OSX/Win2K Deathmatch 403
Michael Paci sent us linkage to a pretty good article on CNet where win2k and OSX duke it out on a variety of categories like ease of installation, UI, and hardware support. It's an interesting report and better written then most of the stuff that you'll see like this.
Re:where's the all os comparison? (Score:2)
If you already have a computer that you will continue to use, and you're not planning on buying a new one, then you're limited to using an operating system that runs on that hardware. If you're in the market for a new machine (either because you don't already have one, or more likely because your old machine has gotten long in the tooth and you feel the need to upgrade), a good rule of thumb is this: choose the applications you want to run first, then choose an operating system that will run those applications, then choose hardware that will run that operating system. Obviously, you may need to make compromises and sacrifices.
If the main app you want to run is Halflife, you're limited to WinME or Win2k (assuming you're buying a new machine and a new OS). Either way, you are then limited to an x86 system (or the more politically correct IA-32).
If you want to run Mozilla and StarOffice, you're limited to WinME, Win2k, Solaris or any version of Linux on x86, or Solaris on Sparc.
If you want to run Photoshop, Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook, you're limited to WinME or Win2k on x86, or Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X on PowerPC (however on Mac OS X, Photoshop and Outlook will currently only run in the Mac OS 9 emulation layer, not natively).
Use the best tool for the job.
--
Re:Was the Windows guy just a bit nasty? (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
Because XP has just kicked into its copyright-control phase, according to The Register, no longer lets you make mp3 files and refuses to let you play the WMA files it does let you make unless it thinks you have a license to do it.
OSX: iTunes.
If you take a consumer point of view, the gap between OSX and XP is only going to widen. People want to put all their CDs onto their computer. After all, they own both CDs and computer legally, and they go well together! I'd be shocked to see slashdotters contest this as geeks were the _first_ to get heavy into keeping all their CDs on hard disk, compressed.
Re:Invalid comparison (Score:4)
Compare that to iTunes. Bit of a difference, no?
They certainly should repeat this test after the final build of XP. But they need to include 'making a mix CD of CDs that you own' in the tests. People _want_ to get their music onto their computer for easy random access. There is no denying that.
The difference is, Apple is banking on the good PR from their supporting people's fair use rights- and Microsoft has just put into action their whole copyright control apparatus, complete with the software phoning home to some server somewhere to check up on whether it should bust you- and complete with mp3 being taken away. Sucks to own mp3 playing hardware huh kids?
I give it a 20 percent chance that they literally go through disks deleting files if the security check says you're a bad-boy.
The CNET test is just the beginning. We may see a CNET test with XP against some future version of _Linux_ where they side with Linux! There is only so much you can do blatantly against consumers before you stop winning these sorts of tests.
Re:Uh, question here. (not even related to tests) (Score:2)
Re:Power overwhelming (Score:2)
Re:I run OSX and W2K at home (Score:2)
4. classic mode is only truly slow for me when booting it, which takes about 5 minutes (I'm on a beige G3/300). Once it's running, it's not so bad. It's fast enough for me to play MacOS games in it (these tend to be buggier than most progams in classic so ymmv). Also, if you quit every classic app, the environment goes to sleep after a few minutes and X is back to normal.
5. Install the dev tools
Re:Installation is unfair (Score:2)
Re:Geee (Score:2)
[localhost:~] guest% gcc
gcc: Command not found.
[localhost:~] guest% make
make: Command not found.
Nor is an X Window package preloaded on Mac OS X, to the best of my knowledge. So for Joe Average User, it's a little more complicated than that.
(I have a Windows 2000 box in front of me, and a Mac OS X box just to my right.)
Win98SE? (Score:2)
But Win2000 installed just fine, and it's been more stable that Win 98. However, niether of them are close to OS X, like the article says.
Re:where's the all os comparison? (Score:2)
i think it's kinda funny that MacOS X will almost immediatly surpas Linux - and shortly thereafter all other Unix-oid systems combined - in finally bringing Unix to the desktop. good fer them.
But MacOS X isn't user friendly enough. You may as well use Solaris or HPUX or some other proprietary UNIX. Sure, it has some open source components, but the bulk of it is still closed. There's no "We want to appeal to all of the hardcore techies out there" notion inherent in OS X, and there never was.
Oh, do you consider "user friendly" to be condescending GUIs? In that case, I guess it is better, but I find these systems absolutely unusable.
And I'm not saying command lines are any more usable. I feel just as restricted on a Windows machine as I do using Solaris. The open source culture of an OS does a lot towards making it more usable for me. This is the distinction between OS X, which has many a friendly graphical interface and some open source parts, being completely worthless to me, and Linux, which has a less polished happy graphical interace, but is completely usable to me.
So, from my point of view "Linux has surpassed all other OS's". But that only matters to me.
Keep your OS bigotry off of my body.
Re:Linux (Score:2)
> Very much distro dependant, but whatever the
> case not as point and click simple as Win2k/OSX.
You're on crack. Linux installers have been on par with those for WinDOS since at least Redhat 5.0. Not only do the Linux installers support more interesting configuration features, but they also provide for ultra simple "canned" configurations.
Also, the fact that Linux distros are released more frequently means that all of your device drivers will be conveniently contained on the OS media. All it takes is ONE device driver not in place on a Win2k install to quickly make it much more painful than Redhat or Mandrake. Also, it is untrue that drivers for WinDOS are necessarily just a matter of "put in the CD and the OS will find your driver for you". For a novice, futzing with a 3rd party Windows driver may be no less seemingly confounding than dealing with a 3rd party Linux driver.
