Nonexistent Windows OS Superior to Panther

Anonymous Coward writes "A Windows user slams Panther. 'Apple has implemented some basic desktop composition features in Mac OS X "Panther." But the basic problem with Mac OS X isn't going away: It's a classic desktop operating system that doesn't offer anything in the way of usability advancements over previous desktop operating systems. Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X. In the future, Longhorn will further distance Windows from OS X. (sic) From a graphical standpoint, there won't be any comparison. As Microsoft revealed at the PDC 2003 conference, Longhorn is far more impressive technically than Panther.'"

Comments

Reminds me of NT versus OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

A long time ago Windows users used to blather on about how great Windows NT was going to be, even before it appeared. The funny thing was they then found it necessary to spend an amazing amount of time dissing OS/2, which was already being used happily by some of us. OS/2 users had years of using a great environment while NT users waited years for theirs to appear. It's like an OS version of short man syndrom. They know Windows sucks, so they get really shrill when they criticize other OSes. It's a repeating pattern.

Re:Reminds me of NT versus OS/2

[dbrutus]

The funny thing is that Longhorn is not a competitor to 10.3. It'll be a competitor to 10.5 or 10.6 depending on the final release schedule pursued by both companies.

Japan Inc. stole a march on US manufacturing by putting out a product and then putting out a better one far faster than the US could do it. By the time the US got its first generation competitor rolling, Japan, Inc. was rolling out their third generation. Eventually the US got its act together but they lost a lot of ground and have never really regained it.

The current situation between Apple and Microsoft is very similar. By the time Longhorn is out, Apple will have put out another couple of versions. Anything that Microsoft announces that truly progresses the state of the art (see, no MS bashing here, they do come up with useful ideas) will be imitated while Apple's innovations will be refined and on their 2nd, 3rd, or fourth generation while MS is still trying to put together SP1.

Quick cycle turnaruond is no less valuable in software than it is in manufacturing.

Re:Reminds me of NT versus OS/2

[TedNugentRules!]

and .NET vs Java, and Mac vs PC, and Ford vs FM and all the other utterly *nonsensical* little arguments we seem to find ourselves embroiled in ! Why are 'intelligent' humans repeatedly sucked into marketing-inspired stoushes regarding the *one true technology* ? Religious wars are hilarious, and our friend has clearly gone looking for a flaming, but we've accomodated him to a tee.

For what its worth, here is my take on it (laugh if you must) : both MS and Apple build products which have pros and cons : its up to each of us to weigh those up, sift the reality from the marketing hype and make a choice.

Personally, my desire to play games like HL2 means that a PC sits near my Mac, but a desire to access a truly powerful command-line environment means that the majority of my *work* is spread between my iBook and the desktop G4. At this point in time, I dont believe that there is a *single* perfect all-round OS for every application, and thats probably a good thing. We need to embrace diversity : use what works, and leave the remainder for someone else to tinker with.

Finally, a thought for Apple : you've wooed many of us across with the strong Unix core and aggressive pricing - time to capitalise on that and get more developers pushing out product for the Mac. The glossy sheen of Aqua will only ever be as impressive as the range of apps available for the 'average' user, and thats one area where Windoze retains a huge stranglehold.

I'll believe it when I see it

[Paladeen]

As Microsoft revealed at the PDC 2003 conference, Longhorn is far more impressive technically than Panther.

Is? IS? Longhorn isn't even out yet, so there's no comparing them. So what if Microsoft says Longhorn will have features X, Y and Z? I don't see Longhorn on millions of computer systems today. By the time Longhorn comes out (late 2004 at best), there will in all probability already be another MacOS X revision.

It's just stupid to claim the superiority of software that doesn't exist in terms of users. I might as well go on a Mac-advocacy rant and say something like "Yeah, well, Longhorn sucks because Apple are developing MacOS XI, due 2006, which has features X, Y and Z, which Longhorn doesn't have. Therefore, MacOS X is just way better than Longhorn." This is childish and stupid, and worst of all, flamebait. Damn me for just responding to this rubbish!

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[dbirchall]

Late 2004? Hmm, Microsoft bigwigs have been saying it's 3 years away...

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[ColMustard]

I agree that eye candy can be useless. It often exists for users to say "oh wow." But not all eye candy is bad.

