Mac OS X Versus Windows Vista

An anonymous reader writes "With Macworld set to start Jan. 8, InformationWeek has a detailed comparison that pits Mac OS X against Vista. According to reviewer John Welch, OS X wins hands down. The important point: he doesn't say Vista is bad, just that technically speaking, OS X remains way ahead. Do you agree?"

It doesn't matter

[Stele (9443)]

Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.

As a cross-platform developer (hail Qt!), I recently got a MacBook Pro so I could run both OS X and Windows on the road, and I will admit, the Mac has remained booted into OS X the vast majority of time. This is admittedly do to mostly Universal Binary testing, but I could easily see that if I wanted to, I could run my day-do-day stuff purely on OS X. Except for its continued mouse-happy interface (come on, make ALL of those popup dialogs keyboard accessible!), when running on a fast machine OS X is very nice.

At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Yonzie (516292)]

come on, make ALL of those popup dialogs keyboard accessible!

They are.
Use [tab] to select and [space] to "click". You need to look after the faint blue highlight around the button though, and if you press [Enter], the blue button is selected, not the higlight.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Megane (129182)]

Use [tab] to select and [space] to "click".

Not by default. First you have to go into the Keyboard & Mouse preferences and select the full keyboard access for "All controls".

Re:It doesn't matter

[xwizbt (513040)]

And it's worth pointing out that there's a reason for that. Generally, under MacOS X, anything 'advanced' is off by default. If you're the sort of person who wants to use keyboard shortcuts then you're the sort of person who's able to go to the preferences and activate them.

Conversely, on Windows, in general *everything* is enabled at start up. Confuses the hell out of novice users. The Mac approach - simplicity and usability with the option for power use - wins out every time.

Re:It doesn't matter

[gobbo (567674)]

Except it confuses the hell out of the power users coming from Windows, ya know, the ones (like me) that don't know it can even be turned on.

Oh, for crying out loud... if you're a power user, and confused, R-T-F-M! Or visit a web forum, like Mac OSX Hints [macosxhints.com] or better, google's Mac search page [google.com]. Or maybe you're not really a power user, just well-adapted to using windows--I've noted the distinction, people who understand how to do things with windows really well, but aren't clear on why it works that way.

I'm constantly amazed at how people switch to a graphic interface and command line that is widely reputed to be "better" and yet expect it to work just like the one they abandoned.

Re:It doesn't matter

[644bd346996 (1012333)]

People stop being noobs by exploring the options and prefs dialogs, not by fumbling around. I doubt many people are able to figure out which random keypress triggered the action they wanted. But with something as complex as Windows or OS X, you can always discover new features by digging through the preference panes. THat is the experimentation that really helps.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Bill Hayden (649193)]

First you have to go into the Keyboard & Mouse preferences and select the full keyboard access for "All controls".

With an onerous requirement like that, I can see how it's a complete non-starter.

Re:

[vertinox (846076)]

Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.

But can you run Final Cut Pro on Windows?

Or even have a comparable program that doesn't make you beat your head on the keyboard? (I'm looking at you Adobe Premiere!)

But in general, most commercial apps don't have a version on OS X.

But to be really fair, if the software is open source and running on a modern version of Linux (as in that it is currently being maintained) you may see it recompiled in X11 for OS

Re:It doesn't matter

[vertinox (846076)]

Different platforms, different programs, different needs.

I think it was more on the grandparents post on the idea that the fact that Vista can run more games and application.

But it is a moot point if it can't run the one application I need it to run. The fact that it can run more may not be the right tool for the right job. Like having a swiss army knife when you really need a plain phillips head screw driver.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ThePlissken (824615)]

Final Cut Pro is making more and more inroads on Avid's territory due to the fact that it is just so much more cost-effective. Avid is a system with machines in racks in a term gear room. Final Cut Pro is a Mac tower with some displays and an editing keyboard. Avid is still used more, I know this, but Final Cut is a very attractive alternative. We use both daily at CNN.

Re:It doesn't matter

[gobbo (567674)]

however, like all programs that makes a task 'easy' tends to direct the user along it's prescribed method for doing the task.

OK, I think you're confusing iMovie (free, or nearly) with FCP ($300 - $1200 or so, depending on discounts). Final Cut is not easy, nor prescriptive. I can edit, colour correct, audio edit, capture, etc. in dozens of ways, depending on workflow and habits. In fact, other than media management and settings (both of which SUCK on FCP), it's pretty much like Avid's functionality--and complexity.

None of what it accomplishes can't be done using other programs. And I feel more in control picking and chosing components. Plus, the existence of 'Final Cut Pro' on the Mac platform crowds out and eliminates the motivation for other people to come in and develop competing products.