The same is true for Linux of course. However, if it's not on the OS disk you are likely just out of luck.
MacOS 10 has an edge over both Win2k and Linux for different reasons (they have complete control over the target enviroment).
Round two? (Score:2)
For example, for right-hand users the mouse and cursor will naturally gravitate to the top left of the screen, and this is where Apple decided to put the Apple, File and Edit menus. Flicking your mouse to the upper left is an incredibly easy movement, and then - twack! you hit the corner and the menu is there, just under your mouse button. Microsoft decided to put the Start button in the lower left, requiring the user to cramp his/her hand. And the corner pixel is inactive, so you actually have to stop the mouse movement just before the cursor hits the corner -- or go on and hit the corner and then navigate back a few pixels. And then you can click, with your hand in an incredibly unergonomic position. The Win95 UI is full of this kind of design errors.
Essentially, Microsoft has taken the (old) Mac OS UI, removed all the nice usability details, spread the result onto 90% of the desktops of the world, and now even CNet says that it's better than the new-and-revamped Mac OS interface! I think this is disturbing and sad.
For anyone interested in UI design, Bruce Tognazzini has written lots of articles [asktog.com] on his website www.asktog.com [asktog.com]. Tog was closely involved in designing the Mac user interface, and has a cartload of UI design knowledge as well as a good pen hand.
--Bud
Re:Harder than it sounds (Score:2)
Step 2. Heat in hot water until the hot dog is hot!
Step 3. Heh. There is no step 3. THERE IS NO STEP 3!
I loved this quote (Score:2)
...
If this were at a car-dealership it would sound something like..
"Looking for a truck aye? Well have a look at this Toyota Corolla"
Your use of "Liberal Myth" is a generalization (Score:2)
You may be sick of the pointless pissing contests over the "best" operating system platform between various factions of computer users and professionals; me, I'm sick of the civics-uninformed painting generalizations of political ideology like "liberalism" (or communism for that matter) across sectors of the public sphere where it bears no relation. The two are unrelated. And since your point about "liberalism" is itself a gross generalization, this would appear to negate your position on the pointlessness of these debates... you just brought up the ridiculousness of OS debates only to fan the flames of an even more ridiculous political ideology debate. So, what's your point?????
--Maynard
Re:Break out? Can they hang on is the question (Score:2)
As for the 'commodity pricing,' support costs completely override any benefit in having cheaper hardware. Macs just work.
And finally, what's this 'integration with the rest of the business world'? The truth is, almost all people use 90% of the same applications, with some small utilities to fill in the gaps. Those 90% are usually what one can find in an office suite, and some custom enterprise applications. Custom enterprise apps written in Java will work without a hitch, and VB people deserve to wallow in the shithole they have created for themselves (but just run a PC emulator)... As for the rest of the apps, you'll find an equivalent in the Mac world.
Final question is, why would one switch? Simple: the unconscious 'pain in the ass' factor. Windows is just not human friendly. It's designed to look easy to use, but nothing really makes true sense. The errors like 'SQL Server had an error:Success,' the dialog boxes that just forget what you're doing, the menus that keep changing on you, the stupid paper clip, the start menu with a 'Programs' list taller than your screen (does EVERY application need it's own damn program group?)... Just a big, useless mess by people who couldn't care less how the user interacts with the system, just how the user pays for the software.
In that way, UNIX and Macs are similar: they're written for the user. In UNIX land, the software and the user environment are written for the traind professional who just wants to get their work done. In Mac land, the software and user environment are written for basically anybody with 10 minutes of experience to get their work done. Suddenly, with OS X, both types of users are accommodated (that's why I switched from Linux to Mac OS X: I wasn't into free sofware because it was inexpensive, I was into it because it was the best. Now I have a fantastic GUI on top of it).
How come Windows is the only platform where there isn't a user group, who, having seen the rest of the options (with their own eyes, not the FUD MS puts out), chooses it and stays loyal to it with love? I only hear complaints about Windows, and I only hear adoration and caring for UNIX and Mac.
--
Re:here's the most important category (Score:3)
(it's an x86 shop.) I run
OS X at home.
I have far more usable/useful
software for the OS X box. Besides
a growing mountain of OSX native
software (http://www.versiontracker.com/vt_mac_osx.shtml)
I also have access to just about any useful
CLI-based POSIX software and a million
years worth of classic Mac software.
And that's just the cheap/free stuff.
IS it wasted effort? (Score:2)
If it takes you longer to write the script, well, then there's your point.
Win2k Installation (Score:5)
The process took me 45 minutes on a fairly decent machine (AMD600MHz, 128MB Ram, ATA/66 disk), almost none of which was me having to think about questions or read help. That wouldn't be so bad, but the installer litters questions through the install process so you can't just leave it alone for a while to do the install; you have to be there for those 45 minutes (or more; an install time of an hour isn't unheard of), mostly twiddling your thumbs.
What would have been far better would have been an installer that saved all the questions for the start or end of the install process (ie, at the start it asks for disk partitioning and install options; at the end you configure things like admin password).
--
Re:Apple's Emu Layer - Re:that report sucked (Score:2)
I think you're confused. The 68K emulation layer had little to do with OS 7.x per se -- it had to do with the change from 68K architecture to PowerPC.