OS X uses a lot of effects to actually help users. For example, shadows on windows. It's a fast way to see which windows are on top of other windows (an already easy thing, usually; just easier/faster). Zooming windows across the screen when they could just disappear and appear at their destination: easily see where things are, or went. This relates to Expose, too.

Then there's eye candy that doesn't increase productivity, like the rotating cube animation for switching users. Transparency might also fit here, although it's sometimes useful, too, when dragging large things to make sure you drop dragged things where they need to be.

In the last category, there's eye candy that decrease productivity. I can't think of any good examples in OS X, but I'm sure there are some.

In the end, though, you should find that there are relatively few effects in OS X which don't have a purpose, and even fewer which decrease productivity.

Just my opinion, though. To each his own.

Only problems is...

[Anonymous Coward]

By 2006, we're going to be on 10.5 or 10.6... and 2-3 more times we'll hear Apple is charaging$129 for an upgrade!Now if you want to see advancement in MacOS, just compare 10.0 to 10.3. Huge difference.

I'm sure Longhorn will be a great upgrade. But until it ships, we should only compare 10.3 vs. XP to be fair.

MS is just better at showing off vaporware then Apple. Apple has very few official leaks, sure we can predict what 10.4 might include, but so far Apple hasn't said one new feature it WILL include and given the Apple OS shipping schedule its due in Late 2004/Early 2005. A year before Longhorn! And we already know lots of the technology Longhorn WILL include.

Re:Only problems is...

[adamjaskie]

Not to mention, where will Linux be by 2006? Kernel 2.6 is nearing completion. KDE is intuitive enough for my forestry major roommate that is not in the least into computers to pick it up with no problem whatsoever. I showed him how to log in, he figgured it out from there in 5 minutes. In 3 more years, 2.6 will be very mature, and 2.7 will be probably well into development. KDE 4 will be out, and Gnome 3. 3 years ago, Linux was beginning to catch up to Windows as far as useability on a workstation. Now, I would say its about equal, definately beyond as far as the power user goes, equal, maybe a little behind to the average user. At this rate, in 3 years, it will surpass Windows.

Longhorn will have to contend with a very stable and mature Linux 2.6, MacOS 10.6, etc. Don't speculate any more until 2005 at the earliest. Otherwise we will start comparing OS X to Windows ME.

Sniff, sniff

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes. "Task-based" user interface. What a brilliant innovation that is. I'll be able to sit down at my desk in the morning, bring up the "Do you want to..." screen, and click "Publish a metropolitan daily newspaper."

What? What do you mean, that's not in the "tasks" list? That's my task. That's what I do every day. Why isn't it in the list?

Oh, well, fine. I'll just click "Compose the front page" instead.

Not there? What the hell?

"Copyfit an article."

Not there.

"Write a headline."

Strangely absent.

"Open a new InDesign document."

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere.

Wait a minute. Wait just a damn minute. This isn't any different! In fact, it's worse, because I was planning to copy yesterday's front page and replace the content. This just brought up a blank page!

"Task-based" my ass. If you want the computer to have a "task-based" interface, you'd damn well better make sure the computer has at least some basic knowledge of what my tasks are. If it doesn't, then the "task-based" interface can get the hell out of my way and let me do my job.

Re:Sniff, sniff

[Brandybuck]

Task-based" user interface. What a brilliant innovation that is

I absolutely agree. The task based interface of WinXP sucks. It's almost like Microsoft changed its motto from "where do you want to go today", to "what do we want you to do today." If you're the average Windows user (with 2.4 children and 1.3 cars) then it may work for you. Otherwise it just gets in the way.

In the meantime, decades old usability problems in Windows remain unaddressed. Many of these descend from the days when Windows was a single-tasking single-user system. When will we get a UI that does not assume I'm going to be running one single program at a time? When will I get a file manager that allows me to manipulate multiple files simultaneously? When will I get a MS window manager with more functionality than twm?

Re:Sniff, sniff

[darkpurpleblob]

Thanks for the detailed response.

I can understand what you are getting at with your snap-to point. Typically in Windows I always have one app full-screened, so I haven't really experienced the problem you have described. I have indeed found tiling rather awkward on the rare occasion I have attempted to use it. Snap-to indeed would be a nice feature in Windows.

It is indeed possible to select files modified in the last week as you descibed just as easily with Explorer. (Click on Date Modified column heading, and select the last week of files. Windows XP allows supports grouping of files in folders.)

