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!

OS X Vs. Vista — In Spandex

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-normal-weekend-to-me dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 302

An anonymous reader writes "CNET UK compares Vista Vs. Apple OS X in a Romeo and Juliet, spandex-wearing, Shakespearean English style. Two guys dress up as their favorite operating system and fight with swords, guns, and fists, while a third guy, dressed as a woman, awaits the winner. 'Usability - Act 3, Scene 2: Swords clash, sparks fly and men grunt, but the showdown ends in stalemate ... [Vista] has a far better user interface than XP -- the file and application search facility is vastly improved and the cascading Start menu has been banished, but it only takes a few moments of use to discover pointless idiosyncrasies. Microsoft constantly reminds us of how great Flip 3D is, but this feature doesn't help us find the right application window much faster than Alt-Tab did. It's very time consuming when you have many application windows to flip through, and it's in no way as efficient as OS X's Exposé feature ... We're calling this one a draw. They're just as good as each other, and in some cases just as bad -- a pox upon both your houses! Score: Mac OS X - 2, Windows Vista - 2'"

cancel ×

302 comments

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

fp! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913423)

vista ugly
microsoft ugly
software patents ugly
you ugly

Win2K had better searching than XP. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913437)

[Vista] has a far better user interface than XP -- the file and application search facility is vastly improved and the cascading Start menu has been banished, but it only takes a few moments of use to discover pointless idiosyncrasies.

XP's searching capabilities are shite compared to Windows 2000. What the hell is up with that stupid dog image when using the XP search? So it's better to compare Vista's searching with that of Windows 2000. At least then you're comparing Vista's capabilities against something that's usable.

Same with the Start menu. It's really simple and sensible under Windows 2000. But then XP came along and made it really awkward to use. So again, don't compare against XP, since it was a step backwards. Compare against Windows 2000!

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (4, Informative)

Cygfrydd (957180) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913591)

You are, of course, given the option of turning off the animated character and enabling advanced search behaviour, which makes for a far more 2k-like experience.

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913717)

He shouldn't have to turn it off. It just shouldn't be there in the first place!

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (5, Funny)

Cygfrydd (957180) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913783)

To be quite honest, I would argue that Windows shouldn't be there in the first place. 3... 2... 1...

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (1)

TychoCelchuuu (835690) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913593)

You can turn off the dog really easily.

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (5, Funny)

phozz bare (720522) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913763)

Yes, but it doesn't just pop away. No no. It licks itself, barks, wags its @*#!ing tail and walks away into the sunset, taking its time... Ah, those little things that can drive a man insane...

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (5, Insightful)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913691)

I happen to like XP's Start menu a lot better than 2000's, particularly the list of the most frequently used applications. (Yes, I know you can put stuff at the top level of the old Start menu ... but not automatically--and there are no shortage of applications that abuse this privilege. XP intentionally doesn't let programs do this on the new Start menu. Plus, XP's Start menu provides easier access to My Computer, Network Places, and all that jazz without having to dig out the desktop.)

That, and you can go back to the Windows 2000-style Start menu anyway if you like in XP In fact, I think I could do that in the Visa beta I tried, unless my memory is just failing. Either way, I wouldn't call XP's Start menu "awkward."

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913729)

I would... programs just spit stuff onto it. Very little organisation. Ofcourse, I suppose one could say that my critique isn't the fault of the start menu itself, but it comes that way in its default state.

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (4, Funny)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914159)

>I tried, unless my memory is just failing.

Thats ok, my memory failed to contain Vista as well.

Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (3, Interesting)

xlsior (524145) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914233)

I wouldn't call XP's Start menu "awkward."

It all depends on how you use the OS -- as someone who pretty much lives by keyboard shortcuts over the point & click stuff, I find the default XP start menu extremely awkward simply because it's two-column design is near impossible to navigate with the keyboard. You can't easily switch between the columns, since half the options expand into submenu's instead. Luckily one can still switch to the classic mode to make it usable again.

As far as 'Win2K had better searching than XP' is concerned: the old-style Win2000 search ability is still present in XP as well, but it does require some magic to get back. You can also speed up the XP search tremendously by some registry tweaks preventing it from looking inside of zip files.

(Kind of ironic though, that to make the OS usable, step #1 is to turn off all the 'enhancements')

Who knew (4, Insightful)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913963)

That it would take XP and Vista for people to understand that Windows 2000 was "simple and sensible."