And how was it bungled, pray tell? It was the smoothest switch from one processor architecture to another! A few things didn't work -- things with depended on a hardware FPU primarily, which a 3rd party came up with a hack for (SoftFPU) -- but for the majority of apps, everything went swimmingly. I was part of the "big change" -- I bought a first generation 7100 -- and moved software from 68K to PowerPC native. The only problems I had were a few FPU-dependant filters for Photoshop.
Re:Your use of "Liberal Myth" is a generalization (Score:2)
My point is that fascism (and it's cousin nationalism) is the opposite of liberalism. Nationalism is the idea that my nation is superior because of blood, language or religion. Fascism is something like nationalism, except you add the requirement that the citizens sacrifice themselves for the state (citizens are encouraged to dedicate their lives and means of production for the purpose of advancing the cause of greater Freedonia, for example). This is the complete opposite of the liberal notions of freedom and individualism.
Most people who live in the United States think that the Democratic Party is liberal. Of course, they also think the Republican party is conservative, which is just as wrong.
Re:Your use of "Liberal Myth" is a generalization (Score:2)
The Democrats and Republicans are both corporate parties, neither conservative, nor liberal. They are both run according to the bottom line, and concern themselves chiefly with the process of getting votes, getting funding, spending money, collecting money, protecting money interests, and other fiscal planning issues.
Ideology has fallen by the wayside. The only remnant of it is (unfortunately) the fundamentalist faction of the Republican party. Everything else is purely functional.
Cute Idea, but Not Serious (Score:3)
Also, regardless of the outcome of this comparison, W2k has been out for some time, while OS X only two months or so. They were both in development for a long time, but I'd have to give the handicap to OS X here because it is more of a new start than Win-whatever. I mean there has been an NT-based OS for years, but a "UNIX-based" OS with the Apple/Mac GUI is new, and Aqua is certainly brand new. Also, I would place more credence in a comparison done by Ars Tecnica than CNET. Makes the difference of whether the comparison is found in the Tech section or the Lifestyle section of the paper, and I don't trust CNET'$ allegiance$ given their 'reporting' of some topics and stories in the past.
Combine 'em. (Score:5)
Or would that be too warped?
-
Re:You're being absurd (Score:2)
Linux has improved enormously in how much you need to learn or not learn in order to use it effectively. But we're really talking about MacOS X, and in the case of X, most users (including me) agree that you don't need abstruse Unix knowledge to run it. It won't hurt if you want to probe into its guts, but you don't have to do that unless you want to.
A clear advance, no?
D
----
Re:I run OSX and W2K at home (Score:2)
I have moved almost all my home computing to MacOS X. I run Photoshop in Classic, and once you get past the lengthly startup, it works fine. The bundled Mail is very nice, and the OmniWeb browser is my preferred way of surfing regardless of platform.
I would like to see a fully working xemacs, but other than that, I'm extremely happy with MacOS X. True, it's not perfectly fast all the time, but I love the aesthetic experience and accept that life is a bunch of tradeoffs.
D
----
Re:You're being absurd (Score:2)
I would say Apple is to be praised for this, since it's what the bulk of the public wants and needs.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the public wants things real cheap, but, well, you can't have everything
D
----
Re:I run OSX and W2K at home (Score:2)
I have a home DVD player. It's attached to my NTSC television set via a S-Video cable. It sure looks a lot better than shaky DVD played off a puny computer screen.
I can understand that it's a nice feature for a laptop, but it doesn't strike me as something that should be among the top ten gripes about an OS.
After going through four different video cards trying to get my (well, my company's) spiffy new SGI 1600SW monitor to work properly at full resolution on a Linux PC, I'm starting to think Apple's lack of hardware choice is a blessing, not a curse.
By the way, the root password is easily enabled and works great on my MacOS X installation.
You're right about sluggishness in the interface, but quite honestly it's so much prettier than X-Windows I don't really care. And when Linux was in the same stage of development as MacOS X was now, I remember griping about pretty darn poor GUI performance.
Give it time.
D
----
You're being absurd (Score:4)
However, you shoot yourself in the foot here. You should not have to read a 300-page tome about the operating system before installing it for the first time.
Granted, scripted installs are great if you're setting up 500 machines at once. But someone who just wants to get their single unit up and running shouldn't have to learn a scripting language to do a routine installation easily. They probably can't, anyway; how do you write the script if you don't have an OS already on your computer?
I'm sorry; if the default installation routine is too clumsy and cumbersome, it's Microsoft's fault, and Microsoft should fix it. End of story.
D
----
Idiot factory (Score:2)
Break out? Can they hang on is the question (Score:2)
Apple can really talk about the "history" of UNIX and BSD and can probably drum up a couple of people that did something interesting in the brief lifetime of NeXT, but that's it.
They also have ZERO chance of replacing the WinTel hegemony on corporate desktops. Too much time, money and manpower has been invested in that paradigm for it to be changed by the fact that Apple's got BSD under the hood and can now be trusted to mutlitask with some measure of stability.
Apple really needs to hope that a stagnating tech economy doesn't get some hungry Microsofties the idea that they can grow into the design and publishing businesses with the competitive advantage of integration with the rest of the business world and commodity hardware pricing. The day that Microsoft decides it wants do that, Apple will be a nice memory and nothing more.
This has nothing to do with the quality of OS X, Win2k, Sun, Linux, BSD or anything else. It's pure business position.
