Mac Mini vs. Comparable Spec PC

[Steve]

Are you trying to tell me that Mac users love every element of the Mac, its hardware, and interface?  If you truly believe that then you are incredibly naive.  Mac message boards are generally full of people that have one problem or another.  My personal pet peeve with OS X is that you cannot copy one folder over the top of another with the same name and simply add the contents of one to the other (as would happen on Windows).  The new folder simply takes the place of the old one, and your old files are gone.  Very, VERY annoying (and I've seen others here who share this view).

585629066[/snapback]

Me especially, i lost 1.5Gb of iPhoto files via that stupid method. :angry:

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Ouch. I hope to god it warns you before it does that.

[Steve]

Ouch.  I hope to god it warns you before it does that.

585629133[/snapback]

It kinda does - if you try and do it in the finder - it warns of folder replacement (etc...). But I was using a 3rd party application to swap iPhoto libraries, it over-wrote the same directory with a blank one, without any prior warning... There was nothing I could of done, i didn't expect it. :rolleyes:

[Brandon Live Veteran]

And what if in Windows you actually WANTED to resize your window to fit its contents?? Is there an easy way to do that except by manually resizing the window, just as you would have to do on the Mac if you wanted your window to take up the full screen?

585629056[/snapback]

As for the dock, Heyo hit most of the problems I have with it.

What I never got was the inconsistency. It's been a while since I've used OS X, but here's what I think happens:

I open a program by clicking its icon on the dock. I get a new window, and a near-impossible to see little arrow telling me that it's running.

I open a program that doesn't have an icon on the dock. I get a new window, and a new icon on the dock (with an arrow?). What happens when I close this program (and I don't mean minimize it)? Does the icon stay on the dock but lose the arrow? Or does it go away?

Now I said that some of the Windows installable dock programs handle this better. For instance, ObjectDock by default has the left side containing launch icons, and the right side containing the "taskbar." If I click on the Internet Explorer icon, a new IE "runnin" icon appears on the right. If I minimize it, a screenshot of that instance takes the place of the icon.

The clear seperation of Launch Icons and Running Programs makes ObjectDock much easier to work with for me. Although in general I prefer the Windows taskbar.

Again, the Windows taskbar is very clearly only showing you running programs. Even if you do enable the quicklaunch toolbar, those icons look very, very different from the small "bars" that represent running programs. There's also a clear seperation between them.

Furthermore, when minimizing programs on the dock, you also have inconsistency. Sometimes a screenshot of the program takes the place of the launch icon. Sometimes a new icon is added. Sometimes there is no screenshot, so it's harder to tell if a program is minimized or not running at all. Some programs (QT and iTunes) have special dock plug-ins that actually addMOVING >images to your dock. I betthat> gets annoying fast.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Oh, and as for reading the manual, that's not only a terrible thing to bet on (how many users do you think even unwrapped the plastic from their Windows manuals?), but it also doesn't help people who encounter Macs that they don't own.

If a user tries out a Mac at a friend's house, an office, a store, etc - their first impression is going to be one of confusion. And it's not just because they're used to Windows. It's because many interface concepts in OSX just don't make sense to most people. Believe me, the amount of research involving computer-illiterates that has shaped the Windows interface design is absolutely staggering.

[threetonesun]

A point of interest... the QL bar was probably put in there because it had an icon so you could easily minimise all your open windows and show your desktop. Since the desktop has been deprecated in new versions of XP it is no longer required, hence why QL is now just an option.

Right, that's the only reason I every used it. I know there's a keyboard command for show desktop in Windows, but I don't know it offhand.

Yeah I saw that behaviour. It was part of my frustration with using OS X. I want to be able to maximise windows. I like having a full screen open for my word processor or other work. In Windows this is a personal choice. If you are focussed on a particular piece of work then you can maximise it and use the full display available. Otherwise you can fit the window to whatever size you like.  I can't stand how I could not seem to easily achieve this in OS X with the interface presented. 

I edit documents for a job, and we use Win2k at work. It's much, much more difficult to look at a page of text in Windows at the size you want it than it is in OSX. We also do a lot of PDF work, and OSX truly has the upper hand there.

Basically, OSX will always size to whatever is on screen. Forcing it to maximize just means you're going to display blank space, either grayed margins or empty toolbars.

