[Tfug] 2 weeks of Hackintosh fun..

[Bowie J. Poag]

As I see it, there's a fine line between freedom of choice and option 
glut.  Having too many options will eventually get in the way between 
the user and what the user wants. This is why Starbucks is failing. Most 
of the time, people just want a damn cup of coffee, not a questionnaire. 
You may want your "non-fat soy venti hazelnut chai latte'" on occasion, 
but given the choice between waiting around for your hyper-specific 
coffee request, and simply grabbing a pitcher of coffee off a hotplate, 
guess which one sees the most activity? People, in general, tend to seek 
the path of least resistance. It's a law of nature.

The nice part about OS X is that it manages to provide *enough* 
flexibility the user without going overboard.  The "You can do it this 
way, or this way, or this way, or this way, or this way, or this way." 
method of GUI design you see in XP/Vista/GNOME/KDE appeases people at 
the expense of unnecessary added complexity and increased user 
frustration. There is such a thing as having *too many* choices, *too 
many* methods. I don't want 15 different highways to Phoenix. I want one 
highway that gets me there the fastest with the least hassle along the way.

Lets suppose you tell a highly-trained orchestra with great instruments 
to play the William Tell Overture and then promptly walk off the stage. 
Every member of that orchestra is going to start looking around for the 
conductor to cue them. Lacking a conductor, they'll have to start 
playing without much regard to the musicians next to them. Everyone has 
their own idea as to how fast or slow it should be played, where the 
emphasis should be on certain notes within different sections...and the 
net result will sound like shit, compared to how it COULD be.

Now, lets suppose you give the same orchestra the sheet music to the 
William Tell Overture, and have someone on stage who can conduct. Now, 
everybody's on the same page, everyone can understand the meter, and 
play cooperatively versus independently. The net result will sound awesome.

That's the fundamental difference between OS X and various Linux 
desktops. It's not the fault of the instruments (Unix), and it's not the 
fault of the musicians (users). It's the lack of prior-agreed-upon 
standards, and a central coordinating influence (Apple)

A friend of mine (hi Paul) refers to my opinions as a "Nazi desktop" in 
their ideals. He doesn't like anyone telling him how to do anything. I 
suppose thats his right, but.....in doing so, Paul effectively obligates 
himself to a desktop in a perpetual state of brokenness, driving a car 
around with a flat tire looking for a place that sells the one specific 
tire that will fit his one specific wheel rim. And then that's not 
enough.. He needs to go find special lug nuts to keep the damn thing 
from falling off while he drives to the next tire store to fix the other 
tire. With a standardized approach to connecting the worker to his work, 
the tire doesn't blow out to begin with. And even if it does, you're 
back on the road within minutes versus hours. There's no quest for the 
holy hex nut that will make everything work.

Cheers,
Bowie

Andrew Ayre wrote:
> I also design, implement, support and maintain products, and I agree 
> 100% with your comments below.
>
> Andy
>
> Bexley Hall wrote:
>> Hi, Andrew,
>>
>> --- On Sun, 11/9/08, Andrew Ayre <andy at britishideas.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry your experiences of Windows and Linux have
>>> been so different to mine, but I'm afraid we will have
>>> to agree to disagree. I hope you can respect my opinion, as
>>> I respect yours.
>>
>> Of *course* I respect your opinion!  I am merely stating my
>> observations on this subject.
>>
>> I am *keenly* sensitive to "problems" in products -- be they
>> software, hardware, documentation, or some combination thereof.
>> So, I am always eager to argue "why" (i.e., my opinion thereof)
>> these things appear to occur.  (I design "products" so I am
>> always looking for issues that I can embrace or avoid to make
>> those products "better" -- whatever *that* means!  :> )
>>
>> Sometimes, it is cultural.  (e.g., when Robotron? was released in
>> Germany, dead players were signified by a skull and crossbones.
>> Apparently this was a huge faux pas and had to be "fixed").
>>
>> Sometimes generational.  (e.g., some microwave ovens had "dials"
>> to set the cook time since older users were more comfortable
>> turning a dial than typing in a number)
>>
>> Sometimes its related to the application domain.  (e.g., I designed
>> a medical device with the acronym "PID" -- only to discover that
>> this can also refer to an unsavory medical condition)
>>
>> Sometimes it's a screwup on the part of the "developer" (manufacturer?).
>> (e.g., the cord from the "base" to my soldering iron exits the base
>> on the "wrong" side -- apparent as soon as you USE it but I guess
>> it wasn't when they designed it!)
>>
>> Other times, incorrect expectations from the user.  E.g., users
>> *seem* to always be drawn to things that are "infinitely flexible"
>> (read "flexible" as "configurable") -- until they actually *use*
>> them!  Then, they seem to be "too complicated" and they express
>> dissatisfaction with the product.
>>
>> Unfortunately, any time you "miss" when you try to meet the
>> user's needs/expectations, you lose a sale/credibility/etc.
>> The more you can understand about why a product is good/bad,
>> the better chance you have of improving *your* product!  :-/
>
>