Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

X vs. XP.com Site Launched

pudge posted more than 11 years ago | from the i-win-you-lose dept.

Microsoft 200

Dan Pouliot writes "I've been compiling a shootout of X vs. XP for some time, but I've finally given it it's own domain xvsxp.com. Sure, I prefer Macs, but I've tried to have this site be as objective (and thorough) a shootout as possible."

cancel ×

200 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5488115)

Slashdot raises the bar for newsvertising yet again.

AMD? This ain't a AMD story (-1, Offtopic)

p0ppe (246551) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488127)

./ does it again...

Re:AMD? This ain't a AMD story (1, Offtopic)

Strike (220532) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488207)

Funny thing is, the first thing I thought when I read "X vs XP" was think X [x.org] vs XP [athlonxp.com] . Slashdot is reading my mind!

Re:AMD? This ain't a AMD story (1)

Jahf (21968) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488228)

Yeah, the domain name/site name isn't very well thought out. OSXvsXP or OSXvsWinXP would have been better. I assumed it was going to be about X11+Linux versus Windows XP. I didn't even think of OSX until I hit the site and couldn't find anything relevant to X11 there. Then I noticed the Jaguar logo.

Re:AMD? This ain't a AMD story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5488536)

./ does it again...

And so do you... This site is /. (Slashdot), not ./

some good, some bad, etc... (2, Insightful)

sundip01 (214355) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488153)

There's quite a bit in here, not necessarily all new observations but a pretty solid collection of opinions that I think would seem to reflect the bulk of users on both platforms....

These comparisons are nice but for a significant number of ppl it mainly comes down to what they are comfortable with. If people don't know any better than they really aren't missing much of anything....

Pricing Perspective: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5488251)

Should be re-organized more fairly to compare offerings. The "Full" (as opposed to upgrade) figure should be emphasized in larger text, and Microsoft's Full pricing should precede its Upgrade pricing, since that's what compares with Apple's offering. "Family 5 pack" should be renamed "Five Licenses", and there should be a figure that shows how expensive it is to buy a box and 4 additional licenses from Microsoft. If Microsoft does not sell just licenses, then the price / box should be multiplied by 5.

OS X starts seeming much more cost-effective.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489702)

Bullshit. You have to buy 4 additional macs to use "five licenses". OS X now seems quite expensive. Even if you already have the macs, their cost is still in the equation. Sorry, try again.

Re:sorry, try again (1)

pastafazou (648001) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489783)

Sorry, you're wrong. Biege G3 Desktops can be picked up now for under $100. So for the purpose of the comparison, the differences in cost of the hardware is negligible.

Re:sorry, try again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5490390)

Is OS X usable on a beige g3 desktop? 266MHz with 32 Megs, you're kidding, right?

Actually... (5, Informative)

FredFnord (635797) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490583)

...I'm running my web server, mail server, FTP server, QuickTime Streaming Server, internet sharing, file sharing, and name server on MacOS X 10.2 on a beige G3. When I had my main machine out at a client's site, I used the beige G3 for all of my daily use for a couple of weeks. It worked fine.

I will admit that I've upgraded the memory to 320 megs or so. But even on a 300 mhz G3, running with a Rage Pro chip, things work surprisingly smoothly and well. I wouldn't do all my development on that machine if I had a choice, but for day-to-day usage it's perfectly fine.

-fred

Re:sorry, try again (1)

TwistedKestrel (550054) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490929)

Sorry, that's bullshit. There is no way in hell any G3 is under $100.

Re:sorry, try again (2, Informative)

gerardrj (207690) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492065)

Perhaps you should fire up Sherlock and head over to Ebay. I've seen several Beige G3s sell there for under $100 in the past weeks. $150 will get you a nice little box capable of running a file/web/mail server system or even playing some less demanding 3D games (with an ATI Radeon 7000 PCI installed of course).

There's a retail site near me that sells used G3 boxes pretty cheap, like $200 for a 333Mhz mini tower.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (3, Informative)

afantee (562443) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489945)

>> You have to buy 4 additional macs to use "five licenses".

No, you are wrong, idiot. I have 3 Macs running OS X at home and the family pack @ $199 is still a good deal even if it's just for 2 machines.

>> OS X now seems quite expensive.

You are talking shit. At amazon.com, Mac OS X sells for $96.99, much cheaper than Red Hat 8 Pro for $116.99 and Win XP Pro for $199, and comes with more and better software than the other two put together.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5490302)

I'll type this slowly, so you might understand. You have 1 mac, you have 5 licenses, how many more macs do you need to use 5 licenses? Five minus one equals four. Can you see how this works? It doesn't matter if you only have three macs. you won't be using five licenses, you will be using three. I hope this helped.

RedHat 8 has nothing to do with this topic. But, since you brought it up, I downloaded it for free . Home users don't need pro editions. I can use it on as many machines as I want. That makes OS X look real expensive.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (-1, Flamebait)

afantee (562443) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490542)

Why don't you fuck off and go downloading some more useless free garbage? Some of us have work to do and are quite happy to pay for quality products that save valuable time.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5490823)

That's the best you can come up with?

Why don't you fuck off and go downloading some more useless free garbage?

Try "Why don't you fuck off and go download some more useless free garbage?".
Some of us have to work on our grammar.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491914)

Why don't you fuck off and go running to your mommy about how these uncouth Slashdot Philistines are employing locutions your imported English tutor never taught you -- butchering the Queen's English, are we, you would-be pedant half-wit?

Some of us are out having lives, through the course of which we meet living English. I'm sorry you haven't the luxury. No need to be sour about it. I'm sure your 19th century grammar is treating you just fine.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going dancing.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491251)

Hey fucktard, how much is OS X? $119.

How much would two copies of OS X therefore be? $238

A 5-pack is only $199 though.

So even if you just have two computers, the Family License is a big savings.

Now go back to your hentai porn.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491420)

We were past the price part of the conversation. We were on the basic math part of the conversation.
Try to keep up next time.

By any chance, have you read this [wired.com] ?

Re:Pricing Perspective: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5490298)

Don't count on a discount anytime soon. Apple is on very shaky ground financially. Frankly, many prominent industry analysts have crunched the numbers, concluding that Apple's outlook is bleak indeed.

In Apple's latest numbers released in January for its fiscal first quarter of 2003, revenue fell from a year earlier and all of the company's major computer lines saw diminished numbers. PowerMac sales were down 20%, while iBook sales fell 8%.

At the same time Apple's sales were falling, PC sales rose, though just slightly, according to figures from IDC released last month.

The last time Apple was in this state, it brought back co-founder Steve Jobs to fix its issues. He fostered the development of the iMac and secured a US$150-million investment from Microsoft. But there aren't any new iMacs in Apple's future and Microsoft, bolstered by its victory over the U.S. Department of Justice, is clearly not going to help the beleaguered computer maker this time.

So what have you got left? Apple is a company that controls around 3% of the computer market, has recently undergone a restructuring and is slowly fading into nothingness. Software makers don't even have Mac users on their radar and it's not like Apple can bring Mr. Jobs back to right the ship this time -- he's already there.

Stick a fork in 'em -- this Apple is cooked.

Re:Pricing Perspective: (2, Funny)

TheInternet (35082) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492048)

How many times are you planning on posting this? Does it look less contrived each time or something?

- Scott

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5490447)

Apple hardware costs significantly more, unless you just happen to stuff a PC full of the precise features that Macs come with, and you still come out with a significant price difference. Not to mention the OEM pricing that anyone other than Mac zealots can easily find, and XP Pro comes down to $135 for a full license ($85 for XP Home).

Cat got my balls (4, Insightful)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488270)

Damn... I thought this was X(11) vs. XP, not (OS)X vs. XP.

I wanna see a good X vs. X vs. XP shootout. Everybody always talks about the right tool for the job; I want to see a good analysis and adaptable scoring system that shows which is really the best for which jobs.

But, for this particular thing, my vote's for (OS)X.

cat scratch fever (2, Interesting)

XnetZERO (560391) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488613)

FYI - With Mac OS 10.3, X11 will be standard equipment...

Re:cat scratch fever (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489456)

Well, I meant by X the Unix/X way of approaching interfaces and systems. Mac OS X / Aqua is notably different. :)

OS X = X11 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489891)

Yea, it's only in beta, but I've never had many problems. OS X can run OSX apps, OS 9 apps, and X11 apps. XP can run. . .Xp apps.

Re:Apple got my balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5490289)

OS X might be a great platform, but Mac Hardware sucks my nuts. Its expensive, and slow compared to pc hardware. And Apple can go screw themselves because applecare sucks even more.

Wow! (0, Troll)

*xpenguin* (306001) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488352)

Wow, a new trolling site. Congratulations, and how news worthy.

We've got a long way to go! (5, Insightful)

jgardn (539054) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488580)

I read through most of the site, and I found it pretty balanced and objective.

When you compare Linux to Windows XP, it seems that we are not too far from having all the features we need to be wildly successful.