Re Searching in Windows sucks any way you slice it (5, Informative)

Jahz (831343) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913997)

There is so much discussion about Windows 2000/XP/Vista searching here... but they all three really suck! Windows Vista sometimes wont even find "easy to locate" files when I search for them by name AND its painfully slow. Its really quite pathetic! I run Vista, Ubuntu Linux and Mac OSX. Anybody who uses all three would definitely rank them from best to worst as OSX, Linux, Windows. OSX takes the cake because it has Spotlight, Locate, Find and Grep.

My grandmother could work Spotlight. Its fast, accurate and searches for files based on content and name at once. Its availible at the flick of your wrist and does pretty well. Though, personally I prefer Quicksilver to spotlight because I usually just search by filename and its *instant*. There are also smart folders that you can set up for searches that are done really often.

Linux comes in second to OSX only because OSX *includes* all the nifty decades-old command line tools that Linux has. The command line utilities are not for everyone... but if you know what you're doing, you can find anything quickly. Locate will instantly find anything that has been on your computer for about a day (usually). For newer stuff, its useless. Find (find / -name blah.txt) is about as fast as Windows search and much more flexible. Then you have recursive grep for locating instances of some term inside arbitrary files.

Now Windows: After using the above platforms, searching on Windows is just painful. Sometimes it finds what I was looking for... but it can be quicker to just mount my windows drive on my Mac and do it from there :)

No three way stand off? (4, Funny)

Hennell (1005107) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913441)

And yet again poor old linux if left alone in the corner with only a lute for company..

---
At what point can you call a spade a shovel?
---

Linux v Vista has already been done (3, Informative)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913485)

Ubuntu vs Vista was on the front page yesterday:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/27/ 1337246 [slashdot.org]

Re:Linux v Vista has already been done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913711)

But there was no spandex!!!

Re:No three way stand off? (4, Funny)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913617)

Richard Stallman offered to fight provided that his team be referred to as GNU/Linux but this idea was abandoned shortly after he donned the Spandex.

You are just sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913721)

That FreeBSD is there, dressed up as OS X.

Re:No three way stand off? (2, Interesting)

DenmaFat (704308) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913831)

PC World quietly tackled this months ago, and gave the nod to OS X.

The Right Operating System for You [pcworld.com]

What?! (4, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913443)

it's in no way as efficient as OS X's Exposé feature ... We're calling this one a draw.
If one is "no way as efficient" as the other, how can it be a draw?

Re:What?! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913515)

If one is "no way as efficient" as the other, how can it be a draw?
Because of the three paragraphs between "it's in no way as efficient as OS X's Exposé feature" and "We're calling this one a draw."

Re:What?! (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914071)

If one is "no way as efficient" as the other, how can it be a draw?
Because of the three paragraphs between "it's in no way as efficient as OS X's Exposé feature" and "We're calling this one a draw."
With one paragraph going on about how the three differently coloured buttons in the top left of a window don't look any different.

Re:What?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913627)

I agree. There's a similar article located here [nimp.org] that I find to be a bit better thought out.

Re:What?! (1)

wavedeform (561378) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914085)

The link above is dangerous.

Re:What?! (4, Informative)

MouseR (3264) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913771)

The entire article is bullcrap. It goes on to decide a draw based on Vista's and it's app's crashyness and the featureless aspect of OSX's Front Row application.

That's complete nonsense.

Re:What?! (2, Interesting)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913943)

I agree. My reading of the above writeup appears to be, "evidence: Vista is better than XP in some ways and not as good as OS X in some ways. Conclusion: Tie between OS X and Vista." Am I missing something?

Re:What?! (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914001)

Yes, you are clearly missing the higher management logic:

Product 1 sucks less Windows XP
Product 2 also sucks less than Windows XP
That makes it a draw.

Re:What?! (0, Troll)

gazbo (517111) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914039)

Yes. You're missing the basic fucking intelligence required to read the actual article, preferring instead to take a 1 paragraph summary of a 10 page story and then complain that it doesn't seem to offer a complete picture.

Here's how (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913985)

You "draw" a giant "WIN" on the OS X side of the board.

Re:What?! (3, Insightful)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914053)

It's political.

Just like, "McCain voted for torture and lives in a self-manufactured reality, but Edwards got a haircut ... We're calling this one a draw."

