×

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!

Mac OS X Versus Windows Vista

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-holds-barred dept.

Operating Systems 697

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

697 comments

Fist post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487372)

Fist post

It doesn't matter (3, Insightful)

Stele (9443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487390)

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

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

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

Re:It doesn't matter (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487410)

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

Maybe it will someday. Right now it's still pretty well plagued with incompatibilities.

Re:It doesn't matter (5, Informative)

Yonzie (516292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487430)

come on, make ALL of those popup dialogs keyboard accessible!
They are.
Use [tab] to select and [space] to "click". You need to look after the faint blue highlight around the button though, and if you press [Enter], the blue button is selected, not the higlight.

Re:It doesn't matter (4, Informative)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487694)

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

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

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487852)

oh dont be a big lazy whiny baby....change the preference....so what its not the default...do you do everything the manufacturer tells you?

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487462)

No argument about games. But most non-graphically intense "Windows-only" programs should run fine under virtualization, like Fusion or Parallels. Since you can (legally) run Windows on OS X but not OS X on Windows, there's a clear win.

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

Tobenisstinky (853306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487536)

No, under the Vista EULA only the ultimate edition is allowed to be run in VM.

Re:It doesn't matter (3, Informative)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487722)

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

Re:It doesn't matter (2, Interesting)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487474)

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

But can you run Final Cut Pro on Windows?

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

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

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

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

snoozerdss (303165) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487516)

But can you run Final Cut Pro on Windows? Valid point but thats like me saying, "Can a mac run ArcGIS, Autocad or Map3d?" And then someone else will reply "Well, can windows run program X?" Different platforms, different programs, different needs.

Re:It doesn't matter (4, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487560)

Different platforms, different programs, different needs.

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

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

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487888)

Rule 1: *Always* go for the corkscrew first.

Re:It doesn't matter (4, Insightful)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487594)

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

Re:It doesn't matter (0, Troll)

mblase (200735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487650)

The thing about PC gaming is that games on PC don't really use the operating system at all. They all run in full-screen mode with their own UI. As long as your version of Windows has the needed version of DirectX, etc. etc., a committed PC gamer doesn't really care if he's running Vista, XP, 2K, or 95.

The other thing worth noting is that Vista's hardware requirements make it difficult for users to upgrade their PCs; most people who want Vista's bells and whistles will need to buy a new machine. Since that's the case, it's worth telling them about how Vista stacks up to OS X, which will also need a new box of hardware.

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487692)

Yhe feature you need can be enabled from System Preferences Keyboard and Mouse dialog. See Keyboard navigation in dialogs.

Vendor support (5, Insightful)

gravos (912628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487398)

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

what vendor support .. (0, Troll)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487508)

"Technical superiority doesn't mean as much when you can't get vendor support"

What vendor support? A while back I set up a wireless/dell/btinternet laptop. I have been back in three times since for unpaid for tech support. The talking CD wasn't configured to pick up wireless connections. Sound doesn't work except under admin, Talk/Talk as stopped working for no reason. The spam blocker freezes on downloading of email. The call center in India wrongly advises me a) the router is incompatible with BT b)to replace the NIC card and/or c) reinstall.

was Vendor support (Score:3, You're kidding)

Games and Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487400)

I'd love to switch from Windows, but I am a gamer and just can't abandon it. And I need to upgrade to Vista so I can run games in DirectX 10 :-(

Service Packs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487424)

Im sure that once we get the a couple of service packs then things will be a bit closer(i know this may take a while!). Apple have released 3 or 4 versions since XP launched so its no wonder they have more refined features. Microsoft would have been more concerned about stability and corporate needs, not something Apple has to worry too much about. Nope, this is just the beignning, give it a few years and the fun and games will really start.

Why not wait for Leopard?! (4, Funny)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487436)

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

Re:Why not wait for Leopard?! (2, Informative)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487640)

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

Nobody cares (-1, Flamebait)

postmortem (906676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487444)

...about OSX beside MAC fans and people doing reviews for living.

Re:Nobody cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487588)

There's fans of Media Access Control?

.NET (5, Interesting)

iJed (594606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487446)

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

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

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

Re:.NET (2, Informative)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487528)

Word - .NET and C# are just amazing, and Visual Studio is a *really* nice IDE. SharpDevelop (GPL) is pretty good as well.

I actually see .NET as a real opportunity for linux. If there was a decent 2.0 implementation on Linux I would switch my web development to it just like that.

WinForms problems? I have written custom from designers for DevStudio, it would be (relatively) easy to implement a GTK or QT hierarchy, experts and designer that integrated with DevStudio.

Ever used Python, OCaml, Common Lisp, Smalltalk (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487556)

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

I consulted with some developers recently who thought C# 2.0 was the top dawg. After a 15 minute introduction to Python, they were sold. I have talked with them since then, and they are quite glad they switched to Python for their development. It not only has increased their productivity, but it has allowed them to easily move from Windows Server 2003 to FreeBSD and Solaris, decreasing their server costs while also vastly increasing their performance.