But when you compare Linux to OS X, it is obvious that we are so far from the goal. Even Windows XP looks like a joke compared to the things that OS X does.

I'm glad he put together all the little tidbits of the user interface and user experience. I think the Gnome and KDE developers are paying a lot of attention as well.

Re:We've got a long way to go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491382)

You are so right.

I'm not certain that linux can ever catch up. The opensource model is great for producing performance and technical excellence, but has always lacked in the design department. And OS X's excellence comes from high design.


I hope that one of the dying unix firms will see this and make a last ditch effort to save themselves by producing a new desktop.

Organisation, Issues (5, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488710)

Overall, this site is quite nice. It does seem rather objective to me. My biggest peeve about this site is that it needs "next" and "previous" links at the bottom of each page.

As for actual content, there are a few things that I disagree with. This person said that they are a Mac fan, so I'm not too suprised at these things. Here is what I see wrong/disagree with:

  • Numlock/number pad - This is listed in the last section as something odd. He complains that you can only use the number keys when numlock is on. His site shows that this was explained to him, but I don't think he quite "gets" it. First of all, you can have the computer start up with numlock on (I do). That said, this is a hardware issue that he's juding on, which he doesn't seem to see it that way. It's tradition (like where the capslock key is, or that there even IS a scroll lock key).
  • He talks about that, but doesn't chide the Mac for having a one button mouse. This is also a hardware issue, but it's rediculous. I have a friend who has used Macs for nearly 20 years and JUST GOT A PC RECENTLY. They didn't know what the 2nd button was for, and it took me a little time to get them to get the idea. But once they got it, they LOVED it. It's SO much more convinent than holding option and clicking. That is there to cover up for the lack of a second button. Everyone I know who uses Macs alot (real computer people, not just people who only use AOL or something like that) have bought 2+ button mice for their Macs, because they are simply superior in usuability.
  • Windows is chided for having a menubar for every application. I think this is a good thing. I find it convinent. When using OS X if I want to access a menu in a application that isn't in focus, I have to switch to that application by clicking on a window it owns, then using the menu bar. In Windows, I can just click IMMEDIATLY on the mendu that I want. That article a while ago that talked about "cruft" explained why Mac did things that way. The windows way is superior (IMHO), but he doens't agree with me. Fine. The option-click thing above is also cruft.
  • Application vs Window. I don't remember if this was mentioned, but this has always annoyed me about Macs. In windows, if I close Word or some other program by clicking on the "close" button on the top right of the window, it closes. On a Mac, the window closes but the application stays open. This wouldn't be a problem for notepad or somesuch, but for large programs like Word, Photoshop, and other things, this can eat ALOT of memeory. This too, is cruft.

Do I have a preference? I've always liked Macs, but I use PCs because they cost less (I can build a PC for much cheaper than the lowest-end-mac costs). From Win95 on, the IBM/PC has had a superior OS over OS 7/8/9. OS X changes things. It's a great OS. Would I rather have OS X or XP? I'm not quite sure. I'd probably chose OS X, all else being equal. It's done so well. I also don't like alot of the stuff XP does. If the choice was between 2k and X, I'm not sure. I would probably go with X again, but only because of the Unix core; wihtout that it'd be 2k. I use 2k and love it. It's a very good interface.

Of course, this is just another one of those KDE vs. Gnome (KDE for me), PC vs. Mac (PC for me), DVD-R vs. DVD+R (whichever one someone wants to give me ;), Linux vs. BSD (Linux for me) type things. It has no answer.

Re:Organisation, Issues (5, Funny)

ElGanzoLoco (642888) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488925)

I have a friend who has used Macs for nearly 20 years and JUST GOT A PC RECENTLY. They didn't know what the 2nd button was for

Where was he for the last twenty years? I mean, if he was in a mac-only country where nobody ever has to use a PC, please, tell me so I can start moving there right away.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

JDWTopGuy (209256) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490733)

Dang, need a roommate?

Re:Organisation, Issues (4, Insightful)

TwoStep (36482) | more than 11 years ago | (#5488968)

The menu bar for each window was discussed by Tog. [asktog.com]

Basically, having the menu bar at the top of the screen makes it infinitely tall, becuase you can flick the mouse to the top of the screen and click a menu. It makes a *very* noticable increase in accuracy and speed, especially for expert users.

The application vs. window issue is something that you get used to pretty quickly. If you use a mac for more than a day or so it seems pretty natural. With a modern OS with modern virtual memory, it doesn't really matter if you leave it open anyway. It actually can be a pretty nice feature, especially on a system like OS X where some apps still take quite a while to start up.

Twostep

Re:Organisation, Issues (4, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489357)

It makes a *very* noticable increase in accuracy and speed, especially for expert users.

"Expert" users rarely make heavy use of menues - they use the keyboard.

The application vs. window issue is something that you get used to pretty quickly. If you use a mac for more than a day or so it seems pretty natural.

I've been using Macs on and off for about 8 years now and as a main machine for the last 2. I still find this behaviour annoying - although not as annoying as the lack of a quick & easy way to switch between arbitrary windows when they are obscured from view.

Re:Organisation, Issues (3, Insightful)

EricHsu (578881) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490579)

... although not as annoying as the lack of a quick & easy way to switch between arbitrary windows when they are obscured from view.

Cmd-` is a big step forward in this. (It switches between an app's windows.) I still find Cmd-Tab unusable.

I use Windows XP, X11 and Mac OS X, now. My biggest complaint with Macs is not the one-button mouse thing (for god's sake, get a $10 usb 2-button mouse and be happy, or better yet a Kensington Orbit trackball); it's not the one-menu-to-rule-them-all-thing (I don't care).

It's the lack of good keyboard bindings for menu navigation. even the "Keyboard Navigation" mode doesn't really do it. I've been doing okay with Youpi Key [club-internet.fr] (the best freeware ever). But I miss the glory days of Now Menus or was it Action Menus... I forget now, whichever one automatically added arrow and key control to all menus.

But when all is said and whinged... I use OS X for everything I can. - Eric

Re:Organisation, Issues (2, Interesting)

NeuroKoan (12458) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491976)

Liteswitch [proteron.com] helped make cmd-tab very useful for me.

Re:Organisation, Issues (3, Insightful)

FredFnord (635797) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490672)

>"Expert" users rarely make heavy use of menues - they use the keyboard.

This is absolutely true, as long as you define 'expert' users as people who rarely make heavy use of menus, but instead use the keyboard.

Or perhaps you mean to say that I'm not an expert user... after all, I've only been using computers for 20 years, and Macs for 14. And heck, I only started programming professionally 11 years ago, got my BS in Computer Science 6 years ago, and have only been professionally programming Macs full time for four years.

(I use command keys for quitting, saving, closing windows, opening new windows, occasionally for switching between programs. Almost everything else I use the menu bar, or contextual menus, for.)

Or, just possibly, what you really meant by the term "Expert" in your sentence was "users who still yearn for CLI"?

-fred

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491289)

Perhaps I should have said "expert users whose OS caters for extensive efficient keyboard use". But I figured that the context was obviously about Windows and not MacOS. I should also have said, "expert users rarely make heavy use of menus via the mouse" but, again, I though that would be obvious.

I'd feel quite confident in saying the only reason you use the menus via the mouse extensively is simply because MacOS has lousy support for using them any other way, always has, and probably always will. Or do you really think, for example, it's quicker to mouse to "Insert->Break->Page Break" than type "Alt+I, B, P" (I think that's the right keys to do it under Office on Windows) ?

Or, just possibly, what you really meant by the term "Expert" in your sentence was "users who still yearn for CLI"?

No, I mean expert users who like to maximise their efficiency. By the way, there are many tasks for which a CLI or a keyboard are _vastly_ faster than a mouse _provided you know what you're doing_.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

Kplusplus (617856) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491664)

I think its faster to shift+return. I never saw the value in using the menus in this way. Expert users merely know the key commands.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491996)

Not all menu commands have keyboard shortcuts, not all applications allow you to create them.

Re:Organisation, Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491592)


although not as annoying as the lack of a quick & easy way to switch between arbitrary windows when they are obscured from view.


Have you tried command-tilde?

Not entirely.... (3, Insightful)

bigBlackSabbath (462796) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489055)

The numlock is a software thing. The mac ignores the state of numlock. I imagine the numlock is only there for people using Virtual PC or Linux/NetBSD.

And the reason the menu bar is at the top is easy - that way you can close and open documents without having to restart the application again. Mozilla on Windows means if I close the browser, I have to restart it. The alternative is the convoluted window inside a window technique Microsoft uses everywhere, such as in Word. The menu bar doesn't need to be repeated for every open document.

Now, if the application is not really document oriented (not all applications are) or if it has features that don't require interaction with the document, that's what a dock menu is for. I don't know if you're familiar with dock menus, but nice authors make frequent commands accessible from a menu attached to the application's icon in the dock.