Back to your original comment:

In the meantime, decades old usability problems in Windows remain unaddressed. Many of these descend from the days when Windows was a single-tasking single-user system. When will we get a UI that does not assume I'm going to be running one single program at a time?

I doubt Microsoft will ever address the problems you have outlined (I'm somewhat disappointed myself, as I can see how some of that stuff would be useful). Adding more window management features comes with the expense of more complexity in the interface. And if you hide this functionality deep in interface, it's as good as it not being there for the majority of users.

Task/Desktop interface?

[adamjaskie]

Longhorn will feature a task-based (or "iterative") interface that goes far beyond the task-based interface found today in Windows XP. Microsoft has been working to move beyond the dated desktop metaphor still used by Mac OS X and Linux;

I assume this means an interface that can be set up for different tasks, such as programming, gaming, communication and web surfing. Doesnt the multiple desktop feature of MOST linux window managers/desktop environments do this already? Its hard to say "Linux has ... interface" because there are so many DIFFERENT interfaces. Sure, you could say "KDE has a ... interface" but not Linux. With FVWM2, I can set up groups of windows that open when I startx and have a desktop for programming (a couple of xterms and an editor, perhaps) communitaction (xchat and gaim) etc. How is this a "dated desktop metaphor?"

Desktop interface I assume means an interface like in earlier windows versions (or XP with certain non-default setups), OS X, and SOME interfaces for Linux, where you have a "My Computer" like icon on the desktop, and can browse through your files. While some may call this "dated," people seem to LIKE to work this way, so why change it for them? Give the user OPTIONS. Don't just go with whatever is the style now. On first boot: "Do you want a task based (defn.) or Desktop based (defn.) interface? This selection may be changed later at Start>Settings>Interfce>Whatever."

Re:Speaking of which,

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's largely FUD, perhaps some windows user bias against mac users, but that's to be expected. Perfect objectivity isn't possible, and as long as we place the writings in a proper context, that's where they're best understood.

I too have bought a mac recently, waiting for the release of Panther earlier in the month. My previous desktop systems were a mix of windows and linux, and from using macs belonging to other people (and admittedly not a little amount of reading other switcher's tales) I picked up an eMac.

Now I have the mac and panther, and I really wonder why I bothered. I waited months for this release only to find it's unix with all the disabilities of unix. While I could have been enjoying longhorn all that time, I entered the jobsian distortion field, and was sucked into waiting for a future mac release.

It's not a bad machine, but it's not what it could be

Re:Speaking of which,

[Anonymous Coward]

Still I find the Windows 2000 Explorer, with the folder tree and folder contents in separate windows, more useful.

I respectfully submit that you don't know how to use the Panther Finder. It doesn't work like the Windows Explorer. It's completely different. Learn to use it, then draw your comparisons.

The OS X Save As feature is horrible! It doesn't default to the original file's directory, but to the Documents folder.

It doesn't default to anywhere. The choice of where to open the Save dialog is entirely up to the application developer. If the developer said to go to the Documents folder, then that's where it goes.

In any case, check out the pop-up menu of recent directories. It's darned useful.

On several occations, this has made me open up old revisions of documents, which is a drag.

The Save dialog can't open anything. Maybe you're just a fucking idiot?

Why post a troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like this 'story' is just a troll. Aren't we supposed to wait till after the story is posted for the trolls?

Why Are We All Preaching To The Choir?

[TheWanderingHermit]

It seems to me that all the comments here are generally the same -- you can't compare something that isn't out yet (and not due for 3 years) with something that is. There's also the fact that M$ is very good at promising the world and delivering Outer Mongolia. And, as we've seen, frequently when M$ adds something new or does a drastic redesign, it takes years (1995 for Win95 to 2002 for WinXP) to get most of the bugs out and make it stable.

So this guy thinks Longhorn and XP are fantastic and Linux and OSX are crap...

Why is everyone here preaching to the choir and patting each other on the back for OSes that many of us use regularly instead of educating the person who runs the "Win Super Site" on what is going on?

Perhaps if he gets a few e-mails from /.'ers calmly explaining the fallacy of his arguments and why his technical arguments are weak, he may not be as likely to spread such FUD in the future.

Unfortunately...

[th77]

Unfortunately there's some definite potential in some of the technical underpinnings of Longhorn...

