

Ask HN: Why do OSX applications look more polished than Windows/Linux? - jrubyer

Not to start a flame war, but can anyone shed some light on why <i>most</i> applications in OSX looks way more polished/beautiful than in other OSes? Is it because of the target demographics? Few examples from the top of my head:<p>http://www.git-tower.com/
http://versionsapp.com/
http://macrabbit.com/espresso/
http://www.panic.com/coda/<p>/Obviously this excludes cross-platform apps like Eclipse, Chrome etc
======
SamReidHughes
Here are several reasons why they might look more polished:

1\. Their font anti-aliasing algorithms are different.

2\. Macs are less bumpy. Windows windows have draggable edges on all four
sides. Windows toolbars were originally designed to be bumps. Now in Windows 7
the more polished looking toolbars look like a bunch of hills. Windows in
Windows have their own menu bars, too. You can't just take an app designed to
use draggable toolbars, remove the lines dividing toolbars, and have it work.
So the APIs are different because of decisions made long ago.

3\. Making an app pretty is more deeply ingrained into the development culture
on the Mac side.

4\. Windows applications just have more text, and fewer icons. There is always
more text on the screen than a Mac would have. The desktop has the application
name under each icon. They put shortcut arrows on icons.

5\. Windows is skinnable.

6\. Apple sacrifices utility in favor of being shiny.

~~~
jrubyer
_> >Making an app pretty is more deeply ingrained into the development culture
on the Mac side._

This is actually my question, why is it like this? Any reasons behind it?

~~~
jason_slack
I think that it really has to do with Steve Jobs really thinking that other
products are ugly and not refined. He has this deep inside of him. I recall
when he bought the Jackling House in Woodside, CA he only had an expensive
Bose stereo system and a BMW motorcycle inside because he felt he could not
find products he liked. He slept on a mattress on the floor even.

To this day, he doesn't put a plate on his Mercedes because he thinks the font
is ugly.

------
pseudonym
The very short answer is the type of person drawn to open source projects.
Apple (I imagine) spends a ridiculous amount of time on user interface, paying
experts to go over their UI and making sure it sparkles. Whereas the
programmers who donate their time to open source are a lot more involved in
their projects, and don't spend as much time on the "useless" end sparkle.

To be fair, this is a very broad statement, and thanks to projects like Ubuntu
focusing more on user interaction it's starting to make headway, but even just
looking at what a mark of pride it is to be using something non-intuitively
difficult (vim, emacs, cli interfaces, hand-rolling operating systems and
packages...), the realm of UI design on open source projects is vastly
underpopulated.

As to Windows, that's anyone's guess. It may be they're just relaxed enough in
their market superiority that they don't feel the need to bring as many
designers to the table. Or it may be the other way around: Apple knows that
one of the only things that sets it apart from other companies (and Microsoft
in particular) is snazzy design, and they've chosen that niche to run with as
far as they can.

~~~
jrubyer
I actually meant third party applications. Sorry for causing misunderstanding,
question updated.

------
mtrn
It's also the sum of details (wrt to the setting as a whole. Just to pick
one):

The single menubar on top means also: You have infinite space on the top. If
you scroll your mouse, because you want to click on a menu item, you can
"virtually" scroll beyond the screen, yet still be on the menu bar. When I
first read about this, and the reasoning, I found this quite surprising.