Mail lets you check mail straight from the dock, Project Builder let's me make a new component or project from the dock, iTunes not only shows me what's playing, but it lets me pause, stop skip, or go back from the dock. Granted, those are all Apple applications, but Watson lets me check the weather, stocks, news, versiontracker, etc. all from the dock menu. Chimera - correction, Camino (kick ass browser!) lets me call up bookmarks from the dock.

Not all applications are taking advantage of them, but, the support for it is there, and good programmers will use it those situations for a non-document based applications major functions.

So, since dock menus reasonably address your need to have the menu bar always present and in the process removes the unnecessary repetition of menubars, I'd argue the single menubar approach is superior.

Besides, with overlapping windows, most of your menubars will be obscured (at least somewhat) anyway, thereby forcing you to click on it to reveal the rest. The dock is always in the foreground, so dock menus are always accessible.

Re:Not entirely.... (1)

henele (574362) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490023)

Also (and I haven't used XP througherly so I can't make a direct comparison) the 'dynamic', updatable icons in the Dock are really starting to become a useful feature...

Granted, I started using them to play itty-bitty quicktime movies, but nowadays it updates me on the process of my FTP uploads and video encodes constantly, instead of having to flick between windows or have them open all the time, actually saving space and time people (probably including me) originally thought the dock wasted...

Re:Organisation, Issues (5, Insightful)

Dragonfly (5975) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489064)

Application vs Window. I don't remember if this was mentioned, but this has always annoyed me about Macs. In windows, if I close Word or some other program by clicking on the "close" button on the top right of the window, it closes. On a Mac, the window closes but the application stays open. This wouldn't be a problem for notepad or somesuch, but for large programs like Word, Photoshop, and other things, this can eat ALOT of memeory. This too, is cruft.

Allow me to disagree. First, leaving applications open on OS X doesn't use a lot of memory. For instance, I've had MS Excel running for 6 hours now, using it off and on, and it's using 0.4% of the CPU and 1.8% of memory right now with no open windows. Photoshop behaves similarly.

Second, why should closing an application's only open document quit the application? What if you want to open another document, or just leave the app open to save yourself the trouble of re-launching it? By confusing Close with Quit MS created yet another confusing UI metaphor, combining two different actions.

Re:Organisation, Issues (2, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489448)

Second, why should closing an application's only open document quit the application? What if you want to open another document, or just leave the app open to save yourself the trouble of re-launching it? By confusing Close with Quit MS created yet another confusing UI metaphor, combining two different actions.

On the other hand, why would closing all an application's windows *not* quit it ? It's just another example of how the Mac is application-centric and not document-centric. In a document-centric UI, there should be no real distincion between documents and applications - opening a file should just give you a window with that file in it and no separate "application" icon or menu floating around somewhere. Leaving the application open is, by and large, a historical hangover from when launching applications was quite slow and the performance benefit for leaving them loaded was significant. Leaving the application open may still have benefits, but there really shouldn't be anything in the UI to create a distinction between an application and a document. It also leads to nasty situations where the user isn't aware an app is running and just keeps on trying to launch it (this happens when the developer doesn't have their application do something sensible - like open a blank document - when the user attempts to launch it while it is already running).

Re:Organisation, Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489942)

On the Mac, if a user attempts to launch an app that's already launched, it just brings the app to the foreground. It's only on the PC that launching an already launched app launches it again.

Also, I don't know what computer you're using, but all of my apps don't launch instantaneously, so I like to keep them open. In fact, I regularly have 10-15 apps open simultaneously on my Mac with negligible hit to performance.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

cornflux (168139) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490392)

Hi there, don't use PCs often, do you?

Well, I say that because I use PCs all the time... and every day I get so bored at work that I try running 50 copies of Word. But, you know what? No matter how many times I try to run it, I just get the first instance of Word brought into the foreground.

Same thing with my favorite text editor, TextPad.

Anyway, afaik, it's the application's choice whether or not to create a new, instance.

P.S. I don't really get *that* bored at work.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

Kplusplus (617856) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491701)

Anyway, afaik, it's the application's choice whether or not to create a new, instance.

That's another problem with windows the non standard launch, Instance versus foreground. Just so you know IE does do this it launches a new instance everytime you click on it. Hotline also did it.

Re:Organisation, Issues (2, Informative)

afantee (562443) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490220)

>> but there really shouldn't be anything in the UI to create a distinction between an application and a document.

Why not? An applications can run without any document window, it might be doing some house keeping at background.

Most of the times when the user closes a document window, he or she doesn't intend to stop the application. When people open and close lots of document windows, it's very annoying that they have to remember avoiding closing the last window and killing the application by accident.

Plus, due to the excellent virtual memory system in OS X, there is really no need at all to frequently close documents or quit applications - you can hide all the documents of the front application or all the other applications by a single key stroke, and the background apps consumes very little CPU or RAM.

Re:Organisation, Issues (2, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490654)

Why not?

Because the application is irrelevant and should be completely transaparent. The user doesn't (and shouldn't have to) care what application is being used to open their documents. All they care about is the data in those documents, and the UI should reflect that.

An applications can run without any document window, it might be doing some house keeping at background.

What possible "processing" could an interactive application be doing in the background isn't related to a open document (or analogical equivalent) ?

In simpler terms, if you have closed all methods of interacting with an app, thus indicating you no longer want to interact with it, what possible processing could it need to be doing (excluding normal startup and shutdown procedures) ?

Most of the times when the user closes a document window, he or she doesn't intend to stop the application.

As previously mentioned, the user shouldn't have to think about the application at all. The whole concept is simply unintuitive.

When people open and close lots of document windows, it's very annoying that they have to remember avoiding closing the last window and killing the application by accident.

With a decent implementation, this shouldn't be an issue. Particularly in these days of dirt cheap RAM.

Plus, due to the excellent virtual memory system in OS X, [...]

I haven't tried to abuse the VM in OS X for a while, but last time I did (ca. 10.1.x), it was far from "excellent".

[...] you can hide all the documents of the front application or all the other applications by a single key stroke, and the background apps consumes very little CPU or RAM.

The Mac in front of me has 512MB of RAM and an uptime of less than a day. Thus far OS X has create 3 "swapfiles" of 80MB apiece for paging reasons. All that is running is X11, MSN Messenger, Mail, Safari, Terminal, Word and Excel. That's a _lot_ of memory usage.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

Alex Thorpe (575736) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491735)

"Why not?

Because the application is irrelevant and should be completely transaparent. The user doesn't (and shouldn't have to) care what application is being used to open their documents. All they care about is the data in those documents, and the UI should reflect that. "

That depends on the way you use the computer. I'm not particularly document-centric, and have a whole six files in my Documents folder, not counting application specific folders like "AppleWorks User Data". This of course doesn't include data types like mp3's, movie clips, and pictures, which are all stored in other folders or partitions. My Applications folder, on the other hand, has 66 items, not counting dozens of games on another partition. But this is a home computer, not somthing out of a cubicle.

Re:Organisation, Issues (3, Insightful)

davesag (140186) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492351)

Because the application is irrelevant and should be completely transaparent. The user doesn't (and shouldn't have to) care what application is being used to open their documents.

I don't know about you but I would hate it if the many various text files I work with somehow chose their own app to run in. I regularly open tomcat log files in BBEdit for example. I open PDF files in preview mostly but sometime want to open them in smacrobat. I open most graphics in preview but every so often want to open them in photoshop. sometimes I want to open html files in bbedit, sometimes in safari, sometimes in omniweb. Same docs, entirely different applications.

Re:Organisation, Issues (4, Informative)

afantee (562443) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492548)

>> What possible "processing" could an interactive application be doing in the background isn't related to a open document (or analogical equivalent) ?

Why couldn't you MS trained monkeys see things from a slightly different angle? A file manager like Finder might have a background thread for content indexing or repairing the file system, even if there is no browsing windows.

>> As previously mentioned, the user shouldn't have to think about the application at all. The whole concept is simply unintuitive.

That's just your simplistic world view. People do think about applications, and frequently choose different tools for the same document.

>> The Mac in front of me has 512MB of RAM and an uptime of less than a day. Thus far OS X has create 3 "swapfiles" of 80MB apiece for paging reasons. All that is running is X11, MSN Messenger, Mail, Safari, Terminal, Word and Excel. That's a _lot_ of memory usage.

