5.0 x16 (CPU) PCI_E2: PCIe 3.0 x1 (Chipset) PCI_E3: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset) Audio Realtek ALC4080 Codec 7.1-Channel USB High Performance Audio Supports up to 32-bit/384kHz playback on front panel S/PDIF output M.2 Slots 4 × M.2 M2_1: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 22110/2280) M2_2: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 2280/2260) M2_3: PCIe 4.0 x2 (Chipset, 2280/2260) M2_4: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset, 2280/2260) SATA Ports 4 × SATA 6Gb/s RAID Support RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 for M.2 NVMe storage devices Rear USB Ports 4 × USB 2.0 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 2 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 2 × USB4 40Gbps Type-C Front USB Headers 4 × USB 2.0 4 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 20Gbps Type-C LAN Realtek 8126-CG 5G LAN Wireless Wi-Fi 7 (M.2 Key-E module pre-installed) Supports 2.4GHz / 5GHz / 6GHz bands Up to 5.8Gbps Supports 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be Bluetooth Bluetooth 5.4, MLO, 4KQAM Internal Power Connectors 1 × 24-pin ATX Power 2 × CPU Power Connectors 1 × PCIe 8-pin Power Connector Fan Headers 1 × CPU Fan 1 × Combo Fan (Pump/System) 6 × System Fan RGB Headers 3 × Addressable V2 RGB (JARGB_V2) 1 × RGB LED (JRGB) Other Internal Headers 1 × EZ Conn-header 2 × Front Panel Headers 1 × Chassis Intrusion 1 × Front Audio 1 × TPM 2.0 Header Debug Features 4 × EZ Debug LEDs 1 × EZ Digit Debug LED Rear I/O Ports Clear CMOS Button Flash BIOS Button HDMI 2 × USB 40Gbps Type-C 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 4 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 4 × USB 2.0 5G LAN Port Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Antenna Connectors Audio Connectors Form Factor ATX The Samsung 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification Value Interface PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC DRAM Cache 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,200 TBW MTBF 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink No Get the combo deal at this link: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, Samsung 990 PRO 2TB, MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI motherboard, Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240: $784.99 + $25 off with promo code FTTF77: $759.99 (Sold and Shipped by Newegg US) Good to know This Newegg deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      468
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      165
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      104
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      87
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!