First off I'd better be sure to say that I'm a longtime fairly ardent Mac user, and while I'm quite familiar with Windows (perhaps and intermediate-level user with bits of poweruser knowledge) I'll never spend my own money on Windows again (hopefully). And I'm running Panther and enjoying the smooth interface, the usability improvements, etc.

However, it seems like one of the big things in Longhorn will be the WinFS--which I understand to the the database-as-a-filesystem. Yes, I think I've read that Be did something like this, but I'm betting M$ will take it further. The propoganda/article by Thurrott indicates that:
""I should not care about location when I save," says Microsoft VP Chris Jones. "Why can't I just click on my computer and it shows me my documents? It is a computer. It should know what a document is, what I have edited and annotated, what I have searched for before, and what other places I have looked for documents. It is not just documents on my computer I am looking for. It is documents I care about."

That's a great idea: why should I care where I save things? Why can't I have a NASA movie clip from the Galileo mission appear when I'm looking thru my movies (next to whatever Simpsons clips or whatever else) and when I'm looking thru my space files (next to images or articles)? Currently, the only way I can do this is by making aliases and making sure everything is in discrete folders (e.g. movies/space/galileo vs. movies/space/cassini, each of which can be aliased into their corresponding pictures/space/ folders).

I truly hope that Apple is looking into developing a database-like-extension to their HFS (hierarchal file system). I want to keep using my Mac for years and years to come, and very likely will, but I think a database-filesystem is essential to the platform.

Of course, if Longhorn just confuses users too much and M$ has to remove the functionality, or provide a layer over it to simulate hierarchal folders all over again, then... maybe a database-filesystem is not something users will crave. But I think there's a place for it...

Re:Unfortunately...

[0x0d0a]

However, it seems like one of the big things in Longhorn will be the WinFS--which I understand to the the database-as-a-filesystem.

(a) Not a new idea. MS will be the first to try to put it into a popular OS, though.

(b) Apple has done similar before, though you'd be unlikely to guess it from the interface -- they had the desktop file, a constantly OS-maintained index of the filesystem.

(c) There are a number of technical and user interface issues with this approach -- there's a reason folks standardized on a hierarchical system. We'll see what happens, though.

Incidently, Windows is the only popular OS that still only supports a tree-style filesystem. Classic Mac OS, modern Mac OS, BSD and Linux all support any fully connected graph you might desire, thanks to symlinks (and on classic Mac OS, aliases).

d) This isn't actually all that new even from a UI perspective -- think of using Apple's Find File. Perhaps you toss in a few more search parameters to get at more metadata and data. The real difference is that traditionally, you must *also* assign a file a position in a hierarchical filesystem (though your hierarchical filesystem could potentially consist of just a single directory node with lots of files in it, a la the My Documents MS approach).

e) I'm remembering the last time the database research people at Microsoft convinced everyone that going all database would be a great idea. MS SQL, for a period of time, used tables internally for *everything*. Performance sucked, but they did it anyway. It's sexy from a theory point of view, because it simplifies things. Unfortunately, it throws out a lot of area-specific design knowledge that's been built up over the years. We know a lot about how to do a good filesystem, and there are features that apply nicely to filesystems that are less convenient with a traditional database. It's going to be tough to make a better system by throwing everything out.

f) I've heard ominous rumblings about WinFS being removed from Longhorn. It may or may not be living up to internal expectations.

g) Anytime something like this is announced *this* far in advance and isn't getting shown off in final form, it means that the promises frequently come from the research people. Research people have all sorts of rosy views about their own work, plenty of pet ideas, and may not have spent a long time doing usability tests. (This comes from one of those research people.) I wouldn't get excited about this any more than I would the frequent announcements on Slashdot about nonexistent new storage technologies ("in four years, we're all going to be using five terabyte 1 cubic centimeter Jell-O blobs to store our data!"). Yeah...come back when you have something shipping instead of a bunch of theoretical maximum numbers coming from a research team.

Slow News Day?

[mental_telepathy]

All over the world, people are writing uninformed opinions designed to get a reaction rather than educate. Apparently, Some of them make Slashdot.

*sigh*

[eyeball]

Display compositing isn't rocket science. It's feasible now that video hardware with a lot of memory is common.

What is almost rocket science is fine-tuning an OS's user experience. I use Windows, OSX, and X11 (xfce currently, but I switch every few weeks), and OSX has some of the most consistent user designs ever. Preferences each application is in the same place (both file-wise and in the menu).

