Mac OS X Versus Windows Vista

An anonymous reader writes "With Macworld set to start Jan. 8, InformationWeek has a detailed comparison that pits Mac OS X against Vista. According to reviewer John Welch, OS X wins hands down. The important point: he doesn't say Vista is bad, just that technically speaking, OS X remains way ahead. Do you agree?"

Comments

Vendor support

[gravos]

Technical superiority doesn't mean as much when you can't get vendor support. This is sad but true. For a long while to come Vista will enjoy all the attention and benefits of a larger install base regardless of technical merits (or lack thereof).

Wow, that wasn't biased, LOL...

[Assmasher]

...I don't think I've ever seen so many ad hominem attacks against a non hominem. ;)

Saying that OSX is better than Vista because OSX hasn't changed its UI much since 2001 (at least regarding buttons) and Vista has changed the look of the window bar buttons? That's just stupid.

Spending most of the first page of the article beating the dead horse of Cairo promises regarding WinFS and other things which have nothing to do with comparing Vista to OSX?

I'd much rather read an article by a Linux or Windows fanboy bashing each other unapologetically than listen to that author say "I'm going to compare A and B" and then spend half their time talking about C.

Re:It doesn't matter

[vertinox]

Different platforms, different programs, different needs.

I think it was more on the grandparents post on the idea that the fact that Vista can run more games and application.

But it is a moot point if it can't run the one application I need it to run. The fact that it can run more may not be the right tool for the right job. Like having a swiss army knife when you really need a plain phillips head screw driver.

Re:It doesn't matter

[maztuhblastah]

Agreed. Technically, you can do more stuff on Windows -- just as you can technically go more places in a SUV than you can in a sedan. But in reality, you never end up taking advantage of every little feature, relying instead on a core library of features. And when it comes to that "core library", Windows can't touch Mac OS X.

Oops

[dal20402]

Anyone who looks at my post history will see that I am a Mac zealot, but I have to correct a small bit of misinformation in the review.

He praises Mac OS X for dimming toolbar buttons when windows are in the background, using the example of a Safari window behind a Finder window. Unfortunately, the reason the Safari window's toolbar buttons are dimmed is not that it's in the background, but that it's not displaying any page. Put a Safari window displaying any page into the background and its toolbar buttons (unfortunately) stay active. The behavior he describes is application-specific.

For example, both the Finder and Path Finder do the right thing.

There were other inconsistencies in the review. Two examples: First, he slammed Vista for requiring UAC approval for installations where it might not seem necessary, where OS X does the same thing. Second, he praised Vista's interface consistency, without mentioning the lack of consistency that has been typical of Mac OS X in recent years. (This lack of consistency, because it is strictly cosmetic and apps have remained well-executed, is something I think is OK or even valuable... but there are a whole lot of Mac users out there who violently disagree with me.)

Re:Inactive windows - he's got it wrong

[catwh0re]

I'm not sure how well the author has articulated his point. The safari buttons stay active because you can actually click them at any time from any window (including when safari is not the active application.) This behaviour exists in a few applications but only where it's useful. E.g. you can change tracks in iTunes without activating iTunes. However in Safari when back/forward is pressed it's logical to switch to the application. It's not that they are highlighted and non-functional, which is a past windows trait.

Personally I find the actual issue with XP or Vista is that there is simply too much over stimulation on the screen, a user is desensitised to the bold interface and thus the OS requires more brazen efforts to gather attention when it's required in a different area of the screen. This is why windows users find that all the mac windows look grey and unsubstantial (this is also why mac users can tolerate many windows on the screen at once). Opposingly mac users find that windows is excessively clunky and child-like in appearance (hence terms for XP such as Fisher-Price). The excessively bold interface of windows leads users to maximise each window otherwise they can't concentrate on the task at hand.

Re:It doesn't matter

[xwizbt]

And it's worth pointing out that there's a reason for that. Generally, under MacOS X, anything 'advanced' is off by default. If you're the sort of person who wants to use keyboard shortcuts then you're the sort of person who's able to go to the preferences and activate them.

Conversely, on Windows, in general *everything* is enabled at start up. Confuses the hell out of novice users. The Mac approach - simplicity and usability with the option for power use - wins out every time.

Re:Unfair comparison

[mstone]

3) Authentication before making system changes. This, the author implies, is acceptable on OSX, but not Windows? Why?