WHO CARES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18914189)

For decades, we Mac users haven't really given a shit what was happening off in PC land. Every few years we'd hear about a new version of Windows, and we'd glance into the abyss just long enough to remind ourselves of Microsoft's eternal cluelessness. Other than that, I think our closest brush with Windows was Word 6, and that was a decade and a half ago.

So what makes Windows suddenly relevant to us now? Who are all these "Mac users" clamoring for aberrations like "Macintosh Explorer" [ragesw.com] ? Are these the same "Mac users" on VersionTracker writing glowing reviews of Firefox and Azureus? Who let them in, anyway?

If you're some sort of tragic square who needs to run Windows, maybe you should have thought of that before you bought a Mac. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just round up these so-called "Mac users" and send them all on trains to Redmond.

Far better user interface then XP? (2, Insightful)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913451)

I don't see Vista as having a "far better" user interface. In fact, compared to Windows XP and the basic configuration things, Vista requires traveling through a lot more menus and clicks to get where you want to get.

Apart from Vista's new eyecandy UI, it's pretty much the same deal. Sure, there's a neat thing here and there - like the disk space bars and renaming files when you have viewing extensions on. Other then that, I don't see all that much of a difference.

It's not a terrible thing, I mean - Windows XP has a very decent UI.

I use XP in Win2k legacy mode (2, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914101)

... and I bet I'm not the only one.

I find the XP level of eye candy pointless and destracting. More sugar coated pixels in Vista are unlikely to be a Good Thing.

Delete Key (5, Informative)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913463)

Why can't you delete a file in OS X with the delete key? Because you need to use a modifier key (in this case, the command key) so as not to inadvertently delete items. Anytime you make a critical key stroke (such as deleting), a modifier key should be used to avoid unintended consequences. What happens if the user isn't paying attention and they hit the delete key to remove a string of text, but actually where clicked on an important document? With the command key, the USER is telling the system that he or she REALLY wants to do something. It is simply sound interface design...something PC people never seem to understand, as they continually pound the "del" key on a Mac, then bitch that their Windows-centric mentality doesn't work on a Mac. This goes for nearly EVERY niggling complaint I've ever heard from a PC user about Macs...."Why doesn't this thing do it like Windows???"...um, because it is decidedly NOT Windows.

Re:Delete Key (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913479)

You dolt, that's because Windows users have to constantly delete spyware and other junk files. Remember to consider the context first.

Re:Delete Key (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913559)

Yeah, that makes sense. The PC people should pick up on these little usability things and put the eject button directly next to the power button, which doesn't require holding the command key to turn the machine off. Or they could have you eject by deleting the drive. That makes perfect sense. Or, even better, don't put an eject button anywhere and only have an eject button on the keyboard. That's exactly where I'd expect to find it. Opening the drive when it doesn't have media in it should be a scavenger hunt!

Just because you happen to be used to the stupid idiosyncracies in the Mac interface doesn't mean that the Mac method is in any way better.

Re:Delete Key (2, Interesting)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913755)

You left out the part where pressing the eject button isn't enough, you have to hold it. Nor the fact that most of these shortcuts are so numerous and obscure that you may as well just print them out and tape them to your display rather than try to memorize them.

And don't get me started with iTunes, a media player that doesn't even let you adjust the brightness when watching a movie. Oh you get a ten band equalizer with 20 some odd presets, a "preamp" and volume leveling. But if your movie is too dark you've got to dig it up elsewhere and play it in QuickTime. Thirty bucks please if you want that in full screen. Add to that incompetently slow navigation and fast forward and rewind so bad they shouldn't have bothered. All of which are gloriously quick in QT.

I could go on and on, and most surely will another time. But for now I'm going to rein it in and let the apologists come in with their bog standard "shut up idiot" routine.

Re:Delete Key (1)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913583)

This goes for nearly EVERY niggling complaint I've ever heard from a PC user about Macs...."Why doesn't this thing do it like Windows???"...um, because it is decidedly NOT Windows.

"Why doesn't this thing do it like [OS X|Linux|Amiga]?" Because it's Windows.

Re:Delete Key (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913621)

well damn.

I set 'd' to be my delete key in rox-filer.

erm if you press the delete key (1)

goldcd (587052) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913635)

you get a dialog box asking if you want to delete the file (by default) - so you have to hit enter to confirm your deletion.
The file by default gets shoved in the recycle bin as well, so easy to get back if you've realized you've made a mistake.
You have the option if you wish to remove the prompt on the delete, or skip the recycle bin by holding shift.
I think the point I'm trying to make about XP/Vista is that when you press the delete key, the OS assumes that you are actually trying to delete a file (quite sensibly) and respond to you accordingly.