If a user tries out a Mac at a friend's house, an office, a store, etc - their first impression is going to be one of confusion.  And it's not just because they're used to Windows.  It's because many interface concepts in OSX just don't make sense to most people.  Believe me, the amount of research involving computer-illiterates that has shaped the Windows interface design is absolutely staggering.

585629199[/snapback]

IMO, OSX is more logical to a newbie than Windows for one simple reason, the menus are always in the same place. I could see someone being confused by a fresh *box GUI, but if you can't click on an icon, you've probably never used any interface in your life.

[Steve]

Addressing some of your points -

Minimizing windows, creates a thumbnail of the window with the parent app's icon attached to the corner - in the right side of the dock. This always happens, it's not an if or maybe - the only app I recall NOT doing this is iChat - which instead shows the AIM buddy icon for the chat participant.

The triangle beneath an application isn't hard to see at all, not for me, or any member of my family - who all own Mac's. It's subjective none-the-less, but it's at the edge of the screen, despite the dock's orientation and it's BLACK. I think it's being a little pedantic, personally, but each to their own.

I don't find it hard at all to differentiate between running and apps, and those which aren't - the triangle is clearly visible to me. If it caused THAT MUCH confusion for a user, you could drag out all the applications, and simple use it more like a Windows taskbar - application icons join the dock on launch, and leave on quit. However this doesn't really fit the workflow of Mac OS X, given that you're encourage to leave more application's open.

The dock is a bar you customize, you add and remove it's content as you see fit. - Ideal some might say. Yet it also works as application notification - by means of showing you apps are running ALSO. So one would assume, if the dock is created for you to customize, applications you call upon, but didn't drag there personally, would subsequently leave the dock - when you quit them. If it didn't appear obvious at first glance, after launching apps, and seeing them leave the dock - would prompt you to question why. After having a short think about it, and perhaps 'trying' to add applications to the dock, might solve the query. Alternatively, if you Control-Clicked the dock icon in question, it'd bring up a contextual menu which has an option -

Keep in dock

If you hit this, you can forsee the possible outcome, if you don't well it's an either/or situation - so go figure.

This whole posts refers to what you are used to, ultimately. I have to admit, I have and would feel somewhat perplexed by KDE or another Linux shell, but that's because I am not accustom to it, and how it feels and works. I'd imagine users who've been brought up on Mac's, find Windows quite frustrating to operate, also. So although some users have quirks with the UI and it's functionality - doesn't mean it's wrong - surely not if the majority of that OS's users DO GET IT, it just means you're somewhat unfamililar with the way things operate.

A prime example is, Photoshop. Saying you're trying to manage the application Windows within the app, and pick the one you are looking for.

In Windows, the taskbar groups the windows together into a single 'photoshop' group - which is kinda handy. So you simply click the group and then click the window you're looking for via filename - or luck if you've not saved them yet! ;)

In Mac OS X (Panther) I switch to Photoshop, via Command + Tab, via the dock, via Expos?. I then call upon Expos? via a screen 'hot-corner' to show all windows for the current Application - or hit F10.

Both methods are massively different, it's questionable which you prefer, but they achieve the same results. This is why one system is called Mac OS, and the other is called something different;);)

I have to go back to work now, my bad if I missed any points, but feel free to make some comments in return, i'll be back later.

Peace

[Southern Patriot]

Believe me, the amount of research involving computer-illiterates that has shaped the Windows interface design is absolutely staggering.

585629199[/snapback]

Are you saying that Apple hasn't done research about interface design? LOL

[shodan]

And what if in Windows you actually WANTED to resize your window to fit its contents?  Is there an easy way to do that except by manually resizing the window, just as you would have to do on the Mac if you wanted your window to take up the full screen?

585629056[/snapback]

Hey, I said it first! ;)

[Southern Patriot]

Hey, I said it first!  ;)

585629949[/snapback]

Yeah, but it bears repeating. :p

[Steve]

Yeah, but it bears repeating. :p

585629957[/snapback]

^ bears? :rofl: :happy:

[threetonesun]

^ bears?  :rofl:  :happy:

585630261[/snapback]

That's correct ... :unsure:

[Steve]

That's correct ...  :unsure:

585630673[/snapback]

Sorry it was a private joke, In retrospect i shouldn't have posted it - because everyone else will be like. HUH? :unsure: - Ignore me! :p

[Heyo]

And what if in Windows you actually WANTED to resize your window to fit its contents?  Is there an easy way to do that except by manually resizing the window, just as you would have to do on the Mac if you wanted your window to take up the full screen?