All I see in windows is an onion-skin of new UI elements being added onto old ones. Someone at work has Longhorn (he's an official MS tester), and the "My Computer" now has everything all lumped into it -- devices, addresses, etc. It's just plain confusing.

So my point is, while OS X is getting simpler to use, Windows, and I fear even some X11 desktops/window managers are getting more complicated. I feel bad for the windows users I know that can't even tell that IE is a browser!

Re:oh my god

[weave]

you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies.

Outlook 2003 already does this, as long as you have an RMS (Rights Management Server) running, it can be contacted when receipient wants to view the message, and you are using only Outlook or some Microsoft reader program.

... and then....

People fear what they don't understand, but Palladium is about securing the PC and protecting your privacy, plain and simple. Microsoft isn't trying to usurp your PC.

Ah, yeah, right, as long as you're running all Microsoft software on your desktop and Microsoft software on your servers...

biggest troll ever

[gl4ss]

that's what the article is.

just skip it, it's so stupid anyways. it's comparing a fantasy system to something that exists, and doing a piss poor comparision at that too.

The New Features List...

[andcarne]

He keeps saying Mac OS X is outdated, and Longhorn will be much more superior. He even goes on to list all these 'exciting' new features found in conjunction with Palladium.

Palladium stops viruses and worms. The system won't run unauthorized programs, preventing viruses from trashing your system.

Funny, my Mac never gets any worms or viruses. Hmm, maybe its because the OS is better designed, contrary to what he says above. Hardware is not the correct approach to stopping these things. The operating system has to be designed in a security concious way. This includes not enabling programs to have full access to OS resources. Microsofts largest problem is the interconnnectivity between every piece of MS software, including the OS.

Palladium stops spam. Spam will be stopped before it even hits your email inbox. Unsolicited mail that you might actually want to receive will be allowed through if it has credentials that meet your user-defined standards.

Hmm, strange, I can do this perfectly well on my 'badly designed' OS. In fact its not the OS's responsability, its the responsobility of the e-mail client. Also, hardware is not giong to help solve this, its a software issue.

Palladium safeguards privacy. In addition to the system's ability to seal data on your PC, Palladium can also seal data sent across the Internet using software agents that ensure the data reaches only the proper people. Newsweek reports that the agent has been nicknamed "My Man," a goof on ".NET My Services," "My Documents," and other similar names at Microsoft.

I believe this is commonly called encryption. Something thats been available for quite some time.

Palladium controls information after it's sent from your PC. Using Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology, Palladium can be used to securely distribute music, movies, and other intellectual property securely over the Internet. Movie studios and the recording industry could use this technology to let their customers exercise their fair use rights to copy audio CDs and movies, for example. "It's a funny thing," says Bill Gates. "We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains." Gates says that Palladium could ensure that email designated as private could not be forwarded or copied to other people, for example. Or, the Newsweek reports reads, "you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies."

This is just going to give you headaches. They intend for it to be used in offices and large businesses. Of course, you have to set up a dedicated DRM server and authorize every person's machine to have access. When employees come and go, you have to worry about making sure they are given access, and that access is revoked when they leave. This is also going to be disasterous for cross-platform applications. The DRM files will simply not work on anything but Windows Longhorn and newer. Also, you would have to have NEW HARDWARE to use it. If a business decides to implement this, they must upgrade EVERY SINGLE machine! Not the most economically sound business decision, in my opinion.

Microsoft "Ease of Use"

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has in the past, and will presumably retain in the future, a vision of "ease of use" that is premised on making pre-existing, complex, multi-step tasks "easy" by implementing a condescending "wizard"* to walk the user through the task. Then, as soon as you step out of the wizard framework, or try to do anything that wizards haven't been pre-written to help you accomplish, there is a strong possibility that whatever you're trying to do might not make sense. And it seems that MS doesn't see anything wrong with glossing over an fundamentally hard-to-use system in this manner.

Apple takes a very different approach to usability, and is (strikingly) often regarded as more successful at creating a usable system. You are very unlikely to find any obnoxious animated creatures or magical wizards to guide you through complex tasks, because Apple spends a great deal of time trying to make sure that few tasks ever become complex.

Apple's approach makes things easier for everyone, from beginners to very experienced users. Microsoft's approach makes certain things easy for some novice users, but can infuriate experienced users, or at a minimum force experienced users to deal directly with a kludgy interface (either the wizard, or the system directly).