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

Re:.NET (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487582)

This is exactly what I've been saying for a year now, but every time I suggest it on a Mac discussion forum I get called a troll. Objective-C is what people in the 1980's thought object orientation was going to be about. Let's get with the program, people! Apple could probably do more for C# adoption in the industry than Microsoft probably can (think USB) because of less momentum. It would behoove Microsoft to give Apple extremely good terms on any IP and even code and consulting to get them bootstrapped on C#.

I myself am actually an avid Java developer, but I think Java missed the boat on the desktop despite the gains in JDK 6. (If they'd gone all the way and revamped JNI and enabled heavyweight/lightweight mixing it might have been a different story, but with those not coming until JDK 7 a couple years from now they might as well give up.)

.NET is junk (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487624)

Managed executables that crash more, programming complexity, a dearth of programmers compared to C++, slower code. Visual Studio auto refactoring breaks code. Untraceable crashes, strange pauses.

For the small rapid little applications it's great, or so we thought, but as we got more into it with much bigger projects, I wish we hadn't.

Re:.NET (1)

LubosD (909058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487658)

What is so great about .NET? Reliably works only on a single platform, Qt seems to be way ahead (although its cost for commercial apps is substantial).

Re:.NET (1)

ThePopeLayton (868042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487716)

I was always under the impression that .NET was strictly for windows, and MS was intentionally shutting out Linux and Mac from using .NET.

Re:.NET (1)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487736)

I've actually kinda liked my experience with Obj-C. I think that most people's objection to it stems from the fact that it's different from C and C++. C# certainly wins when it comes to familiarity -- but in terms of technical features, it doesn't have any advantages that I can see. Both are good OO languages, both have GC, both are reasonably good performance-wise, and both are well-supported by their respective "parents".

Re:.NET (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487872)

I haven't used C# much, and not used C# 2.0 ever, but my understanding is that is is semantically similar to Java. Here are a few things off the top of my head that I can easily do in Objective-C that I can't in Java (all of which I have used in real code):
  1. Enumerate all the subclasses of a given class, or classes that implement a particular interface, including those supplied in plug-ins, at runtime.
  2. Call methods by name.
  3. Query whether a delegate object implements a given method, allowing for informal protocols.
  4. Handle the case where an object tries to call a method on my object that doesn't exist, to allow the simple creation of generic proxy objects.
  5. Add methods to a class, even if it's part of the standard library and I don't have the source code (I can even do this at runtime, although it's messier, and I haven't ever needed to).
  6. Separate the allocation and initialisation of an object into separate methods, to allow different allocation policies to be implemented (e.g. pools for commonly re-cycled objects) transparently to users of the class.
Perhaps C# 2.0 has these features, but Objective-C has had them for years.

As to preferring .NET to OpenStep, I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I find this one very difficult to understand.

Wow, that wasn't biased, LOL... (5, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487450)

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

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

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

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

Re: Summon the Fanboys!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487510)

I'm a Windows user out of inertia. I will continue to use XP on my Windows Twilight machine I will get later this year with an Intel Yorkfield and a Terabyte drive. This is where I'll get my serious projects done.

Since learning something new takes energy, I decided to send a Christmas card to Tux. He responded with a menu of Builds&Distros. I am prepared to make my share of thundering Newbikin howler mistakes.

I think I have to get a copy of Amiga OS4 just for joke value.

I have absolutely no use whatever for Apple. Nothing screams AnimalFarm more than the "MS Bad OSX Good" aura surrounding them.

Re: Summon the Fanboys!!! (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487586)

Nothing screams AnimalFarm more than the "MS Bad OSX Good" aura surrounding them.
Ah, chuckles. "All PCs are made equal (Macs are PCs too, remember). But some are more equal than others!" At least there are no penguins, devils or puffer-fish on the farm.

Re:Wow, that wasn't biased, LOL... (2, Interesting)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487550)

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

Re:Wow, that wasn't biased, LOL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487666)

At the bottom of the page, there is a link called "Next Page." There are five pages in total.

Please RTFA before you post garbage like this, drawing useless mod points from others who have also not read it.

On topic, the vast majority of the article deals with the UAC "authentication" system, actually. It spends a great deal of time (and pictures) showcasing the various ways things such as installing are accomplished in OS X vs Windows Vista.

Re:Wow, that wasn't biased, LOL... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487926)

Well what did you really expect, considering the author's blog header [bynkii.com] and all those Apple Store affiliate ads.

They both lose at source availability. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487454)

When I use a system, I expect the source code to be fully accessible to me. I want to be able to inspect the quality of that system for myself, and fix it myself if the need arises. A system like FreeBSD is excellent in this regard, as are most Linux distributions.

Mac OS X and Windows Vista completely fail in this area, however. I cannot see the source code to the window systems of either, for instance. Nor can I inspect the kernel source code. Mac OS X is perhaps slightly less terrible in this regard, as they do make use of some open source software. For some of the stuff they modify, like GCC, they release the source code to. That's not at all the case with Vista.