585629056[/snapback]

Really? I didn?t observe this behaviour in OS X. When I selected the so-called ?fit to content? button there were many occasions where the window resized itself, but not to content. I still ended up with scroll bars. All it did was resize itself to what *it* thought was an optimum size for the window. Unfortunately, this didn?t match what I considered a optimum size for the window.

And then there was the confusion this design philosophy caused me as a new user. I mean listen to yourselves when you are describing the behaviour.

?Oh well for applications A, B and C it will resize to full screen, but for applications X, Y, Z well then it?s fit to content?.

It isn?t fit to content. It?s ?You decide how big the window should be Mr Application, I?m too dumb to decide for myself?.

It?s seemingly random behaviour for the new user at to what the (+) button will do, and therefore as confusing as the Dock?s now well documented inconsistent behaviour in this thread.

OS X it just painting itself more and more as an inconsistent interface (to the new user) to me, BY DESIGN. Which is fine? if you like that. I don?t.

[Heyo]

Are you trying to tell me that Mac users love every element of the Mac, its hardware, and interface?  If you truly believe that then you are incredibly naive.  Mac message boards are generally full of people that have one problem or another.

585629066[/snapback]

Mac boards may very well be full of people with all sorts of problems. I can?t say I?d be surprised given my brush-ins with the interface.

I?ve already surprised you by telling you I didn?t like the Dock?s behaviour and found it almost entirely unintuitive as a new user. How many other people try out OS X and then recoil in horror at it?s ways, and go running elsewhere?

I find it hard to believe I?m alone. I can pretty much be positive I?m not.

[Heyo]

In Mac OS X (Panther) I switch to Photoshop, via Command + Tab, via the dock, via Expos?. I then call upon Expos? via a screen 'hot-corner' to show all windows for the current Application - or hit F10.

585629248[/snapback]

Steve your description of the Dock's behaviour just made me groan more. Sometimes a running app is an arrow, othertimes maybe just icons get added.. etc etc

One thing I never got to play around with on OS X that I was really interested in seeing was Expose. I tried hitting the function keys I thought were the ones I am supposed to use but nothing happened. I was going to wait till I get my Mini to try it out, but now that's not going to happen because Mr Jobs won't sell me one... oh well.

I actually like how you guys described OS X as a document-centric interface. This is one area that shines with me and appeals to me alot more than the Windows way of doing things.

Can I just say you guys are the nicest Mac users I've ever met! Thanks for answering all my questions about OS X even if I sound like a pain half the time! lol

[neufuse Veteran]

My point is, the PC doesn't win, because the fundamental fact that OSX draws its interface through the graphics card puts it ahead of a comparable Windows PC. At the mini price point, gaming is a moot issue, the comparable PC would suck just as much as OSX's lack of games  :laugh:

I've used all the docks in Windows, not a single one was truly lag free, and IMO they all drew the icons worse than the OSX dock.

I agree though, the mini isn't anything special computing wise. I think price+performance+form factor, it absolutely kicks ass though.

585604207[/snapback]

you're complaining about how windows versions of docks draw icons? thats not necessarly a PC or Windows problem but the coders problem, seeing it's a 3rd party tool to start with, its not MS or the PC makers problem therefor shoudln't be held against MS or the PC maker.

[g-n-t]

I didn't think it did, but didn't have a copy nearby to check when I was posting, so I couldn't be sure.  Thanks for the confirmation.

585624088[/snapback]

well i use litestep so i got rid of explorer completly, i would have had to restart twice in order to test it out and then go back to litestep. however, task grouping was available in whistler as mentioned above and i really doubt that MS "stole" it from osx. also, xp in a way is "document centric" because if you do have more windows open than the taskbar fits, then they are all arranged in groups of apps. push the task button and you get a list of all the documents/windows in it. not exactly the same as OSx, but...

does OSX have multiple desktops though(not fast user switching, i mean multiple desktops per user)?

when i first started using linux, i really didnt realise how helpful that is, but it creates a sort of "task centric" environment. you put all internet apps in one desktops, graphics in another, music in another, terminal/"explorer" in anohter, or whatever.

as for the nub research argument, yes, of course apple has researched. they put identilcle products on different color backgrounds and see which one noobs choose first :laugh:

anyway, although apple does do some research, MS is just all over the place. i was reading about windows starter edition and how they researched different nterface elements for people in different countries and the tutorials and everything, its pretty amazing.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Are you saying that Apple hasn't done research about interface design?  LOL

585629857[/snapback]

I'm quite sure I said nothing of the sort.