Well, one can build a house with a can opener and a rock, but who wants to? FCP is the rage in the industry because it has an excellent balance of usability, reliability, and power, and it scales fairly well, including sliding into many an established workflow, especially now that it handles multiple cameras and better formats. No other programs offer that combination. In a sense, it breaks the rule of "cheap, fast, good: pick two." THATS why it dominates on the Mac, when Premiere and Avid were well entrenched leaders for... well, a decade. They dropped the ball.

I also cannot justify spending the tons of money for a new Macintosh, and all the new software I'd have to buy to get equivalent performance with other tasks.

Well, I guess you aren't billing $80/hr as an editor. Downtime (do you hear me, cinelerra?!) is costly, and in an afternoon of lost business, you've lost any price advantages; at 20 minutes per day of lost productivity, over the course of a year, well, that's just bad math, because at 40 weeks per year, that's $4800 you've sacrificed to the gods of false frugality.

Helpful Mac Enthusiasts...

[DivideByZero (80449)]

Highlight and [cmd]- C to take data from X11 to the apple side.

Hold down [opt] and click to paste from the apple side into X11 (That's the middle-click emulation)

I had this question earlier today, and looked it up.

Re:It doesn't matter

[maztuhblastah (745586)]

Agreed. Technically, you can do more stuff on Windows -- just as you can technically go more places in a SUV than you can in a sedan. But in reality, you never end up taking advantage of every little feature, relying instead on a core library of features. And when it comes to that "core library", Windows can't touch Mac OS X.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

Off topic a little (okay, a lot), but your comment applies to programming languages as well. When I was coding for the MCS6502 on an Apple ][ in 1978 or so, I had every instruction, every variation, every addressing mode in my head. The code just flowed. No need to waste time referring to documentation once I had learned the instruction set ... my fingers never left the keyboard.

Flash forward twenty nine years. Nowadays, programming environments are so complex (I won't use the term "sophisticated", necessarily) that no mere human mind can easily encompass them in their entirety. Yes, there may be a function that does exactly what you want, but odds are you won't remember it's there (if you ever did know) and will just write it yourself anyway. Most developers I know (myself included) settle for a "core library" of features and functions in a particular language, functions that do the majority of what we need. To do otherwise would mean continually searching through programming manuals trying to find some little-used feature which might (or might not!) actually be there and might (or might not!) do what you really want. Not worth the effort: just do it yourself and get it over with.

Language and operating system designers rationalize the insane complexity of their creations by saying, "yes, it's true, no programmer/user will ever use all of what we provide, but the subset of features each programmer/user chooses will be different, so we have to put in the kitchen sink." Now, that is true to a degree, but I think that in many cases they have simply gone too far and productivity has actually suffered as a result. At the very least, a large percentage of their oh-so-valuable features go unused by a large percentage of users.

The reality is that it is usually the marketing departments that demand more and more stuff be added in order to make their claims of "ours is new and improved!" so they can achieve some unquantifiable degree of "market differentiation".

Re:It doesn't matter

[eclectic4 (665330)]

"As a cross-platform developer"

I assume you realize you represent less than 1% of the computer using public's needs/wants as a cross platform developer (most of them wouldn't even know what that means).

"At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception."

Like what? You may be right, but usually in a "discussion" thread you have to actually put up examples. My mom used to use Word, a browser and an E-mail app on her old Dell. With a Mac she now plugs in her digital camera to get photos as soon as I told her she didn't have to do a thing outside of plugging in the camera to the machine (no driver installs, no app installs), and she's been playing with iMovie, something she wouldn't have dreamed she could have done so easily on a Windows machine.

So, while you may be right, I think the majority of the computer using public couldn't care less about your statement, and more about what they want to do rather than what they can do. Remember, I may admit you are right (without examples that would be pertinent to the general public I can't argue anything), but for most people, OS X and their bundled apps are going to be far more rewarding, fun, stress free than anything similar on Vista. For games, BootCamp!

Re:It doesn't matter

[lord_rob the only on (859100)]

I don't remember where I read it, but I think any version of Vista can be run inside a VM. What you can't do is running multiple instances of one licence of Vista inside a VM (also one licence of vista and the same licence running simultaneously inside a vm), unless you use the ultimate edition.

Re:

[Tim Browse (9263)]

The thing about PC gaming is that games on PC don't really use the operating system at all.

Yes, they do. I tried writing a PC game once without using the OS, but I couldn't open any of my data files.

They all run in full-screen mode with their own UI.

Oh, you mean they don't really use the Window manager? The OS is more than a GUI.

As long as your version of Windows has the needed version of DirectX, etc. etc., a committed PC gamer doesn't really care if he's running Vista, XP, 2K, or 95.

Unless I'm mistaken, quite a few games now don't (officially) support 95.

BTW, DirectX uses the OS, which you may not have realised.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Joe U (443617)]

The thing about PC gaming is that games on PC don't really use the operating system at all

Except for the sound, video, keyboard, mouse, monitor, network card, hdd, cd/dvd and other drivers the OS provides.

Windows isn't just the fancy GUI, it's a standard interface to non-standard hardware. Anyone who used DOS for gaming will remember the absolute nightmare of getting sound, video, network and CD drivers all running for every game.

Re:It doesn't matter

[GeffDE (712146)]

What the parent is trying to say is that games use DirectX to access sound, video, network and CD drivers, basically. If the DirectX API was ported, it wouldn't matter much to a game what OS it was running on because all it cares about is the DirectX API calls. This is the idea behind cross-platform game APIs, as well as OpenGL etc.

Re:It doesn't matter

[dhasenan (758719)]

Now, last I checked I breathe air, produce sperm which contain human genetic codes, and am also in an intimate relationship with a human so I'm pretty sure I'm a person.

I can test that. It'll only take a minute; I have the gom jabbar right here.

Vendor support

[gravos (912628)]

Technical superiority doesn't mean as much when you can't get vendor support. This is sad but true. For a long while to come Vista will enjoy all the attention and benefits of a larger install base regardless of technical merits (or lack thereof).

Why not wait for Leopard?!

[Lord Satri (609291)]

Isn't this strange. Why don't they wait for the just-around-the-corner Leopard to compare with Vista. At least they would be comparing apple with oranges instead of pineapples and watermelons! ;-)

Re:

[samkass (174571)]

This is especially true considering the industry rags were comparing the Longhorn announced features with the then-released MacOS X 10.3 years ago, then again when 10.4 came out. Now that we're a few months from 10.5, you'd think they'd compare the 10.5 announced features against the now-released Vista, but no, the Mac doesn't get that advantage. Admittedly it's a little bit of Apple's fault with them being so secretive, but still... compare 2007 releases if you're going to compare.

Re:Why not wait for Leopard?!

[catwh0re (540371)]

it's more like comparing Apples with lemons.

Re:Because Tiger is already better.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

Care to enumerate them?

I can name a few off the top of my head:

• OpenStep style application packages - application install and uninstall easily, application on removable media save preferences on local machines so you can move one installed app back and forth between machines, resources are easy to find so extracting an image or sound is easy, fat binaries are cake, I can IM an application to someone on a different chip architecture even and it just works without having to find installers
• Upgrade via firewire - I now run both Windows and Linux in VMs on top of OS X, mostly because of this feature. Plug in a cable to my old machine and click a button. All my files, applications, user accounts, settings, certificates, everything migrates seamlessly while I go for coffee and a bagel. Migrating Windows or Linux to a new machine takes significant time, sometimes weeks, and nontrivial effort, (or did until I installed them in VMs. Now full installs of those OS's come with me as well.)
• System services - applications and plug-ins can easily share functionality across all applications. I only have to train one spelling checker and it works in my mail, web browser, word processor, terminals, pro layout app, photoshop, chat client, etc. The same goes for grammar checking, language translations, a pile of scripts, statistics on text like word count, automated bibliography entries, dictionary and thesaurus lookups, online lookups at numerous references, etc. Writing the same functionality over and over again for each app is outdated. Easily re-implementable libraries like Kparts on KDE only work if the programmer knows beforehand about the library, so no one uses them. Services on OS X requires no work on the part of a given app developer. The maintainers of subethaedit have never heard of omnidictionary. The developers of omnidictionary probably never considered subethaedit users. But in subethaedit I can still easily perform online dictionary lookups at a dozen different dictionaries with a single key combo. Losing this would be disasterous to my everyday workflow.
• Save to PDF from every application.
• Expose for easily finding and switching to one of my two dozen or more of windows.
• user account encryption that both works and does not ever get in my way.
• Ubiquitous application of zero-conf for local discovery of chat, music streaming, filesharing, collaboration tools, etc.
• Automater - I know I didn't think I'd use it either, but this is the fastest way I've ever found to do things like add a watermark to every page in a PDF when I don't have the source file. It is also the only scripting some nontechnical coworkers have ever managed to use. Before it became available they would sit an rename 500 files by hand, rather than spending 60 seconds writing a script.

I'm sure there are more items I'm forgetting and again I want to stress that OS X is not ahead in all areas and can really benefit from improvements. It is just that some of these things have been on OS X for quite a while and most Linux developers I talk to don't even recognize the value in them. A lot of them are things that you can work around on Linux, or hack something that works in one instance, but until they are available to average and novice users, they are just ignored anyway. I'd love to see Linux catch up to OS X on the desktop, I just don't anticipate it happening anytime soon. I don't think Linux developers are willing to make some of the hard choices needed or will be willing to accept complexity on the server for the sake of making Linux nice on the desktop.

.NET

[iJed (594606)]

In my opinion the only place where Windows is really far ahead of Mac OS X is .NET. Or more specifically: C# 2.0. C# is simply the nicest programming language and .NET the most consistent and easiest API that I've ever used. I went from a Java and Obj-C advocate to a C# maniac in about one month of using it. The biggest drawback with .NET is Visual BASIC which is horribly verbose and seems to attract idiot developers.

I think it would be great if Apple would adopt C# as the future of development on Mac OS X. I hate to say this but in comparison Objective-C 2.0 looks positively dated.

Other than .NET I think Mac OS X 10.4 and the up-comming 10.5 are still much better operating systems than Vista. Mac OS X is more consistent, nicer to use and is more stable than any version of Windows I've ever seen.

Ever used Python, OCaml, Common Lisp, Smalltalk

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you have had limited experience with various programming languages. Most of the best features of C# 2.0 have been available in other languages for some time now. In the case of closures, Lisp has offered them since as early as the 1960s! The OO capabilities of Smalltalk are still superior to that of C# 2.0. OCaml has a far more performant and portable bytecode interpreter than .NET, while also allowing for native binaries on Windows, Linux, *BSD, and most commercial UNIX systems. Python offer

Re:Ever used Python, OCaml, Common Lisp, Smalltalk

[FreeUser (11483)]

C# 2.0 is lightyears ahead of Java. But compared to other languages, Java shows signs of severe mental retardation, and C# 2.0 looks like a preschooler.

Unfortunately I have to develop software in the real world. This (for the most part anyway) completely rules out every language you suggested. It sounds like you lack experience programming in the real world.

In the past I have worked with trading companies on various exchanges (FTSE in London, NYSE in New York, CBOE & CME in Chicago, etc.). It doesn't get much more "real world" than winging around millions of dollars, pounds, and euros electronically in markets where seconds can mean the difference between profit and loss. Many of the infrastructure components for the real-time trading systems used were written in Python (the speed of development and platform flexibility made it invaluable), so your notion that Python programming isn't done in "the real world" is more than a little misguided. Of course, if your "real world" is limited to the subset of computers running Microsoft Windows, then I can understand how your impressions of "real-world" computing may have been skewed.

Of course, I quite like Ruby, but Python is very nice for what it does, and has many more real-world applications already in use than you realize.

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

I haven't used C# much, and not used C# 2.0 ever, but my understanding is that is is semantically similar to Java. Here are a few things off the top of my head that I can easily do in Objective-C that I can't in Java (all of which I have used in real code):

1. Enumerate all the subclasses of a given class, or classes that implement a particular interface, including those supplied in plug-ins, at runtime.
2. Call methods by name.
3. Query whether a delegate object implements a given method, allowing for informal pr

I don't know about Java

[melted (227442)]

I don't know about Java, but you can do much of this in .NET:

      1. Enumerate all the subclasses of a given class, or classes that implement a particular interface, including those supplied in plug-ins, at runtime.

** You can, through reflection

      2. Call methods by name.

** You can, through reflection

      3. Query whether a delegate object implements a given method, allowing for informal protocols.

** You can, through reflection

      4. Handle the case where an object tries to call a method on my object that doesn't exist, to allow the simple creation of generic proxy objects.

** That can never happen in C#

      5. Add methods to a class, even if it's part of the standard library and I don't have the source code (I can even do this at runtime, although it's messier, and I haven't ever needed to).

** What's wrong with inheritance?

      6. Separate the allocation and initialisation of an object into separate methods, to allow different allocation policies to be implemented (e.g. pools for commonly re-cycled objects) transparently to users of the class.

** Not needed in .NET by design. You can't allocate anything on your own.

Wow, that wasn't biased, LOL...

[Assmasher (456699)]

...I don't think I've ever seen so many ad hominem attacks against a non hominem. ;)

Saying that OSX is better than Vista because OSX hasn't changed its UI much since 2001 (at least regarding buttons) and Vista has changed the look of the window bar buttons? That's just stupid.

Spending most of the first page of the article beating the dead horse of Cairo promises regarding WinFS and other things which have nothing to do with comparing Vista to OSX?

