Slashdot Mirror
OSX/Win2K Deathmatch
Michael Paci sent us linkage to a pretty good article on CNet where win2k and OSX duke it out on a variety of categories like ease of installation, UI, and hardware support. It's an interesting report and better written then most of the stuff that you'll see like this.
If you already have a computer that you will continue to use, and you're not planning on buying a new one, then you're limited to using an operating system that runs on that hardware. If you're in the market for a new machine (either because you don't already have one, or more likely because your old machine has gotten long in the tooth and you feel the need to upgrade), a good rule of thumb is this: choose the applications you want to run first, then choose an operating system that will run those applications, then choose hardware that will run that operating system. Obviously, you may need to make compromises and sacrifices.
If the main app you want to run is Halflife, you're limited to WinME or Win2k (assuming you're buying a new machine and a new OS). Either way, you are then limited to an x86 system (or the more politically correct IA-32).
If you want to run Mozilla and StarOffice, you're limited to WinME, Win2k, Solaris or any version of Linux on x86, or Solaris on Sparc.
If you want to run Photoshop, Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook, you're limited to WinME or Win2k on x86, or Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X on PowerPC (however on Mac OS X, Photoshop and Outlook will currently only run in the Mac OS 9 emulation layer, not natively).
Use the best tool for the job.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
So what else is new?
Because XP has just kicked into its copyright-control phase, according to The Register, no longer lets you make mp3 files and refuses to let you play the WMA files it does let you make unless it thinks you have a license to do it.
OSX: iTunes.
If you take a consumer point of view, the gap between OSX and XP is only going to widen. People want to put all their CDs onto their computer. After all, they own both CDs and computer legally, and they go well together! I'd be shocked to see slashdotters contest this as geeks were the _first_ to get heavy into keeping all their CDs on hard disk, compressed.
Compare that to iTunes. Bit of a difference, no?
They certainly should repeat this test after the final build of XP. But they need to include 'making a mix CD of CDs that you own' in the tests. People _want_ to get their music onto their computer for easy random access. There is no denying that.
The difference is, Apple is banking on the good PR from their supporting people's fair use rights- and Microsoft has just put into action their whole copyright control apparatus, complete with the software phoning home to some server somewhere to check up on whether it should bust you- and complete with mp3 being taken away. Sucks to own mp3 playing hardware huh kids?
I give it a 20 percent chance that they literally go through disks deleting files if the security check says you're a bad-boy.
The CNET test is just the beginning. We may see a CNET test with XP against some future version of _Linux_ where they side with Linux! There is only so much you can do blatantly against consumers before you stop winning these sorts of tests.
I don't see how either of those characteristics is unique to macintoshes :)
That comparison should be run with Mac OS X Server, which is OS X with some consumer stuff removed and some more server stuff (QT streaming server, WebObjects, better GUI admin tools) included.
2. There's an undocumented but by-now-well-known method for enabling full root that should be on any Mac tech site.
;)
4. classic mode is only truly slow for me when booting it, which takes about 5 minutes (I'm on a beige G3/300). Once it's running, it's not so bad. It's fast enough for me to play MacOS games in it (these tend to be buggier than most progams in classic so ymmv). Also, if you quit every classic app, the environment goes to sleep after a few minutes and X is back to normal.
5. Install the dev tools
FWIw, OS X already has voice recognition.
$make && make install $
[localhost:~] guest% gcc
gcc: Command not found.
[localhost:~] guest% make
make: Command not found.
Nor is an X Window package preloaded on Mac OS X, to the best of my knowledge. So for Joe Average User, it's a little more complicated than that.
(I have a Windows 2000 box in front of me, and a Mac OS X box just to my right.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Wow, milage does vary, because my Windows 98SE box was horrible. Crashing, memory leaks, and it was a bear to get Win98SE or NT 4 to install right with my Intel Pro10/100 NIC and my Soundblaster card.
But Win2000 installed just fine, and it's been more stable that Win 98. However, niether of them are close to OS X, like the article says.
i think it's kinda funny that MacOS X will almost immediatly surpas Linux - and shortly thereafter all other Unix-oid systems combined - in finally bringing Unix to the desktop. good fer them.
But MacOS X isn't user friendly enough. You may as well use Solaris or HPUX or some other proprietary UNIX. Sure, it has some open source components, but the bulk of it is still closed. There's no "We want to appeal to all of the hardcore techies out there" notion inherent in OS X, and there never was.
Oh, do you consider "user friendly" to be condescending GUIs? In that case, I guess it is better, but I find these systems absolutely unusable.
And I'm not saying command lines are any more usable. I feel just as restricted on a Windows machine as I do using Solaris. The open source culture of an OS does a lot towards making it more usable for me. This is the distinction between OS X, which has many a friendly graphical interface and some open source parts, being completely worthless to me, and Linux, which has a less polished happy graphical interace, but is completely usable to me.
So, from my point of view "Linux has surpassed all other OS's". But that only matters to me.
Keep your OS bigotry off of my body.
> Round 1: Installation
> Very much distro dependant, but whatever the
> case not as point and click simple as Win2k/OSX.
You're on crack. Linux installers have been on par with those for WinDOS since at least Redhat 5.0. Not only do the Linux installers support more interesting configuration features, but they also provide for ultra simple "canned" configurations.
Also, the fact that Linux distros are released more frequently means that all of your device drivers will be conveniently contained on the OS media. All it takes is ONE device driver not in place on a Win2k install to quickly make it much more painful than Redhat or Mandrake. Also, it is untrue that drivers for WinDOS are necessarily just a matter of "put in the CD and the OS will find your driver for you". For a novice, futzing with a 3rd party Windows driver may be no less seemingly confounding than dealing with a 3rd party Linux driver.
The same is true for Linux of course. However, if it's not on the OS disk you are likely just out of luck.
MacOS 10 has an edge over both Win2k and Linux for different reasons (they have complete control over the target enviroment).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
For example, for right-hand users the mouse and cursor will naturally gravitate to the top left of the screen, and this is where Apple decided to put the Apple, File and Edit menus. Flicking your mouse to the upper left is an incredibly easy movement, and then - twack! you hit the corner and the menu is there, just under your mouse button. Microsoft decided to put the Start button in the lower left, requiring the user to cramp his/her hand. And the corner pixel is inactive, so you actually have to stop the mouse movement just before the cursor hits the corner -- or go on and hit the corner and then navigate back a few pixels. And then you can click, with your hand in an incredibly unergonomic position. The Win95 UI is full of this kind of design errors.
Essentially, Microsoft has taken the (old) Mac OS UI, removed all the nice usability details, spread the result onto 90% of the desktops of the world, and now even CNet says that it's better than the new-and-revamped Mac OS interface! I think this is disturbing and sad.
For anyone interested in UI design, Bruce Tognazzini has written lots of articles on his website www.asktog.com. Tog was closely involved in designing the Mac user interface, and has a cartload of UI design knowledge as well as a good pen hand.
--Bud
Step 1. Remove hot dog from package.
Step 2. Heat in hot water until the hot dog is hot!
Step 3. Heh. There is no step 3. THERE IS NO STEP 3!
"File sharing? Windows has built-in Internet connection sharing"
...
If this were at a car-dealership it would sound something like..
"Looking for a truck aye? Well have a look at this Toyota Corolla"
You may be sick of the pointless pissing contests over the "best" operating system platform between various factions of computer users and professionals; me, I'm sick of the civics-uninformed painting generalizations of political ideology like "liberalism" (or communism for that matter) across sectors of the public sphere where it bears no relation. The two are unrelated. And since your point about "liberalism" is itself a gross generalization, this would appear to negate your position on the pointlessness of these debates... you just brought up the ridiculousness of OS debates only to fan the flames of an even more ridiculous political ideology debate. So, what's your point?????
--Maynard
As for the 'commodity pricing,' support costs completely override any benefit in having cheaper hardware. Macs just work.
