Slashdot Mirror
What's Different About Vista's GUI?
jcatcw writes "Paul McFedries, author of Windows Vista Unveiled, thinks that an operating system should be thought of as more than just its user interface, but then again that interface should work well for the user. He thinks the Vista interface rates 'pretty darned good.' The Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) results in positive changes for both developers and users. Developers can do 2-D, 3-D, animation, imaging, video, audio, special effects and text rendering using a single API. The use of vector graphics and offloading work to the GPU result in better animations, improved scaling, transparency, and smooth motion."
You forgot that OS X does it on a third of the hardware.(except ram then only half)
You need a G5 with a gig or more of RAM to get anything approaching decent performance out of OS X, except under trivial load. This is quite comparable with the level of hardware you need to get a similar Vista 'experience'. OS X is an absolute pig compared to any other mainstream platform (although it's been getting faster - but from that slow there isn't anywhere to go but up).
The reason OS X "runs" (and I use the term loosely) on relatively low-end hardware is because when it came out such hardware was common (since Macs typically lag and are expensive in terms of raw power, and are upgraded less frequently). Vista's minimum spec is, similarly, for machines that are common at its release.
(Not to mention, Vista is doing more than OS X.)
If you have a PC with a Ghz+ CPU and a gigabyte or more of RAM, you can run Vista fine (and better than a Ghz-ish G4 will run OS X). If you had a particularly low end PC at the time it was bought, you might need to splash out on a US$30ish video card to get the fancy Aero GUI. If you've got a machine that's even remotely good at playing games, Vista will be more than fast enough and far faster than OS X on a similar Mac. Most Vista machines are going to come from new PC sales, anyway, not upgrades to existing machines.