Re:They both lose at source availability. (3, Insightful)

iJed (594606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487500)

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

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

Wrong. XNU source code is no longer available. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487638)

Since the x86 switch, Apple no longer makes the XNU source code available. There was a lot of talk about it here at Slashdot when they stopped distributing it. Go search for the previous discussion for more information.

But the XNU source was pretty useless in the PPC days when it was available. It was a massive pain in the ass to build, especially when compared to systems like NetBSD and FreeBSD. So modifying it was basically out of the question. At least it was available for inspection, which is far better than what Windows has ever offered.

Re:Wrong. XNU source code is no longer available. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487764)

I know how much slashdotters like to point out mistakes. It's the arrogant ones which are tedious though. So I'm going to oh-so-gently try to inform you that the x86 XNU kernel for Mac OSX has been available since early August 2006.

The story about it being some conspiracy is just typical slashdot banter, and no Apple wouldn't release the source code just because the slashdot crowd moaned about open source. http://kernel.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org] has the kernel source and pain-in-the-arse-free instructions for compiling. (If you knew what you were doing, it probably wouldn't be a pain in the arse anyway.)

Also the kernel is primarily for business users who actually need to adjust it for task specific optimisations, home users never need touch it.

But remember according to microsoft it's a matter of national security to show your kernel source code, so please apply your tin foil hats while reading any source code.

Re:Wrong. XNU source code is no longer available. (3, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487792)

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

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

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

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


So, yeah, 100% completely wrong.

Re:They both lose at source availability. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487558)

Dude, get back to your moms basement. I love Linux too but you're living a friggin pipe dream. Commercial OS's have their place too. Just because you feel you are morally superior to everyone else doesn't mean you are or that you have to thread jack a VISTA and OSX thread with your "Look at me I'm better because I support OSS"
I do too. But people like you are whats holding it back with your holier than thou BS.
Like I said, Back to the basement!

Re:They both lose at source availability. (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487642)

Grandparent wasn't high-horsing: availablility of Free source means a lot to him/her, as it does to me. It is a requirement Windows and Mac OS X do not fulfil adequately. We therefore make like good capitalists and pays our money (or not) and takes ours choice — be that Linux, BSD or something more exotic. So-called moral high-grounds are not in play.

That an operating system can run on my computer is its privilege, not its right.

Re:They both lose at source availability. (2, Insightful)

ijitjuice (666161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487628)

When I use a system, I expect the source code to be fully accessible to me. I want to be able to inspect the quality of that system for myself, and fix it myself if the need arises. A system like FreeBSD is excellent in this regard, as are most Linux distributions...

Well thats a really arrogant stance isnt it? Do you demand to know the technical specifications of your televsion, radio, mp3 player, telephone, so you can inspect the quality for yourself (since you know what quality is) and have the abiity to modify them and fix it yourself? Unmount yourself from the sticking post, or how should i say this...get off your own dick. I know Linux fanboys like linux because it makes them feel smart, kinda like, those guys that swear of a gui because the command line is so much "easier since i know what im doing", or those guys that say, "reading the instructions is for losers, even though they could have resovled an issue in 30 seconds, rather than the 2 days it took to resolve the issue. But the basic assumption that you are smarter or know whats best for a given OS and the app stack that it supports more than the team within the company that created the damn thing? yeah dude, log out of warcraft for a few hours and breath some fresh air.

Re:They both lose at source availability. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487724)

Since you apparently are unfamiliar with HTML, and thus raped the formatting of your reply, I have taken the liberty of fixing it for you.

Well thats a really arrogant stance isnt it? Do you demand to know the technical specifications of your televsion, radio, mp3 player, telephone, so you can inspect the quality for yourself (since you know what quality is) and have the abiity to modify them and fix it yourself? Unmount yourself from the sticking post, or how should i say this...get off your own dick. I know Linux fanboys like linux because it makes them feel smart, kinda like, those guys that swear of a gui because the command line is so much "easier since i know what im doing", or those guys that say, "reading the instructions is for losers, even though they could have resovled an issue in 30 seconds, rather than the 2 days it took to resolve the issue. But the basic assumption that you are smarter or know whats best for a given OS and the app stack that it supports more than the team within the company that created the damn thing? yeah dude, log out of warcraft for a few hours and breath some fresh air.


I don't run my multi-million dollar business off of my television, radio, or MP3 player. Hell, I only actually own a radio. If it breaks, I throw it out. I can't just do that with the servers powering my company. I also can't wait for Microsoft or Apple to dink around when I do run into a problem with my system, nor do I want to pay them huge sums of money for "support" that often turns out to be pure shit. That's why I only use systems that I can directly fix myself, so I can get the systems back online in 5 minutes, rather than waiting a day or even weeks for the vendor to "help" me out.

I'm not sure what your blabber about World of Warcraft or GUIs really has to do with any of this. I suspect you're just fucking clueless about the needs of those of us running businesses that heavily depend upon working servers. We need software that is performant, to maximize the resources of our systems, and thus save us money. Linux allows for that. FreeBSD allows for that. Solaris allows for that. Windows Server 2003 is too bloated and slow. Windows Vista will likely be too bloated and slow. Mac OS X Server isn't as bad as Windows Server, but it still can't match FreeBSD, Solaris and Linux in terms of efficiency, cost, and performance.

