Slashdot Mirror

Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.

It's not supposed to fill the screen; it's merely supposed to expand the window so that all the content is visible, if possible.

C'mon.

Apple is deficient here - no doubt about it.

Deficient eh? I use Omniweb. Same issues I'm sure, but I'm comfortable with it. I have something I feel is far more secure than a colored URL bar and Extended Validation box that begs for attention... I have an encrypted system wide keychain that is not going to have a username/password for paypa|.com. I might not catch that pipe as a lower case L... I my not catch a cyrillic character that looks just like an 'a' in there, but my keychain aware browser certainly will. It won't have a password for that domain, and that will instantly alert me to the fact that something is fishy. Proceed to open a new window and manually enter the address as a test... I rely on my keychain so much, I generally don't know the password for most websites I use, so I therefore cannot be suckered into revealing it. I'm sure Safari can be configured the same way.

Instead of railing on Apple for not adopting the technologically deficient solution of other browser makers, perhaps they should instead focus on what is IMHO a superior approach to security... No dice on Windows Safari, sure, but on the Mac I have no fear of phishers.

I feel obliged to point you to this at this point :-).

I have an Intel Mac at work, and after half a year of running OS X and Win XP side by side, I have given up on OS X and now use Win XP under Parallels for most of my professional work. There are two reasons:

1) MS Office works better under XP. I'm working in a corporate setting. I have to book meetings from time to time, and meeting rooms can't be booked in Entourage or Outlook Web Client. Sad but true.

2) Keyboard shortcuts are way better in XP. According to this article,

Usability is something that can be measured and quantified. Where has anybody ever demonstrated that the Mac is actually easier to use than Windows, KDE, or Gnome?

I'm with you here. My sibling post (correct term?) and you make nice points about lazy programmers, so I'm going to go and bash some bad designers, too.

I've found that Windows and its applications are really, really stupid with the way they handle dialog boxes. Kind of off-topic, I know, but since most security issues are luser error, I can guess that most of those are caused by blind click-click-clicking Yes to dialog boxes.

I get a dialog box when I try to delete a file. I get several dialog boxes whenever a program crashes - something about an error report. At my school, they've managed to set up Word so you get three dialog boxes when you open it: one asking you to disable macros (to which the average user goes What?), another telling you that macros have been disabled (yes, that's why I clicked that button) and another telling you that there's a window open.

With so many dialog boxes around, most of them unnecessary, I don't blame the average user for ignoring the important ones. If you press Yes, the nasty evil dialog box will go away. Sooner or later the times comes when you install some spyware trying to get rid of the dialog box.

And what has Vista done? Put even more of them in. Quoth even Paul Thurrott: The problem with UAP is that it throws up an unbelievable number of warning dialogs for even the simplest of tasks. That these dialogs pop up repeatedly for the same action would be comical if it weren't so amazingly frustrating. It would be hilarious if it weren't going to affect hundreds of millions of people in a few short months. It is, in fact, almost criminal in its insidiousness. Gah, showering the user with more dialog boxes is useless, as they ignore them all anyway!

I'm on a roll here. What else?

When I want to Save a document, I go to the button marked Save. At least, I do on Gnome and OS X: Windows likes to have buttons called "Yes", "No" and "Cancel" instead. So instead of doing what I want (Saving), I have to read the dialog to find out which button Saves my document. And most people wouldn't even try to read it; they'd just click Yes and hope it was the right one. Oh, and the dialog text is often in a small font with no discernable main point about what it does.

Windows dialog boxes are obtrusive enough that people would rather make them go away (think: click Yes) than working out what they do. Here's an example of a Mac one - I can tell what each button does before reading, and even if I have to read, there's some nice bold text so I don't have to read it all. Here's the worst example of a Windows one I could find. Note none of the above things that the Mac does right. This isn't the best example, I know, but it points out where Windows fails best.

I reckon you could've eliminated a fair few spyware installs if the "Yes" button was labelled "Install Software", or the "Next" button was lebelled "Accept this Licence", or whatever it is. No more "Let's click Yes to make the nasty evil dialog box go away", but some people will think "Do I really want to install this software?" or "Do I really want to run this program?". It makes people think, and thinking is good when you're trying to make decisions.

Oh, and:

"How dare you try to type at another window when I am here, infidel scum!"

"And Vista dyes the rest of the screen black, just in case you didn't notice me the first time. See?"

Where was I? Oh yes, computer security. I don't think it's fair to blame any and all spyware installations on user error. Windows places you on a path above a crevasse with a bicycle, and expects you to pedal to the other side. Sure, you might get blown off by wind (read: security holes in the OS). Many people

I'm with you here. My sibling post (correct term?) and you make nice points about lazy programmers, so I'm going to go and bash some bad designers, too.

I've found that Windows and its applications are really, really stupid with the way they handle dialog boxes. Kind of off-topic, I know, but since most security issues are luser error, I can guess that most of those are caused by blind click-click-clicking Yes to dialog boxes.

I get a dialog box when I try to delete a file. I get several dialog boxes whenever a program crashes - something about an error report. At my school, they've managed to set up Word so you get three dialog boxes when you open it: one asking you to disable macros (to which the average user goes What?), another telling you that macros have been disabled (yes, that's why I clicked that button) and another telling you that there's a window open.