Re:duh... (Score:3)
No MS branded e-mail, eh? (Score:2)
Do I want a free e-mail account branded with my computer maker's domain name? No, for the same reason I don't wear clothes that say Gap or Tommy on them. I'm not a walking billboard for other people's products, and I won't use my e-mail messages for viral online marketing either.
Hmmm, then I guess MS has completely missed the boat with WinXP and Hailstorm, because thats exactly where they are going. Hotmail and MSN Messenger for everybody, and let MS be the keeper of your online persona.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Memory Lane (Score:2)
Remember the old Netscape vs. IE reviews that they used to do 2-3 years ago... they are back!
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
May be CNet's Mac swan song... (Score:2)
So, its a nice OS, we like it, be we won't cover it.
Maybe it was redundant with another CNET news page or maybe they just couldn't compete with the other Mac news sites. I always thought ZDNet was a purely windows organization and never went there for Mac news.
Re:Power overwhelming (Score:3)
Re:A pig is still a pig. (Score:2)
I think you're missing the forest here: the hardware is 50% of the reason people buy Macs to begin with. Mac hardware is industry leading in many areas. No, not every area.
Apple was the first to build an all-USB machine. As far as I know, it also was the first to have built-in 3.5" drives, ethernet, SCSI, wireless anteneeas, FireWire. It's also pioneering low-energy and fanless operation. And the tower cases are the easiest to open and work with out of anything I've ever used.
Apple's hardware isn't flawless, but it's not like most Mac users are saying "I want Mac OS X, but oh shit I have to buy a G4 to run it." That's part of the whole package. Apple is a systems company. If you don't like it, then go buy a PC running Windows or Linux. Or build your own, and recompile your kernel every 38 days. That's fine. But not everyone wants that.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
A summary of the article (Score:4)
Windows rebuttal: Your OS sucks because of A, B, and C.
Windows: We have D, E, and F.
MacOSX rebuttal: Your OS sucks because of D, E, and F.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re:You're being absurd (Score:2)
Re:Win2k Installation (Score:2)
Re:Not to mention... (Score:2)
Re:How the hell was this modded up? (Score:2)
Re:Win2k Installation (Score:2)
Re:Good post on Ars (Score:2)
Atari?!?! (Score:2)
Puh-leeze. Microsoft and Apple destroyed both the Amiga and ST blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs.
Yes, the Amiga was vastly superior at the time and should have at least trounced the Mac once and for all. However, everyone here knows that technical merit has very little to do with winning in the marketplace.
Round 2: (Score:3)
What's that 'window manager' thingy, anyway?
Re:Good post on Ars (Score:3)
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
"Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9"; Win2K professional doesn't have the ease of use setting up an internet connection for a "dumb user".
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options.
Windows has ISS (MAC OSX is unix and can run your favorite httpd/ftp/gopher etc servers) and Apache isn't in the ftpd business so why the jab there? Apple isn't in the server game, they are in the user arena and have provided power users the option of server capabilities with a robust backend at the same time allowing "I just want to get my stuff done" users a nice UI. Which is what everyone knows however you've taken it out of context.
The article was more about usability than not. Even though I don't think it was of much substance you've put a new spin on it and have taking it out of context. That is what is known as a zealot and or troll.
Shocking? Hardly (Score:2)
Unlike mem hog Windows, CNET should have also pointed out the differences in things like security, e.g., how you don't need to keep your life glued to the NTBugtraq mailing lists every time something goes bonkers with Windows.
Another small quirk is the licensing issues revolving around when Windows will make the switch and lease its software. That's going to be a nightmare when it rolls out.
Re:Depends on the applications (Score:2)
The basic thought trend here is that there is no one universal 'tool'.
Except Emacs [gnu.org], of course ...
Steve
---
AppleTalk (Score:2)
Was the Windows guy just a bit nasty? (Score:2)
Re:Good post on Ars (Score:5)
Apparently you're not aware that Win2K is crippled as a web server platform. First, Win2K professional DOESN'T come with Apache. Even if you install it, you are limited to a fixed number of incoming TCP connections (something in the range of 10) that make it utterly useless as a web server. Unlike Microsoft, Apple is not selling you a crippled OS.
REALLY a deathmatch? (Score:3)
Everyone wins!
---
Installation to OS-X???? (Score:2)
Re:Installation to OS-X???? (Score:2)
Re:Installation to OS-X???? (Score:2)
Install script to set up 1 pc? (Score:2)
Pointless (Score:2)
Beyond that, it would also be nice to see someone nitpick at XP as Microsoft starts pushing people to use it
Re:Geee (Score:4)
Matt's Windows UI Argument deconstructed (Score:4)
>Matt: The year: 1995. The operating system:
>Windows 95. The interface: a taskbar along the
>bottom of the screen, containing a button called
>Start and a series of little buttons
>representing each open program. At the left of
>the bar, a clock and a few little icons for
>launching background programs (the kind of >things Mac folk would probably call plug-ins).
Unfortunately the user is given no choice as whether to have those plug-ins in that corner. Those buttons appear pretty much without rhyme or reason (in other words, at the whim of the developer). The user does not have the option to add stuff to that corner (called the system tray). The icons are almost too small to be discerable. And their smallness presents a drawback I explain in the next paragraph
>If you were unsure about anything on the screen, >you could right-click it, and a menu would
>appear with loads of options, usually including
>a Properties box that explained everything.