Re:erm if you press the delete key (0, Troll)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913667)

I think the point I'm trying to make about XP/Vista is that when you press the delete key, the OS assumes that you are actually trying to delete a file (quite sensibly) and respond to you accordingly.
Except for all those times your not in Windows and you shove off stuff to the trash trying to do something else that the OS or other programs require the del key for that in other OSs dont have that issue. Yet another example of how poorly designed Windows is but how dumbed down computer users now are because of it.

Re:erm if you press the delete key (2, Insightful)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913737)

I don't follow you at all. XP/Vista's design are bad because hitting a key called delete prompts for you to answer did you mean to delete the item(S) and if you click yes it does?

But to delete under OS X i hold command and delete and that makes more sense?

A user sees a delete key, they assume when they press it the computer will confirm they want to delete the item. THey accept/dent and the action occurs.

Again I am not 100% sure what your point is.

Re:erm if you press the delete key (1, Troll)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913817)

I don't follow you at all. XP/Vista's design are bad because hitting a key called delete prompts for you to answer did you mean to delete the item(S) and if you click yes it does? But to delete under OS X i hold command and delete and that makes more sense?
Yes and yes. In the first case, something accidentally gets moved to the recycle bin, ESPECIALLY since users are prone to just click OK when faced with too many prompts. In the Mac case, the user had to go out of their way to invoke the action. With such a specific key combo, there is virtually no chance that the user was trying to do anything OTHER than move the file to the trash, so there is no need to prompt the user.

Re:erm if you press the delete key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913859)

You're not making any sense. When I press a DELETE key I want to delete an item. No ifs and buts and maybes, ad second guessing.. Btw, why cant I resize a window on a Mac by dragging any edge of that window? Windows was doing it since forever.. Also whats up with one toolbar shared by ALL the apps. If anything it is Mac that is dumbing people down.

Re:erm if you press the delete key (1)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914095)

Deleting files in Windows requires more keystrokes/movements and as such is less efficient than doing it on Mac OS X. Using

GOMS measurements, deleting a file on Mac OS X requires 0,8 seconds composed of 1 hand movement to the keyboard (0,4 secs) + 2 keystrokes (0,2 secs each). On Windows, assuming the user already knows the prompt so he won't read it, there are multiple cases (i don't know which applies of the 2 points, please let me know):

1) The default button of the prompt is "Yes". In which case deleting takes 1 hand movement, 1 keystroke and another keystroke which is again 0,8 seconds assuming the user just hits enter and the delay between the command is issued and the prompt appears is exactly 0 (which is unlikely). If the user uses the mouse to confirm the operation costs 1,9 because you get mouse pointing which costs 1,1 seconds and the keystroke gets replaced by click which is still 0,2 seconds.

2) The default button of the prompt is "No". In the best case you get an operation costing 1 second assuming the user is trained well enough to hit del+tab+enter (if tab works) in rapid sequence, otherwise you get still 1,9 seconds.

Notice i haven't added the time the user thinks about what he is about to do (which costs 1,35s each and are caused by the appearance of a prompt) because I'm assuming the operation is performed by persons which are used to the system.

If you think i've been pulling numbers out of my arse, they are taken by Jef Raskin's book "The Human Interface".

Re:erm if you press the delete key (1)

macslut (724441) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913767)

That's silly. By default, it takes two actions in Windows to move something into the Recycle Bin. You can modify this to be one action. The problem here with the default is that one action can be made by a kid or cat banging on the keyboard, and the second action can eventually occur by the same banging away. Compare this to OS X, where one action is needed, but two keys need to be pressed. OS X, like Windows is not option-less, you can modify your keyboard mappings and have it just be the delete key (or disable keyboard delete altogether), but the default is Command-Delete which is much likely to occur by accident. And while both are easy to recover from if they are deleted, it requires *knowing* that this occurred which may be a problem if you didn't witness it.

Re:erm if you press the delete key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18914051)

When was the last time you looked at a Macintosh keyboard? Hitting Command-Delete would be about as hard as giving the three-finger salute by accident.

Re:Delete Key (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913651)

If you want a serious answer it's because there shoul dbe no dangerous keys on the keyboard. Period. making something a delete key is pretty dangerous. Your cat could delete your file system.