And my 400 MHz iMac with 512MB RAM runs 24/7 for weeks or months as a software AirPort base station for web browsing and for kidds playing games and my wife doing research (statistic analysis, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc). My 700 iBook is used for programming Unix / Java / C++ (X11, tcsh, bash, Ruby, Perl, JBuilder, Eclipse, NetBeans, Project Builder, Interface Builder, etc), web design and graphics (FireWorks, Flash, DreamWeaver), database (MySQL, PostgreSQL), web browsing (Safari, Camino, OmniWeb, IE), networking and web serving (FTP, Apache, SMB, AFP, Firewall, NetInfo, AirPort wireless, iDisk, iChat, iSync, Network Utility), Word, Excel, PowerPoint, QuickTime, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, Mail, Address Book, OmniDictionary, World Book, and more. Typically, there are 70 to 80 processes running, and I generally don't quit applications, so they run continuously for days or weeks, and everything remains responsive virtually all the time.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

davesag (140186) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492373)

just out of interest, here is the top readout from my mac as for a few mts ago. I leave almost every program I have running almost all the time. with 1gb ram it's just magic :-)
PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
1239 URL Access 0.0% 0:00.23 2 72 109 536K 6.87M 2.58M 169M
1238 top 6.8% 0:04.50 1 14 18 380K 348K 676K 13.6M
1237 tcsh 0.0% 0:00.06 1 10 15 340K 596K 780K 5.73M
1236 login 0.0% 0:00.38 1 12 33 248K 400K 576K 13.7M
1235 Help Viewe 0.0% 0:03.31 3 80 152 6.62M 7.81M 11.5M 180M
1232 Fire 0.0% 0:01.80 2 74 202 2.91M 8.57M 7.65M 179M
1230 iChat 0.0% 0:01.30 3 132 162 2.30M 6.77M 9.46M 175M
1229 BBEdit 0.0% 0:02.99 4 91 165 3.71M 11.8M 8.43M 184M
1228 Adobe Phot 0.0% 0:09.61 4 78 594 25.4M 28.7M 40.1M 246M
1227 Adobe GoLi 0.6% 0:07.94 5 81 426 28.0M 62.6M 54.8M 276M
1226 Watson 0.0% 0:01.11 3 83 139 2.14M 8.21M 6.34M 180M
1225 iCal 0.0% 0:02.64 2 83 165 7.14M 11.9M 13.9M 183M
1223 Birthday R 0.0% 0:00.64 2 62 104 1.55M 5.93M 4.59M 172M
1175 AEServer 0.0% 0:00.16 2 29 26 264K 852K 960K 143M
1174 Playalong 0.0% 0:02.56 2 70 165 4.64M 9.15M 8.14M 177M
1173 iTunes 9.6% 1:57.66 9 150 451 12.3M 12.5M 18.3M 198M
1165 tcsh 0.0% 0:00.02 1 10 15 368K 596K 828K 5.73M
1164 login 0.0% 0:00.34 1 12 33 248K 400K 568K 13.7M
1163 Terminal 68.8% 0:08.59 5 65 173 2.95M+ 11.5M 10.2M+ 180M+
1162 slpd 0.0% 0:00.48 8 35 31 180K 504K 592K 17.8M
1160 Eudora 0.0% 4:00.72 10 132 233 9.66M 28.2M 24.6M+ 242M
1155 lookupd 0.0% 0:02.36 2 32 47 392K 520K 876K 14.9M
1038 Dock 0.0% 0:42.42 3 153 268 1.94M 21.9M 15.4M 188M
939 JavaBrowse 0.0% 0:07.55 3 104 227 6.84M 22.3M 23.0M 201M
872 System Pre 0.0% 0:05.38 3 90 187 5.07M 10.5M 10.0M 179M
855 OmniWeb 0.0% 0:05.94 16 123 398 9.03M 15.5M 15.5M 199M
819 OmniGraffl 0.0% 1:22.28 6 117 289 13.8M 15.0M 18.4M 198M
523 AppleSpell 0.0% 0:00.88 1 52 24 492K 1.08M 1.29M 15.2M
522 Mail 0.0% 1:05.81 5 167 226 7.17M 11.0M 9.32M 183M
516 Safari 0.0% 5:30.92 8 392 726 37.1M 22.2M 45.6M 355M
492 iChatAgent 0.0% 0:00.60 5 65 50 484K 1.74M 1.97M 145M
491 SecurityAg 0.0% 0:02.70 3 84 126 1.70M 7.74M 3.10M 174M
480 ssh-agent 0.0% 0:00.00 1 8 14 72K 308K 104K 1.55M
477 UniversalA 2.0% 1:44.68 2 60 78 768K 4.94M 1.83M 170M
476 Meteorolog 0.0% 2:25.70 2 63 132 4.04M 5.11M 4.89M 174M
475 Net Monito 1.3% 7:54.60 3 78 204 2.15M 7.96M 3.44M 176M
474 MiCal 0.0% 1:25.64 11 203 1112 14.6M 9.24M 13.8M 348M
473 SSH Agent 0.0% 0:00.95 2 70 107 2.04M 5.05M 3.68M 173M
468 Finder 0.0% 2:14.31 3 147 244 7.91M 21.0M 16.1M 211M
467 SystemUISe 0.6% 11:04.20 3 174 273 3.21M 8.82M 5.28M 48.5M
466 aped 0.0% 0:00.60 1 45 22 140K 688K 592K 14.0M
459 pbs 0.0% 0:03.85 2 28 31 1.02M 1.12M 1.72M 15.1M
449 AppleFileS 0.0% 0:02.29 2 31 25 632K 920K 952K 16.2M
436 httpd 0.0% 0:00.00 1 8 79 4K 872K 76K 15.7M
432 DirectoryS 0.0% 0:00.86 3 60 137 568K 1.66M 1.84M 21.0M
428 httpd 0.0% 0:01.80 1 33 77 24K 872K 640K 15.2M
412 cron 0.0% 0:00.14 1 8 16 68K 328K 132K 13.5M
410 cupsd 0.0% 0:03.74 1 8 19 540K 516K 652K 3.19M
408 xinetd 0.0% 0:00.01 1 10 16 36K 308K 76K 1.45M
406 inetd 0.0% 0:00.00 1 8 14 20K 308K 64K 1.28M
400 loginwindo 0.0% 0:05.93 4 164 148 2.70M 8.00M 4.11M 182M
394 mysqld 0.0% 0:00.05 2 29 21 240K 348K 444K 11.9M
392 ntpd 0.0% 0:04.14 1 8 16 100K 396K 260K 1.52M
351 sh 0.0% 0:00.04 1 10 14 44K 680K 524K 1.79M
344 coreservic 0.0% 0:03.68 3 120 112 2.27M 13.2M 3.27M 38.9M
342 automount 0.0% 0:00.02 2 22 22 124K 392K 432K 14.7M
331 nfsiod 0.0% 0:00.00 1 8 13 0K 316K 52K 1.27M

Note not a lot of wasted memory there. Nothing really sucking on my processor, but when i flip to photoshop it's like a milisecond wait, hooray for that. dave

Re:Organisation, Issues (4, Insightful)

sc00p18 (536811) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491737)

By confusing Close with Quit MS created yet another confusing UI metaphor, combining two different actions.

dude, that's ABSOLUTELY correct, I NEVER understood the close/quit thing until I got a mac. Then I realized that Microsoft just screwed it up when they were transferring it over from the mac interface.

Re:Organisation, Issues (4, Insightful)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489482)

On the subject of the two-button mouse: the Aqua human interface guidelines specifiy that a contextual menu should not be used for any feature that is not also accessible through another UI control. Assuming for sake of argument that all software everwhere follows the Aqua HIG, you never have to control-click on a Mac. Ever.

On the subject of the menu bar: google for Fitts's Law.

On the subject of quitting an application by closing its window: some Mac applications have this behavior, some don't. The virtual memory implementation in OS X works in such a way that having extra idle apps open has essentially no effect. One you hit your physical memory limit, those applications get paged out to disk and no longer occupy physical RAM until they're activated again.

Of course, this is just another one of those KDE vs. Gnome... things. It has no answer.

I think the purpose of this web site is to demonstrate that this is not merely a question of preference, but rather that which is the better OS can be quantified, and a conclusion reached thereby. All that's left is to argue about the methodology.

Re:Organisation, Issues (2, Informative)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489860)

On the subject of quitting an application by closing its window: some Mac applications have this behavior, some don't.

IME, the Mac apps that quit on close are utilities that people can be assumed to be finished working with when they close the primary window-- Calculator, Disk Utility, Key Caps, etc. Like, when I'm using Calculator, I switch away from it if I need to refer to something else. When I'm done with it, I close it. I think this fits the desktop metaphor well because switching away from the calculator is analagous to leaving it on the table in front of you, and closing it is like putting it back into a drawer when you're done with it.

Plus most of them are so small in size that they can be relaunched just as quickly as switching to them and spawning a new window if they were still active.

~Philly

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

capologist (310783) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492332)

On the subject of the two-button mouse: the Aqua human interface guidelines specifiy that a contextual menu should not be used for any feature that is not also accessible through another UI control. Assuming for sake of argument that all software everwhere follows the Aqua HIG, you never have to control-click on a Mac.

Right. In Safari, for example, if you want to open a link in a new window, you don't have to control-click.

You can also command-click.

Re:Organisation, Issues (3, Insightful)

mikedaisey (413058) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490121)

"Everyone I know who uses Macs alot (real computer people, not just people who only use AOL or something like that) have bought 2+ button mice for their Macs, because they are simply superior in usuability."

One of the reasons Macs rock is that application designers are forced to design for a one-button mouse--not hiding vital features up in contextual menus that only show up when your mouse is in a certain part of the screen. That's one of the biggest unsung reasons Macs will stay defaulting to one mouse--it makes better design.