If the user will be unsure of what something does, you are supposed to label it. The user should never have right click on something to find out what it does. You don't have to write the entire contents of war and peace in the label, but the label should clearly announce what action the button performs. The icon such as those in the system tray should also be made bigger, because a larger icon will have more detail that will betray the true purpose of the button. OSX doesn't use labels for items in the dock like it should, but at least Apple made the dock icons large enough that the user is able to understand what the icons do. Why make buttons larger by labelling them and giving them big icons? It has to do with something called fitt's law, which states that the time to access a visual target (e.g. a button) is due to the distance to that target and it's size. This link gives a good explanation of the phenommenon. http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFi
>Fast-forward to Windows 2000 and you don't see
>too many changes. Certainly, a few evolutionary
>tweaks have shown up along the way. A toolbar
>appeared next to the Start button that launches >new programs with a single mouse click. Then
>there's bubble help: rest your mouse near an
>item for long enough, and Windows 2000 pops up a
>cartoon bubble explaining what to do (a nice
>feature that, yes, first showed up Mac-side).
>And Windows 2000 sports an adaptive menu feature
>as well, which drops infrequently used items
>from the Start menu to make it easier to launch
> commonly used items.
Many user interface designers have thoroughly bashed Microsoft for the adaptive menu "feature" in office 2000. The same really applies to Windows 2000 as well. The interface should never decide to rearrange itself without the users explicit permission. And just because a user does not often use something does not mean that they won't want to be able to find it when they *do* need it. I don't ordinarily use the fire extinguisher in my kitchen, but that doesn't mean I don't want it in plain sight when I need it.
>Now, some might call this interface dull. In
>fact, it is dull--as dull as having the gas on
>the right and the brake on the left.
Actually, Microsoft tends to do the opposite. They put the break on the right and the gas on the left. I'm referring of course to their ordering of dialog buttons, which puts the affirmative/"go ahead" button (typically "OK) on the left, and then negative/"go back" button on the right. This contrasts with the way that Western culture (as well as the mac) does it. In a car, the left pedal stops the car, the right pedal goes ahead. On an analogue clock, to go back in time, a hand goes to the left; to go ahead, the hand goes to the right. To go back in a book, you go left; when you go ahead in a book, you go right. In web browsers, the arrow button pointing left goes back, and the arrow button point right goes forward. Apple was smart enough to understand this; Microsoft wasn't.
>Not everyone drives a car, of course, and
>likewise, not everyone knows Windows' interface
>(ha!). But at least Windows 2000 is predictable,
>and any enhancements come so naturally that you
> may not even notice that they're there. For an
>operating system, that's a pretty good thing.
Microsoft has shown a complete unwillingness to correct bad interface decisions made in a previous version of their software with improvements made in the next one. Probably because of this "predictability" (not to be confused with consistancy, which *is* a good thing in a UI). How long did it take before microsoft killed the "window-within-window" MDI in Office? Then there's clippy, the talking paperclip. This idea was ill conceived from the start, but it took Microsoft 4 years too long to him. These were ideas that any UI designer 10 years ago would tell you are stupid, but that didn't matter to Microsoft. I've heard microsoft has their own usability people and supposedly there are well funded usability labs, but they are either completely incompetant or the programmers don't take any of their advice or apply any of their data.
As for arguments with CNET's conclusion, Windows 2000 does make far better use of contextual menus, which are UI elements with the fastest access time of all (as they appear right under the user's pointer). Apple should add a second mouse button and improve contextual menu support. However, Windows 2000 has weakness of having pull-down menus attached to each window instead of a menubar at the top of the screen. Menus that are attached to each window are far slower to access than menus on a menubar at the top of the screen because it the user has to spend extra time making sure that the mouse doesn't vertically overshoot the menus attached to the windows. Menus at the top of the screen are impossible to overshoot because they sit right on a border. Such menus are up to five times faster to access than menus attached to windows. Again, this is due to fitts' law.
If CNET took these serious interface factors into account, I seriously doubt Windows 2000 would have won.
Re:Linux (Score:3)
Good, but could be better. Win2k is the winner once again with support for practically everything.
Not to be snide, but practically everything in your lexicon must mean the hardware I want it to work on. Win2k doesn't run on anything besides Intel x86 derived chips in approximately desktop configurations. Headless Win2k is a PITA. Scalability is non-existent on the low end (Win2k in a TiVo?), and crippled on the high end by lack of hardware support.
But for an office server, sure, it supports the full range of consumer desktop computing hardware pretty well. Big deal.
Re:I run OSX and W2K at home (Score:2)
Classic Mode slow? Are you kidding? Once it loads up (takes about 1-2 minutes the first time you do it), Classic apps generally run as fast as under native Mac OS 9. In fact, for some apps that aren't optimized (like IE 5.x Preview), the older Classic app is much faster. I consistantly run Classic apps (Netscape, MS Office, Outlook Express, etc.), and the performance is just fine.
Software? There's plenty. First, I haven't seen any Mac OS 9 software that won't run in Classic. But if you're interested in Mac OS X-native software, here's what I'm running:
* Apple Mail/Address Book -- cool mail tool
* OmniWeb -- beautiful web browser
* OmniGraffle -- awesome simple vector graphics program
* Macromedia FreeHand -- awesome complicated graphics program
* Preview and Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 -- pdf readers
* FileMaker Pro 5.5 -- cool database package
* BBEdit -- text editor that doesn't suck
* Plus tons of utilities.
I'm not saying that everything's out there, but considering Mac OS X is less than 3 months old, I'd say the software choices better than what one would expect. If you're really impatient, take a nap until after the Worldwide Developers' Conference next month. After that, they'll be plenty of software to go around.
Re:who woulda thunk it (Score:2)
The file type/creator associations are something that I haven't tried to deal with, but you're right that there should be some way of manually altering them, although I really hope they make it easier than it is in windows.
The only complaint I had other than the Apple menu is that the whole GUI feels kinda big (not hd size-wise, which is what I think you meant) but that all the icons take up too much space. Once I shrank the dock down, this feeling shrank with it, but it still feels kinda inefficient with screen real-estate, especially when working on an iMac.
As for the other stuff, it's probably because I use the console way too much for my own good
I hope apple does address all those issues you mentioned though (particularly the apple menu one)because an OS like the Mac should be able to balance more customization with ease of use. I think right now that they're still just trying to work out the kinks in the system, and hopefully they'll add obvious things like file type/creator stuff (and groups without netinfo manager) that really do need to be there. We can hope though!
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Re:who woulda thunk it (Score:3)
A ton of old Mac users feel betrayed or something because Apple threw out a decade+ worth of interface, when in fact a lot of the original good ideas are still there. The menu bar at the top of the screen. The trash can. Drag and drop (works better than it ever did for me in OS9 and before). The control panels. These are the major innovations that still distinguish the mac over windows (well, maybe not the trash can and control panels still) and they're still present.
Well what's actually different besides the looks? Button placement (still getting used to that one). No control strip. File system heirarchy. And the dock. Oh, and the apple menu is diminished (which I don't like either). Overall, these are minor concessions. The control strip will be replaced with dock apps. The file system is a result of unix, and it's a sacrifice that had to be made.
But overall, OSX feels comfy to me. It doesn't quite feel like a mac anymore, but that's because my conception of the mac carries a lot of baggage about performance and bland looks left over from my system 7 days
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Million Dollar Question (Score:3)
So we all know that the only reason MS ports Office to MacOS is to keep alive a toy competitor on the desktop.
And, given the UNIX flavor of OSX, does this mean that MS is prepared to code Office to a UNIX-like API?
And, if so, then, making some albeit big leaps of speculation concerning the outcome of The Antitrust Trial about splitting the behemoth into baby Bills like Office and OS, does this not open up the possibility of Office running on not just OSX, but Linux, FreeBSD, etc.?
My reactions (Score:2)
I found my killed app! (Score:2)
Blah blah blah, run Linux, blah, blah, blah... No.
I use this device to develop software for web deployment on our BSD servers. I also access NT shares (Sharity), use a GREAT HTML/PHP/Text editor (BBEdit), have a wonderful web browser (Omniweb). As a bonus, I have great compatibility because of MS Office and IE. IE Specific pages run fine on the Mac.
Apple has a win because:
A) Aqua is gorgeous
B) MANY software systems
C) Mac hardware rocks
Apple's hardware seems reliable and it is supported. I have always built my PCs, but the aggravation finally hit me. If I get another PC it will be a Compaq professional desktop. I'd pay a bit for less aggravation.
Apple's hardware all works for MacOS X. Their hardware is also gorgeous. the Tibook is wonderful, but a bit big. The iBook is impressive as well.
OS X has some killer apps. The old killer Apps are Photoshop, etc. iTunes is SLICK as whale shit. It supports Unix applications for those that need them.
Sharity is a decent app, just a little weird. v2.4 and v2.5b2 both have different sets of quirks, but it is getting there.
Xtools is good.
BBEdit is nice.
Apple has LOTS of great applications for professionals in the $50-$200 space, which is great.
Alex
Re:Debates like this are pointless (Score:2)
There's lots of software; Apache is useful (Score:2)
Finding software for the MAC is a pain in the ass.
Mac OS X has four application subsystems: Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and POSIX + X11. Programs that run in POSIX + XonX [sourceforge.net] see the Mac as a mixed FreeBSD/NetBSD box running an X11 server. You can find almost any POSIX + X11 app you need at OSDN Freshmeat [freshmeat.net].
Not only that but a regular desktop user isn't going to be needing apache so there is no point in turning it on
How else are you supposed to share files? Email is out because your ISP says the files are too large to fit in attachments. NFS, SMB, etc. are out because they're platform specific and don't work across dial-up. That's why I run Apache on my Linux box and WinApache on my Windows ME box, so that I can send files to users on other IM services.
And yes if a newbie wants his own webserver and wants to use Apache he or she must learn it just like any other software program.
Except "any other software program" the user is likely to encounter on a Macintosh computer has GUI configuration.
What FTP server? (Score:2)
for some of the apps on freshmeat you'd need to hack up some of the code.
And there is probably some darwin advocate who has probably done it for many of the popular apps. It'd be a straightforward task for a developer with BSD experience, less work on packages that already work on FreeBSD and NetBSD, more work for packages that use Linuxisms.
All you have to do is find an ftp server for windows
Easier said than done. I couldn't get anything out of Freshmeat's list of FTP servers [freshmeat.net] or a Google search for open-source windows FTP server [google.com], while open-source windows HTTP server [google.com] turned up Apache as the second result. Not only that, but HTTP has a lower connection setup and teardown cost than FTP.
If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.