And finally, what's this 'integration with the rest of the business world'? The truth is, almost all people use 90% of the same applications, with some small utilities to fill in the gaps. Those 90% are usually what one can find in an office suite, and some custom enterprise applications. Custom enterprise apps written in Java will work without a hitch, and VB people deserve to wallow in the shithole they have created for themselves (but just run a PC emulator)... As for the rest of the apps, you'll find an equivalent in the Mac world.
Final question is, why would one switch? Simple: the unconscious 'pain in the ass' factor. Windows is just not human friendly. It's designed to look easy to use, but nothing really makes true sense. The errors like 'SQL Server had an error:Success,' the dialog boxes that just forget what you're doing, the menus that keep changing on you, the stupid paper clip, the start menu with a 'Programs' list taller than your screen (does EVERY application need it's own damn program group?)... Just a big, useless mess by people who couldn't care less how the user interacts with the system, just how the user pays for the software.
In that way, UNIX and Macs are similar: they're written for the user. In UNIX land, the software and the user environment are written for the traind professional who just wants to get their work done. In Mac land, the software and user environment are written for basically anybody with 10 minutes of experience to get their work done. Suddenly, with OS X, both types of users are accommodated (that's why I switched from Linux to Mac OS X: I wasn't into free sofware because it was inexpensive, I was into it because it was the best. Now I have a fantastic GUI on top of it).
How come Windows is the only platform where there isn't a user group, who, having seen the rest of the options (with their own eyes, not the FUD MS puts out), chooses it and stays loyal to it with love? I only hear complaints about Windows, and I only hear adoration and caring for UNIX and Mac.
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Disclaimer: I run Mandrake at work
(it's an x86 shop.) I run
OS X at home.
I have far more usable/useful
software for the OS X box. Besides
a growing mountain of OSX native
software (http://www.versiontracker.com/vt_mac_osx.shtml)
I also have access to just about any useful
CLI-based POSIX software and a million
years worth of classic Mac software.
And that's just the cheap/free stuff.
It's not wasted effort if it's quicker to write the script than it is to sit through the install.
If it takes you longer to write the script, well, then there's your point.
DNA just wants to be free...
The process took me 45 minutes on a fairly decent machine (AMD600MHz, 128MB Ram, ATA/66 disk), almost none of which was me having to think about questions or read help. That wouldn't be so bad, but the installer litters questions through the install process so you can't just leave it alone for a while to do the install; you have to be there for those 45 minutes (or more; an install time of an hour isn't unheard of), mostly twiddling your thumbs.
What would have been far better would have been an installer that saved all the questions for the start or end of the install process (ie, at the start it asks for disk partitioning and install options; at the end you configure things like admin password).
--
I think you're confused. The 68K emulation layer had little to do with OS 7.x per se -- it had to do with the change from 68K architecture to PowerPC.
And how was it bungled, pray tell? It was the smoothest switch from one processor architecture to another! A few things didn't work -- things with depended on a hardware FPU primarily, which a 3rd party came up with a hack for (SoftFPU) -- but for the majority of apps, everything went swimmingly. I was part of the "big change" -- I bought a first generation 7100 -- and moved software from 68K to PowerPC native. The only problems I had were a few FPU-dependant filters for Photoshop.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Comparing these two is a cute idea for an article, but it might not really makes sense. The two are being targetted for different submarkets, even though they can be used in another submarkete, i.e Mac OS X really targetted towards consumers, graphics pros, anyone, etc., while W2k -seems- more focussed on business use.
Also, regardless of the outcome of this comparison, W2k has been out for some time, while OS X only two months or so. They were both in development for a long time, but I'd have to give the handicap to OS X here because it is more of a new start than Win-whatever. I mean there has been an NT-based OS for years, but a "UNIX-based" OS with the Apple/Mac GUI is new, and Aqua is certainly brand new. Also, I would place more credence in a comparison done by Ars Tecnica than CNET. Makes the difference of whether the comparison is found in the Tech section or the Lifestyle section of the paper, and I don't trust CNET'$ allegiance$ given their 'reporting' of some topics and stories in the past.
Let's combine 'em and call it OS/2K.
Or would that be too warped?
-
If you really want to understand NT in depth, there's about as much to learn, sadly. If not more.
Linux has improved enormously in how much you need to learn or not learn in order to use it effectively. But we're really talking about MacOS X, and in the case of X, most users (including me) agree that you don't need abstruse Unix knowledge to run it. It won't hurt if you want to probe into its guts, but you don't have to do that unless you want to.
A clear advance, no?
D
----
Not a bad metaphor considering how dismal VHS is. It may be a standard, but do you want to watch VHS more than you absolutely have to?
I have moved almost all my home computing to MacOS X. I run Photoshop in Classic, and once you get past the lengthly startup, it works fine. The bundled Mail is very nice, and the OmniWeb browser is my preferred way of surfing regardless of platform.
I would like to see a fully working xemacs, but other than that, I'm extremely happy with MacOS X. True, it's not perfectly fast all the time, but I love the aesthetic experience and accept that life is a bunch of tradeoffs.
D
----
This is exactly why MacOS X won c|net's shootout. It was loads easier to install, supported almost all hardware likely to be used with a Mac, and had a high-quality suite of Internet tools installed. Thus, it was much more like an appliance than W2k.
:-(.
I would say Apple is to be praised for this, since it's what the bulk of the public wants and needs.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the public wants things real cheap, but, well, you can't have everything
D
----
What the heck is the big deal about DVD, anyway?
I have a home DVD player. It's attached to my NTSC television set via a S-Video cable. It sure looks a lot better than shaky DVD played off a puny computer screen.
I can understand that it's a nice feature for a laptop, but it doesn't strike me as something that should be among the top ten gripes about an OS.
After going through four different video cards trying to get my (well, my company's) spiffy new SGI 1600SW monitor to work properly at full resolution on a Linux PC, I'm starting to think Apple's lack of hardware choice is a blessing, not a curse.
By the way, the root password is easily enabled and works great on my MacOS X installation.
You're right about sluggishness in the interface, but quite honestly it's so much prettier than X-Windows I don't really care. And when Linux was in the same stage of development as MacOS X was now, I remember griping about pretty darn poor GUI performance.
Give it time.
D
----
You are probably right that lack of knowledge and prejudice are very real reasons why people hate Windows 2000.
However, you shoot yourself in the foot here. You should not have to read a 300-page tome about the operating system before installing it for the first time.
Granted, scripted installs are great if you're setting up 500 machines at once. But someone who just wants to get their single unit up and running shouldn't have to learn a scripting language to do a routine installation easily. They probably can't, anyway; how do you write the script if you don't have an OS already on your computer?
I'm sorry; if the default installation routine is too clumsy and cumbersome, it's Microsoft's fault, and Microsoft should fix it. End of story.
D
----
How come you fucking jackasses are whining about things in the article's fucking disclaimer? C|Net decided to do a fun little test with a very macroscopic scope and of source slashdot whines either one way or the other. Not everything requires SPEC benchmarks and extensive testing. What do most people really care about anyways? It isn't minute differences in a fucking floating point benchmark, or whether you can use some 5$ soundcard under Windows 2000. Fuck the 5$ soud card in fact I hope it blows out your fucking speakers. News for nerds indeed. I'm going to get back to SPEC benching my Furbies against my Intellivision and Apple][e so I can post the results for slashdot to bitch about.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Break out? Apple's only hope is that they can keep their existing niche market. If I want a proprietary hardware vendor who can sell me an UNIX OS for something other than design/publishing, I've got Sun, HP and IBM who can all sell me low/mid/high-end data processing solutions with decades of experience in doing so in addition to thousands of VARs and other third parties with equivilent depth of experience and products for the OEMs products.
Apple can really talk about the "history" of UNIX and BSD and can probably drum up a couple of people that did something interesting in the brief lifetime of NeXT, but that's it.
They also have ZERO chance of replacing the WinTel hegemony on corporate desktops. Too much time, money and manpower has been invested in that paradigm for it to be changed by the fact that Apple's got BSD under the hood and can now be trusted to mutlitask with some measure of stability.