Re:They both lose at source availability. (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487882)

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

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

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

Unfair comparison (-1)

David Horn (772985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487456)

I know just how difficult it is to be objective about something, but that article is unreasonably unfair. A couple of points that jump out:

1) Inconsistency in the UI. Yes, it's inconsistant in Vista. It's the same in OSX. Look at the differences between iTunes and other core programs and iLife.

2) What computer were they running Vista on? The Aero UI wasn't running, implying that either they were running it on an old PC, or that the author was so unfamiliar with the OS that he didn't realise!

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

etc. etc.

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

BrianRoach (614397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487484)

2) What computer were they running Vista on? The Aero UI wasn't running, implying that either they were running it on an old PC, or that the author was so unfamiliar with the OS that he didn't realise!

If you actually read the article, he makes a point of saying he's not running Aero, and why.

- Roach

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487728)

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

Because it's better implemented in OS X.

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

eck011219 (851729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487746)

He explains the Aero issue (he turned off those features so it would more closely mimic the wider user base), and he also goes into quite a few paragraphs of detail about the difference between authentication and approval.

I'll agree, though, that he seems from the outset to show some bias. I've noticed many of these things in Vista (I'm running RC1 right now, waiting for the release), but I also happen to much prefer it to XP. They're getting better at this. And frankly, I have a Mac that I hardly ever use because I find the UI so strange sometimes. It's just me, I'm sure, as most other people much prefer it. But I find, for example, that the Windows MUST CLICK OK FOR EVERY ACT mentality suits me better.

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

David Horn (772985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487928)

Yeah, but how many people are going to buy Vista in the shops? Anyone who bought a PC or laptop since October will find it perfectly capable of handling Aero, and all new computers with Vista pre-installed will handle it fine too.

It's a minority who'll buy the boxed version, and if they're anything like us they'll have PC's more than capable of handling Aero. So his argument is a fallacy.

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

mdobossy (674488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487768)

1) Inconsistency in the UI. Yes, it's inconsistant in Vista. It's the same in OSX. Look at the differences between iTunes and other core programs and iLife.

This isn't exactly fair either. The iLife suite is separate from the OS. Its not bundled with the OS (though it is with new computers) and is simply a suite of applications that runs on the OS. So stating that the atrocity that is iLife's UI consistancy, as being a problem with the OS, would be the same as complaining that MS Office's UI is inconsistent with windows. I'm not saying there aren't serious issues with the iLife UI (it drives me up a wall, and I REALLY hope that Apple follows its own UI guidelines in iLife '07), but I dont think it is fair to claim it is an issue with the OS UI.

IMO, looking across OS X itself, the UI is more consistant than the Vista UI.

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487806)

The author of the article did mention that the Office UI isn't the same as Vista's so in this respect its a fair comparison that he didn't address in the least.

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487838)

3) Because auth on Vista is such a tremendous pain in the ass that I end up disabling it.

This raises two points: 1) Authentication shouldn't be disable-able. 2) By preventing it from being disabled, MS would actually have to put work into making it usable day-to-day.

Solving the world's problems with vista (5, Funny)

scenestar (828656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487466)

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

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

The Mac Vista Upgrade... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487496)

I been figuring out how to upgrade my Windows XP system to run Windows Vista. I can spend a bit of money on old technology that won't upgrade to a future system. I can spend a lot of money on current technology that will be outdated in the next year or two but some components will upgrade to a future system. Or I can spend too much money for a brand new system that might be good for the next five years. Ironically, if I need an entire new system, I just might get a Mac to run Windows Vista. Go figure.

Re:The Mac Vista Upgrade... (1)

cookd (72933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487750)

All you need is 1 GB RAM, enough hard drive space, and Vista drivers for your hardware. Unless you insist on running Aero, Vista will run just fine on most XP-spec hardware (though you may need to add some more RAM).

I ran Vista on an old desktop with 1 GB of RAM and it worked great. It was a bit sluggish on my old laptop (512 MB), but still usable. With 2GB of RAM, my new laptop is doing quite nicely. No performance issues at all.

Inactive windows - he's got it wrong (5, Interesting)

natd (723818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487520)

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

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

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

Re:Inactive windows - he's got it wrong (2, Informative)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487682)

I'd have to re-read the article, but I thought he was refering to the "traffic lights" in the top left... I thought the point the author was trying to make was that the Vista equivalent is not as clearly identifiable and that the eye is drawn to the bright back button on the inactive window in the example screenshot. Still, he's a Mac user - so his familiarity with the OSX is understandable.

Re:Inactive windows - he's got it wrong (1)

natd (723818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487828)

Well, you made me check ;)

"With that in mind, note that, even though the IE window is not front-most, the "back" button looks as though it's active. The non-IE windows are more consistent in appearance, but if you didn't know that the red "x" or close widget in the front-most window shows that it is the active window, it would be somewhat easy for a new user to get confused about which window is the one they're really working in."