Re:Delete Key (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913705)

Ummm then a keyboard should have no keys since any key could be dangerous depending on what applications might be open.

My workaround is my keyboard plugs into my monitors USB ports, when the monitor is off so is the keyboard (and anything else plugged in). No worry about cats hittings keys or mice (and I have 2 cats).

Re:Delete Key (4, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913653)

What happens if the user isn't paying attention and they hit the delete key to remove a string of text, but actually where clicked on an important document?
Then the document ends up in the "Recycle Bin"/"Trash"/Whatever-you-call-it and the user can easily recover the file. I actually think GNOME handles this quite nicely. If you hit delete it simply gets sent to the Trash, and you can quickly recover it when you spot your mistake. There is also a modifier key version (shift-delete) which lets you by pass the Trash and permanently delete a file -- the brings up a warning dialog about permanent deletion of course. Seems to elegantly combine the best of both approaches to me.

Re:Delete Key (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913879)

So you mean precisely in the same way that Windows does it.

Re:Delete Key (1, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914075)

Probably, I have no idea how Windows does it since I don't use Windows. The fact that GNOME does it well does not preclude other systems doing it well also.

Re:Delete Key (1)

whorapedia.com (1070006) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913959)

Yeah, Windows actually does this too... it has for years.

Re:Delete Key (1)

windsurfer619 (958212) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914047)

Haha, GNOME does the exact same thing as XP, dummy!

Re:Delete Key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913669)

On Windows: ctrl+delete deletes a file.
On OSX: command+delete moves a file to the Trash.

It does do like Windows, apparently they just don't know the windows keyboard shortcuts. Regardless of what the "delete" key by itself does, the keyboard shortcut is the same. What's the problem here?

Re:Delete Key (-1, Troll)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913697)

Since the command key is so overused (thank you, unimouse), doesn't that defeat the purpose of requiring it for dangerous tasks? It's Cancel or Allow all over again.

Only a cultist wouldn't understand that even from a UI perspective, the Mac is inferior in so many respects. They confuse good design with "the way Apple does it". I mean, have you ever considered that maybe the reason people want it like Windows is because the Windows way is better?

That said, I want to shoot the person who decided that backspace should activate the "back" function of a browser, which Firefox, IE, and Safari all imitate.

Re:Delete Key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913775)

That said, I want to shoot the person who decided that backspace should activate the "back" function of a browser, which Firefox, IE, and Safari all imitate.

You should use Seamonkey. I just tried it in it and it don't work. :D

I guess it's another reason why seamonkey is still better than firefox.

Re:Delete Key (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913791)

Only a cultist wouldn't understand that even from a UI perspective, the Mac is inferior in so many respects. They confuse good design with "the way Apple does it"
Apple literally wrote the book on UI and to claim otherwise is simply ignorant. The Apple Human Interface Guidelines have been the de facto standard for years.

Re:Delete Key (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913887)

Right after they stole everything from Xerox and co.

Re:Delete Key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913899)

The Apple Human Interface Guidelines are still fucking crap. Oh and Xerox you bitch.

Re:Delete Key (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914131)

Apple literally wrote the book on UI and to claim otherwise is simply ignorant. The Apple Human Interface Guidelines have been the de facto standard for years.

And the de-facto standard operating system doesn't use those guidlines. Besides, being a de-facto standard, or even a real standard, doesn't automatically make something good.

Control + Click for contextual menus. (2, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913901)

since the command key is so overused (thank you, unimouse),
Sorry to address the same post a second time, but I have to correct more misinformation. Again, the 1-button mouse argument hasn't been relevant since the mid 90s. Even if you have a one button Mac mouse, it isn't the command key that is used to access contextual menus. For that, you can either click and hold for a moment, or hold down the CONTROL key (not the command). Therefore, there is no risk, since the control key is used much less than the command key.

I, on the other hand, just prefer to right click.

And for those of you who think that right mouse buttons are not confusing, you need to watch normal people use computers. I work in a school and my job is to train teachers how to use computers. Most teachers can't follow simple instructions like "right-click on the desktop". Also, left-handed teachers have to share computers with right-handed teachers (and students too). Don't tell me that telling a left-handed user to "right-click" on something isn't confusing. Come work with me for a day.

I would just ask if you are going to criticize something, please get the easy facts straight first.