Apple really needs to hope that a stagnating tech economy doesn't get some hungry Microsofties the idea that they can grow into the design and publishing businesses with the competitive advantage of integration with the rest of the business world and commodity hardware pricing. The day that Microsoft decides it wants do that, Apple will be a nice memory and nothing more.
This has nothing to do with the quality of OS X, Win2k, Sun, Linux, BSD or anything else. It's pure business position.
Wrong answer. The guy who designed the Amiga (Jay Minor) has been dead for five years. Chuckie Cheese is owned by Nolan Bushnel, the founder of Atari, who was once Jay Minor's boss (Jay also designed the Atari 400/800). Nolan Bushnel left Atari well before Amiga was founded, and he founded Chuckie Cheese with the money that Time Warner paid him for Atari (a disasterous purchase on their part, but Bushnel got his $$$).
The Win2k advocate makes this comment:
Do I want a free e-mail account branded with my computer maker's domain name? No, for the same reason I don't wear clothes that say Gap or Tommy on them. I'm not a walking billboard for other people's products, and I won't use my e-mail messages for viral online marketing either.
Hmmm, then I guess MS has completely missed the boat with WinXP and Hailstorm, because thats exactly where they are going. Hotmail and MSN Messenger for everybody, and let MS be the keeper of your online persona.
Matt: File sharing? Windows has built-in Internet connection sharing that's better than any version of Windows to date. Trust us, Windows can do it all.
What a dumbass! He doesn't even know his own OS. Internet connection sharing has nothing to with file sharing, connection sharing is so you can set up your windows box to be a masquerade box for other machines on your network. Sadly, CNet has just managed to illustrate the level of cluelessness of the average windows user.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Remember the old Netscape vs. IE reviews that they used to do 2-3 years ago... they are back!
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
In other news, thinksecret is reporting that CNET (which owns ZDNet) is closing ZDNet's macintosh coverage section.
So, its a nice OS, we like it, be we won't cover it.
Maybe it was redundant with another CNET news page or maybe they just couldn't compete with the other Mac news sites. I always thought ZDNet was a purely windows organization and never went there for Mac news.
Try Apple.com. I believe the whole site (which has a hell of a lot of dynamic content) runs on MacOS X.
Or do Mac users like being told what hardware to buy?
I think you're missing the forest here: the hardware is 50% of the reason people buy Macs to begin with. Mac hardware is industry leading in many areas. No, not every area.
Apple was the first to build an all-USB machine. As far as I know, it also was the first to have built-in 3.5" drives, ethernet, SCSI, wireless anteneeas, FireWire. It's also pioneering low-energy and fanless operation. And the tower cases are the easiest to open and work with out of anything I've ever used.
Apple's hardware isn't flawless, but it's not like most Mac users are saying "I want Mac OS X, but oh shit I have to buy a G4 to run it." That's part of the whole package. Apple is a systems company. If you don't like it, then go buy a PC running Windows or Linux. Or build your own, and recompile your kernel every 38 days. That's fine. But not everyone wants that.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
MacOSX: we're better because of A, B, and C.
Windows rebuttal: Your OS sucks because of A, B, and C.
Windows: We have D, E, and F.
MacOSX rebuttal: Your OS sucks because of D, E, and F.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Not only does W2K cost more then linux but you need to buy more expensive hardware as well. I get it now.
War is necrophilia.
W2K crashes no matter who uses it. Where I work the workers are constantly crashing it even though they know nothing of other operating systems. The odd thing is that these are Dells with W2K pre-installed on them. Maybe Dell has not sucked ass enough and Bill G. put in some code in there to make then unstable in Dells who knows.
War is necrophilia.
Wow tell the truth and get moderated down as a troll. Surprises never end.
War is necrophilia.
The Tramiels couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag. Atari couldn't even promote their own stuff yet they had the savvy to destroy Amiga? Huh?
Puh-leeze. Microsoft and Apple destroyed both the Amiga and ST blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs.
Yes, the Amiga was vastly superior at the time and should have at least trounced the Mac once and for all. However, everyone here knows that technical merit has very little to do with winning in the marketplace.
What's that 'window manager' thingy, anyway?
Best Slashdot Co
You take what they say out of context and add your own meaning.
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
"Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9"; Win2K professional doesn't have the ease of use setting up an internet connection for a "dumb user".
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options.
Windows has ISS (MAC OSX is unix and can run your favorite httpd/ftp/gopher etc servers) and Apache isn't in the ftpd business so why the jab there? Apple isn't in the server game, they are in the user arena and have provided power users the option of server capabilities with a robust backend at the same time allowing "I just want to get my stuff done" users a nice UI. Which is what everyone knows however you've taken it out of context.
The article was more about usability than not. Even though I don't think it was of much substance you've put a new spin on it and have taking it out of context. That is what is known as a zealot and or troll.
Yes, OS X harbors serious some serious software compatibility shortcomings. But OS X's industrywide standards and Unix core will likely deliver the same variety of Mac apps that Windows now enjoys. In the meantime, OS X has power and compatibility where it really counts.
Unlike mem hog Windows, CNET should have also pointed out the differences in things like security, e.g., how you don't need to keep your life glued to the NTBugtraq mailing lists every time something goes bonkers with Windows.
Another small quirk is the licensing issues revolving around when Windows will make the switch and lease its software. That's going to be a nightmare when it rolls out.
Want Root?
The basic thought trend here is that there is no one universal 'tool'.
Except Emacs, of course ...
Steve
---
At least win2k supports appletalk.. At what level you agree with is up to you. But it supports it. OSX does not..
10-100
Was it just me, or did the Windows guy come off as just a bit nasty and petty?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Apparently you're not aware that Win2K is crippled as a web server platform. First, Win2K professional DOESN'T come with Apache. Even if you install it, you are limited to a fixed number of incoming TCP connections (something in the range of 10) that make it utterly useless as a web server. Unlike Microsoft, Apple is not selling you a crippled OS.
Everyone wins!
---
Can you install OS-X on an box not built by Apple? Are there commerical vendors selling non-apple hardware that runs OS-X?
Someone you trust is one of us.
If you're just loading 1 pc for your personal use, figuring out how to set up an install script is a waste of your time. By the time you're done figuring it out, you could have already installed the OS. I've installed Win2000. It wasn't hard, or complicated for me. However, there's no excuse for me to have to sit there and watch it install. The installer already works with scripts, so why can't the installer ask me all the questions at the beginning. I should be able to insert the CD, answer the questions, and walk away. Win2000 is relatively simple to install compared to many OSs, but there's still room for improvement. OS X has quite an advantage in this area, because Apple controls the hardware design, and there is a much more limited set of hardware that Apple supports. But Microsoft would do well to learn from Apple that they can make installation easier for their customers.
This article should be about Windows XP and OS X, not Win2k and OS X. OS X is a consumer operating system, designed primarily for home users, especially computing Neophytes. Windows 2000 is meant for, and marketed to, working professionals looking for a more stable, and featureful OS than NT4.
;)
Beyond that, it would also be nice to see someone nitpick at XP as Microsoft starts pushing people to use it
install the developer tools that CAME with the OS. then you'll have gcc and make.
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
>Argument for Windows 2000
t ts.html If one studies a user's habits, one often observes that users will click large, labelled buttons far more than the small, unlabelled buttons because on an unconscious level, the user understands that these buttons are faster to access. Compare the large, labelled buttons with big icons that you tend to find in browsers with the tiny, unlabelled icons you find in Microsoft office, and you'll notice that users will tend to use the browser buttons but will avoid using most of the MS Office buttons. The OSX dock has much larger buttons than the system tray, so users will most likely end up using them more and with greater efficiency. Really, one of the biggest weaknesses of the entire windows development world are the small, cryptic toolbar buttons. They are neither fast to access nor useful in graphically explaining most features. Their only purpose is to be mysterious and unusable and intimidate the user by cluttering their environment with even more stuff they won't understand.
