X vs. XP.com Site Launched

Dan Pouliot writes "I've been compiling a shootout of X vs. XP for some time, but I've finally given it it's own domain xvsxp.com. Sure, I prefer Macs, but I've tried to have this site be as objective (and thorough) a shootout as possible."

Comments

Pricing Perspective:

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be re-organized more fairly to compare offerings. The "Full" (as opposed to upgrade) figure should be emphasized in larger text, and Microsoft's Full pricing should precede its Upgrade pricing, since that's what compares with Apple's offering. "Family 5 pack" should be renamed "Five Licenses", and there should be a figure that shows how expensive it is to buy a box and 4 additional licenses from Microsoft. If Microsoft does not sell just licenses, then the price / box should be multiplied by 5.

OS X starts seeming much more cost-effective.

Cat got my balls

[orangesquid]

Damn... I thought this was X(11) vs. XP, not (OS)X vs. XP.

I wanna see a good X vs. X vs. XP shootout. Everybody always talks about the right tool for the job; I want to see a good analysis and adaptable scoring system that shows which is really the best for which jobs.

But, for this particular thing, my vote's for (OS)X.

We've got a long way to go!

[jgardn]

I read through most of the site, and I found it pretty balanced and objective.

When you compare Linux to Windows XP, it seems that we are not too far from having all the features we need to be wildly successful.

But when you compare Linux to OS X, it is obvious that we are so far from the goal. Even Windows XP looks like a joke compared to the things that OS X does.

I'm glad he put together all the little tidbits of the user interface and user experience. I think the Gnome and KDE developers are paying a lot of attention as well.

Organisation, Issues

[MBCook]

Overall, this site is quite nice. It does seem rather objective to me. My biggest peeve about this site is that it needs "next" and "previous" links at the bottom of each page.

As for actual content, there are a few things that I disagree with. This person said that they are a Mac fan, so I'm not too suprised at these things. Here is what I see wrong/disagree with:

• Numlock/number pad - This is listed in the last section as something odd. He complains that you can only use the number keys when numlock is on. His site shows that this was explained to him, but I don't think he quite "gets" it. First of all, you can have the computer start up with numlock on (I do). That said, this is a hardware issue that he's juding on, which he doesn't seem to see it that way. It's tradition (like where the capslock key is, or that there even IS a scroll lock key).
• He talks about that, but doesn't chide the Mac for having a one button mouse. This is also a hardware issue, but it's rediculous. I have a friend who has used Macs for nearly 20 years and JUST GOT A PC RECENTLY. They didn't know what the 2nd button was for, and it took me a little time to get them to get the idea. But once they got it, they LOVED it. It's SO much more convinent than holding option and clicking. That is there to cover up for the lack of a second button. Everyone I know who uses Macs alot (real computer people, not just people who only use AOL or something like that) have bought 2+ button mice for their Macs, because they are simply superior in usuability.
• Windows is chided for having a menubar for every application. I think this is a good thing. I find it convinent. When using OS X if I want to access a menu in a application that isn't in focus, I have to switch to that application by clicking on a window it owns, then using the menu bar. In Windows, I can just click IMMEDIATLY on the mendu that I want. That article a while ago that talked about "cruft" explained why Mac did things that way. The windows way is superior (IMHO), but he doens't agree with me. Fine. The option-click thing above is also cruft.
• Application vs Window. I don't remember if this was mentioned, but this has always annoyed me about Macs. In windows, if I close Word or some other program by clicking on the "close" button on the top right of the window, it closes. On a Mac, the window closes but the application stays open. This wouldn't be a problem for notepad or somesuch, but for large programs like Word, Photoshop, and other things, this can eat ALOT of memeory. This too, is cruft.

Do I have a preference? I've always liked Macs, but I use PCs because they cost less (I can build a PC for much cheaper than the lowest-end-mac costs). From Win95 on, the IBM/PC has had a superior OS over OS 7/8/9. OS X changes things. It's a great OS. Would I rather have OS X or XP? I'm not quite sure. I'd probably chose OS X, all else being equal. It's done so well. I also don't like alot of the stuff XP does. If the choice was between 2k and X, I'm not sure. I would probably go with X again, but only because of the Unix core; wihtout that it'd be 2k. I use 2k and love it. It's a very good interface.

Of course, this is just another one of those KDE vs. Gnome (KDE for me), PC vs. Mac (PC for me), DVD-R vs. DVD+R (whichever one someone wants to give me ;), Linux vs. BSD (Linux for me) type things. It has no answer.