Re:Delete Key (1)

DrJokepu (918326) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913935)

Thats what the popup window asking if you really want to delete that file and the recycle bin is for. To permanently delete a file in windows you have to use a modifier key (shift-del) as well, but the pop-up still appears.

Re:Delete Key (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913991)

Slashdot has been over this many times...too many dialogue boxes and people stop reading them and just choose the default...bad UI

Re:Delete Key (3, Insightful)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913945)

"What happens if the user isn't paying attention and they[sic] . . ."

. . .hits the gas on his car instead of the brake and drives through a building?
. . .sets the toaster to dark and burns his toast?
. . .holds his knife by the wrong end and cuts his hand off?
. . .hits the hang up button on his phone instead of the answer button, and hangs up on his mother?
. . .sets the pressure on his compressor to 120psi and breaks his 90psi impact wrench?

When you use your things wrong, things break. That is what happens.

O.T.P.S: When did people start replacing "his" with "their" and proceed to screw up all the verb conjugation? Is it an attempt at political correctness?

Re:Delete Key (2, Informative)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914007)

And this is why the science of UI is so important. Users WILL make mistakes. Why is everyone so quick to blame the user? To the UI designer, this is like blaming the customer. If the users are making mistakes, it is the UI designer's job to make mistakes less likely, or less damaging when they do happen. Based on the posts so far, most of you don't understand this, which also explains the lax attitude and willingness to accept such poor UI choices from Microsoft the past 10 years.

Re:Delete Key (1)

miscz (888242) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914177)

If you deleted text from document there's always undo. If you deleted file there's always trash (unless USER told system that he REALLY wanted to delete file and used something like shift-delete). It's the OSX designed that's flawed IMO, it's too restricting. BTW, you're using a personal computer too, it seems Apple PC people never seem to understand that.

Forged from Linux? (3, Insightful)

Shaiken (743878) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913473)

Count OS X, by comparison, is counting on his few enemies to see him through. His armour is forged from the fires of Linux, which he hopes will keep him safe from the common viruses that plague the land.
Clueless reporters. They're either unable to clearcly express that OS X is a unix-like system _like_ linux, or they simply don't know. My money is on number two.

Re:Forged from Linux? (3, Funny)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913553)

Even better -- his armor was forged by the fires of the BSD daemon!

Or it is poetic license (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914143)

The play is really just for infotainment. The purpose is not technical accuracy and probably only wants to use sound bites that people have heard of.

Performance = Compatibility? (1)

sarahbau (692647) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913483)

In their performance section, Vista won because more games are compatible with it, and PCs have more HDDVD and Blu-Ray options available? I don't get how this has anything to do with performance of the operating system.

Re:Performance = Compatibility? (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913551)

I believe you are hitting a sore point for many. The tireless ability of people to call MS products the 'standard' that all other products should emulate is, in a word, tiring.

Even if you invent something better than Windows it will still be compared to Windows and declared lame because it isn't Windows. This is what Apple and the Linux distributions are up against. As pointed out, it's arguably fair to say that Vista isn't the best product that MS has ever rolled out, yet it's the new 'standard' that people will use.

Reviewers shouldn't be comparing OSs head to head. They should be comparing them to a neutral set of standards that judge ease of use, performance, stability etc. If the top score possible on such a test is 10, and Vista only gets an 8 it is no longer 'the' standard, at which point people can make the decision for themselves. If both Apple and Microsoft only get an 8, then the choice between them is one of taste, not perceived performance.

In that vein, if a Linux distro only got a 6, well, it lets the community in general know what to fix next.

Re:Performance = Compatibility? (2, Interesting)

Holmwood (899130) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913607)

To a degree, but the more interesting argument was that new hardware tends to be released with windows drivers first. Apple also doesn't offer anywhere near the range of choice in (say) powerful video cards.

Finally, next generation video cards are being designed for ... yes... DirectX10, and, ultimately, Vista. It's conceivable that Apple will persuade AMD or NVidia to design for some next-generation Apple video standard, but it doesn't seem likely.

I find all that persuasive. What I didn't find persuasive was the article leaving out the fairly serious performance problems Vista has with many games (vs. XP) on the same hardware.

I also thought the article's dismissal of bootcamp/parallels was a little too quick.

bad facts (3, Insightful)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913499)

Count OS X, by comparison, is counting on his few enemies to see him through. His armour is forged from the fires of Linux , which he hopes will keep him safe from the common viruses that plague the land.