I'd much rather read an article by a Linux or Windows fanboy bashing each other unapologetically than listen to that author say "I'm going to compare A and B" and then spend half their time talking about C.

Re:

[MrHanky (141717)]

Yeah, he basically ignores every technical aspect of the operating systems to choose a few UI and HCI aspects that are more consistent on OS X. Even Apple does this better, with their "Hello, I'm a Mac" commercials. This is a fucking advert, not a review.

Solving the world's problems with vista

[scenestar (828656)]

f you believe all the hype, installing the new Windows Vista operating system will solve world famine, end the AIDS crisis and bring about world peace.

If those windows zombie botnets were used for scientific work instead of sending spam I'm sure it would in fact have a positive impact.

Inactive windows - he's got it wrong

[natd (723818)]

TFA has quite a bit about how OS X does a better job of making it clear which windows are active/inactive etc.

His example is of Safari in the background of something else, and the Back/Forward/Reload/Stop buttons being greyed out. On Vista, he points to the similar buttons still being full colour and equating that to confusion.

The only reason his Safari buttons are grey is because he hasn't loaded a web page and has nothing to go back to, reload or stop. In OS X, with a page loaded those buttons would indeed look active. Yes, I just tested ;)

Re:Inactive windows - he's got it wrong

[catwh0re (540371)]

I'm not sure how well the author has articulated his point. The safari buttons stay active because you can actually click them at any time from any window (including when safari is not the active application.) This behaviour exists in a few applications but only where it's useful. E.g. you can change tracks in iTunes without activating iTunes. However in Safari when back/forward is pressed it's logical to switch to the application. It's not that they are highlighted and non-functional, which is a past windows trait.

Personally I find the actual issue with XP or Vista is that there is simply too much over stimulation on the screen, a user is desensitised to the bold interface and thus the OS requires more brazen efforts to gather attention when it's required in a different area of the screen. This is why windows users find that all the mac windows look grey and unsubstantial (this is also why mac users can tolerate many windows on the screen at once). Opposingly mac users find that windows is excessively clunky and child-like in appearance (hence terms for XP such as Fisher-Price). The excessively bold interface of windows leads users to maximise each window otherwise they can't concentrate on the task at hand.

of getting a fair comparison

[v1 (525388)]

I don't believe it's possible to get a fair comparison of two so completely different things unless you have been forced to use both of them for an extended period of time and have truly given them both a chance.

I am in that position where I work, and I have to support both macs and PCs in the desktop support world. For me what it all comes down to is simplicity of use. Just pulling an example out of thin air... 99% of mac software runs as non-admin, and better than 70% will run as a very restricted user. (kids) 98% of software can be installed as a non-admin so long as you know the admin l/p. Then we have windows. 0% of software can be installed as a non-admin, even if you know the admin l/p. After that, 80% of it requires you to be logged in as an administrator. So make them an administrator you say? (like THAT is a good idea in a school!) In OS X that is one check box and takes 15 seconds to do. I have a sheet of paper somewhere around here with all the steps needed to promote a user in Windows, I was astounded by what the PC tech said had to be done. Anyone that says windows is easier to use needs a closed door meeting with a baseball bat. When it all comes down to it, the amount of software available isn't truly what's important, it's how easy, pleasant, and non-frustrating the system is that actually matters to a lot of people, tho they may not admit it. Having a flying car isn't so great if it takes you 45 minutes to get it into the air every day and is prone to running into buildings. I admit I get a little personal enjoyment when I see a windows user is just totally frustrated and ranting and I say well you know how we can fix that? and they scream back, "Don't tell me about macs, I don't want to hear it. I *LIKE* my pc!!!" Yessir, I can see that, looks like you've having a great time. The 5% of them that finally switch come to me later and say why didn't you tell me about this before? I triiiiiied.....

They're different...

[cookd (72933)]

I will certainly admit that there are a lot of things to like about OS X, and for some people, it will be the better choice. For others, Windows is better, and Vista is a big step forward.

The article comes across as "Why OS X is better than Vista" instead of "Comparison of OS X and Vista". But that's par for the course. The author does have some valid comments about areas that could have been done better in Vista.

I do disagree on some of the evaluations of Vista's merits. The most misunderstood area is User Access Control.

Not that UAC is perfect -- I've got a nice list of things I don't like about it. For example, if the system incorrectly detects that a program probably needs to run as Admin, it is a bit of a pain to convince the system to just run it normally. And there aren't any good tools for working with UAC from the command line (i.e. I want an equivalent to Unix su). I've written some myself, but they really should have been included with the system. And some tasks that should be able to be done by accepting one UAC prompt end up requiring 5 or 6.