>Matt: The year: 1995. The operating system:
>Windows 95. The interface: a taskbar along the
>bottom of the screen, containing a button called
>Start and a series of little buttons
>representing each open program. At the left of
>the bar, a clock and a few little icons for
>launching background programs (the kind of >things Mac folk would probably call plug-ins).
Unfortunately the user is given no choice as whether to have those plug-ins in that corner. Those buttons appear pretty much without rhyme or reason (in other words, at the whim of the developer). The user does not have the option to add stuff to that corner (called the system tray). The icons are almost too small to be discerable. And their smallness presents a drawback I explain in the next paragraph
>If you were unsure about anything on the screen, >you could right-click it, and a menu would
>appear with loads of options, usually including
>a Properties box that explained everything.
If the user will be unsure of what something does, you are supposed to label it. The user should never have right click on something to find out what it does. You don't have to write the entire contents of war and peace in the label, but the label should clearly announce what action the button performs. The icon such as those in the system tray should also be made bigger, because a larger icon will have more detail that will betray the true purpose of the button. OSX doesn't use labels for items in the dock like it should, but at least Apple made the dock icons large enough that the user is able to understand what the icons do. Why make buttons larger by labelling them and giving them big icons? It has to do with something called fitt's law, which states that the time to access a visual target (e.g. a button) is due to the distance to that target and it's size. This link gives a good explanation of the phenommenon. http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFi
>Fast-forward to Windows 2000 and you don't see
>too many changes. Certainly, a few evolutionary
>tweaks have shown up along the way. A toolbar
>appeared next to the Start button that launches >new programs with a single mouse click. Then
>there's bubble help: rest your mouse near an
>item for long enough, and Windows 2000 pops up a
>cartoon bubble explaining what to do (a nice
>feature that, yes, first showed up Mac-side).
>And Windows 2000 sports an adaptive menu feature
>as well, which drops infrequently used items
>from the Start menu to make it easier to launch
> commonly used items.
Many user interface designers have thoroughly bashed Microsoft for the adaptive menu "feature" in office 2000. The same really applies to Windows 2000 as well. The interface should never decide to rearrange itself without the users explicit permission. And just because a user does not often use something does not mean that they won't want to be able to find it when they *do* need it. I don't ordinarily use the fire extinguisher in my kitchen, but that doesn't mean I don't want it in plain sight when I need it.
>Now, some might call this interface dull. In
>fact, it is dull--as dull as having the gas on
>the right and the brake on the left.
Actually, Microsoft tends to do the opposite. They put the break on the right and the gas on the left. I'm referring of course to their ordering of dialog buttons, which puts the affirmative/"go ahead" button (typically "OK) on the left, and then negative/"go back" button on the right. This contrasts with the way that Western culture (as well as the mac) does it. In a car, the left pedal stops the car, the right pedal goes ahead. On an analogue clock, to go back in time, a hand goes to the left; to go ahead, the hand goes to the right. To go back in a book, you go left; when you go ahead in a book, you go right. In web browsers, the arrow button pointing left goes back, and the arrow button point right goes forward. Apple was smart enough to understand this; Microsoft wasn't.
>Not everyone drives a car, of course, and
>likewise, not everyone knows Windows' interface
>(ha!). But at least Windows 2000 is predictable,
>and any enhancements come so naturally that you
> may not even notice that they're there. For an
>operating system, that's a pretty good thing.
Microsoft has shown a complete unwillingness to correct bad interface decisions made in a previous version of their software with improvements made in the next one. Probably because of this "predictability" (not to be confused with consistancy, which *is* a good thing in a UI). How long did it take before microsoft killed the "window-within-window" MDI in Office? Then there's clippy, the talking paperclip. This idea was ill conceived from the start, but it took Microsoft 4 years too long to him. These were ideas that any UI designer 10 years ago would tell you are stupid, but that didn't matter to Microsoft. I've heard microsoft has their own usability people and supposedly there are well funded usability labs, but they are either completely incompetant or the programmers don't take any of their advice or apply any of their data.
As for arguments with CNET's conclusion, Windows 2000 does make far better use of contextual menus, which are UI elements with the fastest access time of all (as they appear right under the user's pointer). Apple should add a second mouse button and improve contextual menu support. However, Windows 2000 has weakness of having pull-down menus attached to each window instead of a menubar at the top of the screen. Menus that are attached to each window are far slower to access than menus on a menubar at the top of the screen because it the user has to spend extra time making sure that the mouse doesn't vertically overshoot the menus attached to the windows. Menus at the top of the screen are impossible to overshoot because they sit right on a border. Such menus are up to five times faster to access than menus attached to windows. Again, this is due to fitts' law.
If CNET took these serious interface factors into account, I seriously doubt Windows 2000 would have won.
Good, but could be better. Win2k is the winner once again with support for practically everything.
Not to be snide, but practically everything in your lexicon must mean the hardware I want it to work on. Win2k doesn't run on anything besides Intel x86 derived chips in approximately desktop configurations. Headless Win2k is a PITA. Scalability is non-existent on the low end (Win2k in a TiVo?), and crippled on the high end by lack of hardware support.
But for an office server, sure, it supports the full range of consumer desktop computing hardware pretty well. Big deal.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
What kind of OSX are you running at home? I've been running it on my PowerBook G3 (FireWire), and it's cool. I agree that the lack of DVD movie support is annoying, but other than that, it works great!
Classic Mode slow? Are you kidding? Once it loads up (takes about 1-2 minutes the first time you do it), Classic apps generally run as fast as under native Mac OS 9. In fact, for some apps that aren't optimized (like IE 5.x Preview), the older Classic app is much faster. I consistantly run Classic apps (Netscape, MS Office, Outlook Express, etc.), and the performance is just fine.
Software? There's plenty. First, I haven't seen any Mac OS 9 software that won't run in Classic. But if you're interested in Mac OS X-native software, here's what I'm running:
* Apple Mail/Address Book -- cool mail tool
* OmniWeb -- beautiful web browser
* OmniGraffle -- awesome simple vector graphics program
* Macromedia FreeHand -- awesome complicated graphics program
* Preview and Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 -- pdf readers
* FileMaker Pro 5.5 -- cool database package
* BBEdit -- text editor that doesn't suck
* Plus tons of utilities.
I'm not saying that everything's out there, but considering Mac OS X is less than 3 months old, I'd say the software choices better than what one would expect. If you're really impatient, take a nap until after the Worldwide Developers' Conference next month. After that, they'll be plenty of software to go around.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Yeah, I definitely agree with you on the Apple menu thing. I do like the dock, but I wish there was a customizable apple menu for options I use a little less often.
:-)
The file type/creator associations are something that I haven't tried to deal with, but you're right that there should be some way of manually altering them, although I really hope they make it easier than it is in windows.
The only complaint I had other than the Apple menu is that the whole GUI feels kinda big (not hd size-wise, which is what I think you meant) but that all the icons take up too much space. Once I shrank the dock down, this feeling shrank with it, but it still feels kinda inefficient with screen real-estate, especially when working on an iMac.
As for the other stuff, it's probably because I use the console way too much for my own good
I hope apple does address all those issues you mentioned though (particularly the apple menu one)because an OS like the Mac should be able to balance more customization with ease of use. I think right now that they're still just trying to work out the kinks in the system, and hopefully they'll add obvious things like file type/creator stuff (and groups without netinfo manager) that really do need to be there. We can hope though!
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I don't understand why you think the OS9 GUI is so much better. I was a rabid mac fan (i.e. I got tired of waiting for Copland, then Be, then OSX and jumped ship to Linux) but now that I've gotten a chance to explore the OSX interface I'm really pleased with it. Sure, it's not exactly the same as the old one, but change isn't necessarily bad.
:-). But it's still true to the overall spirit of the mac, which is fun, ease of use, and simple cool factor. I can't really say that any other OS out there has that feeling, and OSX is carrying that core of the Mac in to the future.