Stepping back, the long view is one that reveals two very different philosophies: Apple empowers the user. Microsoft empowers itself.

--

* On "Wizards":
I guess people are supposed to think, "Wow, computers are so complicated, they're like magic! I could never use a computer if Microsoft didn't come up with all these wizards to make it easier!"

Re:ROFL

[rspress]

I have talked to a lot of MS junkies and most really don't know what they are talking about. Stuff they rave over we have been doing for years on the Mac. Since I have used PC since day one and Macs as well. I can usually tell when someone is clueless about the other platform. I use both Panther and XP Pro on my Mac and PC and there is no contest as to which one is better or more stable. MacOS X wins that hands down. Those that do know both and work with them in their jobs like MS for one reason and one reason only. Without MS they would not have a job....Macs network too easily and don't need to be maintain as a much as a network of PC's. It makes them kings in their own little world and thus indispensable to a company or institution. We call it Microsoft, they call it job security.

Correct me if I am wrong but

[shadow_x99]

A Look on the Microsoft Windows Longhorn.

- Windows Longhorn is only 32-Bit OS For Now and will perhaps possibly have a 64-bit support in the future.

- Windows Longhorn will need a DX9 Compliant Video Card to run.

- Windows Longhorn doesn't come with any advanced development tools but Notepad ( Ultimate for HTML )

- Windows Longhorn will have the Paladium Stuff in order to be secure. ( Probably won't be anyway but... )

- Windows Longhorn will be easy to install / upgrade

- Windows Longhorn come only in a 1-Language Deal

- Windows Longhorn cannot support a Heavy Server Load.

- Windows Longhorn will cost about 500$ US to Buy one license, and you haven't got any software on it.

- Windows Longhorn will cost 130$ to Upgrade.

- Windows Longhorn is completly closed-source and you can't contribute to it, because Microsoft doesn't want people like you and me to look at the code and correct problems that can possibly arise.

- Windows Longhorn doesn't have any advanced multimedia editing software except for the Popular Sound Recorder.

A Look on the Apple Mac OS X

- Mac OS X is a 64 bit OS Partially and probably next Version a Full 64 Bit OS.

- Mac OS X need a OpenGL Compliant Card ( About every card sold by Apple since their G3 are OpenGL Complliant )

- Mac OS X come with Project Builder for Free, allowing me to Program and all my stuff without buying many costly licenses from Microsoft.

- Mac OS X doesn't need Paladium, because it is based on UNIX, which is already something I thrust much more than Windows.

- Mac OS X is easy to install.

- Mac OS X can change language at will.

- Mac OS X can be a Server OS natively supported by Apple ( Appache Web Server, MySQL Database Server, File Server, Mail Server, etc... )

- Mac OS X cost 279$ US to get a 5-License Bundle

- Mac OS X always come with the Mac you just bought and will only cost 129$ to Upgrade.

- Mac OS X is Part Open-Source under GPL, so you can participate in the Development by contributing to the Darwin Projects

- You got many Software to do Multimedia Work ( Edit, Create QuickTime, DVD, Images, etc... all due to Apple Software Engineers or Open-Source ) that are optinal in the OS X Install.

- Everything displayed in a Windows in Mac OS X can be saved as a PDF.

Re:Speaking of which,

[JelloG3]

"It's damned useful if explorer has crashed..." Now why did explorer have to crash, if the OS was stable that should not have happen

Re:Speaking of which,

[darkpurpleblob]

How the hell can opening from a save dialog be useful?

Personally, I don't know. People do make mistakes and change their minds. Maybe someone saw another file in the folder they wanted to have a look at. I occasionally will rename or delete files from the save dialog in Windows (which saves me a trip (and hence some time) through Explorer).

It really makes a lot of sense for Microsoft to make the context menu available on files in open and save dialogs - it's clearly adding functionality that wouldn't have been there otherwise (and I suspect it wouldn't have taken much development effort to add either).

Paul is such a fucking tool.

[Ayanami Rei]

He's worse then some of these "video game reviewers" or the journalists on CNet.

I mean, not only does he repeat what's fed to him by the MS rumor mills, but he expounds upon it.

And it's all bullshit rhetoric anyway. I've never seen him post a measly graph or table to back up his claims, anywhere.