However, the author of the article passes UAC off as useless and annoying. Well, it is annoying, but so is finding my car keys every time I want to drive my car. But it is definitely not useless - just misunderstood.

UAC consists of three mechanisms, along with related tools for configuring them:

1. The shell of an Administrator can optionally be run with reduced permissions. This means that if UAC is enabled, the user's shell (explorer.exe) will drop privileges when it is initialized (after the user logs on). In other words, the shell tells the kernel that even though it is running under the account of an Administrator, the kernel should deny any requests to use administrator privileges, and should not grant any access to resources based on the user's membership in the Administrators group.

2. There is a mechanism to regain administrator privileges so that administrative tasks can still be performed. If you are logged on as a user in the Administrators group, this mechanism requires a confirmation dialog (ok/cancel). If you are logged on as an unprivileged user, this mechanism requires a username + password of an administrator ("over the shoulder login").

Note that this mechanism must be protected from abuse. Potential abuses include: keyloggers (capture the administrator's password), event injection (simulate a mouse-click or keyboard event to respond to the confirmation dialog automatically), and luring (put a malicious executable with the same name as a trusted executable into the user's path, then trick the user into trying to run the trusted executable). Protecting against these abuses leads to a bit more inconvenience, but a lot more safety. This is why nothing else can be done while the UAC prompt is active -- the UAC prompt turns on some security features to protect against keyloggers and event injection. This is something that is more annoying than OS X's system, but also significantly more secure.

3. There is a mechanism to detect programs that require administrator privileges. Vista-aware applications include a manifest that tells the program loader whether administrator privileges are required. Vista also tries to automatically detect non-Vista-aware applications that require administrator privileges (such as installers). For now, this is a bit of a pain when it doesn't work, but in the future, this will end up working well. For example, as the author indicated, it becomes more challenging to install a pre-Vista application to your personal folder without help from an admin (Vista detects that the installer probably needs admin privileges). In the future, the installer will have a manifest telling Vista that it doesn't need admin privileges immediately, and will ask for them only if the user decides to install the app onto the system instead of to a personal folder.

Oops

[dal20402 (895630)]

Anyone who looks at my post history will see that I am a Mac zealot, but I have to correct a small bit of misinformation in the review.

He praises Mac OS X for dimming toolbar buttons when windows are in the background, using the example of a Safari window behind a Finder window. Unfortunately, the reason the Safari window's toolbar buttons are dimmed is not that it's in the background, but that it's not displaying any page. Put a Safari window displaying any page into the background and its toolbar buttons (unfortunately) stay active. The behavior he describes is application-specific.

For example, both the Finder and Path Finder [cocoatech.com] do the right thing.

There were other inconsistencies in the review. Two examples: First, he slammed Vista for requiring UAC approval for installations where it might not seem necessary, where OS X does the same thing. Second, he praised Vista's interface consistency, without mentioning the lack of consistency that has been typical of Mac OS X in recent years. (This lack of consistency, because it is strictly cosmetic and apps have remained well-executed, is something I think is OK or even valuable... but there are a whole lot of Mac users out there who violently disagree with me.)

My $.02

[OSXCPA2 (988302)]