And as you point out, it's a whole $10 to get a different mouse, depending on your preference--it can be more, but it doesn't have to be. So I can't see this as a serious "problem" with the platform.

Re:Organisation, Issues (2, Informative)

u2mr2os2 (81332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490598)

Re: One button Mice
Let's just agree that different people prefer different things. It's not like the Mac doesn't support multi-button mice and scroll wheels. And if you're going to argue that Apple not including one causes an extra cost to get one, then I'd say that probably quite a good deal of PC users go buy another mouse from the typically crappy one that came with your typically cheap PC, causing an identical extra cost.

Re: Menubars
True, the Mac menubar system was probably greatly influenced by the small screens we all used a long time ago, but it still very true that it has a great advantage from Fitts Law. I don't buy the idea that not having to click on a background window to select a menu item for it is an advantage. That only works when the menu item is not covered by another window and when the application does not implement that stupid metaphor MS introduced of a background app ignoring the first click as a command and just using it to bring the window to the front. This metaphor is only stupid because they only implement it in some of their apps and not system wide, so you get inconsistent behavior, which is far worse than consistently using either method.

The other thing is the damn MDI (multiple document interface). Within an application using this mode, you get a one-menu system, which is like a Mac, and it invalidates the multi-menu-is-better argument unless you throw out MDI apps. The problem with MDI is that the windows are trapped within the host app, so most apps like this are used with the document maximized within the app (also since the MDI window management functions are lame). Now combine this with DDE or "smart" apps that open documents I click on as a new MDI window in an existing instance of the already open app, and I see the document open, but then unless I look, I don't know if its a new application window that I can just close or if its a new window within the existing app. Many is the time I've closed the app, thinking it was a new app window for the document, but it was really just a new window in the existing app, and I just closed the handful of other documents it had open. True, I'll not lose data, but I'll lose several places where I was. So now I have to have the habit of closing the MDI document window first, then see if there are any more - if none, then I can close the app window. This doesn't even start to talk about the fact that an MDI app cannot have document windows mixed with those of another app. In fact, MDI causes the app to have a filled background behind its child windows that obscures things behind it. This kind of thing is what makes the Windows way completely app-centric and totally unfriendly to a doc-centric way of thinking. And this even within the supposedly "integrated" office apps!

Re: App not closing when last doc window closes
I agree that it takes getting used to on a Mac the app not closing when the last doc window closes. A PC user would really like to have an app close button on the menubar, but this is again just a holdover from app-centric thinking. A PC user thinks that they are thinking "I'm done with Acrobat Reader - close Acrobat Reader", but they are really thinking "I'm done with this document". It's just that it's actually easier (ironically via Fitt's Law) to close the app rather than the document because the app close button is in the top right corner of the screen (not always if the window is not maximized, but many people do have their apps maximized), or if the app is not maximized, it is visually the primary "x" button, so you are drawn to click it first, which is made even easier since they tend to be right next to each other. This gets back to my previous point of MDIs - I wind up closing the app and every other possibly unrelated document that app had open. This is hardly acceptable UI behavior.

What has been the complaint about older Mac OS versions, is that there was no immediate visibility of apps that were open with no documents unless they were the foreground app. The app list was a drop down list, so you couldn't see the others until you dropped it down, and since there is only one menu bar, then you don't have other menubars in the background to give you a clue (but then if you had minimized a Windows window, you would not see a menubar either). Windows had a similar problem prior to Win95 with minimized apps because they went to the "desktop" behind other windows. But now Mac OS X gives visibility to the open apps via the dock so that even if they have no open windows, you know they are open. So let's not beat up OS X for a shortcoming of OS 9 and prior had, which seens to be all that many ex-Mac users seem to remember because they don't think that things may have changed with OS X. Many only remember and criticize the cooperative multitasking of OS 9 and prior while forgetting that Win 3.x used exactly that, and Win9x still used it when 3.x programs were running (did you know that Win95 could have two 32 bit programs running but be cooperatively multitasking because they were thunking down into 16 bit code a lot of the "32 bit" code just called down to 16 bit code?).

Re: Having those unclosed windowless apps open in the backround does not affect performance
I mostly disagree with this. It is true that in general, this makes opening a document for one of the open apps load quicker, but as you have enough apps open to commit all your physical memory, then opening other apps will be slower because the system will have to page out the idle background apps to make room for the new foreground app. If the OS were to implement a policy of paging out apps that have been idle for a while, then you would not have to wait for a pageout to make room when opening a new app, but you would have to wait for the idle app to be paged back in when you opened a document for that idle app. However, this would be faster than reloading the app from scratch due to not needing to initialize the app.

Closing the Application is the cruft (1)

wfolta (603698) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491243)

I ran into this XP "feature" yesterday on a co-worker's XP machine. Running an application, closed the (last) window thinking I could then create another. Silly me, closing the (last) window exits the app and I have to poke around and relaunch it.

Not very intuitive or convenient. Especially since it depends on me keeping track of how many windows I have open in the application and knowing that the last one acts differently than the others.

To add insult to injury, my coworker had also managed to remove the app from the START menu -- where I though all apps live on an XP machine -- and I basically couldn't find the stupid application to launch it again. So much for that supposed advantage over MacOS X. (I'm not bitter, mind you...)

Close Window, Quit Application (1)

hayne (545353) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491253)

Application vs Window. I don't remember if this was mentioned, but this has always annoyed me about Macs. In windows, if I close Word or some other program by clicking on the "close" button on the top right of the window, it closes. On a Mac, the window closes but the application stays open.
To close a window, you use the Window-close control.
To quit an application, you use the Application's "Quit" menu-item.
Why is this confusing?
Maybe it's annoying if you have grown used to the Windows behaviour where you are forced to use the Window-close control since there is no uniform keyboard shortcut for quitting an application.
On Macs, there is: Cmd-Q

Perhaps this is also related to another key difference: on a Mac, there is (usually) only one instance of an application running. Double-click on a document belonging to that application and it just opens another window. On Windows, you never know if it will start a new instance of the application or not.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

NeuroKoan (12458) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491961)

Everyone I know who uses Macs alot (real computer people, not just people who only use AOL or something like that) have bought 2+ button mice for their Macs, because they are simply superior in usuability.

BS. Real computer users don't care how many buttons they have on their mouse because they use the keyboard almost exclusively.

Re:Organisation, Issues (1)

podperson (592944) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492326)

One of the really annoying aspects of having a menu in every window is that sometimes you go for the wrong menu (bringing the wrong document or instance of the application forward). Admit it, you've done it!

I think more needs to be made of the Windows tendency to waste vertical screen real estate. Once you've subtracted status bars, title bars, menu bars, toolbars, etc. from your screen, particularly on 1024x768 or smaller displays, you've got very little usable HEIGHT. But height is what you crave for most purposes. It's particularly galling to waste space in MDI for nested title bars and status bars AND a task bar. We're taking a serious fraction of your screen showing absolutely nothing useful.

W95 better than Mac OS 7,8,9...HAA ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5492594)

Funny joke..W95 better than Mac OS 7,8,9.

You're obviously not familiar with the Mac before now. Windoze has always lacked features compared w/ Mac OS. Windoze has always been a cheap imitation of Mac OS. W95 might have compared w/ Mac OS 89.

P=NP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5488817)

Am I the only one that sees the irony in the name of the site?
I almost died laughing.

Dear Father O'Day (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5488947)

Dear Father O'Day:

Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.

I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).

Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!

Sincerely,

Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.

Re:Dear Father O'Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489044)

God, this troll is getting so old I'm surprised it doesn't include a jibe about the system hanging on a mousedown event....

Re:Dear Father O'Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489114)

sheesh...what a loser.

A couple of comments (3, Interesting)

cbuskirk (99904) | more than 11 years ago | (#5489152)

First I will steal a comment from a Macslash poster and say that each of the different categories should be weighted differently. The ease with which the average user can network two computers should carry more weight than out of the box chat capabilities.
Second I am so absurdly tired of anyone who mentions anything to do with one button mice. If you are reading slashdot you are probably a computer geek. As a computer geek you more than likely know lots of stories about that idiot that can't use their computer. That is why there are one button mice! Most people are the idiot that can't use a computer. I don't think I have ever used an out of the box mouse from any PC manufacturer simply because I spend enough time using the computer that I really appreciate a mouse that is comfortable. Maybe Apple could be a little smarter and have a check box on the Apple Store site that allows a user to select their choice of mice.

Re:A couple of comments (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489527)

First off, I am *not* an average PC user.

Since 1978, my fingers have been tickling keyboards of various shapes and sizes, QWERTY to Dvorak.

I've used Macs off and on sinec 1985, Apples since a few years before.

I have eight PCs in my home, (2) FreeBSD boxes, (1) Linux box, (1) Toshiba Laptop (Win2k), (1) Sun UltraSparc 10, (1) TiBook, (1) iMac, (1) Dual G4 Power Mac.

As of today, my *NIX boxes are all headless .. sans one ..., no mouse, no keyboard (serial console access) and all access is via either my iMac or PowerMac ... with Apple's included one-button-mouse.