WinSuperSite.com is notorious for this

[AvantLegion]

That website is well-known as a very blatent MS shill.

Shame on the editors for accepting this "story". We don't need obvious MS shills, Apple shills, Linux shills, etc.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ...with music

[theolein]

I've read a number of articles on Winsupersite, and come to the conclusion that Paul Thurrot really likes Windows. I read the bit where he takes four (4) laptops to the Microsoft PDC 2003 and then it hit me: He doesn't get it. He really doesn't get it. He's been to some of the OSX roll out events and claims that they're every bit as geeky as the Microsoft one's, yet I would be buggered to know why anyone takes 4 laptops (one of them an iBook) to a conference. I was under the impression that the purpose behind a laptop was to minimise one's burdens.

And that attitude strikes me as the main failing behind almost all Microsoft OSes: Add so many features and doodahs that you kill any attempt at good usability. Can someone explain to me what a sidebar that takes up fully one sixth of the screen is doing there? I appreciate the fact that one would have a calendar, IM and mail notifications and all sorts of other stuff readily available, but wouldn't an improved task tray have solved that problem?

Crazy.

The task oriented approach as started in XP works with utter newbies. Doing sys admin, I saw anti-tech types and neophytes get on well with the task oriented approach. As we all know, most normal Windows users will get rid of the task stuff as soon as they can as it is damningly slow to do anything but I think many geeks and developers wildly over estimate the clueless newbie (I saw at least three people never use Windows Explorer and do all their searching and document managment from the Windows open/save dialogs-They didn't even know Windows Explorer existed, let alone know what a network drive or other computer arcana are). For home users and newbies, this is a good idea, make no mistake.

Apple's approach is make the UI consistent and simple, and is a good middle of the road approach and a better longterm idea, but Windows task stuff also works for newbies.

The Aero GUI running on the Avalon engine will no doubt be very good, but here too, I have the feeling that MS is going to overdo it in terms of mindlessly long paths to do any task, insane effects and crazy animations (what the fuck is a puppy doing there when I want to find something-- and yes I know you can get rid of it, but how easily?)

The palladium stuff will also find it's market in that some companies will swear by it. There will be just as many others that will swear at it though. It might very well help in terms of Virus and spam stuff though, but it really remains to be seen if that approach works, since there will be a lot of legacy stuff floating around which is usually where the exploits happen. I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt that they can make the OS more secure by rewriting the whole thing in .Net, but I can see the costs invloved due the MS' hunger for money and control alienating many customers (Who the hell is going to trust MS not to lock them in? How many AV vendors are going to go out of business?)

I dunno. I think Longhorn will probably be ok in terms of previous OSes, but I think the lock-in will be more painful and costly than before.

Microsoft continues to suck

[line.at.infinity]

From the site's activity center page:

Other Activity Center considerations
Microsoft is looking at a variety of other issues with regards to Activity Centers. For example, Web pages are notoriously difficult to navigate with the keyboard, but Activity Centers will need to be accessible to all users. So links in Activity Center won't be underlined, and the ALT+ method of selecting Win32 user interface elements will be supported using proprietary HTML extensions that Microsoft developed for Internet Explorer. Likewise, localization is going to be an issue, as Microsoft derives over half of its income outside of the United States. This also requires a number of proprietary extensions to HTML.

Microsoft will continue to bastardize the HTML standard.

En vogue

[zpok]

While I think the author is full of it, comparing non-existing OS's is sort of "in".

Jobs on OSX whatever going to be superior to Longhorn when it finally hits the real world is king, second everybody talking about the Linux Desktop - ok, that's a joke! - Gates on the superior safety of Longhorn - which could be considered a joke? - and so on ...

Oh well, each to his own and whatever gets it up...

But as I an XP user (and one time fan) wrote me this weekend: "Things got a little better with iTunes, makes me wonder why we put up with this. And how on earth could I have ever liked WMP? It's bud-ugly and stupid! This whole OS is ugly and stupid, man, I need a drink!"

In summary

[inkswamp]

I recently read a good article that alludes to the whole Mac vs. Windows thing and the author had an excellent quote:

"After a week with a Windows machine I get the feeling that this system is designed by people who know a lot about computers. Macs, on the other hand, seem to be designed by people who know a lot about people."

