OS X Vs. Vista — In Spandex 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'"
Win2K had better searching than XP. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Far better user interface then XP? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Forged from Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
bad facts (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Performance = Compatibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Delete Key (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Win2K had better searching than XP. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:erm if you press the delete key (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Bitch-o-meter should judge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Delete Key (Score:5, Insightful)
Control + Click for contextual menus. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
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?
Who knew (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like, "McCain voted for torture and lives in a self-manufactured reality, but Edwards got a haircut
Re:Delete Key (Score:2, Insightful)
I use XP in Win2k legacy mode (Score:3, Insightful)
I find the XP level of eye candy pointless and destracting. More sugar coated pixels in Vista are unlikely to be a Good Thing.
Re:Far better user interface then XP? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to be stuck on something you've learned to use a decade ago and resist any positive UI progress, go right ahead. I'd rather my choice of UI be based on what makes work more efficiently, not inability to grok something new.
Religious anti-ms-fanaticism aside, I think MS deserve kudos for plugging in this feature (even if they didn't exactly "invent" it).
CNET is a very ignorant referee. Here's why: (Score:2, Insightful)
A list of CNET stupidity:
- Why wasn't Linux in this competition? Didn't fit the cute Elizabethan dual metaphor?
- Mac OS X 'forged from the fires of Linux.' Linus Torvalds just had an aneurism over that one. It is blatantly and unforgivably WRONG. The kernel for each of these operating systems have NOTHING to do with each other, never have. The only similarity is their use of the UNIX model for the rest of the operating system. Mac OS X literally IS UNIX because it incorporates BSD Unix. It is forged from the fires of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Linux is NOT. The only real commonality is the ability of both OSes to use a vast number of the same applications, recompiled for each platform, or in the case of Mac OS X run in X11. Shame shame shame on CNET.
- Mac OS X performance used to be held back by Apple's use of the PowerPC chip? For a period of many years this statement was quite incorrect. The PPC chips were verifiably 2x faster and cooler running in their heyday. Sadly this lead was lost at the time when Motorola stagnated at 500MHz with the G4 chip for years. IBM managed to come out with the G5 to keep speed between PCs and Macs on a par as long as you were using a desktop box. But if you were using a PowerBook you were held back by IBM's laziness or inability to make a cool running G5 chip that was compatible. During this period of time up until the Intel Dual Core MacBooks were released the PC laptops had a distinct speed advantage. Them's the facts that CNET conveniently glossed over. Tsk tsk.
- Mac OS X's 'performance' is currently held back by having fewer games? That is a 100% illogical non sequitur. A better criticism would be that there are many applications for Windows that do not have equivalents on the Macintosh. At least let Mac OS X lose on its real deficits, not nonsense. Regarding the similar criticism of Macs not getting the latest bleeding edge gaming cards, this is only a matter of when drivers are written for compatibility, as long as you are using a Mac Pro desktop box or an XServe, which I assume is what any serious graphics of gaming geek would prefer over an iMac or a MacBook. Make sense CNET!
- Usability complaints. There are a bunch of these that are quite dopey. (1) CNET want to be able to resize windows with ANY corner? Why? On Mac OS X it is simple. Use the bottom right corner. (2) The 'mystery meat' school of navigation regarding the three control buttons in the top left corner of every window. Huh? Funny how I have never ever been confused. CNET even pointed out that hovering over the buttons provides symbols to indicate the button purposes. The only complaint I can see anyone realistically making would be the use of colors for the three buttons. If you are color blind then you may have some minor difficulty. But if you know the Rule Of Fives you know that we humans are capable of remembering between three to seven, an average of 5, things at any one moment. Remembering the purposes of left, center and right buttons on a window are not a challenge. (3) CNET want to delete files by only hitting the Delete key? Why? On the Mac there is a safety measure added: You have to hold down the command key first. This prevents unwanted blunders. I have never found it a burdon compared to the Windows method. Then again I have two hands. If someone only had one hand I could see their point, and I would direct them to Mac OS X's kewl Universal Access features for help. (4) Again with the games criticism. Hey CNET: Go get a PlayStation! You clearly are too immature for a computer.
- The final battle is won over propaganda and myths? Come on! (1) Mac OS X is perturbed by his ISP's lack of support for Macs? In what decade? This is the 21st century. That old myth is dead and buried. (2) Greenpeace are holding a
Re:Win2K had better searching than XP. (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, I wouldn't call XP's Start menu "awkward."
I would. Why do most applications feel the need to have their own Start Menu folder containing some or all of:
when just a simple icon in the 'Programs' sub-menu would suffice?
On a typical install of XP with an unchanged Start Menu, there are multitudes of folders containing only one important item, each displaying the standard Start Menu folder item instead of actual application shortcuts with their individual, distinctive icons.
As a result, most applications put an icon on the desktop too, which only adds to the clutter.
Menu Bars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Control + Click for contextual menus. (Score:3, Insightful)