Well, among other things, he spends most of a page discussing the difference between authentication, which OS X does, and approval, which Vista does.

Authentication means you actually enter a password to prove you're the person who has rights to modify the machine.

Approval means you just click a "yes, go ahead and do it" button.

The article then discusses the weakness of 'approval' from a security standpoint: i.e.: it doesn't stop J. Random Passerby from hosing your system, it just means he has to push the 'Okay' button to do it.

In practice, this means that if the two of us are sitting side by side, you on a Vista box where only you know the admin password, me on a Mac where only I know the admin password, I can change the settings of your machine while you step away for coffee, but you can't change the settings on my machine while I step away for coffee.

Re:It doesn't matter

[gobbo]

Except it confuses the hell out of the power users coming from Windows, ya know, the ones (like me) that don't know it can even be turned on.

Oh, for crying out loud... if you're a power user, and confused, R-T-F-M! Or visit a web forum, like Mac OSX Hints or better, google's Mac search page. Or maybe you're not really a power user, just well-adapted to using windows--I've noted the distinction, people who understand how to do things with windows really well, but aren't clear on why it works that way.

I'm constantly amazed at how people switch to a graphic interface and command line that is widely reputed to be "better" and yet expect it to work just like the one they abandoned.

Re:It doesn't matter

[644bd346996]

People stop being noobs by exploring the options and prefs dialogs, not by fumbling around. I doubt many people are able to figure out which random keypress triggered the action they wanted. But with something as complex as Windows or OS X, you can always discover new features by digging through the preference panes. THat is the experimentation that really helps.

Re:Because Tiger is already better.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Care to enumerate them?

I can name a few off the top of my head:

• OpenStep style application packages - application install and uninstall easily, application on removable media save preferences on local machines so you can move one installed app back and forth between machines, resources are easy to find so extracting an image or sound is easy, fat binaries are cake, I can IM an application to someone on a different chip architecture even and it just works without having to find installers
• Upgrade via firewire - I now run both Windows and Linux in VMs on top of OS X, mostly because of this feature. Plug in a cable to my old machine and click a button. All my files, applications, user accounts, settings, certificates, everything migrates seamlessly while I go for coffee and a bagel. Migrating Windows or Linux to a new machine takes significant time, sometimes weeks, and nontrivial effort, (or did until I installed them in VMs. Now full installs of those OS's come with me as well.)
• System services - applications and plug-ins can easily share functionality across all applications. I only have to train one spelling checker and it works in my mail, web browser, word processor, terminals, pro layout app, photoshop, chat client, etc. The same goes for grammar checking, language translations, a pile of scripts, statistics on text like word count, automated bibliography entries, dictionary and thesaurus lookups, online lookups at numerous references, etc. Writing the same functionality over and over again for each app is outdated. Easily re-implementable libraries like Kparts on KDE only work if the programmer knows beforehand about the library, so no one uses them. Services on OS X requires no work on the part of a given app developer. The maintainers of subethaedit have never heard of omnidictionary. The developers of omnidictionary probably never considered subethaedit users. But in subethaedit I can still easily perform online dictionary lookups at a dozen different dictionaries with a single key combo. Losing this would be disasterous to my everyday workflow.
• Save to PDF from every application.
• Expose for easily finding and switching to one of my two dozen or more of windows.
• user account encryption that both works and does not ever get in my way.
• Ubiquitous application of zero-conf for local discovery of chat, music streaming, filesharing, collaboration tools, etc.
• Automater - I know I didn't think I'd use it either, but this is the fastest way I've ever found to do things like add a watermark to every page in a PDF when I don't have the source file. It is also the only scripting some nontechnical coworkers have ever managed to use. Before it became available they would sit an rename 500 files by hand, rather than spending 60 seconds writing a script.

I'm sure there are more items I'm forgetting and again I want to stress that OS X is not ahead in all areas and can really benefit from improvements. It is just that some of these things have been on OS X for quite a while and most Linux developers I talk to don't even recognize the value in them. A lot of them are things that you can work around on Linux, or hack something that works in one instance, but until they are available to average and novice users, they are just ignored anyway. I'd love to see Linux catch up to OS X on the desktop, I just don't anticipate it happening anytime soon. I don't think Linux developers are willing to make some of the hard choices needed or will be willing to accept complexity on the server for the sake of making Linux nice on the desktop.