Apple very clearly spends a lot of money on aethetic design. And in some cases (the iPod scroll wheel, for example) they've made some very functional designs as well.

However, I'm pretty sure the amount of money Microsoft spent researching useability for Windows XP far exceeds the amount of money Apple has spent on everything they've ever done.

There's a distinction in both the goal and the magnitude of these companies' respective UI research projects. I hope you can see that.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I also completely don't understand the need to have an icon with an arrow to indicate a running program in addition to an icon for each open document. If I click the icon for a program that's already running, what comes up? Nothing? All of the documents it has open?

In Windows every window that's open gets a taskbar entry, unless its the child window of an MDI application. But the only MDI applications I can think of these days all have tabbed interfaces.

So if I want to change between windows that are shown in the taskbar, I can ALT+TAB or click on them. If I want to switch between tabs in Maxthon, Visual Studio, etc. - I can click on the tab or CTRL+TAB.

I also greatly prefer the design wherein applications keep their menu bars "attached," instead of having the active window's menu bar always at the top of the screen. That idea always bugged me. It feels so restrictive and single-task oriented.

Another thing I don't understand is why you would want to keep programs running when they're not in use. You're already running a memory starved system (compared to Windows on x86), why would you want to make that worse?

I get ****ed when programs hang around longer than they're wanted. Adobe Reader is notorious for that, as the Java VM. And that behaviour certainly doesn't help my perception that both of those programs are the scum of the earth.

I mean, my computer isn't a Palm Pilot - it's not like it takes any time to start up Word everytime I open a document.

If I want a program to go away but keep running, I have the minimize button. If I click the big red X, I expect that program to clean up and get out immediately.

So yeah, those are some of the things that bug me about the Mac. As I said, there are plenty of things I like about it - and plenty of things I think Windows could do better. I'm not trying to make any broad comparisons or say that Macs are in any way inferior to PCs... I'm just trying to explain some design choices that I find to be poor or inconsistent in the OS X user interface.

[threetonesun]

Really? I didn?t observe this behaviour in OS X. When I selected the so-called ?fit to content? button there were many occasions where the window resized itself, but not to content. I still ended up with scroll bars. All it did was resize itself to what *it* thought was an optimum size for the window. Unfortunately, this didn?t match what I considered a optimum size for the window.

I guess you can argue what optimum size is, but it will always scale to show all the text. For instance, Preview defaults to opening PDF documents to fit one page at a time on your screen (the way it should be). If you zoom in, and resize, it will adjust the horizontal size to fit all the text on the screen.

Steve your description of the Dock's behaviour just made me groan more. Sometimes a running app is an arrow, othertimes maybe just icons get added.. etc etc

It will always have an arrow. What he said was, if you launch a program that you don't have as a shortcut on the dock, the icon (with an arrow) gets added to the dock. You can then by right clicking on the icon add it permanently to your dock if you wish, or when you quit the program, it will disappear.

One thing I never got to play around with on OS X that I was really interested in seeing was Expose. I tried hitting the function keys I thought were the ones I am supposed to use but nothing happened. I was going to wait till I get my Mini to try it out, but now that's not going to happen because Mr Jobs won't sell me one... oh well.

F9 F10 and F11, or it's under System Properties, you can set it up to activate through Hot Corners. In fact, if you friend you mentioned before couldn't figure out how to use Expose after that, he probably couldn't change his wallpaper :happy: :happy:

does OSX have multiple desktops though(not fast user switching, i mean multiple desktops per user)?

There's a program that does it, same as XP, and it has some cool transition effects. No one, IMO, has it done as simply as the Linux GUIs (Gnome/boxes in particular).

[Steve]

See, you're simply stating how you prefer the methods employed by Windows, which is fair enough - you don't really know Mac OS X too well.