Re:Organisation, Issues

[ElGanzoLoco]

I have a friend who has used Macs for nearly 20 years and JUST GOT A PC RECENTLY. They didn't know what the 2nd button was for

Where was he for the last twenty years? I mean, if he was in a mac-only country where nobody ever has to use a PC, please, tell me so I can start moving there right away.

Re:Organisation, Issues

[TwoStep]

The menu bar for each window was discussed by Tog.

Basically, having the menu bar at the top of the screen makes it infinitely tall, becuase you can flick the mouse to the top of the screen and click a menu. It makes a *very* noticable increase in accuracy and speed, especially for expert users.

The application vs. window issue is something that you get used to pretty quickly. If you use a mac for more than a day or so it seems pretty natural. With a modern OS with modern virtual memory, it doesn't really matter if you leave it open anyway. It actually can be a pretty nice feature, especially on a system like OS X where some apps still take quite a while to start up.

Twostep

Re:Organisation, Issues

[Dragonfly]

Application vs Window. I don't remember if this was mentioned, but this has always annoyed me about Macs. In windows, if I close Word or some other program by clicking on the "close" button on the top right of the window, it closes. On a Mac, the window closes but the application stays open. This wouldn't be a problem for notepad or somesuch, but for large programs like Word, Photoshop, and other things, this can eat ALOT of memeory. This too, is cruft.

Allow me to disagree. First, leaving applications open on OS X doesn't use a lot of memory. For instance, I've had MS Excel running for 6 hours now, using it off and on, and it's using 0.4% of the CPU and 1.8% of memory right now with no open windows. Photoshop behaves similarly.

Second, why should closing an application's only open document quit the application? What if you want to open another document, or just leave the app open to save yourself the trouble of re-launching it? By confusing Close with Quit MS created yet another confusing UI metaphor, combining two different actions.

Re:Organisation, Issues

[drsmithy]

It makes a *very* noticable increase in accuracy and speed, especially for expert users.

"Expert" users rarely make heavy use of menues - they use the keyboard.

The application vs. window issue is something that you get used to pretty quickly. If you use a mac for more than a day or so it seems pretty natural.

I've been using Macs on and off for about 8 years now and as a main machine for the last 2. I still find this behaviour annoying - although not as annoying as the lack of a quick & easy way to switch between arbitrary windows when they are obscured from view.

Re:Organisation, Issues

[Twirlip of the Mists]

On the subject of the two-button mouse: the Aqua human interface guidelines specifiy that a contextual menu should not be used for any feature that is not also accessible through another UI control. Assuming for sake of argument that all software everwhere follows the Aqua HIG, you never have to control-click on a Mac. Ever.

On the subject of the menu bar: google for Fitts's Law.

On the subject of quitting an application by closing its window: some Mac applications have this behavior, some don't. The virtual memory implementation in OS X works in such a way that having extra idle apps open has essentially no effect. One you hit your physical memory limit, those applications get paged out to disk and no longer occupy physical RAM until they're activated again.

Of course, this is just another one of those KDE vs. Gnome... things. It has no answer.

I think the purpose of this web site is to demonstrate that this is not merely a question of preference, but rather that which is the better OS can be quantified, and a conclusion reached thereby. All that's left is to argue about the methodology.

Re:Organisation, Issues

[sc00p18]

By confusing Close with Quit MS created yet another confusing UI metaphor, combining two different actions.

dude, that's ABSOLUTELY correct, I NEVER understood the close/quit thing until I got a mac. Then I realized that Microsoft just screwed it up when they were transferring it over from the mac interface.

Re:Organisation, Issues

[afantee]

>> What possible "processing" could an interactive application be doing in the background isn't related to a open document (or analogical equivalent) ?

Why couldn't you MS trained monkeys see things from a slightly different angle? A file manager like Finder might have a background thread for content indexing or repairing the file system, even if there is no browsing windows.

>> As previously mentioned, the user shouldn't have to think about the application at all. The whole concept is simply unintuitive.

That's just your simplistic world view. People do think about applications, and frequently choose different tools for the same document.

>> The Mac in front of me has 512MB of RAM and an uptime of less than a day. Thus far OS X has create 3 "swapfiles" of 80MB apiece for paging reasons. All that is running is X11, MSN Messenger, Mail, Safari, Terminal, Word and Excel. That's a _lot_ of memory usage.

