Why I Hate Windows (Feb '05 Edition)
Almost everyone who knows me is aware that I'm a "Mac-head", and that I hate Windows. The purpose of this rant is to highlight some of the things that I most hate about using the latest version of Windows (XP), and thus help me release some frustration. I also hold out the (very slim) hope that someone at Microsoft is listening.
In a perfect world I would be able to use an Apple Macintosh for any computer-related work. But, alas, this is a far-from-perfect world, over the years working as an IT contractors means I have to suffer the nightmare of using Windows.
Here's a list of my current major peeves about Windows XP:
Stale directory listings
Why is it necessary to press F5 to get a directory listing updated? Surely the system should know that a file has been added or updated in a directory. Also the system should know if a window is open displaying the contents of that directory. So why should I need to do anything to get the directory listing updated? For many years now the various versions of Mac OS have automatically refreshed the directory listing after changes to the contents.
Mapping drives using letters
Back in the days of yore (actually, the Eighties) I owned an Atari 800XL. To save files I had a tape drive, which used standard audio cassettes. Later I could afford to buy a floppy disk drive. To reference the tape drive, I had to use the letter "C" and a colon ("C:"), while the floppy drive was referenced as "D:". All perfectly reasonable, in 1985.
At the same time, PCs were called "IBM compatibles", and ran Microsoft's DOS. Windows 1.0 was released around that time. These PCs also referred to storage devices, be it a floppy drive or hard disk, by single-letter drive designations. Apple Macs were bit of an exception. They allowed volume names to be whatever you wanted them to be, say "Macintosh HD", "Backup Drive" or even "Dave". In those days I guess it wasn't really a big deal, because networks were very rare. Everyone in an office would have the same small set of drives and associated drive mappings as everyone else.
These days almost every office is networked. Resources can be shared over the network quite easily. To do this in Windows you to map a network resource to a drive letter. Unfortunately not everyone maps the same resources to the same drive. I tend to prefer using mnemonic mappings to help me remember what's what. For example, I usually map my home directory on the network file server to drive "H:". For common resources available to all users, I might choose another letter, trying to use a letter that reminds me of the resource. The problem occurs when other people choose different letters for the same resource, so they say "the file is on Y drive", which is meaningless unless I have the same resource mapped to "Y:" as they do. Contrast this to a Macintosh, where network volumes have actual names, such as "Company Stuff" or "Web Server". No confusion there. So why does Windows still use drive-mappings in 2005, just like my old Atari 800XL did in 1985?
Limited Drag-and-Drop support
One of the great things about visual systems is the ability to grab a file or some text and use drag-and-drop to move it somewhere else. For example, one can grab a file in "My Documents" and move it to "My Music". Similarly in Word one can grab a paragraph and move it somewhere else in the document. Unfortunately, Windows doesn't provide as complete and consistent drag-and-drop support as Mac OS X. On my Mac, I can drag the text of a URL from a dialog box and drop it onto the browser's icon in the dock (taskbar) and the browser will load that page. Sure, sometimes this is not Microsoft's fault, but rather it's the fault of the developers of the applications themselves. But if Microsoft led by example and made Windows as drag-and-drop aware as Mac OS X, then things could only improve.
Epileptic fit-inducing colour scheme
Many non-Mac people criticise Mac OS X for being mere "eye-candy". Sure, it has lot's of nice colours and fancy effects, but anyone who has seen Windows XP with it's default settings would have to admit that the Mac is tasteful in comparison. The XP colour scheme looks like it was designed by kindergarten children. Actually, I'm being unfair on kindergarten children (and their teachers). Windows apologists say you can switch to Windows 2000-style look, which I have done, but why does the XP have to look so "busy" out of the box?
Hyperactive taskbar and general environment
The Windows taskbar can be a hectic place. I can understand that when a new application starts up a slot appears in the task bar. And I can appreciate how XP can consolidate windows by application. In fact I would prefer it if it did that by default, not only once the taskbar has become "full". My main issue with the taskbar is how much jumping around there is. It makes me jittery when I see so much activity at the bottom of the screen. It can be very distracting. Also, why can't I rearrange the items in the taskbar, whereas I'm allowed to rearrange the items in the quick launch section?