Over and over again, it's been described that Mac OS X isn't document centric like Windows, thus the dock retains Applications in the dock, and doesn't create new UI entities for each and every window within your working environment. So you're wrong in thinking that once a program is running, ALL that the dock has to represent that, is the Application icon in the dock, and also the triangle that naturally represents an Application that is running.

If you choose to minimize Windows to the dock, they fall to right hand side of the dock (there's a clear divider). However Mac's have never been designed to 'minimize' Windows like you do in Microsoft's Windows OS. This can be a little confusing to users who aren't used to Mac OS, but the idea, from the early days was to simply 'collapse windows' and leave them on screen. Since then, Mac OS X has introduced the dock, and a means to minimize Windows, but it doesn't really fit in with the workflow. The more natural approaches to Window management are -

Hiding applications - Hitting a simple 'Command + H' will hide an app and it's contents. Changing back to this application, at any time, brings the windows back from their hidden state. Within any application window, or by key combo you have the power to 'hide others' which hides all apps, other than the current application running.

Expos? - the alternative, and more popular way to manage windows (documents) is via this method. For those not in the know, you can manage Windows (documents) on an application basis (like the popup menu for Windows taskbar grouped items) but for the 21st century. No more trying to work out what Window contained what - especially given that if a file's not yet saved, the text entry in Windows is near on worthless itself. Instead you've a visual and realtime scaled visual of every window in that application. It really couldn't be easier to manage windows (documents) per application, than this.

- The other method for Window manage (document) management is of course the typical and most known method of show all windows. This naturally scales ALL windows to fit, whilst rendering in them real-time - which allows for realtime updates to any window (such as chats, video, web-browsing - very handy if you're awaiting some progress to a window etc...)

Finder toolbar - Sure you might prefer the means of having the application menu attached to every window but this in itself brings some of UI flaws you could argue correlate to those of the dock. The main issues is that unless a Window is maximized, those menu's are never in the same place - relative to the screen. You can't naturally move your mouse to the top of your workspace (via motor memory), and hit a menu - they're inconsistently placed, on the basis of where your Window is in the environment. Furthermore - why would you want these menu's visible to applications that you're not interacting with - they're worth the screen real-estate their using up.

It's somewhat documented, and expressed 'out there' that Mac OS X's memory management is pretty advanced. Personally I don't have any means of evidence of this, nor background knowledge, but in the Mac OS environment, and the way it's designed, it's convenient to leave Applications open. The dock doesn't clutter, per document, therefore whether an Application contains windows or not, isn't detrimental to the UI as a whole. You could argue free memory would be an issue, but frankly i don't really experience it. Instead every few days I may logout and login, with refreshes the memory comprehensively - much like when you restart Windows. But typically on my PowerMac, i have no worries running 30 applications running, and being concerned with stability, or massive memory issues.

Your comments with regards to the close window widget are just that, but your thoughts and views are that of someone who is accustom to Windows, not Mac OS. I re-iterate that the principles are different, which is probably why Windows was named Windows really. On Windows, you manage Windows, more than you do actual applications (they manage themselves, on the basis of the windows open) yet on Mac OS, it's more of the opposite.

Chew on those, and feel free to give me some feedback, or question further. Overall without wanting to sound like 'one of them' i find that alot of your quirks and such are that of someone who is naturally used to Windows, and unfamiliar with Mac OS. Naturally if 'the shoe was on the other foot' (so to speak) the same would apply.

i hope this post is helpful, and provides some info. I have to admit when i switched to Mac's (Mac OS X 10.0 beta) It took some time to quit thinking in terms of the way Windows worked, and moving my mindset into that of the Mac OS. After doing so, there's really very few things I miss about Windows really, and the taskbar isn't one of them. Of course it does remain consistent, in terms of position and the way it 'acts' in your opinion, but to me it feels dated and clunky. It's just not visual enough, and requires you to read small sized writing which relates to the Windows / Documents - Mac OS X is far more visual in terms of the dock and window management via Expos?. For me, recognizing windows and apps is far easier and quicker via visual prompt, than via the methods employed by the taskbar in Windows.

Steve

( i was in a rush, i don't have time to proof read that )

[Steve]

I've also taken the liberty of showing you a few of the things, we've talked about - it might help somewhat to picture ideas and such.