A ton of old Mac users feel betrayed or something because Apple threw out a decade+ worth of interface, when in fact a lot of the original good ideas are still there. The menu bar at the top of the screen. The trash can. Drag and drop (works better than it ever did for me in OS9 and before). The control panels. These are the major innovations that still distinguish the mac over windows (well, maybe not the trash can and control panels still) and they're still present.
Well what's actually different besides the looks? Button placement (still getting used to that one). No control strip. File system heirarchy. And the dock. Oh, and the apple menu is diminished (which I don't like either). Overall, these are minor concessions. The control strip will be replaced with dock apps. The file system is a result of unix, and it's a sacrifice that had to be made.
But overall, OSX feels comfy to me. It doesn't quite feel like a mac anymore, but that's because my conception of the mac carries a lot of baggage about performance and bland looks left over from my system 7 days
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
So we all know that the only reason MS ports Office to MacOS is to keep alive a toy competitor on the desktop.
And, given the UNIX flavor of OSX, does this mean that MS is prepared to code Office to a UNIX-like API?
And, if so, then, making some albeit big leaps of speculation concerning the outcome of The Antitrust Trial about splitting the behemoth into baby Bills like Office and OS, does this not open up the possibility of Office running on not just OSX, but Linux, FreeBSD, etc.?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
For me, the killer app is Apache, PostgreSQL 7.1.2, and PHP. They all run quite well on my G4-Cube running OS-X.
Blah blah blah, run Linux, blah, blah, blah... No.
I use this device to develop software for web deployment on our BSD servers. I also access NT shares (Sharity), use a GREAT HTML/PHP/Text editor (BBEdit), have a wonderful web browser (Omniweb). As a bonus, I have great compatibility because of MS Office and IE. IE Specific pages run fine on the Mac.
Apple has a win because:
A) Aqua is gorgeous
B) MANY software systems
C) Mac hardware rocks
Apple's hardware seems reliable and it is supported. I have always built my PCs, but the aggravation finally hit me. If I get another PC it will be a Compaq professional desktop. I'd pay a bit for less aggravation.
Apple's hardware all works for MacOS X. Their hardware is also gorgeous. the Tibook is wonderful, but a bit big. The iBook is impressive as well.
OS X has some killer apps. The old killer Apps are Photoshop, etc. iTunes is SLICK as whale shit. It supports Unix applications for those that need them.
Sharity is a decent app, just a little weird. v2.4 and v2.5b2 both have different sets of quirks, but it is getting there.
Xtools is good.
BBEdit is nice.
Apple has LOTS of great applications for professionals in the $50-$200 space, which is great.
Alex
And how it looks. I bought a titanium powerbook just because it looks good. And Mac OS X looks damned spiffy as well. This is my first Mac and (assuming it ships ;) probably not my first. I'm well aware that I could have paid less and gotten a similarly equipped machine. But dammit, I couldn't have gotten a setup that /looked/ as good, and that's what I wanted.
Finding software for the MAC is a pain in the ass.
Mac OS X has four application subsystems: Classic, Carbon, Cocoa, and POSIX + X11. Programs that run in POSIX + XonX see the Mac as a mixed FreeBSD/NetBSD box running an X11 server. You can find almost any POSIX + X11 app you need at OSDN Freshmeat.
Not only that but a regular desktop user isn't going to be needing apache so there is no point in turning it on
How else are you supposed to share files? Email is out because your ISP says the files are too large to fit in attachments. NFS, SMB, etc. are out because they're platform specific and don't work across dial-up. That's why I run Apache on my Linux box and WinApache on my Windows ME box, so that I can send files to users on other IM services.
And yes if a newbie wants his own webserver and wants to use Apache he or she must learn it just like any other software program.
Except "any other software program" the user is likely to encounter on a Macintosh computer has GUI configuration.
Will I retire or break 10K?
for some of the apps on freshmeat you'd need to hack up some of the code.
And there is probably some darwin advocate who has probably done it for many of the popular apps. It'd be a straightforward task for a developer with BSD experience, less work on packages that already work on FreeBSD and NetBSD, more work for packages that use Linuxisms.
All you have to do is find an ftp server for windows
Easier said than done. I couldn't get anything out of Freshmeat's list of FTP servers or a Google search for open-source windows FTP server, while open-source windows HTTP server turned up Apache as the second result. Not only that, but HTTP has a lower connection setup and teardown cost than FTP.
If you think you can write a GUI configuration program for Apache without making it restrictive; then go ahead.
The default settings handle most basic cases of running Apache on a personal workstation, giving you about the same features as the IM clients' built-in file servers have, with the most commonly changed option (at least on the WinApache installations I've done) being which domain name to return to HTTP/1.0 clients.
Will I retire or break 10K?
And Squeak, of course. Some days, I just have emacs or Squeak go full screen, and I never leave it... Email, coding, irc, you name it.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
heheh! Wish I had mod points today... HILLARIOUS.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Why? For the same reason, many of my friends on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux do: to share files in a cross-platform manner. Throw a bunch your mp3s in a directory, and turn on Apache. I knew quite a few people who did this in the dorms where I lived last year. It beats figuring out that I can't get a file from my friend because he's running Windows (barring getting, compiling, installing, and configuring SAMBA), or vice versa.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
That's a lot more work than just throwing my mp3s in my shared directory. There are a lot of things I could do, but they're all more work than making a link from /Users/rev/Music to /Users/rev/Shared/Music and clicking the "Start Apache" button.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I wouldn't say it failed miserably. Specific products, like NeXTSTEP, OpenStep and NeXT's hardware didn't survive, no. But the ideas behind them, the vision, if you will, is thriving in Mac OS X. It's shipping now, installed on new Macs and ones users have already purchased. Get over it.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Frankly, I don't think they do either. But I don't think they're trying to. You're displaying typical American capitalist thought- all of the market or none of it. That's not the way the market is, or has to be. Apple isn't trying to be Microsoft.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Steve has a monsterous ego. But frankly, it's getting old to hear Mac users whine about how Mac OS X's GUI is the "NeXT way" or just like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep, abandoning classic Mac OS' way of doing things.
It's not all that much like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. Then again, it's not all that much like Mac OS, either. There are elements of both in there, and it is very much so the bastard child. I liked the NeXT GUI a lot more than Mac OS X's. I could ramble on and on, but let me tell you, as a user of NeXTSTEP (still got 3.3 on my cube), OpenStep, and Rhapsody Mac OS X isn't all that much like the NeXT GUI. Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server were.
By any measure, the OS9 interface is better.
By any measure, the NeXTSTEP interface is better than OS 9 or Mac OS X. As a Mac user, I'm sure you know that feeling of having to use Windows- the feeling that you're being held back by it's GUI. That is what a user of NeXTSTEP feels when he has to use Mac OS, X+whatever window manager, or Windows.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
According to NetCraft that server is running WebSTAR on Mac OS, which only runs on classic Mac OS, I believe. It's Apple hardware, yes, but not Mac OS X, the OS in question. :) But bringing that link up, it's interesting to know that Roland's Keyboard shop is also running WebSTAR on Mac OS... a shopping site, a dynamic site.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
...and? In classic Mac OS, you install drivers by copying an extension to harddrive:System Folder:Extensions. :)
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I'll have to agree with you on 4. Takes a while to boot, but after that, it's just about as fast as running the apps under real Mac OS 9.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Heh. And Mac OS (classic/X) supports "everything it was designed to operate with" too.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Heh. I present to you the new definition of "user friendly:" it's only friendly if RMS says so! Just like the new definition of "free:" it's only free if RMS says so! Yeah!
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
You'll also want to make a symbolic link from 'cc' to 'gcc' and probably 'c++' to 'g++' or whatever else you feel like. GCC is called 'cc,' not 'gcc.' But then again, if someone competant wrote the makefile, it's all good... otherwise, you might have to change "CC=gcc" to "CC=cc" or something along those lines.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Then install an X window package. A nice, free, rootless one is here. Generally, Joe Average User doesn't want or need X11 apps and the requisite X11 server. I'm starting to believe that Joe Average Whiney-Slashdot-Reader has a much harder time working through this than the rest of the world...