With so many dialog boxes around, most of them unnecessary, I don't blame the average user for ignoring the important ones. If you press Yes, the nasty evil dialog box will go away. Sooner or later the times comes when you install some spyware trying to get rid of the dialog box.

And what has Vista done? Put even more of them in. Quoth even Paul Thurrott: The problem with UAP is that it throws up an unbelievable number of warning dialogs for even the simplest of tasks. That these dialogs pop up repeatedly for the same action would be comical if it weren't so amazingly frustrating. It would be hilarious if it weren't going to affect hundreds of millions of people in a few short months. It is, in fact, almost criminal in its insidiousness. Gah, showering the user with more dialog boxes is useless, as they ignore them all anyway!

I'm on a roll here. What else?

When I want to Save a document, I go to the button marked Save. At least, I do on Gnome and OS X: Windows likes to have buttons called "Yes", "No" and "Cancel" instead. So instead of doing what I want (Saving), I have to read the dialog to find out which button Saves my document. And most people wouldn't even try to read it; they'd just click Yes and hope it was the right one. Oh, and the dialog text is often in a small font with no discernable main point about what it does.

Windows dialog boxes are obtrusive enough that people would rather make them go away (think: click Yes) than working out what they do. Here's an example of a Mac one - I can tell what each button does before reading, and even if I have to read, there's some nice bold text so I don't have to read it all. Here's the worst example of a Windows one I could find. Note none of the above things that the Mac does right. This isn't the best example, I know, but it points out where Windows fails best.

I reckon you could've eliminated a fair few spyware installs if the "Yes" button was labelled "Install Software", or the "Next" button was lebelled "Accept this Licence", or whatever it is. No more "Let's click Yes to make the nasty evil dialog box go away", but some people will think "Do I really want to install this software?" or "Do I really want to run this program?". It makes people think, and thinking is good when you're trying to make decisions.

Oh, and:

"How dare you try to type at another window when I am here, infidel scum!"

"And Vista dyes the rest of the screen black, just in case you didn't notice me the first time. See?"

Where was I? Oh yes, computer security. I don't think it's fair to blame any and all spyware installations on user error. Windows places you on a path above a crevasse with a bicycle, and expects you to pedal to the other side. Sure, you might get blown off by wind (read: security holes in the OS). Many people

there's no way to tab through windows in all applications without a shareware program

Alt-TAB tabs between programs
Alt-~ tabs between windows within a program
CTRL-F4 tabs between all windows

Personally, I've just mapped CTRL-F4 and Expose to the thumb buttons on my Logitech MX500 mouse, and application switching is simpler than in any other system I've used.

That's right, you have to move your mouse 3,840 pixels to the left to choose something in the Edit menu.

Since the menu is at the edge of the screen, there is no chance of "overshooting" the menu (this adheres to "Fitt's Law" - the size of a target on the edge of the screen is essentially infinite). Using pixels to measure mouse distances is useless anyway, since the amount of movement actually required to move the length of the screen should be the same regardless of resolution.

http://www.xvsxp.com/power_user/ sheds some insight on screen shots.
But the fact is, I can take a screen shot of anything I damn well please without getting my background in there too. :D

http://www.xvsxp.com/

That's the best one out there.

http://www.xvsxp.com/ runs a fairly decent comparison between the software-side of the rivalry. Check it out, it's pretty awesome, and you learn things that you wouldn't necessarily pickup from reviews and what not.

Here's the most unbiased, thorough site I've found that compares XP and OS X feature-for-feature and OS X mops the fucking floor with your little bitch-ass Fisher-Price XP operating system. Read it and weep--well, read it assuming you're a) not illiterate and b) can see it around Bill Gates' pelvis that is perpetually in front of your face.

One big difference is that XP, out of the box, has no f-ing clue what to do with an ISO image. You need third party programs to do what can be done with the built in tools in OS X.

Here's a good link to a page that compares the two. http://www.xvsxp.com/burning/. Maybe the OP should have tried the Cdburn.exe utility the article mentions.

That's not to say that the OS X tools are complete and you don't need something else to supplement them (Toast?), but IMHO the built-in CD-RW/DVD support in XP really sucks! And many of the included iLife apps support burning media natively...

It is kind of silly, especially since Quicktime can do fullscreen, it's purposly crippled. That being said if this person can afford to spend 5 grand on a computer, an extra $30 isn't going to break the bank.

clicking 'Yes' to install things they really shouldn't

Macs use verbs in dialog boxes, instead of 'Yes', 'No' and 'Cancel'. The button to install software on a Mac would be 'Install Software', not 'Yes', so clueless users have a better sense of what they are doing.

