Recommended Posts

What I want to know is why us PC users always get ugly, cluttered UIs whilst the those lucky enough to own Macs get:

post-2-1133947457.jpg

Microsoft made this for OS X, so why not use the same template for Windows?

It's so much neater & aesthetically pleasing. Plus, it doesn't open maximized by default. Why the hell do we always need everything maximized?

What I want to know is why us PC users always get ugly, cluttered UIs whilst the those lucky enough to own Macs get:

post-2-1133947457.jpg

Microsoft made this for OS X, so why not use the same template for Windows?

It's so much neater & aesthetically pleasing. Plus, it doesn't open maximized by default. Why the hell do we always need everything maximized?

586707281[/snapback]

I do agree that looks a lot nicer. But I think the office team is split into two. One for PC and one for Mac. Correct me if i am wrong

What I want to know is why us PC users always get ugly, cluttered UIs whilst the those lucky enough to own Macs get:

Microsoft made this for OS X, so why not use the same template for Windows?

It's so much neater & aesthetically pleasing. Plus, it doesn't open maximized by default. Why the hell do we always need everything maximized?

586707281[/snapback]

personally i like the pc interface better, when i was using my mac i hated office for mac....

Aaargh! It's getting a bit too bloated if you ask me.

586703584[/snapback]

but microsoft is trying to make it easy to use.. and i guess have vista universal. wave 12?

i actually really like it.. it's gonna be something new, from the amazing blue or olive, or silver toolbar scheme in windows XP and office 2003 LOL.

i hope this is gonna be as easy to use as 2003 from the beginning.. took me awhile to learn all the products in office.. front page, power point.. etc.

heres something different.. the guy is running windows XP, you can tell by the toolbar, and microsoft office 12 toolbar is vista style..

XP, windows 2000, and vista only i guess?

those are some BIG menus LOL, closed and opened.

http://bbs.mydrivers.com/attachments/19O12...AXE6Nxi7Skl.jpg

It's just getting too functional. I can't stand a program that decides what functions I need to make my document.:no::

586703638[/snapback]

I agree, but i do remember someone doing a demo of it saying that you can still customize your toolbars/ribbons to what ever you like to have on it.

They are trying to make the average user be able to find all those hidden features that are hidden in the menus and dialog boxes, it could be very good or could be annoying we will see i guess... I know for sure the first thing i turn off in office XP & 2003 was "show custom menus" or what every it was called, where it would hide stuff... friggin annoying!

I do agree that looks a lot nicer. But I think the office team is split into two. One for PC and one for  Mac. Correct me if i am wrong

586707292[/snapback]

Thats what is so annoying. People make beautiful apps for Macs, almost as if its against the law not to do so. For the PC, nobody cares about the look.

Microsoft make a big deal about the aesthetics + simplicity they've improved in Vista. They're so proud of their "hard work" when their OWN mac division does it better without any effort.

personally i like the pc interface better, when i was using my mac i hated office for mac....

586707306[/snapback]

Although I may not understand why you prefer the PC interface, I accept it.

i think that some things in the UI do look kinda inconsistent... i mean... look at outlook and the rest.

but yeh. i can't wait to use the new UI in Word/Excel/PowerPoint.

586704147[/snapback]

Outlook actually changed the *least* of all the Office applications (however, Outlook also had a major change two versions back); however, even in Outlook, the application windows are a heck of a lot cleaner and smoother than in Outlook 2003. The UI change in the other applications (in my case, Word, which is the application I use most other than Outlook) is still driving me barmy. I actually find the lack of major changes in Outlook's UI refreshing (however, one change is actually rather pleasant: the Calendar and e-mail views are now combined by default, which is way overdue).

Why do I like the combined Calendar/Mailbox view? For one thing, Outlook is supposed to be a PIM (Personal Information Manager), in addition to being an e-mail client; if the two functions are both supposed to be accessible and usable in the same application, why shouldn't they both be accessible from the same application window? The PIM functions have been in Outlook from the beginning, and started moving to center stage with Outlook 2000; however, you had to open another window to use the PIM functionality, which I found counterproductive, especially since my use of Outlook is mail-centric. However, I can now actually use e-mail to drive Schedule/Calendar events without having to have an Exchange Server as the back end. (By replying to a mail message concerning an appointment, I can automagically fill in the date/time/purpose of the appointment in the Calendar. No fancy forms necessary.)

but microsoft is trying to make it easy to use.. and i guess have vista universal.  wave 12?

i actually really like it.. it's gonna be something new, from the amazing blue or olive, or silver toolbar scheme in windows XP and office 2003 LOL.

i hope this is gonna be as easy to use as 2003 from the beginning.. took me awhile to learn all the products in office.. front page, power point.. etc.

heres something different.. the guy is running windows XP, you can tell by the toolbar, and microsoft office 12 toolbar is vista style..

XP, windows 2000, and vista only i guess?

those are some BIG menus LOL, closed and opened.

http://bbs.mydrivers.com/attachments/19O12...AXE6Nxi7Skl.jpg

586707324[/snapback]

Not exactly news. Office 2003 and Office XP both require Windows 2000 *at minimum*. Also, both Windows 2000 and XP are skinnable to reflect either the XP or even Vista UI (and Windows XP can drop back to the Windows 2000/Classic UI). Also, consider just third-party applications: How many of them adhere to the extant Microsoft UI design guidelines? (I'm not even going to bring up Apple, so this isn't Mac-bashing, but more obvious repeat offenders such as Adobe, Macromedia, and even Symantec, not to mention QUALCOMM and IBM.)

In the case of the Mac version of Office, that has *always* come from a different group altogether within Microsoft; unlike Windows Office, which is aimed at the corporate user, Mac Office is targeted at the home user (which explains the major differences between Entourage, which includes USENET/NNTP client support, and Outlook, which doesn't).

i think most of you are forgetting the fact that the big bars will be hideable.

most of us will know that we can make them smaller and get it out of the way until we really need to use it.. or final edit of a paper.

double click on the tap and it hides neatly until double clicked again

Microsoft made this for OS X, so why not use the same template for Windows?

It's so much neater & aesthetically pleasing. Plus, it doesn't open maximized by default. Why the hell do we always need everything maximized?

586707281[/snapback]

I run everything maximized (Windows, Linux, MacOS). I can only actively work on one application at a time. If I multitask, I switch to another full screen application.

The MacOS maximize button doesn't maximize quite the way I would want it to so I usually end up dragging the window manually. I didn't like the wasted space (the visible desktop) that was shown on your screen image. That would bug me.

I created a poll:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=391325

Edited by fred666
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!