That pretty much sums it up right there for me. Apple will continue to appeal to those who like machines designed with a person in mind while Windows users will tend to want something that pushes technology boundaries whether that's useful or not. Any Mac user who gripes about Windows having a lousy interface is missing the point of being a Windows user. Any Windows user who gripes about Apple's technology lagging is missing the point of being a Mac user. I prefer the latter, but that's me. I find the real key to productivity is not cutting-edge technology but logical design.

Paul Thurrott

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me tell you something about Paul Thurott. This man runs not one, but two of the biggest "Windows-enthusiast" sites out there, namely WinSuperSite and WinInformant. Astroturfing at its finest, and yet he seems to have the money to do this.

He rips so many design concepts on these sites from the Microsoft Web pages that frankly there is only one possible explanation for their not having sued him into oblivion: namely, that he is on their payroll. His claims to be "independent" make this even more likely; Microsoft has done exactly this in the past, after all.

Re:ROFL

[Golias]

Okay, I use both and prefer the Mac, but I gotta call BS when I see it, and you just repeated a very common myth.

Any PC user that I know that has spent any amount of time on the Mac (more than just moving the mouse around at the local best buy) really has nothing bad to say about it and usually likes it.

The details of Mac OS's has always been part of the required training for Microsoft certifications, because an NT admin in a mega-corp frequently needs to support the small network of Macs that the advertising department or some such area. While most of them just learn barely enough to get their precious MCSE pieces of paper, many others delve into the Mac OS a lot further than the typical "I only use Macs" school teacher ever will.

Not every Windows user who disses Macs does so out of complete ignorance. More often than not, they dislike Macs for one of two reasons:

1. They are more comfortable with the familiarity of Windows, having spent months learning the finer details of COM libraries, the system registry, and .NET
2. They play computer games, and will always choose the platform that has more state-of-the-art games available

That said, I have an X-Box for games, and a UNIX background that's at least as strong as my Windows knowledge. OS X 10.3 rocks my world.

About Paul Thurrot's points.

[theolein]

No, it's not some MS troll, but some thoughts after reading Paul Thurrot's blog and website, and all the points he makes (I mentioned some of this further down) and want to expand on it.

I don't think Paul Thurrot is a complete idiot. He really likes Windows, obviously, and seems to feel that MS has more to offer than Linux or Mac OSX. He does use both Linux and OSX and quite rightly points out some of the deficiencies that creep into OSX and Linux, albeit from the point of view of someone who has decided on which side of the fence he's sitting (Microsoft 4 ever).

He obviously, in light of his Windows bias, likes to point out problems, both existant and non existant in the two other OSes, such as the non-issue that Apple wasn't going to supply security fixes to Jaguar, and the initial problems with Panther Firewire and Filevault (there have been many of us on Mac forums that were really worried about this) and takes issue with Apple releasing a patch so quickly for those issues (would he have preferred waiting for a month?). He also points out general unhappiness with RH's Feodora (which Linux reviewers seem to agree with). He goes on to complain that the smallest iBook doesn't have the fastest processor as compared to the smallest Powerbook (why don't you just buy a 12" Powerbook then Paul?)

He also seems to see Longhorn as the next big thing in computing, and I for one agree that MS is probably going to have some pretty interesting features in it (the compositing, WinFS and multiple simultaneous users in the GUI for example) and it will probably be quite polished by the time it gets released.

Yet, he doesn't seem to see any problems with Microsoft's business practices, such as the fact that Longhorn Pro will only allow two simultaneous user sessions at once (Someone should tell him about Xwindows networking) and that the DRM features, while probably providing improved security will almost certainly cause havoc in companies that have a mix of older and newer software and will make lock-in even more odious than it is today as it will lock out any standards based mail or document system.

And this is what bothers me about so much of Microsoft's business: The OS (in Win2k and XP) has gotten to be reasonably stable and reliable and one cannot really argue the fact that so much software/games/hardware platforms etc are available, but Microsoft's decided lack of interest in real security (software vulnerability versus product activation i.e. Quality vs. Quantity) until the amount of derision in the press became overwhelming is a point in fact. Longhorn will be full of new features and will probably work well on then existing hardware, but one will by then almost certainly be tied into multiple DRM systems and I am willing to bet that MS will try it's subscription idea on home users again at some point.

It's a question of trust at the end of the day. Do I trust an OS that is completely open (Linux), mostly open (OSX), or mostly closed and locked up (Windows)?

I made my decision. I'm running OSX on my Powerbook.