I use Windows XP at work and OSX, FC3, Win2000 and XP at home. I am a heavy duty business user and student developer. I offer the following observations:
1. I use OSX primarily, on a pre-Intel iMac. Speed is good. System slowdowns are generally longer under Windows than OSX, but the 'pinwheel' in OSX drives me insane.
2. The UI and system administration tools in OSX are hands-dows way easier to use. I used every version of Windows from 3.1, and worked at a support desk in college - and once I learned OSX (ok, BSD) - style system maintenance and operation, I never went back. *NIX is far more discoverable and has a well-engineered feel that I like.
3. I have yet to run into any software package that I needed that did not have a counterpart on Mac.
4. I still have not played Half-Life 2. I do not need to, but I would like to, and I bought WinXP just to do so. I can't really blame Apple for this. In fact, Apple, by moving to Intel, has made it easier for their user base to access windows apps. Microsoft, by making it more difficult (from what I've read - haven't tried it yet) to run Vista in any kind of virtual environment is not really helping the user base much. Although they probably don't care about Mac users, there are many business reasons to support virtual environments, from posts I've seen on /.
5. Searching in OSX returns better results than WinXP or 2000.
6. Mac help, for system related issues, returns more relevant results than WinXP or 2000.
7. Mac hardware just works. I have a hetogenous network - my Mac has no problems, nor does my FC3 laptop. I have a dual-boot PC with WXP and 2000 - 2000 recognized my wirelss card and the built-in ethernet adapter. WXP doesn't have a driver for the built in. The wireless card has a driver, but cannot acquire a network address from my AirPort. Win2000 has no problems with the wirelss card or network address. The driver in both OSes is up to date. I should NOT have to put in this much effort, especially for supposedly supported hardware - it stuns me that 2000 is actually better at 'figuring out' what to do than XP. Needless to say, the Mac setup has never caused any problems for my Mac hardware.
8. Development - I do mostly Java and Ruby. Java runs pretty much identically on both boxes, but setting up newer versions of the Java environment is more difficult on Mac. Installing and configuring Ruby also requires a lot more effort. However, it is easier to troubleshoot in the Mac environment. XP and 2000, the installs seem to 'just work' but if they go wrong or there is a misconfiguration, it is a lot harder for me to figure out what went wrong.
9. Licensing - I can install my OSX CD/DVD on any Mac I have, no registration necessary. I do not do this, but I can. Windows XP, I installed and because it couldn't get on my network, I had to use the dial-in service to validate my copy of XP, which was a PITA.
10. I took C in college, working in a UNIX environment. It was amazing and taught me a ton. I took Java in college, working on a PC with NetBeans. Worked great. I used VBA to do corporate work and learned two things - first, an IDE is very nice, especially to learn UI implementation and second, VBA makes it way too easy to write crap code. You can write crappy Applescript too, but I've seen far less of it. Xcode is a nice balance and can hit multiple targets. I like it, although I've not done much Objective C work.
11. I like scripting and *NIX tools. Scripting is far easier in a *NIX-like environment than on Windows. Yes, there is Cygwin, but that was designed to remedy the lack of such tools in Windows.
12. C# for web development is, in a word, crap. Sure, it is easy to learn. Sure, it is free. Sure, the MS IDE is ok if you choose to use it. HOWEVER, it is so wrapped up in Microsoft-specific 'stuff' it sucks to use. Example - to simply change the color of a button in a web-form, I spent several hours working through my code to see what went wrong. I sent it to my professor, who told me it was fine and worked. I was mystified

oh, boy

[oohshiny (998054)]

You can't determine whether something is usable by writing a review, you have to observe actual users and what problems they have. And in that regard, I have seen little indication that OS X is significantly better than Windows or Gnome. Just from observing my parents on some of the points discussed in the article, I noticed

* They keep getting confused about which application is active; among other things since the frontmost window may not correspond to the menu bar.

* Wireless configuration causes no end of problems for them: the configuration panel is confusing to them, and the Mac often picks the wrong wireless network even if it could easily figure out what the right one is.

* Having to confirm some System Preferences changes with a password is a feature that makes OS X more secure in a corporate environment, where random people may walk up to your desktop trying to change things; it's a nuisance in a home environment.

* The green button thingy is as unintuitive to them as it is to me.

That's just some off the top of my head; there are many other usability problems in OS X.

Not having tried Vista, I don't know whether OS X is "better than Vista" in terms of its UI, but I don't see that it's a breakthrough in usability and it doesn't seem to be better than XP for real-world users. I suspect something like "Sugar" may be way more usable than either OS X or Windows "for the rest of us".

Apple needs a good desktop that is not a AIO

[Joe The Dragon (967727)]

And the macpro cost is high and the mini is low end and hard to open.
They need a mid-end system that does not have a screen build in.

windows is annoying

[codemachine (245871)]

I've always found working in Windows XP to be frustrating and annoying, but never was able to articulate it as well as this author has (even though he was mostly referring to Vista). Of course any version of Windows is frustrating for someone used to Unix just due to its lack of certain features, but I found XP so much more difficult to adjust to than 98 or 2K.

The fact that Windows XP is so incredibly verbose about what is happening is extremely annoying. Constant bubbles popping up from the system tray talking about hardware, updates, firewalls, unused desktop icons (yes, I know it can be disabled), etc. Dialog boxes popping up for everything. I just want the OS to leave me alone and let me work. But UAC in Vista will make this even worse.

As the author mentioned, they also have the habit of renaming and moving commonly used tools, and making them harder to find for someone who really knows what they're looking for. Probably the worst example in XP was the changes to the control panels regarding network settings, workgroup computers, etc. Things that were easy to find in 98/2K became more difficult to find. Apparently Vista moves the "Add and Remove Programs" feature to "Programs and Features", and "Display" to "Personalization". I don't see how that makes the OS more intuitive to use at all, whether it is for a new user, or a power user with prior Windows experience.

