Removable Media Context Menus in Windows XP vs Mac OS X

October 19, 2005

Here’s another little difference which makes Mac OS X better than Windows XP. Take a look at these two context menus. The first is what I get when I right click on my iPod d Shuffle (named, uncreatively, “Shuffle”) but it would be the same for every removable drive.

Here is what I see in Windows XP when I right click on the Shuffle:
Windows right click context menu: Open, Explore, Search..., Sharing and Security... Scan with AVG Free, Format..., Eject, Cut, Copy, Create Shortcut, Rename, Properties

Here is what I see in Mac OS X when I right click on the Shuffle:
Mac OS X right click context menu: Open, Get Info, Open Enclosing Folder, Eject 'Shuffle', Copy 'Shuffle', Rename 'Shuffle', Remove from Siderbar

OK, so what’s the first thing you notice?

The first thing I notice is that the Mac OS X version is much wider and the letter are much taller. For mouse-based action, larger means easier to hit what you are aiming for not to mention easier to read in the first place. (Yes it’s also longer, but that’s also due in part to the fact that I have PathFinder, Toast, StickyBrain, and “Make Copy In” and “Move Item To” extras installed. A default installation would not have any of those. (Yes, the Windows XP menu shows a context menu for AVG, but how many people do you know who run Windows without anti-virus software?)

The second thing I notice is that the OS X version shows “Shuffle” in the context menu. Why is that important? Well, imagine I had clicked just a little higher and hit the DVD drive instead of the iPod Shuffle:
DVD right click context menu: Open, Explore, Search, Sharing and Security, Scan with AVG Free, Eject, Copy, Create Shortcut, Properties

Those Windows menus look very similar, almost identical (especially if you are only looking at one at a time). OS X gives you visual feedback as to which one you have selected.

But let’s ignore those two usability problems in XP (or usability advantages of OS X, whichever you prefer to think about it).

Did you notice the big flaw in the Windows context menu? No? I’ll give you a hint:
Windows context menu: Format... and Eject

Windows XP has Format right next to Eject!

Q: If you are using a USB memory stick (which are rapidly replacing floppy drives), how often are you going to need to use “Eject”?

A: Every single time.

How often are you going to be millimeters away from Format instead of Eject? Every single time.

Now, granted, Windows does prompt you with Format settings before it wipes away your drive (of course if you were to accidentally hit Enter…) but still, it begs the question: how often will you really want to format the drive? Once? Twice? Yet it’s that close every single time you go to eject it.

This is one of those “little things” which will never sell a computer. Nobody will buy (or not buy) a computer based on the right-click context menu. But these design decisions do effect the overall user experience.

  • Removing media without ejecting it is very dangerous. Ejecting means the host OS (be it Windows, OSX, or a Linux) completes any read/write routines and cleanly dismounts the drive.


    Just yanking the thing out risks doing so in the middle of a filesystem operation, which quite possible could corrupt the filesystem on that piece of media.


    "Eject" exists in Windows, OSX, and Linux for a reason. Use it.

  • I confess I'm a little confused, Tim; I -never- eject media via software; I just unplug it, pull it out, etc. For me both features are entirely useless. Hell, everything except "Properties" (and "Open Command Window Here", on occasion) is.


    Though I have remarked to myself on more than one occasion that having "Format" and "Eject" right by each other (and within the same sub-section, no less!) is extremely poor design, I suspect it's not an issue for many people.


    (TjL writes: Windows XP and OS X will complain if a disk is removed without being unmounted properly. At least in my experience. Is this not true for everyone?)

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: