I don't know for certain that Mac OS X will be a great computing
interface, but I do know several things about it and have used it in
the DP4 stage. I have also used both of its progenitors, NeXTstep and
Mac OS. This article shares my belief of what the Mac OS X interface is
meant to be. It is opinion.
I have now read the umpteenth article lamenting the demise of the
Mac OS and proclaiming Aqua a poor follow on. As "traditional"
Macintosh utilities like the Control Strip and the Apple Menu
disappear, there is much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. I
am sick of it. I hope to spread a little rationality here and a little
understanding of what OS X is.
Firstly, I would like to start with some perspective. Let us not
start with Mac OS 9 as the comparison for Mac OS X. Why? Because Mac OS
9 was not designed for consumers, it was designed for Macintosh
aficionados and Windows users. It just so happened that at its core it
was the Mac OS, which was designed for consumers, that has allowed it
to keep its lead in ease of use. The proper comparison for Mac OS X is
System 6. (If you have a pre-1992 Mac, you can download a copy of
System 6.0.8 from this page.)
I select System 6 as a discussion point because it is easier to
argue that it was based almost entirely on the original Macintosh
vision and design, as opposed to OS 9 which was designed subsequent to
the disbanding of much of Apple's human interface research groups.
Also, System 6 was probably the most widely used of the original
Macintosh OS versions and likely the best known. Therefore, I can touch
on common experience better by referring to it. Finally, for the most
part System 6 differs little from the original Macintosh interface,
while OS 9 is very different.
Many of you reading this may never have heard of, or actually used,
System 6. It was a version of the Mac OS way back in the days before it
was called "Mac OS." It was designed almost exclusively to make a
computer easier for new customers to use. Macintosh interface design
was still in active development and programmers actually still
communicated with real human factors engineers about the best way to
add features. Furthermore, for the most part Apple even followed their
own guidelines.
If you have the opportunity in the near future, take a copy of
System 6 for a spin on an SE/30. It is a delightful OS, but
you will note that many of the features of the interface of the modern
Mac OS are not there - pop up folders, window shade, control strip, and
other widgets were not available. Even the Apple menu did not provide
the same functionality that it provides today. You might find this lack
of features at first restrictive and perhaps feel somewhat
claustrophobic. But if you are a new computer user perhaps you won't
(you definitely won't).
Have you ever tried to teach an adult who has never used a computer
how to use one? You quickly discover that, whether it is Windows or the
much beloved Mac OS, it just isn't easy. I can set up a Windows or
Macintosh machine to be easy for a limited number of tasks. I just put
a couple of aliases on the Desktop and set the default file folder to a
single one ("Documents" on the Mac). Then the new user can perform
email tasks, surf the web, write the occasional note, or deal with a
few pictures. But if they attempt to venture beyond that, they run into
complexity, significant complexity.
In the current Mac OS, there are at least four separate ways I can
think of to make a program easily accessible. New computer users don't
like this flexibility, because it generates uncertainty about what they
"should" do. This is especially true when new programs require them to
use a way that they typically don't by installing components into the
Control Strip or Apple Menu.
In the current Mac OS, when your computer crashes, freezes, or
whatever, there are several simple repairs you must memorize how to do.
They require things like understanding the extensions folder to a
certain degree. This is a level of complexity that new users find
difficult to learn, if not frightening.
In the current Mac OS, connecting to the internet can require the
manipulation of three poorly designed control panels, not to mention
installing lots of software.
In the current Mac OS, exploration is inhibited by system
instability. The Mac OS's ease of use was originally designed to be
discovered by exploration.
The interface in the current Mac OS is inconsistent because of
haphazard and piecemeal development. Because of changes to the
interface, selecting a non-PostScript printer in the current Mac OS is
like entering a completely different world.
Further inhibiting exploration in the current Mac OS, much of the
functionality is not easily discovered through exploration. For
example, popup folders would almost never be accidentally discovered by
a new user. It is important that, as you explore, it is easy to
discover the features. Burrowing might be discovered, but not easily,
and not without some trepidation about what that magnifying glass
actually does.
The Desktop can quickly become very cluttered in the modern Mac
OS.
Modern Macs operate too quickly for many interface features to serve
their intended function correctly (like zoom rects).
Multiple Users is a fine stop gap measure in OS 9, but it really is
not a true answer to handling the needs of multiple users of a single
computer. The Mac OS design is clearly not for multiple users.
Multitasking in the current Mac OS is mediocre at best. You can
learn to live with it, and it will function OK on a fast machine, but
many times it is frustrating. Feeling you have to hurry through menus
so that the download in the background doesn't fail is not good. Not
understanding this and finding out that the download in the background
has timed out unexpectedly is even more frustrating.
These are just some of the problems with the current Mac OS in terms
of interface (yes, multitasking can be discussed purely in terms of
interface). In spite of all of these problems, Mac OS 9 is the easiest
to use and most elegant operating system available to consumers today.
I believe that one of the primary goals of Aqua is to fix these
interface problems. It is supposed to be easy to use for someone who
has never used a computer. It is not supposed to be an ideal setup for
the "power" Mac or Windows user out of the box.
Mac OS X will be virtually crash proof. This will encourage user
exploration, which will foster learning of the interface. Aqua has one
unified way to present the most commonly accessed documents. Aqua, with
its true multiuser capability, has a default location for documents
specific to each user, making saving and opening documents easier. Aqua
has very detailed icons which, after using a NeXT for some time, are
clearly superior for new users (if somewhat slowing for experienced
ones). Aqua uses a single window interface by default. With no windows
to manage, there is less interface clutter. Mac OS X has a more unified
and streamlined internet setup interface.
A little more perspective is in order now. When the Macintosh came
out it was thought to be a useless interface by many "experts". The use
of the screen for all those pictures and the waste of processor speed
drawing to the screen when a "text mode" could render the names of the
files instantly were just the beginning. The GUI only approach didn't
allow one to futz with the innards. The lack of WordPerfect for word
processing was considered a serious drawback. The same is true of Lotus
1-2-3. It had no expansion slots (and later "incompatible" ones). It
didn't come with a BASIC programming language in the box.
The Mac was criticized and condemned every which way. Some of the
most vocal (the most vocal) opponents were Apple II users. Does
that sound familiar? Who are the most vocal opponents of OS X? Mac
pundits. The PC press seems overall impressed by the operating system.
I have read no scathingly negative reviews of the beta from the PC
press. These have only come from the Mac press.
One might question if Apple should go with a simpler and less
powerful GUI interface for their new OS. I believe they should. Users
have to get up to speed with the new concepts, and much of the untapped
consumer market is not waiting for a P4 with Windows 2001. They don't
know it, but they are really waiting for something more like the
re-release of the SE/30 for $699.
Power users will have little to worry about. There are already
downloadable replacement widgets for almost every missing feature of
the current Mac OS. It will be customizable. Don't let the fact that OS
extensions are unavailable scare you. There is an even simpler method
of modifying the OS, and it is easier to fix and makes the machine more
stable (faceless background apps, just like the current desktop
printing and controls strip).
That's all for now
Share your perspective on the Mac by emailing with "My Turn" as your subject.