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Even my Mac-rabid gf will admit that NeXT's UI was more elegant than Apple's. Also, stop by comp.sys.next.* for more zealous personal preferences... Is there any (free) way to run NeXTSTEP on Intel hardware?
Not free and legally. NeXTSTEP 3.x and OpenStep 4.x run on x86 hardware. You can run in to it on eBay, but it'd probably be easier for someone to give you a copy. I doubt Apple will hunt you down. I recieved OpenStep 4.2 (for all architectures), OpenStep Developer, EOF, and OpenStep for Windows for simply owning a cube as part of Apple's Y2k fulfillment program.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
But with Mac OS X having all the tools I need, it is just a waste of my time to be screwing around trying to get Windows itself (let alone the apps) working, or configuring things under Linux. I ran Linux, exclusively, for 3 years, and one of the reasons I switched to a Mac was that the "cool" factor had worn off, and I just needed to get stuff done...
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I've been using Mac OS X since... NeXTSTEP 3.3. The eye candy that showed up in Mac OS X DP3 and has stuck with us doesn't distract the user, in my experience. It doesn't get in the way, and is aware when it should tone itself down. E.g., when I'm running an expensive job (CPU intensive for you kiddies who don't know what that means), and CPU is maxed at 100%, invoking some action that is filled with eye candy, like minimizing a window, the window just pops into the dock, rather than smoothly sucking into the dock, which is what it does when it has CPU time to afford that.
So, no, you're not correct. :)
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Who cares what your Athlon box costs? You still have to put up with the same old PC rubbish. Sure, it runs games hella faster than my G4/400, but that's irrelevant to me, because I use my computer primarily for work, not games. But that's fine if you play a lot of games. That's what you use it for. For me, I just want to get stuff done, and it's not worth my time to have to putz with Linux and/or (I pray not) Windows.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Round 1: Installation
OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than
Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking
this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could
spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed
more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.
OSX still wins here, but its racing on its own track.
Round 2: Interface
OSX takes the lead for now in the cool GUI department, but those who
accuse MS of stealing ideas from Aqua are overlooking a key point in
the embrace and extend philosophy. Like Win95, 98, and ME before it;
Windows XP will not only adopt new interface ideas, but those ideas
will actually be tested for usuability and integration with existing
user practices.
Apple seems to design on "Make it look cool, and they will come"
MS seems to design on "Make it look cool, and work with the stuff that
didn't look as cool in the last rev, and they will upgrade"
Round 3: Software compatibility
Windows 2000 is the better example of what both companies needed to do
to insure future growth and legacy compatiblity. It wins the match, but
the real winner overall is GNU/ the Open Source Movement.
I'm not saying that to be a Slashdot shill, because it is not the "free"
aspect I'm looking at. It's that OSS is for the most part designed with
portability in mind that it has held to the best ideas for software compatibility,
despite the forks in the roads of OSS history.
Round 4: Hardware compatibility
Same point as in Round 1, OSX deals with its hardware better, but it
has a much more limited range of configurations that it has to deal with.
Round 5: Internet support
OSX is more compatible with the existing Internet infrastucture; because
it is based on much of the same ideas/technology.
Microsoft's flaws were in targeting Windows 2000 more for the Intranet and
plain vanilla business use, than for the space beyond the corporate proxy.
Another OS should have been considered in this 'death match': Linux-Mandrake.
Installation:
Although I have not had a chance yet to play with OS X, I just finished setting up my system to dual boot Windows 2000 Professional and Mandrake 8.0. The Mandrake installation was by far the easiest and fastest installation I have ever performed. If you take the recommended install, you click yes a few times, set a root password, and 15 minutes later you have a working system with a boatload more programs and possibilities than Win2K. It just blows me away how fast an easy the install was. Win2K took over an hour on my 400Mhz system and was generally more difficult. I like Mandrake's built-in and easy to use partition utility too.
Advantage: Mandrake
Interface:
With 8.0, Mandrake now has a fully graphical startup. From LILO right into KDE, the scared newbie doesn't have to sit through a scrolling list of cryptic startup messages. Yet pertinent startup info is still displayed on the screen in a manner that should satisfy a pro while not scarting the newbie. Contrast this to Win2K, which first gives you a text-only boot loader (if you dual boot), then a little text startup meter thingy, then when it finally gets to the graphical part of the boot up, there are no status messages displayed anywhere by default to let you know what's going on. Once loaded up, there are quirks in KDE and Gnome that you don't have to deal with in Windows, but there is so much more that I can customize. I forsee KDE and Gnome working out their bugs and quirks, I do not see MS giving us more control over the GUI.
Advantage: Mandrake
Software compatibility:
Maybe Windows and OS X win out here, due to MSOffice and the like, but there really is very little one cannot do on a default install of Mandrake that you could do on one of those others, at lower cost and greater freedom. In the way of development, internet and mail services, you get a whole lot more with Mandrake.
Advantage:Tie (Office apps are a big deal here)
Hardware compatibility:
I have fairly standard hardware, nothing exotic or over the top. Mandrake correctly identified and configured ALL of my hardware. No exceptions. I was thrilled at this. The last Mandrake I installed, 7.1, had all manner of problems in this area (and others). Windows 2000 did not recognize my network card at all, and did not correctly identify my video card, my soundcard, my modem, or my printer.
Advantage: Mandrake
Internet Support
So-called 'wizards' in OS X and Win2K may make some things easier, but you can still do so much more, right out of the box with Mandrake. And the addition of prominent web-based help icons right on the desktop (Mandrake Campus and Mandrake Expert) are a big bonus. There is no need to rely on old, pre-installed help files. When you need up to date help, you can look there. Other networking features of Mandrake were detected and setup automagically during the intall, so there was no need to even configure a Wizard. First time in KDE, I click the Konqueror icon, and I'm on the internet. Contrast that to Windows, where EVERY user must fill out internet connection wizards the first time they venture online. And, as a linux distribution, Mandrake is closely integrated to the internet in many other ways.
Advantage: Mandrake
In my opinion, this latest Mandrake is so very close to being able to be a realistic third choice when the average Joe Computer User buys their next desktop machine. Office apps, games, and a few tweaks here and there, and the choice will be easy. The Freedom that comes with Linux (my reason for trying it out in the first place) makes it that much easier.
Too bad those C|Net folks didn't make it a three-way race with Mandrake in there. That would have been more interesting than that useless fluff piece.
Damn, I was about to go out and but a Mac, but I've never thawed a hot dog and I don't fancy learning now
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
This article also links to a "Flyweights" competition between Mac OS9 and Corel Linux! Whatever you may feel about Distros, most Linux users feel this is the most flawed mainstream Distro. C|Net Justifies the comparison between these two by saying they both have a 4% market share, so we should compare them. Winner:OS9. Why? Because MS doesn't support Linux.
So in this article C|Net pits OSX against an OS that arguably has a 66% potential market share. WTF? And the contest goes to OSX at the end. Why? Not for any reason consistent with the Linux vs. OS9. That article tells me MS has to support an OS to be worth my while. Here's a contest with an MS OS and they give it to the other guy because - Why? - It has a "unix core"!!!!
In my view the biggest loser in this contest is C|Net.
There's plenty to criticise in the Mac but "the generally obscure places Apple had chosen to hide things" isn't one of them. The Mac OS is a lot easier to grok than Windows. On the Mac, there are no spyware apps hiding out with strangely-named registry keys... There's a system folder, and in it are folders for fonts, OS extensions, etc. If you want to turn off a system feature, there's a control panel to let you do that.
When was the last time you tried to disable a Windows box's PC Health Monitoring? MS is the one that hides things from you, not Apple.
hey, to each his own. Glad you like Aqua. I hope I am in the minority, because I would like to see Apple do well.