Even navigating X-Windows, the 1 button mouse is NO BIG DEAL. In fact, it's so intuitive that I catch myself alt+clicking and windows+clicking when I'm at work on my Win2k Desktop there.

The one-button mouse is more ergonomic, comfortable, and efficient that all this hullabaloo about multiple button mice is older then last week's dishwaster (and needs to be thrown out with it just as well.)

And for the record, before the workstations were headless, they were connected with a standard AT-101 keyboard + Logitech 5 button trackball.

Now all my servers are quitely running from my garage, and no matter where I'm at, whether it be the Living Room (iMac), Office (PowerMac), or back patio (TiBook) I have ready access to anything.

Maybe when you've been typing and using a mouse for 20 years and have carpal tunnel in both of your wrists you'll appreciate the value of ergonomics some day.

Re:A couple of comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5490155)

I use a Microsoft explorer optical mouse with my TiBook. A one button mouse just won't due for me. However, I don't think it's necessarily an Apple mistake. For example, the "pro" apple mouses look and work so well because there is only one button so the whole mouse can be the button. Moreover, does anyone chide windows users for not using three button mice? I like the fact that I could just plug in my Microsoft mouse in my mac and it just worked, but doesn't work without installing special drivers on my pc (win98). At least Microsoft makes a few good products.

A choice doesn't really work. (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492108)

The reason is that for most users, a one button mouse is better. Unless you use context menus, you're better off with a single mouse button. If you're new or unused to computers, you're better off with a single button.

But if a two button mouse is offered, newbies and novices will consider it an "upgrade" without really considering it. After all, they might use it someday, right?

The current approach of including a single button mouse and working with any off-the-shelf two (or more) button mouse is the best one, I think.

(Although I don't really think this applies to a scroll wheel. Perhaps the next revision to the Apple mouse -- or keyboard, they're much more useful there -- will have one.

My recent experience with the McIntosh :((( (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489643)

I've heard many good things about the McIntosh recently, and my family and I decided we needed to buy a new computer to replace our old Windows machine. Having heard of its ease of use, we decided to go the McIntosh route. We recently purchased an 800 mHz G4, with OSX. We thought we were getting a good deal. But unfortunately things turned out quite different.

Upon putting together the system we discovered that our mouse appeared the be broken. Although it wasn't cracked or shattered, it only had one button. When I spoke with our McIntosh dealer, we were told that the upgrade to a real two-button mouse would require more money.

Apparently the mice with one button were only a "trial version" of the hardware. I feel that this is a very deceptive practice on Apple's part, and have written a letter to the Better Business Bureau to protest this. I felt as though I'd bought a car but to make it go past 35mph we'd have to pay more money!

Rather than pay the exhorbitant sum of money for a real mouse, I went to CompUSA and bought one out of my own pocket.

Strike one for McIntosh!

Secondly, one of the reasons that we went with McIntosh is because its new OS was based on the Linux kernel. Since my company uses Linux heavily (and its an OS I'm highly familiar with) I thought it would be nice to be able to run my work applications at home. Imagine my shock upon hearing that McIntosh was actually based on an incompatible fork of Linux - a fork known as BSD. Since our computers at work ran Linux - and not BSD - it was clear that I'd be unable to compile them on my Apple! Strike two for McIntosh.

The final straw came last night. I received an email from a friend alerting me to numerous holes in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. When I went to MS' home page to download a patch, I was stunned to see this patch only applies to Windows machines!

Given the tiny user base of McIntosh, apparently software patches aren't made frequently - if at all - for McIntosh. I refuse to use an OS that is as ridden with holes as swiss cheese. Thus I'm going to be returning my McIntosh and purchasing a Windows XP box.

I hope this message reaches someone at McIntosh headquarters. Maybe their CEO, Steve Ballmer(?) will get this and fix their business practices. Until such changes are made, however, I fear that McIntosh will continue to be a bit player in the computer world.

Thank you for your time.

Re:My recent experience with the McIntosh :((( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5489805)

Wow.. congratulations on a wonderful troll.. I was *THIS CLOSE* to actually replying to it with an argument.

Some errors (3, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490143)

"Login":

This is because Windows has been historically extremely vulnerable to viruses that take over the boot sequence and steal your login.

This is not true at all. Windows is no more vulnerable to viruses that take over the boot sequence to any other OS and login and/or password hijacking programs have never been common on Windows. The Ctrl+Alt+Del for login has been in NT from the start (ca. 1993) and is simply part of the secure login facilities that NT was *designed* with.

"General Interface"

XP routinely fails to notify the user if the system is busy. It doesn't give ANY feedback when launching Internet Explorer.

I've not seen a system for some time where IE startup wasn't so fast that feedback is required - but that's not the point. XP does give feedback - when the system is processing in the background, the cursor changes from an arrow to an arrow+hourglass icon. This includes (or should) the time while programs are loading and not displaying anything to screen. Unfortunately I don't have an XP box handy to test this with right now, but it certainly happens with Win2k and was also present in Win95.

Something else that isn't commented on is how often applications block (the beachball), particularly the Finder. It happens *way* too much and on tasks that really should be quick or multithreaded.

Whenever a window accidentally gets moved completely off the screen, the Size and Move keyboard commands can be invoked, and the window can be moved back onto the screen via the keyboard

I can't see how a window could be "accidentally" moved completely off screen. I can see how it could be done programmatically by the application, or deliberately by the user - but not "accidentally".

Dragging and dropping content from one app to another involves dragging the app down to the Task bar onto the button that corresponds to the window you want to drag into (even though the cursor switches to the Cant-Do-That icon), then finally drag the item back up the screen to the location you want to drop it. Not impossible, but not too practical either.

Cumbersome it may be, but it is infinitely better than the complete lack of equivalent functionality in OS X.

Corners are better used: the Start Menu is always placed in a corner, which makes it a very easy target.

This is only true if the taskbar hasn't been made larger than the default. If it is, the Start button moves out of the corner (what it should do is expand to fill the entire space).

Dragging test between windows is something that it is up to the application to implement on both OSes. Notepad is not a good example to use because it isn't really an app, it's just a text-control widget wrapped in a window.

"Drag & Drop"

More than one PC user has mentioned that they prefer cut and paste. And on Windows XP I prefer cut and paste too, not because cut and paste is an inherently superior method, but rather because XP's poor support for drag and drop has trained me avoid it altogether. But on Mac OS X?which has more thorough support for drag and drop?I use each method interchangeably depending on what best suits the current situation.

I prefer to use Cut & Paste for file management as well, and I'd prefer it in OS X to drag & drop. Unfortunately, the Cut & Paste functionality in OS X for this purpose is inadequate.

"Navigating the file system".

IMHO OS X loses out here completely because it doesn't feature the classic directory tree + file list style of GUI file management which I find to be the easiest and most efficient to use (when partnered with good keyboard shortcuts).

"Dock vs Taskbar"

One of the Dock's most impressive features is it's advanced real time application feedback.

Visually impressive it may be - however, functionally it's fairly pointless. Apart from the *massive* overhead involved (a busy minimised terminal window will drag the entire GUI to a crawl) the utility is fairly limited - for preview icons to be useful, they have to be huge, chewing up yet more valuable screen real estate in a GUI feature that already wastes more than it should.

"Keyboard application switching".

He forgot that Cmd+` will cycle between the windows of the foreground app. Also, a big weakness in OS X's keyboard switching IMHO is an inability to quickly & easily move to an arbitrary window (particularly without having all the app's other windows obscure the rest of the screen).

"Keyboard Shortcuts".

Some of the keyboard shortcuts are just flat out wrong. The standard shortcut for "new file" on Windows is Ctrl+N. Win+E is a shortcut for launching explorer. Although he rightfully picks up that there is *still* no shortcut key for creating a new folder in Explorer. The shortcut for "opening a file" in Explorer is Enter. Using Alt+F,O is the long way to do it. He also does not say anything about a shortcut that is seriously lacking in OS X - one to quickly go straight to the Desktop. This area is a big win for Windows IMHO, since it's possible to do anything from the keyboard in Windows quickly and easily with no extra configuration necessary.

It's also troubling that XP relies on the Windows key for system shortcuts, since not all keyboards have a Windows key (my IBM ThinkPad lacks a Windows key).

No ! This is exactly what it *should* do. All the keyboard shortcuts should be Win+ or have a programmable modifier key. Using the control key for shortcuts was a Really Bad Idea.

"Networking".

The network browser in OS X is really bad - although not as bad as the nightmare that was Chooser. You can't access anything on a remote machine without mounting it's share, searching for or connecting to specific machines is clumsy and opening up the "Connect to Server" dialog BLOCKS THE WHOLE FINDER.

Connecting to remote machines in Windows is vastly superior. You can navigate directly to machines, the shares they have and manipulate things in those shares - even launch programs - all without having to map or mount the share.

"Power User".

I'm not quite sure why "screen capture" is in this section - I don't think I've ever wanted to take a screen capture in my life, let alone cared about how flexible the builtin tools to do it are.