The dock - here's an example of my dock, it has Applications running, some not. Beyond the divider lies files and directories - the springs are hyperlinks, and the folder is 'Applications', the 'trash' always remains on the right side of the dock. For me, it really isn't too hard to distinguish between running apps, and those not yet launched. Maybe you too can see how the black triangle isn't quite 'a few pixels', and is rather visible, afterall.

Dock Menu's - From a simple command click (or right click) you have access unlimited access to directories via menu's. So in turn dragging a folder such as 'Applications' becomes an application launcher, like the Start Menu in Windows. This, combined with the soon to be added Spotlight, brings an alternative way to accessing files and folders in the finder. Note that the menu's include high quality icons which aid the visual side of things, and make finding files and folders via this method even easier. The first screenshot also demonstrates what a Window, minimized looks like - Safari.

As stated, every application has these functions, which allows you to manage application windows / documents in terms of their visible / hidden state. It's very useful for Windows you don't want cluttering your workspace temporarily - which isn't something you can do in Windows. Only way you could achieve similar results would be save and quit the windows.

Once a new application is added to the dock (because you launched it) you can simply keep it in the dock, via this method. Alternatively you could simply drag the icon to the left side, and it'll then assume you wanted to keep it there - because you chose to manage it. So you don't NEED to use this contextual menu. ;)

I hope that sheds even more light on the subject.

[Southern Patriot]

Steve your description of the Dock's behaviour just made me groan more. Sometimes a running app is an arrow, othertimes maybe just icons get added.. etc etc

One thing I never got to play around with on OS X that I was really interested in seeing was Expose. I tried hitting the function keys I thought were the ones I am supposed to use but nothing happened. I was going to wait till I get my Mini to try it out, but now that's not going to happen because Mr Jobs won't sell me one... oh well.

I actually like how you guys described OS X as a document-centric interface. This is one area that shines with me and appeals to me alot more than the Windows way of doing things.

Can I just say you guys are the nicest Mac users I've ever met! Thanks for answering all my questions about OS X even if I sound like a pain half the time! lol

585632847[/snapback]

That's not what Steve said at all. An arrow under the icon ALWAYS indicates that the app is running. The only time that an icon gets added to the Dock (other than when the user manually drags an application icon there) is if you run an application that isn't already there. Even then, it will have an arrow under it indicating that it is running. When you close that application, the icon for it will go away from the Dock.

From your comments about Expose', it is beginning to sound like you may have been using a version of OS X other than Panther. If you were unfortunate enough to be using 10.0 or 10.1, that may very well explain some of the confusion you had, and some of your comments about "inconsistent" behavior, as those versions did have some bugs in that respect that have been cleaned up with 10.2 and 10.3.

Thanks for that last comment. You will find that most of the Mac users here really do try to help others. It's only when we are confronted by obvious trolls that we get hostile. :cool:

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I've also taken the liberty of showing you a few of the things, we've talked about - it might help somewhat to picture ideas and such.

First off, I appreciate you taking the time to explain and illustrate these points :)

The dock - here's an example of my dock, it has Applications running, some not. Beyond the divider lies files and directories - the springs are hyperlinks, and the folder is 'Applications', the 'trash' always remains on the right side of the dock. For me, it really isn't too hard to distinguish between running apps, and those not yet launched. Maybe you too can see how the black triangle isn't quite 'a few pixels', and is rather visible, afterall.

Dock Menu's - From a simple command click (or right click) you have access unlimited access to directories via menu's. So in turn dragging a folder such as 'Applications' becomes an application launcher, like the Start Menu in Windows.

Neat. To me this seems a lot like what happens when you drag a folder in Windows to an empty spot on the taskbar (you get a "quicklaunch" kind of menu and can navigate the folder through cascading menus in almost exactly the same way).

As stated, every application has these functions, which allows you to manage application windows / documents in terms of their visible / hidden state. It's very useful for Windows you don't want cluttering your workspace temporarily - which isn't something you can do in Windows. Only way you could achieve similar results would be save and quit the windows.

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.

If you did want to see only one window, you can:

a) Maximize it

b) use "Show Desktop"

c) Minimize the windows you don't want.

Or you can always send it to another virtual desktop (virtually every display driver includes that feature).

Beyond that, I don't think this is a situation where I am simply accustomed to the way Windows does things. My point here is that, in these ways, I prefer the way Windows does things - because they make more sense to me.

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.