But here are the things I don't like about it. I am not trying to get into a point-by-point rebuttal match, these are just my pet peeves.
- No customizable Apple menu.
- If you put a folder alias in the Dock, the alias doesn't resolve, so no hierarchial menus from aliases in the Dock... so you can't fake your own Apple menu.
- Difficult to change file type/creator associations. (Even Windows gives you a GUI interface for changing what opens a
- The OS locks you out of doing a lot of things, even with the admin password. (Using the GUI, try to throw out the documentation that's installed with the developer tools. YOU CAN'T. You have to use rootly power and rm -rf it. There are a lot of other useless files that are "protected" like this.)
- The admin user doesn't have the ability to mess with the other user's files. If I am logged in as admin I can't trash files I left on the desktop under another login. On OS9, the Multiple Users machine owner can do that stuff. Under OSX I have to use the console or log out/in to use the GUI.
- Aqua is not as space-efficient as OS9. Windows seem huge, with lots of wasted space on the screen.
- Get Info on a HD icon on the desktop. It doesn't tell you how big it is or how much free space is left. You have to Get Info on a HD icon in a Finder window to learn that.
- There's nothing akin to the Extensions Manager anymore. (I know that there won't be Extensions and Control Panels as we knew them, but I still think that an EM-like control panel would be nice for toggling some system features on and off.)
In the end, I guess I should just say that I am looking forward to the day when I genuinely like OSX. Until then, I will have to amuse myself with its command-line tools, and continue to work in OS9 where I feel more at home.
It's not all that much like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. Then again, it's not all that much like Mac OS, either. There are elements of both in there, and it is very much so the bastard child. I liked the NeXT GUI a lot more than Mac OS X's. I could ramble on and on, but let me tell you, as a user of NeXTSTEP (still got 3.3 on my cube), OpenStep, and Rhapsody Mac OS X isn't all that much like the NeXT GUI. Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server were.
Fair enough, I only dabbled with NeXTs back in the day.
As a Mac user, I'm sure you know that feeling of having to use Windows- the feeling that you're being held back by it's GUI.
Sadly I feel more at home in Windows than MacOSX these days.
That is what a user of NeXTSTEP feels when he has to use Mac OS, X+whatever window manager, or Windows.
I have heard NeXT people say a lot of things, but I have never heard someone who liked the interface that much.
Is there any (free) way to run NeXTSTEP on Intel hardware?
Preface: I am a Mac fan too. I've had one since the very beginning, though now I have a lot of other kinds of computers too.
That said...
Apple isn't innovating so much as dusting off its old NeXT technology.
I am very happy with the technical foundation of OSX. It rules. BSD stuff in my Mac! But I hate the new GUI. Apple -- no, STEVE -- threw out a decade of GUI evolution so that he could force his pet project onto us, that being the NeXT way of doing things. NeXT was his baby, and he can't let it go. Steve has an incredibly large ego.
Aqua isn't revolutionary. It's retarded. It may look good when you compare it to the GUIs that you can get for the free Unixes, but if Apple REALLY wanted to make its CURRENT users happy, they would have given OSX a MacOS 9 style GUI.
By any measure, the OS9 interface is better. The could have added new features to support the new OS's foundation, but instead they built up a new monstrosity which has, for me, about 10% of the usability of OS9. I suspect that Aqua will be useable a year from now, but only for the people who want to spend $100 on shareware GUI tweaks that Apple/Steve are too pig-headed to build in for us.
Just another Mac guy's opinion...
...would be "Psycho" Steve Jobbs vs. "Battlin'" Bill Gates in a last-man-standing no-holds-barred steel cage match. I'd pay to see that one on pay per view...
-----
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
If they had said Win 2000, they would have been biased, according to some. and If they said Mac OSX, they are biased, according to others.
Of course, you realize that the only correct answer of this question, of W2k vs OSx is Linux. [runs and ducks to avoid getting hit by airborne vegetables]
(spelling error corrected)(apologies to the vegans)
I note that in the Slash moderation system, the author of the article can have unlimited moderation ability as far as comments to their story
We have a discussion about a shoot out between two Senior operating systems. And where there is obvious motivation on both sides to claim that the other is biased.
Obviously the author feels that discussion of other alternatives as a possible third choice is off topic, even if offered in a manner intended to be tongue in cheek.
Sometimes folks are just a bit too serious.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Linux is good for those who value their freedom (speech and beer)
Your comment is tongue and cheek, I know, but just to be clear: Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it. There are other kinds of freedom, and I doubt you can make platform-dependent generalizations for these.
Back to the article: Of course such comparisons are meaningless, but I found it interesting that they gave the Interface comparison to Windows (by a nose). Their argument was essentially 'we know the Windows interface, it remains unchanged, therefore it's better'. By this logic, OS X will only win when it becomes more familiar (read: Windows-like). Weird.
Forgive this flamy title but I just couldn't help as I read to many things in this article that I consider offending to my Geek minority.
:-(
Mac OS X combines the best of Mac OS,
Unix, and entirely new ideas to present the
most versatile, usable interface ever.
I don't like superlatives, especially in an article that lacks arguments to justify them.
It even borrows a few coveted Windows
features (such as menu windows that stay open
when you click them), but not many.
Has this guy ever used RiscOS?
Most of the features he describes, including this one, that are supposed to be new to GUIs were already in RiscOS (maybe even in Arthur, RiscOS ancestor).
But at least Acorn guys were honest and didn't claim they invented these, they admitted they studied them at the Xerox'PARC. Steve Jobs is also known for his numerous visits there, during the early days of the LISA
So please, dear journalists colleagues: Don't consider that the computing era started only when GUI appeared, or you might soon have bad surprises...
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
That said, they need to do it again when Windows XP arrives (and Mac OS X has a few more *nix software offerings available). There will be enough improvements in the interface and usability that the results should be significantly different.
I'm for a comparison but this is out of line. They say that the Mac's install is easier, and it is. But when the Mac only has to detect and recognize standard Mac components, of course its going to trounce Win2k which is meant to run on loads of more hardware. And I know some are saying wait till it gets ported over because of Darwin. Well when it gets ported and it still installs as easily as the Mac version let me know.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
Round 1: Installation
Very much distro dependant, but whatever the case not as point and click simple as Win2k/OSX.
Round 2: Interface
Window manager dependant this time, some love it, others loathe it. Not as consistant as Win2k or OSX.
Round 3: Software Compatibility
Pretty good for server tools and programming, but not so hot for the desktop user. Win2k wins for gaming by a very long way, and just pips OSX in the Office stakes.
Round 4: Hardware Compatibility
Good, but could be better. Win2k is the winner once again with support for practically everything.
Round 5: Internet Support
Fantastic for server tools, wins easily on pretty much everything. Win2k is slightly if you're in a MS environment.
IMHO Linux is playing catchup, and will be for a while in the desktop arena. *nix on the server, Windows on the desktop... a winning combination.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
Added to this, the fact that it had preemptive multitasking back when it was first built, and an architecture that forced developers to write stable code, it seems clear that if it wasn't for Atari's marketing, this would be the main competitor to the Wintel PC
I'm sick of the pointless pissing contests that go on day in and day out in this forum where ignorant (l)users argue incessantly about why their OS of choice is superior to all others. Why can't you just choose the one that works best for YOU and accept that what is best for you may not be best for all other users. MacOS is good for Desktop Publishing and Graphic design. Linux is good for those who value their freedom (speech and beer), and Win2k is good for compatibility and for it's ease of use. x-BSD...Well, I've never used it, but I'm sure it's good for something. The point is, find something that works for you and accept that your solution might not work for everyone.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
From the article:
What's more, the OS X installer automatically finds your hardware and recognizes it. No driver problems (what's a driver?), no hardware conflicts, nada. Don't be fooled by its fancy core; just as it did in previous Mac OS incarnations, Apple designed OS X for your Mac hardware. OS X is even better than OS 9 at recognizing hardware, and it even configures USB printers--no "plug and pray" here.