"Booting from alternate drives". This is a hardware issue and has _nothing_ to do with Windows or OS X. Just as there are PCs that require fidding in the BIOS to boot from anything except the first hard disk, there are also machine that let you hit a key on bootup to get a nice little menu of all the bootable devices the system knows about. It really doesn't belong in this comparison.

"Misc"

XP Home Edition doesn't support multi-processors.

That's because the audience it's targetted at won't be running machines with multiple CPUs.

You can only use your numeric keypad in XP when num lock is turned on, even with full size keyboards.

This has already been commented on, but it bears repeating. This is *precisely* how the system should operate. Not only that, but most PCs default to having the Num Lock on at boot - and if that isn't enough, Windows will remember the state the Num Lock key was in the last time you logged out.

Apart from these errors, which seem mostly to do with a lack of experience with Windows, lack of knowledge about it's history, and/or simple personal preferences, the site seems ok.

Re:Some errors (4, Informative)

afantee (562443) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490479)

>> IMHO OS X loses out here completely because it doesn't feature the classic directory tree + file list style of GUI file management which I find to be the easiest and most efficient to use (when partnered with good keyboard shortcuts).

What the fuck are you talking about? The OS X Finder does have "the classic directory tree + file list" called list view, and is miles ahead of Windows Explorer in at least 6 ways:

(1) Column View is the best feature for file browsing not available on any other OS.

(2) Spring-loaded folder makes it possible to drag and drop files to any depth without opening lots of windows.

(3) Finder toolbar is much more configurable than Windows Explorer.

(4) Music, graphics and movies can be played or viewed right in the Finder preview pane without starting applications.

(5) One-click search by content, size, type, date, extension, or visibility.

(6) Automation with AppleScript.

Oh, if that's not powerful enough, there is always the Unix terminal to play with: csh, tcsh, bash, Perl, Python, Ruby and lots other tools all preloaded. Windows is not even remotely close.

>> Connecting to remote machines in Windows is vastly superior. You can navigate directly to machines, the shares they have and manipulate things in those shares - even launch programs - all without having to map or mount the share.

Do you know anything about networking at all? Windows only understand Windows or SMB, while OS X can handle Windows as well as NFS, UFS, HFS+ and SMB. What do you mean by "without having to map or mount the share"? Surely you still have to login to a remote machine before accessing it. And OS X comes with Rendezvous ZeroConf so that devices (not just computers) can discover each other.

Re:Some errors (0, Flamebait)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491168)

The OS X Finder does have "the classic directory tree + file list" called list view, [...]

List view is unworkable with any complex directory trees because:
a) expanding folders means massive amounts of scrolling to get anywhere, and
b) cut & paste with files in Finder doesn't work, so to move something from one folder to another you each have to do lots of painful scrolling or both folders need to be visible at once.

(1) Column View is the best feature for file browsing not available on any other OS.

Column view is horrid to work with for much the same reason List view is - too much scrolling and no way of easily moving between different directories. I believe the old NeXT file manager used to have a "shelf" where files could be temporarily placed while directories were being navigated - that and/or decent cut & paste would make the Finder about a thousand times more usable.

2) Spring-loaded folder makes it possible to drag and drop files to any depth without opening lots of windows.

From what I can see this feature is primarily a kludge to get around the other deficiencies.

(3) Finder toolbar is much more configurable than Windows Explorer.

Unfortunately that extra configurability (such as it is) doesn't result in much more _functionality_. There's never been anything I've wanted to that wasn't catered for by either the default Explorer or Finder toolbar.

(4) Music, graphics and movies can be played or viewed right in the Finder preview pane without starting applications.

Wow ! Just like Explorer has been doing for the last five years ! It even reproduces the same problems Explorer can have with corrupted files (ie: crashes).

(5) One-click search by content, size, type, date, extension, or visibility.

The one click search bar in the Finder only searches on filenames. You also ignore the massive flaw in Finder that objects can only be ordered by name in the Icon and Column views (thus making them even more useless than they already are).

(6) Automation with AppleScript.

Vs automation with WSH. Applescript is probably easier, though.

Oh, if that's not powerful enough, there is always the Unix terminal to play with: csh, tcsh, bash, Perl, Python, Ruby and lots other tools all preloaded. Windows is not even remotely close.

Yes it is, particularly if you install Cygwin.

I've used Windows and MacOS [X] extensively, and Windows wins hands down for GUI file management with any remotely complex directory structures. The default commandline tools in OS X are better, but that advantage disappears as soon as you install Cygwin on Windows.

Do you know anything about networking at all?

Yes, quite a lot in fact.

Windows only understand Windows or SMB [...]

"Windows" and SMB are the same thing. Windows can also use Appleshare over IP and IPX (usually Netware) - plus others you have to pay for (NFS, for example).

[...]while OS X can handle Windows as well as NFS, UFS, HFS+ and SMB.

You forgot AFS (Appleshare+friends), WebDAV and FTP. However, NFS using Finder is unreliable and clumsy and SMB can only browse the same subnet (not to mention trouble manually connecting to machines on different subnets & domains). SMB support on OS X barely qualifies as "present", let alone "adequate" or even "good". Windows wins by a mile unless you happen to be trying to integrate it into an NFS-only network (hardly a common thing), in which case it's just more expensive.

And just FYI UFS and HFS[+] have nothing to do with networking whatsoever.

What do you mean by "without having to map or mount the share"?

Precisely that. I can access and manipulate files on a share via Explorer without having to map it to a drive letter (equivalent of mounting it on the Desktop - ie under /Volumes - in OS X). This is _vastly_ superior and more convenient than the OS X way.

Surely you still have to login to a remote machine before accessing it.

Yes.

And OS X comes with Rendezvous ZeroConf so that devices (not just computers) can discover each other.

Not that much else does, yet. About as useful as writing a Flash web page in 1993 would have been. A bit like the way Apple were (are) trumpeting their gig ethernet when 99% people probably haven't even been on 100M for long.

Re:Some errors (1)

gslj (214011) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491847)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Drsmithy when he wrote:

(1) Column View is the best feature for file browsing not available on any other OS. Column view is horrid to work with for much the same reason List view is - too much scrolling and no way of easily moving between different directories. I believe the old NeXT file manager used to have a "shelf" where files could be temporarily placed while directories were being navigated - that and/or decent cut & paste would make the Finder about a thousand times more usable.

However, I tried a little experiment (OS X 10.1.5). I dragged a folder into the toolbar of a Finder window. I then dragged a file from the Finder window onto the folder icon in the toolbar. The folder icon darkened, showing it could accept the file. When I dropped the file on it, the file was copied into the folder.

Isn't that what you were saying about a shelf? And couldn't that be used to avoid the excessive scrolling problems you mentioned?

Gareth

Re:Some errors (1)

NeuroKoan (12458) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491852)

... Windows wins hands down for GUI file management with any remotely complex directory structures.

This is 100% true in my opinion. I love OS X to death, but you will rarely see me with finder windows open. I *much* prefer just using the command line with open filename

Re:Some errors (2, Informative)

Kplusplus (617856) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491880)

I barely made it through this post, but here it goes.

File Management:
You can recreate this file list + tree thing is easy. Set to list view then turn off all the columns. Icon View can be ordered as more than Name, it includes date modified, date created, size and kind. As a matter of fact all the 6 views in windows can be recreated by using the View Options control panel (Cmd-J). Also Column View supports spring lodaed folders so the easily movings things point is moot. Also copy and paste is supported for copying files as was covered in the section on drag and drop. It was mentioned as a blurb.

File Systems
NFS is transparent from any other fs. I had several user's accounts NFS mounted and none of them ever had a problem. Though i do agree that SMB and FTP is flaky, the rest is simply untrue.


The rest I just couldn't care less about.

Re:Some errors (0, Offtopic)

kyrre (197103) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492077)

and SMB can only browse the same subnet
How do I make windows xp able to browse outside a subnet? (Without using special lan-party software).


not to mention trouble manually connecting to machines on different subnets & domains).
I have no such trouble. I connect to my samba server at school from my home just fine. Just type in something linke this: smb://ip.adress.to.server/share_name in 'go' -> 'connect to server' in Finder. If neccassary I will be prompted for username and password.

column view (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492448)


(1) Column View is the best feature for file browsing not available on any other OS.

This is good as an option in Finder, but I think it's a mess in open and save dialogues. It reminds me of Greg's Browser from OS 7 or something; it was a great finder alternative for power browsing multiple large directories. But in the open/save dialogues it is sheer agony, especially since there seems to be not much rhyme or reason as to how things jump around. I tried Default Folder X for a while but it didn't help much; it had a few options that made things easier but I just feel like columns are kludgy when you're opening or saving.

Dock feedback far from pointless (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491182)

One of the Dock's most impressive features is it's advanced real time application feedback.

Visually impressive it may be - however, functionally it's fairly pointless. Apart from the *massive* overhead involved (a busy minimised terminal window will drag the entire GUI to a crawl) the utility is fairly limited - for preview icons to be useful, they have to be huge, chewing up yet more valuable screen real estate in a GUI feature that already wastes more than it should.