And my 400 MHz iMac with 512MB RAM runs 24/7 for weeks or months as a software AirPort base station for web browsing and for kidds playing games and my wife doing research (statistic analysis, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc). My 700 iBook is used for programming Unix / Java / C++ (X11, tcsh, bash, Ruby, Perl, JBuilder, Eclipse, NetBeans, Project Builder, Interface Builder, etc), web design and graphics (FireWorks, Flash, DreamWeaver), database (MySQL, PostgreSQL), web browsing (Safari, Camino, OmniWeb, IE), networking and web serving (FTP, Apache, SMB, AFP, Firewall, NetInfo, AirPort wireless, iDisk, iChat, iSync, Network Utility), Word, Excel, PowerPoint, QuickTime, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, Mail, Address Book, OmniDictionary, World Book, and more. Typically, there are 70 to 80 processes running, and I generally don't quit applications, so they run continuously for days or weeks, and everything remains responsive virtually all the time.

Re:A couple of comments

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I am *not* an average PC user.

Since 1978, my fingers have been tickling keyboards of various shapes and sizes, QWERTY to Dvorak.

I've used Macs off and on sinec 1985, Apples since a few years before.

I have eight PCs in my home, (2) FreeBSD boxes, (1) Linux box, (1) Toshiba Laptop (Win2k), (1) Sun UltraSparc 10, (1) TiBook, (1) iMac, (1) Dual G4 Power Mac.

As of today, my *NIX boxes are all headless .. sans one ..., no mouse, no keyboard (serial console access) and all access is via either my iMac or PowerMac ... with Apple's included one-button-mouse.

Even navigating X-Windows, the 1 button mouse is NO BIG DEAL. In fact, it's so intuitive that I catch myself alt+clicking and windows+clicking when I'm at work on my Win2k Desktop there.

The one-button mouse is more ergonomic, comfortable, and efficient that all this hullabaloo about multiple button mice is older then last week's dishwaster (and needs to be thrown out with it just as well.)

And for the record, before the workstations were headless, they were connected with a standard AT-101 keyboard + Logitech 5 button trackball.

Now all my servers are quitely running from my garage, and no matter where I'm at, whether it be the Living Room (iMac), Office (PowerMac), or back patio (TiBook) I have ready access to anything.

Maybe when you've been typing and using a mouse for 20 years and have carpal tunnel in both of your wrists you'll appreciate the value of ergonomics some day.

Re:Some errors

[afantee]

>> IMHO OS X loses out here completely because it doesn't feature the classic directory tree + file list style of GUI file management which I find to be the easiest and most efficient to use (when partnered with good keyboard shortcuts).

What the fuck are you talking about? The OS X Finder does have "the classic directory tree + file list" called list view, and is miles ahead of Windows Explorer in at least 6 ways:

(1) Column View is the best feature for file browsing not available on any other OS.

(2) Spring-loaded folder makes it possible to drag and drop files to any depth without opening lots of windows.

(3) Finder toolbar is much more configurable than Windows Explorer.

(4) Music, graphics and movies can be played or viewed right in the Finder preview pane without starting applications.

(5) One-click search by content, size, type, date, extension, or visibility.

(6) Automation with AppleScript.

Oh, if that's not powerful enough, there is always the Unix terminal to play with: csh, tcsh, bash, Perl, Python, Ruby and lots other tools all preloaded. Windows is not even remotely close.

>> Connecting to remote machines in Windows is vastly superior. You can navigate directly to machines, the shares they have and manipulate things in those shares - even launch programs - all without having to map or mount the share.

Do you know anything about networking at all? Windows only understand Windows or SMB, while OS X can handle Windows as well as NFS, UFS, HFS+ and SMB. What do you mean by "without having to map or mount the share"? Surely you still have to login to a remote machine before accessing it. And OS X comes with Rendezvous ZeroConf so that devices (not just computers) can discover each other.

Actually...

[FredFnord]

...I'm running my web server, mail server, FTP server, QuickTime Streaming Server, internet sharing, file sharing, and name server on MacOS X 10.2 on a beige G3. When I had my main machine out at a client's site, I used the beige G3 for all of my daily use for a couple of weeks. It worked fine.

I will admit that I've upgraded the memory to 320 megs or so. But even on a 300 mhz G3, running with a Rage Pro chip, things work surprisingly smoothly and well. I wouldn't do all my development on that machine if I had a choice, but for day-to-day usage it's perfectly fine.

-fred