Well I know I've lost some hardware. I have a beige G3 and I no longer have the built-in SCSI port. My CD burner doesn't work either and it did work in 9.1. So I can't say I have had no hardware problems.
I like the "plug and pray" shot though.
Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
Next you're probably going to tell me that the whole thing is quasi-journalism designed to execute $hitcount++.
You should be more careful, CNET. I believe everyting I'm told.
Is that really fair? If youre a MS Windows user, every interface is going to be confusing and have a steep learning curve! If people would judge interfaces on their usability rather than on a comparison to windows, we'd have much better interfaces.
I was glad to see OSX on top, of course, but what OSX really needs is a "killer app" that makes people want a mac.
First, OS 9 does support AppleTalk over TCP/IP, which is how OS X mounts OS 9 drivers.
My experimentation suggests OS X uses a modified NFS as default for connecting to other OS X machines.
Burn Hollywood Burn
--No password for root "
Maybe my English is a little rusty, but "No password for root" usually means there is NO PASSWORD for root.
Then I say, you can turn on root in netinfo, to which you replay
"Not true. But you can run sudo."
But now you say
"But I did know how to turn on root. I used sudo. No one should have to turn on root, that's the point."
1. How can you know how to "turn on root", if there is no "password for root"?
2. You did NOT know how to "turn on root" since you denied that you can do it in Netinfo.
3. If "No one should have to turn on root, that's the point.", why would you a. Why would you bitch, incorrectly at that, about "no password for root"?
It sounds like you are back peddling.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Then your computer is broken and you should reinstall OS X. Since, on every install of OS X i've seen, Netinfo allows one to turn on root.
There is a password for root out of the box, its the first password for the first admin account you create. End of story. If you say otherwise, you need to reinstall OS X since it was obviously installed incorrectly.
Burn Hollywood Burn
OS X, by default, supports NFS, AppleTalk, and with sharity (which is free for educational people) NetBUI. I have an iMac next to me what has NFS mounts from several SGI's in this room, mounts of NT drives upstairs, and an OS 9 drive of a computer behind me.
Burn Hollywood Burn
disclaimer: I didn't post this in Ars. XWRed did. greetz to all the other Ars lurkers!
Symmetric multitasking means all OS X apps can take advantage of two processors in a dual-processor Mac to
That just made me laugh. Reading reviews like this almost make me sick, there's so much misinformation and obfuscation. I'm sure the BF could collectively come up with something *FAR* more comprehensive. Heck, I probably could if I played both sides.
In this category, Windows 2000 is simply overmatched. When it comes to Internet-ready operating systems, Apple stepped ahead way back at OS 9
This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with. Well, Microsoft doesn't supply free WebDav space, but I doubt the OS can be faulted for that.
OS X delivers the killing blow with its integration of Apache
Thats the big FUD. Sure, Apple biggybacks on the work of others and includes that stuff. But its by no means integration. Its just a checkbox for on or off, I see no frontend for configuring all of the httpd or ftpd options. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Windows zealot by any means, its just that I can't stand journalism like this. Both of the guys barely know what they're talking about, the Mac guy obfuscates everything, and the Windows guy can barely defend Win2k.
Oh, and I hate it when arguments hinge on simplicity. It seems like none of these journalists are real men anymore, they all want their hands to be held while they're computing because their pussies hurt too much.
BOSTON SUCKS!
I'd love to see a comparison of the two as servers It's pretty rare that you see a Apple serving anything (especially dynamic websites).
Why should I really care. Neither can run on the others platform, and honestly I will never ever own a MAC. Now CNET picked it over W2000, but W2000 is not the consumer version, and OSX is still marketed as such. Regardless, even if W2000 had won, would that be basis for someone to run out and buy it and ditch their mac?
Even if it did better, why would I want to ditch my hardware and then attempt to find products similar to the operating system I do have?
While these types of comparisons may have value to geeks, for the most part they only serve to flood message boards with "My OS is better than your OS" crap.
Okay, maybe one benefit, maybe the loser of a category may see it as reason to change, then again maybe they don't care either.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Uhhh... That's nothing like the 68k emluation layer that Apple bungled so badly in MacOS 7.x is it?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Dear CNet,
CNET's decision: Mac OS X
What do you mean by that?
I thought we are always friends. I know you've taken efforts to make us win on "Interfaces" part.
But I'm not satisfied. You know that.
Can't you be more unethical?
You can kiss my future first-hand Microsoft news goodbye, sucker.
Yours master,
Bill G.
Yes, Mac OS only runs on Apple hardware, but "non-standard" and "costs twice as much" are better suited to describe Apple's offerings from 3-4 years ago. With PCI/AGP, ATA, USB, Firewire, PC133, you can do a lot of inexpensive upgrading to a G4, even if the add-ons you buy don't have the smily "Mac" logo on the box. And as for the cost of the computers themselves: I dare you to find a better price/performance value for a laptop than the new iBook. Apple is so far ahead of everyone else with the iBook and Powerbook G4 it's mind-boggling. And compare the prices of high-end G4s with high-end Dells: the price gap for similarly configured systems is not as great as you'd think -- only around $500-600 (The Dell would have a 1.7GHz P4 and the Mac would have a 733MHz G4, to bring up another thread that's been beaten to death). A BYO PC would cost less, but Apple hardware is competing against Dell hardware.
Guns don't kill people - bullets do!
Whose? Whatever, so much for a reply....
It's an interesting report and better written then most of the stuff [..].
Like, when exactly?
While we are on the topic of spelling disorders, is anyone else annoyed by the bug in the slashcode that I do encounter more and more often recently which will reload my previewed comment with a page of - as it seems - utterly non-related comments, and make what I have just written unretrievable (unless I remembered before hitting preview and copied my text to the clipboard)?
I'm using Netscape 6.01 ATM, but it does look like a server-side issue.
And yes, I got more than enough karma, so mod me down to OT, go ahead...
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Why are they testing a desktop OS with a workstation OS?
And why test Win2K when they can get WinXP's betas, which are more comparable with the OSX?
If they wanted to do a real testing, they should've gone and tested WinME (bad idea) or WinXP.
WinXP allows you to setup a network connection during setup too. (It's kinda of sad that XP need it for the activation.)
I was very surprised to see that Win2k won on the *interface* match.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Wrong, what you are talking about is a *power* user, which is something between an admin & a user, which is still limited.
A user can't do anything to the system, by default, he only has read access to WinNT & Program Files directories, as well as to HKLM, which mean that nothing will install for him.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
most importantly hardware support
Really? Then perhaps you could tell how to make the damn thing work with a USR Sportster WinModem? I upgraded my sister's PC to Win98 last week, so she can get USB support, and now every time we re-start, the stupid thing forgets about the modem and we have to re-install the drivers.
Hardware support my shiny metal ass! It's a U.S. Robotics Winmodem, fur crissakes!
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
I was very suprised at the results of the 'death match.' Well, not suprised at the result so much as who came up with the results. As an avid (read 'rabid') mac fan, I can only hope that articles like this one can demonstrate once and for all to people that Apple no longer produces the 'etch-a sketch' computer they once did. If I hear one more microsoft representitve say the word innovation one more time I'm going to hurl. The only company out there actually innovating these days is Apple.
'Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.'-Ford Prefect
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." Pablo Picasso.
which of course is total crap. I just put os x on my girlfriend's computer yesterday, and after installing it, the link light on a switch was dead for the mac (keep in mind that this is with the built in mac hardware). Now I'm going to have to figure out a way to h4x0r that piece of shit. Of course all the documentation is online.
Fuck you apple.
--
This comparison is not fair at all. IMHO, from an end user point of view Win2K doesn't even come CLOSE to the Win98 Second Edition in ease of installation, stability and most importantly hardware support.
Therefor, if this 'contest' should be of any significance, CNET should put Win98 in the ring instead of Win2K
$.02
sdijkstra
__
Not believing in force is like not believing in gravity.