I could take you to task on many of your points, but this one is grossly inaccurate, and something has to be said.

I don't know how you could use OS X for more than a week and still think dock feedback is mostly pointless. Let's take the prime example: Mail. Even if my Mail icon is tiny, it still tells me if I have unread messages by displaying that tiny red star on Mail's "stamp" icon. If I have magnification turned on, I can see how many unread messages have just come in. If you can't see how that is useful, then there's no reason to waste precious CPU cycles explaining it. :-)

Besides Mail, there are dozens of other apps that provide Dock feedback (CPU Monitor comes to mind), save me keystrokes and reduce the app's interference with my workflow to a single glance rather than a click, a glance, and another click to go back to where I was. Print Center shows me when my print jobs are going, and when they're finished, or if they've encountered any errors. It even shows me how many pages still have to print! And I don't have to open a single window to get that information. There are dozens and dozens more examples where these came from. And none of these examples require the icons to be huge. You can get one level of usefulness with the dock minimized, and another level if you choose to magnify it, which can be done with a simple flick of the wrist.

How can you possibly support that the dock feedback feature isn't useful with all that evidence?

Re:Dock feedback far from pointless (2, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491325)

How can you possibly support that the dock feedback feature isn't useful with all that evidence?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant the type of eye-candy feedback I gave as an example (eg: minimised terminals updating, DVDs & Quicktimes playing minimised, synamically updating document thumbnails, etc) and not the simple things like the number of unread messages in the user's inbox which are quite useful and informative whilst having little impact on system performance. It might be better in 3 - 5 years, when Mac hardware has gotten fast enough (or OS X has been optimised enough) such that a single rapidly updating terminal in the Dock grinds the whole system to a halt - but right now these things need to be an option.

Re:Dock feedback far from pointless (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491783)

I'm simply not seeing the slowdown.. To test your assertion I just typed at the command line: while 1; ls; end in my root directory. CPU usage went up a bit. I minimized the terminal window to the dock, it lowered a little bit. I then hid the window so it wasn't displayed at at all. CPU usage remained the same. So the raise in CPU usage was due to the disk activity, not due to drawing the window.. And it hardly "slowed my system to a crawl."

I then proceded to play 4 quicktime movies with sound mixing on and minimized them to the dock. My system was still plenty responsive then too (although CPU usage was pegged.)

Admittedly, I have a recent powermac with quartz extreme. maybe it was worse in older OSXs?

Re:Some errors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5491493)

O, please, for the love of God!!!

You just can't be objective with such an attitude of Microsoft fan boy. Can't you really see it?

PLEASE MOD THIS TROLL DOWN. THANK YOU!

Re:Some errors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5492529)

"Power User".


I'm not quite sure why "screen capture" is in this section - I don't think I've ever wanted to take a screen capture in my life, let alone cared about how flexible the builtin tools to do it are.


I guess you aren't a power user...

Could use some improvement... (4, Informative)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490380)

Of course, the site layout was annoying, but here are my obligatory complaints about the site's content:

? Use of Internet Explorer as a benchmark of dragging support. For both OSX and XP, they docked points because Explorer didn't do something (such as drop text on the desktop as a clipping), while noting that Mozilla or Opera or some other browser did it correctly. If you're going to use specific software, test Safari Beta vs Explorer (the "beta" part gives Explorer the advantage, of course); otherwise, use several browsers.

? He could have mentioned OSX's annoying method of converting / to : and back in the filesystems.

? Search on Mac has a similar annoyance in screen real-estate to that in Windows: the default position of the path drawer is too high, making it impossible to read long paths.

? OS X help system is slow as sin. And although I don't need it, the red-ink-circled buttons in OS 9 help were very useful for beginners.

? Mail: Mail is a much better tool than Outlook, in my opinion. The spam filter is excellent and it's more secure, especially by default. It also has better plug-in support. The "number of new mails" indicator in the toolbar is also very nice.

?Browsing: I like Safari and Chimera (err Camino) much better than IE for the Mac, or IE for anything for that matter. Maybe just a personal preference.

? iChat has lots of bugs and missing features, and its interface, while neat, is a bit bloated (what do you mean, only one line of text?!?). Adium has fewer bugs but more missing features (file copying comes to mind... you can't scp to a windows machine). AIM for Mac is slower and clunkier than for Windows. I use Adium, but it could use improvement (we'll see when 2.0 comes out).

Check out Proteus (1)

oscarmv (603165) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492063)

(not affiliated with them in any way save as a mostly satisfied consumer).

http://www.indigofield.com/

thats cool and all... (1)

paradesign (561561) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490590)

just not three dollars cool. I think its great you put this info together, and im sure it took a fair ammount of time, but im never going to pay that, so dont expect it. If your going to charge then, charge. Or just charge for the pdf version, like most 'news' sites do. But dont try and make me feel guilty for viewing your site.

But im a fair guy so heres my site, that i put a lot of time into with my girlfriend. vidgame.net [vidgame.net] Use all the bandwidth you want, if thatll make you feel better.

That said, i thought it was a fairly thourough overview and commparison. As stated, weighted scores would help... alot. I use both OS on a regular basis, and although XP is better at many a task, OSX just 'feels' better. Quantifying a feeling is a hard task, but id say XP is about 80% there, they just need to fire the smurfs and hire some graphic designers.

The glory is the ability to choose, and not be confined to a single OS, OSX, OS9, OS8.6, OS6, XP, BeOS 5, and several 'flavors' (on multiple architechtures) of Linux are all within arms reach in my computer room!

defrag (3, Informative)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 11 years ago | (#5490889)

XP wins Disk Defragmenting. Does OSX's filesystem need to be defragmented?

I remember finding out that ext2 doesn't get fragmented, and doing a happy dance. Not having to defrag beats the best defrag utility in existance, even if it checks email and handles buggy IMAP servers.

Sorry, but (2, Interesting)

djupedal (584558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491124)

Comparing X & XP is only good for starting arguments. What's the goal? ...to get someone to switch? I don't think so. To apologize to the Windows world? Not again... Why is it some OS X users continually apologize for their OS choice? Bad form if you ask me. Bad form to lower your OS to comparison to the diminishing world of non-UNIX based OS's as well.

Otherwise, it's like comparing treehouses with daydreams. One seems to have a great view, but watch out you don't fall, and the other (OS X) feels good because it feels good. OS X is a state of mind and XP is...well......not.

I use OS X (and Mandrake 9.0), and I couldn't care less how X compares to anything non-UNIX. Oh, and I don't beg for money on my Apple related sites:

Consistency is what gets me.. (5, Interesting)

rdarden (87568) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491269)

I use PCs all day at work for embedded development, testing, etc., and Macs at home for video, audio, software dev., etc. I can accomplish anything I want to on either platform but what irks me about the PC (Windows 2000) is user interface consistency. Not just keyboard shortcuts and such, but smaller (more meaningful, to me) things like:

- Placement of menus.

- Drag and drop behavior: copy and paste a full line (including the newline at the end) in multiple apps and see what I mean. What the hell did Outlook do with the newline? I guess it decided I will never need it.

- Select all (CTRL-A) in file browser, web browser location, etc, broken half of the time.

- Clicking in an application's window sometimes absorbs the click, only changing focus (and raising the window). Other times the app accepts the click, moving the cursor. I can't keep track of which app does which, and I waste lots of time either hunting for the title bar or repositioning my cursor.

- Different file browsers in each program, none of which I particularly like. I imagine this is a legacy (Win 3.1?) issue that can't be easily solved.

- Some programs treat the cursor as a Mac does when you've highlighted some text. Hit cursor-right and the cursor moves to the end, hit cursor-left and the cursor moves to the beginning of the selection. Most programs don't do this.

I can't think of the others right now..I'm getting frustrated just thinking about these things.

Whats the big deal (1, Interesting)

NeuroKoan (12458) | more than 11 years ago | (#5491906)

An OS is an OS is an OS, nothing more. People who like to turn this into a religious battle bore me. An OS is a friggin tool.

I use OS X, WinXP and Linux all on a daily basis, and I can honestly say there are very few things (if any) that I can do in one OS but not the other. You just have to learn your tools to get the job done.

Re:Whats the big deal (1)

TheInternet (35082) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492024)

People who like to turn this into a religious battle bore me. An OS is a friggin tool.

When you're using something 8-12 hours per day, it because a rather important decision. How much trouble it gives you can have a big part in how your day goes.

- Scott

File searching... (3, Insightful)

PKFC (580410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492318)

One thing the article fails to mention is how deadly slow Windows finds files compared to macs. Windows scans every single directory and macs seem to just find the files instead of scanning the directories :P No idea why it seems so much quicker though...

IHA.com (0, Flamebait)

Asterax (522761) | more than 11 years ago | (#5492621)

Hey! Who let the 'I Hate Apple' .com people have another domain name? I imagine that's what will happen to this site as time progresses.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>