Despite having a much different UI than GNOME/KDE/Windows, I found OS X much easier to adapt to. The Unix underneath certainly helped a bit, but the bigger part was how things just worked. There are still a couple annoyances, 'Finder' being the biggest one (the unix command line somewhat mitigates this), but overall OS X is so much better at not getting in the way of the user.

I think that if I could replace Finder with Windows Explorer or Konqueror (which I could probably do actually), I'd have very little to complain about on my OS X desktop. Add Fink and suddenly you've got something similar to Linux. Add Parallels and Boot Camp, or maybe free tools like DarWine and Qemu, if you need Windows applications. OS X has become the ultimate desktop (can run almost anything but Windows games), and Macs the ultimate hardware (can run OS X, Windows XP/Vista, and Linux on the bare hardware). The fact that Mac OS X has gotten faster every release, and Windows has instead eaten gobs more memory every release, is just icing on the cake.

Re:They both lose at source availability.

[iJed (594606)]

Mac OS X and Windows Vista completely fail in this area, however. I cannot see the source code to the window systems of either, for instance. Nor can I inspect the kernel source code.

You are correct that you cannot view the OS X window system source but wrong about the kernel. The source to the Mac OS X kernel (XNU) is easily available from Apple [apple.com]. Apple also releases source to other major parts including things like launchd and bonjour as part of the Darwin core operating system.

Re:Wrong. XNU source code is no longer available.

[Megane (129182)]

Since the x86 switch, Apple no longer makes the XNU source code available.

Wrong. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/ 2359256 [slashdot.org]

Re:

[hattig (47930)]

Apple made it available a few months after that storm in a teacup.

They were probably tidying up the code, and people thought that it was Apple not releasing the kernel source code anymore.

What's worse is that you replied with this to a post that gave you an explicit link to the page you could get all the sources from. One click on "Darwin" and what do I see?

Mac OS X 10.4.8
Darwin 8.8
  Source (PPC)
  Source (x86)

So, yeah, 100% completely wrong.

Re:

[westlake (615356)]

When I use a system, I expect the source code to be fully accessible to me. I want to be able to inspect the quality of that system for myself, and fix it myself if the need arises.

Microsoft's customers would rather pay for competent technical support.

Programming is not their competence, the internals of an OS is something they have no desire to muck with, ever.

Re:

[Andy_R (114137)]

That's 'yes', 'no' and 'ask again later' covered, shall we shoot for the whole set of magic 8 ball tags [wikipedia.org] on this story? 'Outlook good' might be hard to find support for...

Re:

[InsaneGeek (175763)]

I think your numbers are just a *bit* exagerated there me bucko.

I can get a brand new dell XP-pro system with free upgrade to Vista business from Dell's small-business line of servers for $500. I don't know anybody's business, that isn't getting fleeced by people (which I guess like you are implying you do when they stay on Windows) who pay $300 annually per system to clean up their crap. Either their internal IT staff don't do their job/the outside support staff (your group) is milking them for cash or mo

Re:OS X would be way ahead - wrong

[slide-rule (153968)]

You should realize that one of the top features of a Mac system is that things work well together -- OS, software, and hardware. This is due to a hell of a lot of QA testing on Apple's part, and I just cannot fault them for it one bit. On the other hand, just releasing a DVD for people to install on whatever frankenbox they've cobbled together (or whatever cost-cutting box Dell sells now for $500) will mean the OS and software will no longer "just work" -- it'll turn into the driver/hardware support nightmare that Windows has enjoyed for quite some time. Given the beast that MSFT has helped create in terms of hardware diversity, there is now simply no way MSFT and/or anyone else can do the level of QA Apple performs -- at least not where the software would be meaningfully improved. I'd rather never see this happen to OS X, and if that means you turn your back on OS X as a result, that'd be just fine here. [shrug]

Re:Unfair comparison

[mstone (8523)]

3) Authentication before making system changes. This, the author implies, is acceptable on OSX, but not Windows? Why?

Well, among other things, he spends most of a page discussing the difference between authentication, which OS X does, and approval, which Vista does.

Authentication means you actually enter a password to prove you're the person who has rights to modify the machine.

Approval means you just click a "yes, go ahead and do it" button.

The article then discusses the weakness of 'approval' from a security standpoint: i.e.: it doesn't stop J. Random Passerby from hosing your system, it just means he has to push the 'Okay' button to do it.

In practice, this means that if the two of us are sitting side by side, you on a Vista box where only you know the admin password, me on a Mac where only I know the admin password, I can change the settings of your machine while you step away for coffee, but you can't change the settings on my machine while I step away for coffee.