He goes on to say

"You'll see in the screenshot of the same kind of window layering in Mac OS X that, even with the similarity of the brushed metal windows in both the Finder and Safari, it's more obvious which window is active. None of the Safari widgets show as active, while the Finder window, being active, has the "live" controls"

In the example screenshot, you can see that he has opened a blank page (or rather, not opened anything). I have a strong suspicion he would have known this, he specifically uses 'BACK' as an example, yet anyone instinctivly knows that a browser doesn't have an active BACK unless you have nagivated FORWARDs first.

Re:Inactive windows - he's got it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487842)

> In OS X, with a page loaded those buttons would indeed look active.

And that's correct, because they are active. If you go to another app
and then click on one of these buttons, they are triggered right away.
(don't know if it's the same on Windows)

Re:Inactive windows - he's got it wrong (4, Insightful)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487880)

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

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

Time To Go Back To Testing School (1)

tres (151637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487930)

I'm reading this page in Safari. I came here through an RSS reader. No buttons are active except those which can be used.

The back button is greyed and can't be used.

The forward button is greyed and can't be used.

I can reload the page or add a bookmark to this page; those buttons are active and shown as available to use.

I'm afraid you're not a very good tester.

OS X would be way ahead;;; (1, Troll)

kwrxxx (1038350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487524)

if I could buy the DVD and install it on any computer. At least Apple could let any distributer buy the software to install on a computer with the required EFI chip instead of locking it down only to their hardware. Until Jobs stop this it's "mine, mine, mine!" idealogue with Apple OS's they will always have a limited marketplace. I predict the use of bootcamp to boot winXP on a mac will kill the Mac OS in one year. My mac frind now use winXP 99% of the time on his mac intel.

No OS X on common hardware, so no need to evaluate (-1, Troll)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487546)

he doesn't say Vista is bad, just that technically speaking, OS X remains way ahead. Do you agree?

As long as OS X cannot run on the computers I have available at home or at work, I cannot compare. So it is impossible to make that judgement.
And even when OS X would come out as superior, there is no way I would get my boss to discard all the investments in hardware and replace it with Apple, so there is no need to even think about evaluating the differences between the systems.

This is something Apple needs to fix. OS X must be running on PC hardware, even if only to evaluate it and be able to support a migration.
As it is now, they are in certain markets where they are known, and outside of those markets they receive little or no attention.
I have never touched a real MAC in my life, and the only thing I have seen of its software was emulation on my old Atari ST.
But PCs are all around. So it is easy to look at Linux or whatever alternative OS to Windows, but very difficult to look at OS X.

Re:No OS X on common hardware, so no need to evalu (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487618)

Hi:

Apple is a hardware company. It's how they make their money. You're basically saying you'll test a BMW if you can get it for the price of a Pinto. Asking companies to adpot suicidal business models for your benefit is a bit rich.

Re:No OS X on common hardware, so no need to evalu (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487850)

Well, I am not really talking about price. Just about options.
When I get a Dell Optiplex, I can run Windows (2000, XP, Vista), Linux or BSD. Probably even more. But no OS X.
When the company has bought hundreds of Dell systems, there is no way they are going to get to OS X from where they are now. They would go to Vista.

So nobody should be surprised when more companies migrate from XP to Vista, no matter what the qualities of OS X are. Even when they do it only when buying new systems.

Would there exist an option of running OS X on a Dell (and probably some other common business machines, like HP) it surely would be a different story.
But it is as you say, they are a hardware company and not interested in marketing their software.
This will keep the markets as separate as they are now. No chance to convert customers over from the Windows world, and probably the same vice-versa.
But that may still be the best option for them.

However, it is quite pointless to compare the systems in that case.

Re:No OS X on common hardware, so no need to evalu (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487914)

You're basically saying you'll test a BMW if you can get it for the price of a Pinto.
A more accurate stupid car analogy would be the situation back when Cadillac started selling rebadged Chevrolet Cavaliers. Same crappy hardware, but with some extra bling tacked on.

Re:No OS X on common hardware, so no need to evalu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487708)

"As long as OS X cannot run on the computers I have available at home or at work, I cannot compare. So it is impossible to make that judgement."

Your company is so poor that it can't even afford a $600 machine for your secretary from which if it doesn't work out, you can STILL install Windows on and be done???

I'm sorry, but I've helped several of my clients switch and they simply had to ask me to show them around on my laptop and then pick up a single machine to play with. It would be moronic to switch all at once. Find the people you think could change over with the least amount of problem and go from there. You quickly learn that there are few limitations.

Apple just isn't going to open the OS to the public (and I hope I don't have to eat my words next week :-) You buy the entire package. Sure, its a tired line, but there is truth behind it. Apple doesn't put subrate nonsupported rap into their systems. Their OS is built around a limited amount of hardware options and doesn't try to be everything for everyone...something your hardware that you want to run it on does. Sometimes less options are better. I don't want some 3rd world network card with drivers written by someone with an intro to asm course and paid to have the driver 'approved' (which doesn't validate the driver at all, but the OS company believes that if someone is willing to spend $50k on approval, it MUST be good).