Discussed better here

You might be on to a winner, check out Japan's "s-phone" and here

By contrast, the "S-Phone", which has attracted thousands of Japanese subscribers since its introduction by the Tu-Ka
network last November, has no function except that of a basic telephone. It does not even have a screen.

iTunes calls it Sound Check while WMP calls it Quiet Mode.
Both apps can protect your ears from loud spikes in music

Windows Movie Maker 2 is free and better than iMovie (see the "X vs XP" review)

Actually, that review does NOT declare a winner for video editing overall. If you read carefully, you can see that the author declares a winner in each category (e.g. titles, transitions, etc.). From my quick glance it looked like the OSes were evenly matched with perhaps a slight advantage to iMovie. However, since the last category is titles, which Windows won, you may have seen the author's summary for that category and assumed that it applied to the apps as a whole.

Also, every Mac mini will ship with iMovie HD, which just came out last week and certainly wasn't factored into the X vs. XP review. Perhaps it would push iMovie over the hump to a clear advantage over Movie Maker. And I don't know for sure, but I don't believe that Movie Maker has seen any major updates recently.

HTH

Well, the sense of superiority among Mac users at times can be a bit much. However, some of your other concerns are nothing short of idiotic. For one, the concept of maximize doesn't exist in the Mac. So what you are interpreting as the Maximize button actually isn't the maximize button.

The reason Apple doesn't subscribe to the maximize concept is because it is basically illogical, and detrimental to productivity. For one, if you have a maximized window, you can't drag and drop objects and files between different windows and the desktop. Additionally, you can also not click on background windows to make them active. Apart from this Maximize windows make little sense. If you are working on a word document that only takes up half your screen, why would you want the window to take up the entire screen. When you work on your physical desk, do you insist on clearing the entire desk when you want to write on a little post-it note. I would imagine that you don't, and likewise Mac application windows only take up as much space as they need to. The rest of the space is there for you to be able to manipulate other objects on your desktop.

The plus button is actually a toggle that allows windows to switch between two states. The first state is the manufacturers default window size for the application. The second state is the state that you define. When you resize the window, this state becomes saved as your defined state. After this, you will be able to use the plus to switch between the applications default window size and your defines size. Now the interesting thing about this is that you can actually set your defined window size the cover the entire screen (by dragging the edge of the window to cover the whole screen). So in the future when you press the plus button, viola, you window will cover the whole screen. You can find a good explanation of the Mac way of doing this, and the disadvantages of Windows way here.

The aesthetics of the OS are a matter of personal preference. I happen to think that the Mac OS doesn't provide any iCandy that doesn't genuinely make the computing experience more enjoyable. Besides, most of it can be deactivated. So you can disable dock icon resizing, window genie effect, and even hide the dock. This will remove most of OS X's obvious iCandy.

Either way, OS X's os is certainly more tasteful that XP's fisher price theme. As far as Linux is concerned, it may be a great OS, but its hardly knows for its GUI. Most Linux GUI's are simply attempts at copying the Windows GUI. At least Mac OS X and Apple have their own design paradigm when it comes to GUI's. Like it or not, they have defined the most basic concepts of how a Graphical User Interface should work. There is a lot of history behind their UI, and there are strict Human Interface Guidelines that determine the logic for even the smallest elements in the OS X GUI.

So you asked, "Why in the world would anyone choose, willingly, to use an OS that refused to maximize a window when told to?Or that insisted on being "cute" at every opportunity, even when being so is distracting, unnecessary and reeks of an out of control case of eyecandyitis?"

Well, because the very concept of maximized windows is idiotic. However, if you do want to be an idiot OS X does give you a convenient way to Maximize. The cuteness can be deactivated in about 10 seconds, so if it bothers you, you don't need to see it.

The best comparison that I know of is http://www.xvsxp.com/ XvsXP

Both OSes' features are compared in detail such as:
-Login
-Find/Search
-Drag & Drop
-Network capabilities

I learned much about my new Mac on this site, as it explains how to do certain tasks on both Systems. Every switcher should have a good look here. Even a Windows-savy friend of mine learnt new stuff about XP there.

You're right VBScript is a bad example.

But Windows XP (and, I think, Windows 2000) does come with scripting tools (more than batch files) that work right off the command line. VBScript and JavaScript support is built in, but you can add you favorite scripting language (like perl!) with a third party add-on, Run a search on Google for "Windows XP scripting". You will find that there are ways to automate things in Windows. You just have to know how to do it, just like in Linux.

Some links to Windows Scripting Resources:

Microsoft's Web Site

X vs. XP > Scriptability

Also, if you really love the Unix command line tools, you can get a port of them for Windows.

That being said, I'm not a huge fan of the way the KDE panel looks. It still seems to be trying to grab your attention. When I'm looking at the bottom of the screen in KDE, I always find myself looking at it because it looks like a glass bar.

As for icons, I don't like the icons in KDE. They look like someone tried to draw cartoons on glass. I prefer OS X's icons, because they seem the most realistic and least cartoony. XP has somewhat-decent-looking icons, but I don't think they look as nice as the icons in OS X.

Compare this to Compare this

Tomorrow, I have to meet with the CEO and explain what the hell I'm doing (I'm hoping this article and posts will save me some research!).

This is a brilliant piece of fiction...

XP winning over OSX - Ahahahahaha

This thing is priceless people... XP rated *better* than OSX - give me a break! Hahahahaha.

I refer you all here which is slightly less *stupidly ignorantly biased*.

Just one more time... Hahahahaha.

-Nex