Mac Mini vs. Comparable Spec PC

[threetonesun]

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.

[Southern Patriot]

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.

[BajiRav]

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:

[BajiRav]

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 ?

[threetonesun]

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.

[Southern Patriot]

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.

[Southern Patriot]

The adium thing you mentioned is common across all platforms  ?

585634856[/snapback]

Adium is basically the Mac equivalent of Trillian.

[BajiRav]

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:

[BajiRav]

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 :)

[daveoc64]

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.

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

[threetonesun]

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?

[neufuse Veteran]

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

[threetonesun]

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.

[BajiRav]

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: )

[macssuck]

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.

[neufuse Veteran]

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

[Southern Patriot]

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.

[Southern Patriot]

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

[g-n-t]

ya, in KDE my taskbar has three rows of tasks. in windows i had it stretched pretty big on the side with autohide, that worked too.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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 March 19, 2005 by threedaysdwn

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

[Steve]

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.

[macssuck]

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.

Edited March 19, 2005 by macssuck

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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 March 19, 2005 by threedaysdwn