The default settings handle most basic cases of running Apache on a personal workstation, giving you about the same features as the IM clients' built-in file servers have, with the most commonly changed option (at least on the WinApache installations I've done) being which domain name to return to HTTP/1.0 clients.
Re:Depends on the applications (Score:2)
Re:Depends on the applications (Score:2)
Re:Good post on Ars (Score:2)
Re:Good post on Ars (Score:2)
Re:Depends on the applications (Score:2)
Re:Debates like this are pointless (Score:3)
But with Mac OS X having all the tools I need, it is just a waste of my time to be screwing around trying to get Windows itself (let alone the apps) working, or configuring things under Linux. I ran Linux, exclusively, for 3 years, and one of the reasons I switched to a Mac was that the "cool" factor had worn off, and I just needed to get stuff done...
Re:Flaws in the Analysis? (Score:3)
I've been using Mac OS X since... NeXTSTEP 3.3. The eye candy that showed up in Mac OS X DP3 and has stuck with us doesn't distract the user, in my experience. It doesn't get in the way, and is aware when it should tone itself down. E.g., when I'm running an expensive job (CPU intensive for you kiddies who don't know what that means), and CPU is maxed at 100%, invoking some action that is filled with eye candy, like minimizing a window, the window just pops into the dock, rather than smoothly sucking into the dock, which is what it does when it has CPU time to afford that.
So, no, you're not correct. :)
Re:Debates like this are pointless (Score:5)
Flaws in the Analysis? (Score:5)
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than
Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking
this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could
spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed
more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
OSX still wins here, but its racing on its own track.
Round 2: Interface
OSX takes the lead for now in the cool GUI department, but those who
accuse MS of stealing ideas from Aqua are overlooking a key point in
the embrace and extend philosophy. Like Win95, 98, and ME before it;
Windows XP will not only adopt new interface ideas, but those ideas
will actually be tested for usuability and integration with existing
user practices.
Apple seems to design on "Make it look cool, and they will come"
MS seems to design on "Make it look cool, and work with the stuff that
didn't look as cool in the last rev, and they will upgrade"
Round 3: Software compatibility
Windows 2000 is the better example of what both companies needed to do
to insure future growth and legacy compatiblity. It wins the match, but
the real winner overall is GNU/ the Open Source Movement.
I'm not saying that to be a Slashdot shill, because it is not the "free"
aspect I'm looking at. It's that OSS is for the most part designed with
portability in mind that it has held to the best ideas for software compatibility,
despite the forks in the roads of OSS history.
Round 4: Hardware compatibility
Same point as in Round 1, OSX deals with its hardware better, but it
has a much more limited range of configurations that it has to deal with.
Round 5: Internet support
OSX is more compatible with the existing Internet infrastucture; because
it is based on much of the same ideas/technology.
Microsoft's flaws were in targeting Windows 2000 more for the Intranet and
plain vanilla business use, than for the space beyond the corporate proxy.
Harder than it sounds (Score:5)
Damn, I was about to go out and but a Mac, but I've never thawed a hot dog and I don't fancy learning now
Why should I respect these results? (Score:3)
This article also links to a "Flyweights" [cnet.com] competition between Mac OS9 and Corel Linux! Whatever you may feel about Distros, most Linux users feel this is the most flawed mainstream Distro. C|Net Justifies the comparison between these two by saying they both have a 4% market share, so we should compare them. Winner:OS9. Why? Because MS doesn't support Linux.
So in this article C|Net pits OSX against an OS that arguably has a 66% potential market share. WTF? And the contest goes to OSX at the end. Why? Not for any reason consistent with the Linux vs. OS9. That article tells me MS has to support an OS to be worth my while. Here's a contest with an MS OS and they give it to the other guy because - Why? [cnet.com] - It has a "unix core"!!!!
In my view the biggest loser in this contest is C|Net.
Re:Win2k Installation (Score:3)
This is a reason people insist that WINXX sucks, they don't know what it can do. Mostly due to poor documentation and the gen'l GUI issues. I know people who make all their users by hand. Yes it can be done but it is time consuming and no where near as fast or accurate as a script.
Look deeper into that OS you have there are a lot of very cool things you could be doing if you knew about them.
I strongly recommend the New Rider's line of W2K books they will open your eyes to a whole world of powerful tools. And save you about 45 minutes of question answering. And make you less of a flame target on
---
Re:You're being absurd (Score:3)
Computers are hard. They are not refrigerators.
You plug a refrigerator in and you open in and put things in it and you are done. A refrigerator is an appliance.
Most people wish their computers were appliances. The Palm Pilot (and it's ilk) are very much appliances. You don't *really* install things on a Palm Pilot you put it there. And it runs.
A modern computer is not an appliance. It is a difficult mess of many things. This requires knowledge. You *should* be aware of your operating system's features if you plan to install it AND complain about it.
The average joe probably shouldn't be installing their own OS. OS configuration is hard. Maybe it will be easy someday (OS/X is a step in the right direction.)
Computers are NOT for everyone. Computer applications are.
---
Re:moron (Score:4)
What the author was saying, in a nutshell, was: "File sharing? That's nothing. We can share files and Internet connections!". See the Mac guy's previous comment:
This is actually one of the few cases where their technical savvy wasn't completely transparent.
--
Re:who woulda thunk it (Score:4)
That said...
Apple isn't innovating so much as dusting off its old NeXT technology.