So if you can't afford the $600 for a Mac Mini or $1100 for an iBook to evaluate, you probably couldn't afford to use anything more than subrate equipment in the first place. I've run my business on less than adequate equipment in the past, and sometimes thats the only choice.

Replace Windows when I can (2, Interesting)

AnyThingButWindows (939158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487562)

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


Most businesses don't care about games. As Microsoft's continued move to game consoles helps my strategies more, and more. Most businesses want to have easy access to their financial information and sell what they have. For the small business owner OS X is ideal, and I have deployed several iMac Core 2 Duos at business sites, replacing the far dated XP/Dos systems. In pharmacies we often deploy Linux based servers that run their core applications, and write scripts for OS X that automatically bring up the login to their Linux box to run their terminal applications via SSH.

I have been working on Windows replacement strategies for 3 years, and have so far converted more than %20 of my customer base from windows to another platform, mostly OS X and Linux. One or 2 scenarios involve FreeBSD, and Solaris. The next step is finding solutions to replace, and convert data from 3rd party software vendors that have little, or no support, and attempt to charge for support when their software is corroded with bugs. Ridding of these shoddy software vendors are my next target, which will cover %60 of my user base, which is about 800 businesses in Mississippi.

The replacement costs, or TCO is as estimated.

Average Dell = $700
Windows Costs = $250
Yearly Crap Cleaning = $300 (per machine)

Replacement options:
Average iMac = $1200
Average Linux Costs = $40
Yearly Maintenance = $40 (per machine if at all)

As for Vista, its happy hunting, and fair game for me. The TCO of Vista will be so high for many small businesses that when they see the numbers they will more than likely convert quickly. Microsoft continues yet again to hack off their own foot in a Monty Python skit while claiming "Its just a flesh wound", while I will continue the battle, and the fight will be mine.

you'd better stick to operating systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487648)

because your web programming skills are atrocious.

kore-net.com. need i say more?

of getting a fair comparison (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487570)

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

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

Re:of getting a fair comparison (1)

drzhivago (310144) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487816)

That it may be difficult to switch a user to become an administrator in Windows is one thing, but Windows applications not being able to run as a limited user is the fault of application developers, not Microsoft.

Also, 0% of software can be installed as non-admin? That's some hyperbole there. Learn to use Active Directory and deploy software under the group policy stuff. Limited users can install software just fine via that.

They're different... (3, Informative)

cookd (72933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487672)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would you expect a /. reader to say? (1)

The OPTiCIAN (8190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487688)

I bought a black macbook this morning. Needed a powerfulish but portable dev server. Wanted black because the plastic probably won't stain with heavy use the way the white ones do. But I talked them down on price so as not to get ripped off.

It's now running Ubuntu. The new wireless card isn't supported. Setting up xmodmap has been painful and should be unnecessary (and it's still not as I'd like it) but even so - nothing else comes close.

Re:What would you expect a /. reader to say? (1)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487868)

You realize that the staining problem was resolved a long, long time ago? And that the black shows dirt/scratches/wear better?

Ok... good. I just wanted to make sure you didn't buy a black MacBook for all the wrong reasons. :)

New theme (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487702)

Dear god, Outlook is ugly in that screenshot. I hope vista is 3rd-party themeable without replacing system DLLs.

Slouching towards the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487704)

MS OSes are clunky, bloated and visually apalling. And they get in my way. Apple OSes are bloated and, if you're used to UNIX, also clunky (the way they need to hide unix-y things from Joe Doofus.) I find their visuals svelte and luxurious. But OS X gets in my way just as much as XP. I prefer fvwm2 wrapped around my apps and, though I'm not at all a computer 'expert' I feel entirely comfortable with the little bit of vi that I know and use daily. (I know a retired supercomputing wonk from LANL who has ragged me to get off pine.)

The salient question here is why do so many people consider Bill Gates to be evil while so many consider Steve Jobs to be some kind of saint. I'm sure they'd both be capable of murder if their companies were at stake. Gates controls via bloodclad contracts with Dell & Co. while Jobs controls with proprietary hardware and design-as-heroin. Aren't these two really just Janus incarnate? In hindsight, couldn't either of their faces be on that screen in the 1984 commercial?

Believe me, there's a Mass Psych thesis here.

Vista must be better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487706)

It has the best DRM that money can buy!

Almost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487714)


For the most part, yes. Font rendering in OS X is terrible, though, rendering the user interface somewhat useless for several applications (anything that has to deal with small fonts). It's weird that Apple got font smoothing so wrong in OS X, turning an otherwise great system in something whose major interface (fonts!) is so annoying.

Re:Almost (1)

Piroca (900659) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487826)

I couldn't agree more! I think people don't complain about it because of the "Apple religion" where anything Apple does is sacred and cannot be discussed. That, by the way, is one of the worst things in the whole OS X environment: the fanatic community that not only don't see problems in the system, they also bash you if you complain about those problems!

