ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> ZnU wrote
>>>>>> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote

>>>>>> Does anyone really see Nokia or Motorola or even Palm developing
>>>>>> a platform that can match OS X? Creating and maintaining a
>>>>>> desktop-class OS is not at all trivial. None of Apple's
>>>>>> competitors really has any serious experience with it except for
>>>>>> Microsoft, and Microsoft has its own problems.

>>>>> Thing is, that it's about time somebody who KNOWS
>>>>> how to do a user interface designed a phone.

>>>> Sure, but MS does and the result isnt that flash.

>>> You're trying to tell a Mac user that Microsoft knows how to do UI.

>> Nope, just rubbing his nose in the fact that even MS can improve the UI.

>>> Their a little less clueless than the cell phone companies
>>> that have never had to create UI for complex multifunction
>>> devices before, but they're no Apple.e.

>> I dont believe the ipod UI is anything to cream your jeans about.

>> Not really intuitive enough to be able to use without a manual for most.

>> Corse its arguable if that is even possible.

> It works very well for navigating large amounts
> of data on a tiny screen. That's no easy task.

Sure, but there is a hell of a lot more to a decent UI than just that.

>>>> There's a variety of user interface approaches that are
>>>> possible with a device like a phone and its far from clear
>>>> that what works with PCs is much use on a phone,
>>>> particularly one that doesnt even have a keyboard or mouse.

>>> True. Apple appears to have not made that mistake.

>> We'll see...

>> The ipod and iTunes isnt that intuitive and that combination has
>> a hell of a lot more to work with UI wise, particularly iTunes.

> I've never seen many complaints about iTunes UI.

All that shows is that most dont have much of a clue about a decent UI.

> It's certainly a lot more user friendly than what it replaced.

Thats no recommendation.

> If you'll recall back to early 2001 when it was introduced,
> the usual situation was that you'd use separate apps for
> ripping, burning, organizing and tagging.

Nope. It wasnt the only app to integrate those at that time.

> And if you had a music player, you were probably manually
> managing what songs were on it from the file manager.

Yes, and in many cases that was a better UI too.

> Apple stuck all of that into one app that had a
> single unified user interface for the whole process.

Sure, but it wasnt the only one to do that at that time.

And its a pretty clunky UI anyway.