I am very happy with the technical foundation of OSX. It rules. BSD stuff in my Mac! But I hate the new GUI. Apple -- no, STEVE -- threw out a decade of GUI evolution so that he could force his pet project onto us, that being the NeXT way of doing things. NeXT was his baby, and he can't let it go. Steve has an incredibly large ego.
Aqua isn't revolutionary. It's retarded. It may look good when you compare it to the GUIs that you can get for the free Unixes, but if Apple REALLY wanted to make its CURRENT users happy, they would have given OSX a MacOS 9 style GUI.
By any measure, the OS9 interface is better. The could have added new features to support the new OS's foundation, but instead they built up a new monstrosity which has, for me, about 10% of the usability of OS9. I suspect that Aqua will be useable a year from now, but only for the people who want to spend $100 on shareware GUI tweaks that Apple/Steve are too pig-headed to build in for us.
Just another Mac guy's opinion...
A more interesting deathmatch... (Score:5)
-----
Re:Depends on the applications (Score:4)
Your comment is tongue and cheek, I know, but just to be clear: Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it. There are other kinds of freedom, and I doubt you can make platform-dependent generalizations for these.
Back to the article: Of course such comparisons are meaningless, but I found it interesting that they gave the Interface comparison to Windows (by a nose). Their argument was essentially 'we know the Windows interface, it remains unchanged, therefore it's better'. By this logic, OS X will only win when it becomes more familiar (read: Windows-like). Weird.
An honest surprise (Score:4)
That said, they need to do it again when Windows XP arrives (and Mac OS X has a few more *nix software offerings available). There will be enough improvements in the interface and usability that the results should be significantly different.
what end users really want (Score:3)
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Re:Depends on the applications (Score:5)
"Before you use our death match as a reason to run out and buy a new dual-processor G4, though, let us remind you that this matchup is all in good fun. If you're making decisions about operating systems and even entire platforms--especially for your business--you should do your research. Check out CNET's reviews of both Windows 2000 and Mac OS X and decide for yourself."
Nuff said.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Interesting point and funny ending (Score:5)
What's more, the OS X installer automatically finds your hardware and recognizes it. No driver problems (what's a driver?), no hardware conflicts, nada. Don't be fooled by its fancy core; just as it did in previous Mac OS incarnations, Apple designed OS X for your Mac hardware. OS X is even better than OS 9 at recognizing hardware, and it even configures USB printers--no "plug and pray" here.
Well I know I've lost some hardware. I have a beige G3 and I no longer have the built-in SCSI port. My CD burner doesn't work either and it did work in 9.1. So I can't say I have had no hardware problems.
I like the "plug and pray" shot though.
Incorrect. (Score:3)
OS X, by default, supports NFS, AppleTalk, and with sharity (which is free for educational people) NetBUI. I have an iMac next to me what has NFS mounts from several SGI's in this room, mounts of NT drives upstairs, and an OS 9 drive of a computer behind me.
Re:Depends on the applications (Score:5)
Good post on Ars (Score:3)
disclaimer: I didn't post this in Ars. XWRed did. greetz to all the other Ars lurkers!
Symmetric multitasking means all OS X apps can take advantage of two processors in a dual-processor Mac to
That just made me laugh. Reading reviews like this almost make me sick, there's so much misinformation and obfuscation. I'm sure the BF could collectively come up with something *FAR* more comprehensive. Heck, I probably could if I played both sides.
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Windows zealot by any means, its just that I can't stand journalism like this. Both of the guys barely know what they're talking about, the Mac guy obfuscates everything, and the Windows guy can barely defend Win2k.
Oh, and I hate it when arguments hinge on simplicity. It seems like none of these journalists are real men anymore, they all want their hands to be held while they're computing because their pussies hurt too much.
Power overwhelming (Score:4)
Re:Linux (Score:3)
But, wait, there's that damn anecdoctal evidence again. I didn't realize we were trying to adhere to the strictest standards of scientific inquiry and integrity. In that case, I suppose I could parse the HCL for Windows 3.1/95/98/Me/NT/2K, then hunt down drivers for every component that I can think of that wasn't on the list, then do the same thing for Linux drivers, and then run a line-by-line comparison to them using a point + modifiers scale (using modifiers such as +10 for being on an official HCL or similar (with built-in driver support), -1 for having to use Windrivers.com, -5 for having to download the driver through some guy's geocities webpage, +5 for automatic resource detection/assignment, +1 if Linux or Windows at least tells me the name and model of the component, etc.) then added it all up and declared a winner. Of course, then you'd probably be bitching about my grading scale.
Besides, I have a job, and they do expect me to do work every once in a while. I can only spend so much time on Slashdot and Slashdot related projects. And, if CNET can base an article on anecdoctal evidence, I certainly see no harm in my doing the same. (For the record, I've probably been through 1500+ Windows installations, and only 5-10 Linux installations. I'd say that Windows is leading by a high margin by percentage of "painless installs". And yes, I know 5-10 isn't statistically relevant, but since when does that make a difference on Slashdot?)
Microsoft's response (Score:5)
CNET's decision: Mac OS X
What do you mean by that?
I thought we are always friends. I know you've taken efforts to make us win on "Interfaces" part.
But I'm not satisfied. You know that.
Can't you be more unethical?
You can kiss my future first-hand Microsoft news goodbye, sucker.
Yours master,
Bill G.
who woulda thunk it (Score:3)
'Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.'-Ford Prefect