But the taskbar is a sea of tranquility when compared to the general XP environment. If you have an open window and change the selected file, the left toolbar gets updated to show you what actions you can do with that file. That may be nice for a novice user, but I find it distracting if all I want to do is move the file somewhere else. Why does XP have to try to second-guess what I want to do with the file? Also, whenever something happens XP displays little popup windows to alert (i.e. distract) me. Okay, these windows often dismiss themselves after a delay, but too late - I've been distracted by something which is slightly more than meaningless. To complete this section here's one of my personal favourite popus: when XP has finished booting it informs me that it failed to connect to the network. The popup neglects to reaassure me that it will continue trying, and once it does establish a network connection it doesn't even bother letting me know! Why does Windows have to be so selectively chatty?
Extreme modality
Changing control settings in Windows usually involves an ever-increasing procession through a series of dialog boxes. It's easy to get lost and try clicking on the Cancel button of a dialog box which is behind the one that's at the top of the stack. It doesn't help when your calendar program (im)politely informs you that you have a meeting in 15 minutes and takes over part of the screen. And if you make the mistake of clicking on another application's window you could find it difficult getting back to that dialog box stack that you were trying to work your way out of in the first place. User interface gurus have cautioned against using such modal interfaces, but Microsoft is not listening.
Start to Stop
One of my favourite Windows anomalies is the "Shutdown" item in the Start menu. This epitomises the upside-down world that is Windows. I think I'll stop here.
The horror, the horror.
[Update]
Revenge of XP? It appears that the feeling of hatred is mutial. When I returned to work this week, my PC failed to boot up correctly. Windows complained that a critical file (I think it was the registry) was corrupt. I don't know if it was related to the fact that the computer's memory had been upgraded (why should that cause a problem?) but I had to get someone from tech support to fix it.
[Update 2]
Mary Stamper has written an essay which criticises Windows from a software developer's point of view:
From GUI-Avoider to OS X
Her conclusion:
"I’m sure that everyone has heard the old saying, “Mac for Productivity, Unix for Development, and Windows for Solitaire”. My experience has shown me that at least for my needs, the Mac is not only for productivity, but for development as well. Windows? Well, some things never change."
I've also commented to people that Windows PCs are just souped-up Xboxes that can run Excel.
In a perfect world I would be able to use an Apple Macintosh for any computer-related work. But, alas, this is a far-from-perfect world, over the years working as an IT contractors means I have to suffer the nightmare of using Windows.
Here's a list of my current major peeves about Windows XP:
- Stale directory listings
- Mapping drives using letters
- Limited Drag-and-Drop support
- Epileptic fit-inducing colour scheme
- Hyperactive taskbar and general environment
- Extreme modality
- Start to Stop
Stale directory listings
Why is it necessary to press F5 to get a directory listing updated? Surely the system should know that a file has been added or updated in a directory. Also the system should know if a window is open displaying the contents of that directory. So why should I need to do anything to get the directory listing updated? For many years now the various versions of Mac OS have automatically refreshed the directory listing after changes to the contents.
Mapping drives using letters
Back in the days of yore (actually, the Eighties) I owned an Atari 800XL. To save files I had a tape drive, which used standard audio cassettes. Later I could afford to buy a floppy disk drive. To reference the tape drive, I had to use the letter "C" and a colon ("C:"), while the floppy drive was referenced as "D:". All perfectly reasonable, in 1985.
At the same time, PCs were called "IBM compatibles", and ran Microsoft's DOS. Windows 1.0 was released around that time. These PCs also referred to storage devices, be it a floppy drive or hard disk, by single-letter drive designations. Apple Macs were bit of an exception. They allowed volume names to be whatever you wanted them to be, say "Macintosh HD", "Backup Drive" or even "Dave". In those days I guess it wasn't really a big deal, because networks were very rare. Everyone in an office would have the same small set of drives and associated drive mappings as everyone else.
These days almost every office is networked. Resources can be shared over the network quite easily. To do this in Windows you to map a network resource to a drive letter. Unfortunately not everyone maps the same resources to the same drive. I tend to prefer using mnemonic mappings to help me remember what's what. For example, I usually map my home directory on the network file server to drive "H:". For common resources available to all users, I might choose another letter, trying to use a letter that reminds me of the resource. The problem occurs when other people choose different letters for the same resource, so they say "the file is on Y drive", which is meaningless unless I have the same resource mapped to "Y:" as they do. Contrast this to a Macintosh, where network volumes have actual names, such as "Company Stuff" or "Web Server". No confusion there. So why does Windows still use drive-mappings in 2005, just like my old Atari 800XL did in 1985?