Oops (4, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487718)

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

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

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

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

Re:Oops (2, Informative)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487818)

Again, I think the consistency that the author was talking about can be seen clearly in the OSX "traffic lights" and their behaviour. I can't think of a single application that does not have these (even WOW...) Now look at the Vista screenshot - Office looks completely different from the OS itself. Only the red X function appears to highlight the active window. Not as distinctive as the OSX method. Still, not the end of he world either...

People usually prefer What they're used to... (0)

Cordath (581672) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487726)

It's pretty clear that the author of the linked article is a mac user.

OSX is a good OS, but it's not without its problems. Apple still hasn't really figured out how to handle a mouse with more than one button despite having it thrust upon them by moving to a BSD foundation. (Seriously, how many mac users were using one-button mac mice a month after OSX came out?) Apple's about face on the "One mouse button is all anyone will ever need" issue was probably just to protect their hardware sales. The new apple mice are fairly nice. They're not those god-awful puck-mice from a couple years back at least.

OSX does do some pretty non-standard things itself. For example, try inserting a CD or other removeable media into your mac and then copying the file to your computer. Most people who have ever used a linux box, windows box, or *even* an Amiga for chrissake will drag the file off the CD and onto their hard-drive or desktop. Then they toss the CD because the data is on their machine now. If you do that in OSX and you'll find the link you just made now leads nowhere because OSX *didn't* copy the bloody file, it only linked to it. No other OS I've used does this, and it's bloody counterintuitive. What were they thinking? Don't even get me started about the OSX task-bar...

I use OSX when I have to, but I still prefer other OS's. The eye-candy just doesn't do enough for me and I've been using other OS's a lot longer, so I tend to prefer them. That's a personal bias, and I admit that. My point here is that OSX isn't perfection itself and mac fanatics need to accept the fact that some people have tried their chosen OS and weren't blown away by it. (Some people have even been forced to spend extended periods of time developing software on their beloved OSX without falling in love with it... Myself included) OSX was certainly a revolution for mac users, but do consider how primitive MacOS was before OSX came out. Heck, it didn't even have pre-emptive multi-tasking! OSX I can tolerate, but the old MacOS was truly wretched. That's why OSX is viewed as such a revolution. Consider that even Windows users had pre-emptive multi-tasking from windows95 on. Microsoft had their revolution about 5 years before Apple did. It's lucky for Apple that Vista isn't another one.

Mod -1: Incorrect (1)

hayne (545353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487916)

OSX does do some pretty non-standard things itself. For example, try inserting a CD or other removeable media into your mac and then copying the file to your computer. Most people who have ever used a linux box, windows box, or *even* an Amiga for chrissake will drag the file off the CD and onto their hard-drive or desktop. Then they toss the CD because the data is on their machine now. If you do that in OSX and you'll find the link you just made now leads nowhere because OSX *didn't* copy the bloody file, it only linked to it.
This is completely incorrect. OS X does a copy (not a link) when you drag a file between drives (e.g. from a CD to the hard drive) - i.e. it behaves precisely as you would expect.
I find it hard to guess what you might have done to get some other (mistaken) impression.

Re:People usually prefer What they're used to... (1)

jeffehobbs (419930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487924)

Test 1:
  1. Put CD/DVD in Mac. Check.
  2. Drag file from CD/DVD to desktop. Check.
  3. Eject CD/DVD. Check.
  4. File (not alias, not symlink) remains on desktop. Check.
  5. Double click to open file. File opens. Check.
Test 2:
  1. Buy iMac or Mac Pro. Check.
  2. Open box. Check.
  3. Hook included mouse to machine. Check.
  4. Right-click on desktop. Menu comes up. Check.
... I suspect the problem is you may be posting from 1998. Burn a mix CD-R of Alanis Morrisette, Babyface and The Wallflowers for me.

Re:People usually prefer What they're used to... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487936)

Building a UI that works with only one mouse button is great for laptop users (the majority of Apple's customers), because it's very hard to do right-clicking well on a laptop. The MacBook Pro touchpad with the click-while-holding-down-two-fingers is the best solution I've seen so far, but it's still nowhere near as easy as a right click on a mouse. For a real comparison, try using Windows and OS X on a touch screen (e.g. an interactive whiteboard) and you'll really see the difference.

To your second point, I really don't know what you're doing. The default action when you drag items between volumes is copy. If you've managed to change it to alias, then please let me know how you did it, because I would love to be able to change it to move for a number of disks...

Switched... Again! (1)

FragInc (931710) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487778)

I used Windows at the start of my personal computer days (1994) until I was introduced to Slackware. I then started to dabble in Linux (1995) but only occasionally due to the fact that it was quite young and didn't have much to offer in the way of use to me at the time. I knew of the Mac platform but it was pre-OS X and I wasn't interested in it at all. Then came OS X... a friend of mine, knowing that I liked Linux, re-introduced me to the Mac side of the computer world which was now OS X (2003) and I knew right off that it was for me. I now use all three OS's but I will *not* make the Vista transition... XP is my last version of Windows that will run on my PC's. I will continue to run OS X, SUSE and Slackware with a Windows XP machine for that odd occasion of needing something that just isn't offered on the other platforms. Far less headaches that way and I won't have to buy new keyboards all the time!