Everyone knows OS X is derived from Mach and BSD and has nothing to do with Linux. But then anyone who would consider Vista equal to it probably spent more time dressing up and playing with swords than reviewing the products anyways.

To sum it up.... (1)

four+runner (1094221) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913571)

OS X = Ubuntu = Vista.

If you've got the cash, you've got options. Sort of like everything else.

Re:To sum it up.... (1)

k3vlar (979024) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914253)

THANK YOU. This is the kind of intelligence that I've been looking for. Someone who realizes it's up to the personal preference of the user. If you prefer Windows, that's fine. You're welcome to deal with all the problems that face a Windows user. You want to buy an expensive Mac? Good as well. You can face the problems of running OS X. You want to run Linux? Go ahead. Deal with those problems too, (and from experience, there are quite a few) The fact that you have the choice to make is the best thing about computers.

The summary is misleading (3, Informative)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913623)

What should have been a quote from a specific part of the article, is actually summarized in a way that indicates it was an end result. The actual article affords Vista the victory. But, maybe the article should have stopped at a tie, it seems Vista won because Mac OS has less standard acceptance and because Greenpeace declaired PC's to be more green than Macs.

Re:The summary is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913893)

Since by now every serious journalist should know that Greenpeace's report was at best misinformed (just google "apple greenpeace lie" if you read Slashdot and still managed to miss that), I don't think the author has taken much care about making it a fair or even useful comparison anyway.

The setting is fun and the images look good, though...

Fitts' Law (5, Informative)

Egotistical Rant (42993) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913661)

Why on earth in OS X is the menu bar for any given application not attached to the application itself? Why is it fixed to the top of the screen, detached from the very thing it controls?

It's called "FItts' Law." The edge-of-screen menu is a much easier target to access. This has been covered to death before. Who wrote this article? A million monkeys with typewriters?

Re:Fitts' Law (2, Informative)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913821)

Indeed. Before I switched to Macs, I assumed that (after ten years of exclusive Windows use) the single menu bar at the top of the screen would be annoying. It was annoying for maybe ten minutes, and then it felt completely natural -- and now when I have to use Windows, I find the Windows mechanism far more annoying.

They're basically complaining "But... but... we're used to the way Windows does it!". It really isn't at all hard to get used to, and once you're used to it I don't see a downside to the Mac approach.

Re:Fitts' Law (4, Interesting)

taradfong (311185) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913855)

Also means less real estate is wasted having menus on each window.

On the other hand, on my 30" monitor I now find the menu is now often ridiculously far away from the window I'm working in.

Re:Fitts' Law (1)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913953)

My first thought was that it also means that you cannot see the toolbars of two different windows at the same time. But I cannot think of any situation in which I'd like to do this. Can anybody else?

Re:Fitts' Law (1)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914229)

Wait, let's not mess terms up. On Mac OS X, toolbars are one per window (although not all applications are composed of windows with toolbars). The application menu on the other hand is, like the name implies, one per application and refers to the currently focused document of said application. I guess the confusion is often generated by the fact that on Windows a window represents an application, while on Mac OS X the same instance of an application can open multiple documents (i never understood if technically it is the case for Windows as well, or if separate instances of an application run in parallel) and a window represents only a document of said application.

Re:Fitts' Law (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913999)

Who wrote this article? A million monkeys with typewriters?
No; no. They're all busy coding for Vista.

What's the the wo .. man? (4, Funny)

signore pablo (544088) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913701)

What's it say about these guys if they can't find a real woman to play the part of the woman? ;P

Re:What's the the wo .. man? (2, Informative)

delta4s (904190) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913981)

Probably because in Shakespeare's time the women's roles were played by men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor#History [wikipedia.org]

Remember, this is CNET (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913725)

...and they are a bunch of fucking idiots. I have yet to see an intelligent, well-researched and thought-out article from that bunch of wankers. Best to ignore them than give their crap a bunch of page impressions.

Here we go again (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913739)

Here we go again... Pepsi vs Coke.... Oranges vs Apples (no punch), Can we stop the madness? No system is perfect, Vista has a copuple of excellent things and a couple of horrible ones. OSX has some good things and a couple of atrocious ones. The main thing in both systems is good enough and is a matter of taste. Vanilla or chocolate?

the DRM ring... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913777)

Funny how, when presenting the fair (ahem) maiden a wedding ring, the Vista suitor refuses to let go of it.