Limited Drag-and-Drop support
One of the great things about visual systems is the ability to grab a file or some text and use drag-and-drop to move it somewhere else. For example, one can grab a file in "My Documents" and move it to "My Music". Similarly in Word one can grab a paragraph and move it somewhere else in the document. Unfortunately, Windows doesn't provide as complete and consistent drag-and-drop support as Mac OS X. On my Mac, I can drag the text of a URL from a dialog box and drop it onto the browser's icon in the dock (taskbar) and the browser will load that page. Sure, sometimes this is not Microsoft's fault, but rather it's the fault of the developers of the applications themselves. But if Microsoft led by example and made Windows as drag-and-drop aware as Mac OS X, then things could only improve.
Epileptic fit-inducing colour scheme
Many non-Mac people criticise Mac OS X for being mere "eye-candy". Sure, it has lot's of nice colours and fancy effects, but anyone who has seen Windows XP with it's default settings would have to admit that the Mac is tasteful in comparison. The XP colour scheme looks like it was designed by kindergarten children. Actually, I'm being unfair on kindergarten children (and their teachers). Windows apologists say you can switch to Windows 2000-style look, which I have done, but why does the XP have to look so "busy" out of the box?
Hyperactive taskbar and general environment
The Windows taskbar can be a hectic place. I can understand that when a new application starts up a slot appears in the task bar. And I can appreciate how XP can consolidate windows by application. In fact I would prefer it if it did that by default, not only once the taskbar has become "full". My main issue with the taskbar is how much jumping around there is. It makes me jittery when I see so much activity at the bottom of the screen. It can be very distracting. Also, why can't I rearrange the items in the taskbar, whereas I'm allowed to rearrange the items in the quick launch section?
But the taskbar is a sea of tranquility when compared to the general XP environment. If you have an open window and change the selected file, the left toolbar gets updated to show you what actions you can do with that file. That may be nice for a novice user, but I find it distracting if all I want to do is move the file somewhere else. Why does XP have to try to second-guess what I want to do with the file? Also, whenever something happens XP displays little popup windows to alert (i.e. distract) me. Okay, these windows often dismiss themselves after a delay, but too late - I've been distracted by something which is slightly more than meaningless. To complete this section here's one of my personal favourite popus: when XP has finished booting it informs me that it failed to connect to the network. The popup neglects to reaassure me that it will continue trying, and once it does establish a network connection it doesn't even bother letting me know! Why does Windows have to be so selectively chatty?
Extreme modality
Changing control settings in Windows usually involves an ever-increasing procession through a series of dialog boxes. It's easy to get lost and try clicking on the Cancel button of a dialog box which is behind the one that's at the top of the stack. It doesn't help when your calendar program (im)politely informs you that you have a meeting in 15 minutes and takes over part of the screen. And if you make the mistake of clicking on another application's window you could find it difficult getting back to that dialog box stack that you were trying to work your way out of in the first place. User interface gurus have cautioned against using such modal interfaces, but Microsoft is not listening.
Start to Stop
One of my favourite Windows anomalies is the "Shutdown" item in the Start menu. This epitomises the upside-down world that is Windows. I think I'll stop here.
The horror, the horror.
[Update]
Revenge of XP? It appears that the feeling of hatred is mutial. When I returned to work this week, my PC failed to boot up correctly. Windows complained that a critical file (I think it was the registry) was corrupt. I don't know if it was related to the fact that the computer's memory had been upgraded (why should that cause a problem?) but I had to get someone from tech support to fix it.
[Update 2]
Mary Stamper has written an essay which criticises Windows from a software developer's point of view:
From GUI-Avoider to OS X
Her conclusion:
"I’m sure that everyone has heard the old saying, “Mac for Productivity, Unix for Development, and Windows for Solitaire”. My experience has shown me that at least for my needs, the Mac is not only for productivity, but for development as well. Windows? Well, some things never change."
I've also commented to people that Windows PCs are just souped-up Xboxes that can run Excel.
posted by Bruno at 6:35 PM [permalink]