Vista not bad? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487824)

In the Microsoft world, if Vista stacks up against the current Apple offering and is not "bad" in comparison, why, that means that Vista is just absolutely fantabulous.

Good is a relative term, you know.

My $.02 (5, Interesting)

OSXCPA2 (988302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487884)

I use Windows XP at work and OSX, FC3, Win2000 and XP at home. I am a heavy duty business user and student developer. I offer the following observations:
1. I use OSX primarily, on a pre-Intel iMac. Speed is good. System slowdowns are generally longer under Windows than OSX, but the 'pinwheel' in OSX drives me insane.
2. The UI and system administration tools in OSX are hands-dows way easier to use. I used every version of Windows from 3.1, and worked at a support desk in college - and once I learned OSX (ok, BSD) - style system maintenance and operation, I never went back. *NIX is far more discoverable and has a well-engineered feel that I like.
3. I have yet to run into any software package that I needed that did not have a counterpart on Mac.
4. I still have not played Half-Life 2. I do not need to, but I would like to, and I bought WinXP just to do so. I can't really blame Apple for this. In fact, Apple, by moving to Intel, has made it easier for their user base to access windows apps. Microsoft, by making it more difficult (from what I've read - haven't tried it yet) to run Vista in any kind of virtual environment is not really helping the user base much. Although they probably don't care about Mac users, there are many business reasons to support virtual environments, from posts I've seen on /.
5. Searching in OSX returns better results than WinXP or 2000.
6. Mac help, for system related issues, returns more relevant results than WinXP or 2000.
7. Mac hardware just works. I have a hetogenous network - my Mac has no problems, nor does my FC3 laptop. I have a dual-boot PC with WXP and 2000 - 2000 recognized my wirelss card and the built-in ethernet adapter. WXP doesn't have a driver for the built in. The wireless card has a driver, but cannot acquire a network address from my AirPort. Win2000 has no problems with the wirelss card or network address. The driver in both OSes is up to date. I should NOT have to put in this much effort, especially for supposedly supported hardware - it stuns me that 2000 is actually better at 'figuring out' what to do than XP. Needless to say, the Mac setup has never caused any problems for my Mac hardware.
8. Development - I do mostly Java and Ruby. Java runs pretty much identically on both boxes, but setting up newer versions of the Java environment is more difficult on Mac. Installing and configuring Ruby also requires a lot more effort. However, it is easier to troubleshoot in the Mac environment. XP and 2000, the installs seem to 'just work' but if they go wrong or there is a misconfiguration, it is a lot harder for me to figure out what went wrong.
9. Licensing - I can install my OSX CD/DVD on any Mac I have, no registration necessary. I do not do this, but I can. Windows XP, I installed and because it couldn't get on my network, I had to use the dial-in service to validate my copy of XP, which was a PITA.
10. I took C in college, working in a UNIX environment. It was amazing and taught me a ton. I took Java in college, working on a PC with NetBeans. Worked great. I used VBA to do corporate work and learned two things - first, an IDE is very nice, especially to learn UI implementation and second, VBA makes it way too easy to write crap code. You can write crappy Applescript too, but I've seen far less of it. Xcode is a nice balance and can hit multiple targets. I like it, although I've not done much Objective C work.
11. I like scripting and *NIX tools. Scripting is far easier in a *NIX-like environment than on Windows. Yes, there is Cygwin, but that was designed to remedy the lack of such tools in Windows.
12. C# for web development is, in a word, crap. Sure, it is easy to learn. Sure, it is free. Sure, the MS IDE is ok if you choose to use it. HOWEVER, it is so wrapped up in Microsoft-specific 'stuff' it sucks to use. Example - to simply change the color of a button in a web-form, I spent several hours working through my code to see what went wrong. I sent it to my professor, who told me it was fine and worked. I was mystified (I was a lowly student, remember) until I realized that Safari was not made by Microsoft. Neither was Firefox. I finally saw what all those web developers were complaining about regarding MS adherance to 'standards'. Any language that is literally set up from scratch to make it harder to code for a platform (i.e., not a MS platform or product) is, in my humble opinion, fatally flawed. I quit learning it and switched to Ruby (I am not in a position where C# expertise is required for my job, thankfully).

Am I curious about Vista? Sure. Will I upgrade? No. I can run OSX on my Tangerine iBook G3 (>6 years old and still going). I have upgraded the OS on my iMac three times and it gets faster every time. I have no security issues (mostly because I'm paranoid) on any of the boxen. I am perfectly happy with my XP box, but I can't imagine what Vista could offer me that I don't already have with OSX except games, which already run will on XP. Why bother upgrading?

Just my opinion. YMMV. Feedback welcome.

enough with the apple and orange arguement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17487918)

it's freenix!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...