Initial Setup/Installation- MAC kills Vista (4, Interesting)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913779)

Today, I had to get a new Mac Mini. Turning it on and getting to the desktop took all of 3 minutes. I had it updated, and configured to my liking in about 45 minutes (most of which was taken up downloading a ton of updates, as his Mini had been on the shelf for a while at CompUSA.

In contrast, a few weeks ago I was working for a company that needed a new laptop. The laptop we got was very similar to the Mini I purchased today. Intel Core 2 Duo, and it actually had much more memory stock in it (still need to crack open the Mini and upgrade to 2GB). It took a full 45 minutes to get Vista to boot for the first time. Between just getting the software updated (which was a super painfully slow process in comparison), it took over 3 hours to get it even usable, let alone the hour it took to install Microsoft Office 2007, and then update it. Then it took another few hours to figure out how to Vista actually, well, less like Vista. This was some Acer laptop BTW.

I liked Windows XP in comparison a lot, and still think that Windows 2000 was super-stable in comparison to XP. I still haven't figured out what Vista does for the end-user that XP doesn't do- asides from being a PITA and making you purchase new hardware. In fact, I'm going to do a Bootcamp install of XP in a few minutes.

Re:Initial Setup/Installation- MAC kills Vista (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914267)

what Vista does for the end-user that XP doesn't do
It makes things pretty and people who got sick of XP's Blue Luna, Olive Green, silver, and win9x classic themes something new to look at?

wheres the guy in the penguin suit? (1)

garlicbready (846542) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913781)

forget the fancy pants spandex crap
I'm waiting for the guy in the penguin suit and army fatigues to show up
with a pen knife in one hand (for carving the word stallman into one of the foreheads of the Vista guy) and a machine gun in the other

Re:wheres the guy in the penguin suit? (1)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913915)

We're talking Renaissance operating systems here, so he'll be wearing tall leather boot, a cuirass and morion, with a knife in one hand, and a crossbow in the other. A daVinci-era machine gun is low-efficiency, and requires a horse cart.

Bitch-o-meter should judge (3, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913845)

The real issue is user complaints not head on comparisons. Most people aren't objective in head on comparisons so they tend to be more about reviewers preference than which is a superior OS. There have been significant customer complaints about Vista where as few if any about Leopard. It's impossible to tell until the final release but all looks good for OSX Leopard. In comparison people are more and more comparing Vista to ME. What other standard is there than customer satisfaction? Comparing the OSs is completely pointless. It'd make more sense comparing OSX and Linux. Vista isn't all bad I'm sure but it's hardly all good. The very fact large numbers of users especially businesses are resisting the shift to Vista and plan to use XP as long as possible is a bad sign. I think you'll find no resistence to Leopard. Which is better will be argued until the next Microsoft OS is released when the arguments will begin anew. The real decider is who is happiest. The vast majority of Mac users are happy where as Vista users seem on the whole very unhappy. You decide.

Wow... (-1, Offtopic)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913911)

This must really be a slow news day....

Drama people. (1)

llthomps (470748) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913929)

Ugg -

I guess this is what happens when you let drama people write a tech review. The final battle was Vista winning the hardware matchup (and the showdown) because:

a) OS X can run Vista in Parallels
b) Apple hasn't committed to a timeline for the phase-out of PVCs from their products. Never mind that no other computer manufacturer has actually phased PVCs out - they've only committed to a timeline.

Notice that they didn't compare the same programs on similar hardware, or actually talk about the hardware.

Vista in Parallels? Unusable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18914087)

Vista in Parallels? Unusable.

1) The emulated video card is miserable. Vista's graphics bring the system to its knees.

2) Parallels needs more polish before Joe Shmo can use it:
      a) the networking bridge needs to be rock solid, not something that easily breaks when changing Locations
      b) sharing between OS X and Windows needs to keep Joe Shmo from opening his entire OS X volume to Windows. If ever there was a security hole in OS X, it would be Windows on Parallels with volume sharing

XP? XP is fine. Even for software development.

OSX vs. Windows arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913941)

So far, this is the most technical article ever in the OSX vs. Windows genere.

Not in sync with reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18914003)

Anybody who thinks OS X is even remotely near Vista is too passionately absorbed into their crazy Apple fantasy or hasn't used Vista.

The reason MacOS X lost (2, Funny)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#18914259)

They were fighting over a girl. I mean, c'mon, what male Mac user would even be interested in girls?? He obviously had no motivation to win.

I'm joking, friends...lighten up ;)
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>