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

It doesn't matter

[Stele]

Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.

As a cross-platform developer (hail Qt!), I recently got a MacBook Pro so I could run both OS X and Windows on the road, and I will admit, the Mac has remained booted into OS X the vast majority of time. This is admittedly do to mostly Universal Binary testing, but I could easily see that if I wanted to, I could run my day-do-day stuff purely on OS X. Except for its continued mouse-happy interface (come on, make ALL of those popup dialogs keyboard accessible!), when running on a fast machine OS X is very nice.

At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Yonzie]

come on, make ALL of those popup dialogs keyboard accessible!

They are.
Use [tab] to select and [space] to "click". You need to look after the faint blue highlight around the button though, and if you press [Enter], the blue button is selected, not the higlight.

Re:It doesn't matter

[vertinox]

Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.

But can you run Final Cut Pro on Windows?

Or even have a comparable program that doesn't make you beat your head on the keyboard? (I'm looking at you Adobe Premiere!)

But in general, most commercial apps don't have a version on OS X.

But to be really fair, if the software is open source and running on a modern version of Linux (as in that it is currently being maintained) you may see it recompiled in X11 for OS X.

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.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Megane]

Use [tab] to select and [space] to "click".

Not by default. First you have to go into the Keyboard & Mouse preferences and select the full keyboard access for "All controls".

Re:It doesn't matter

[lord_rob the only on]

I don't remember where I read it, but I think any version of Vista can be run inside a VM. What you can't do is running multiple instances of one licence of Vista inside a VM (also one licence of vista and the same licence running simultaneously inside a vm), unless you use the ultimate edition.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ScrewMaster]

Off topic a little (okay, a lot), but your comment applies to programming languages as well. When I was coding for the MCS6502 on an Apple ][ in 1978 or so, I had every instruction, every variation, every addressing mode in my head. The code just flowed. No need to waste time referring to documentation once I had learned the instruction set ... my fingers never left the keyboard.

Flash forward twenty nine years. Nowadays, programming environments are so complex (I won't use the term "sophisticated", necessarily) that no mere human mind can easily encompass them in their entirety. Yes, there may be a function that does exactly what you want, but odds are you won't remember it's there (if you ever did know) and will just write it yourself anyway. Most developers I know (myself included) settle for a "core library" of features and functions in a particular language, functions that do the majority of what we need. To do otherwise would mean continually searching through programming manuals trying to find some little-used feature which might (or might not!) actually be there and might (or might not!) do what you really want. Not worth the effort: just do it yourself and get it over with.

Language and operating system designers rationalize the insane complexity of their creations by saying, "yes, it's true, no programmer/user will ever use all of what we provide, but the subset of features each programmer/user chooses will be different, so we have to put in the kitchen sink." Now, that is true to a degree, but I think that in many cases they have simply gone too far and productivity has actually suffered as a result. At the very least, a large percentage of their oh-so-valuable features go unused by a large percentage of users.

The reality is that it is usually the marketing departments that demand more and more stuff be added in order to make their claims of "ours is new and improved!" so they can achieve some unquantifiable degree of "market differentiation".

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:It doesn't matter

[Tim Browse]

The thing about PC gaming is that games on PC don't really use the operating system at all.

Yes, they do. I tried writing a PC game once without using the OS, but I couldn't open any of my data files.

They all run in full-screen mode with their own UI.

Oh, you mean they don't really use the Window manager? The OS is more than a GUI.

As long as your version of Windows has the needed version of DirectX, etc. etc., a committed PC gamer doesn't really care if he's running Vista, XP, 2K, or 95.

Unless I'm mistaken, quite a few games now don't (officially) support 95.

BTW, DirectX uses the OS, which you may not have realised.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Joe U]

The thing about PC gaming is that games on PC don't really use the operating system at all

Except for the sound, video, keyboard, mouse, monitor, network card, hdd, cd/dvd and other drivers the OS provides.

Windows isn't just the fancy GUI, it's a standard interface to non-standard hardware. Anyone who used DOS for gaming will remember the absolute nightmare of getting sound, video, network and CD drivers all running for every game.

Re:It doesn't matter

[dhasenan]

Now, last I checked I breathe air, produce sperm which contain human genetic codes, and am also in an intimate relationship with a human so I'm pretty sure I'm a person. I can test that. It'll only take a minute; I have the gom jabbar right here.

Re:It doesn't matter

[eclectic4]

"As a cross-platform developer"

I assume you realize you represent less than 1% of the computer using public's needs/wants as a cross platform developer (most of them wouldn't even know what that means).

"At the end of the day though, I can do MORE stuff on Windows, and Vista will be no exception."

Like what? You may be right, but usually in a "discussion" thread you have to actually put up examples. My mom used to use Word, a browser and an E-mail app on her old Dell. With a Mac she now plugs in her digital camera to get photos as soon as I told her she didn't have to do a thing outside of plugging in the camera to the machine (no driver installs, no app installs), and she's been playing with iMovie, something she wouldn't have dreamed she could have done so easily on a Windows machine.

So, while you may be right, I think the majority of the computer using public couldn't care less about your statement, and more about what they want to do rather than what they can do. Remember, I may admit you are right (without examples that would be pertinent to the general public I can't argue anything), but for most people, OS X and their bundled apps are going to be far more rewarding, fun, stress free than anything similar on Vista. For games, BootCamp!

Re:It doesn't matter

[Bill Hayden]

First you have to go into the Keyboard & Mouse preferences and select the full keyboard access for "All controls".

With an onerous requirement like that, I can see how it's a complete non-starter.

Re:It doesn't matter

[ThePlissken]

Final Cut Pro is making more and more inroads on Avid's territory due to the fact that it is just so much more cost-effective. Avid is a system with machines in racks in a term gear room. Final Cut Pro is a Mac tower with some displays and an editing keyboard. Avid is still used more, I know this, but Final Cut is a very attractive alternative. We use both daily at CNN.

Re:It doesn't matter

[that this is not und]

I wouldn't mind having 'Final Cut Pro' as it's an application that makes it easy to do video editing. It, however, like all programs that makes a task 'easy' tends to direct the user along it's prescribed method for doing the task.

None of what it accomplishes can't be done using other programs. And I feel more in control picking and chosing components. Plus, the existence of 'Final Cut Pro' on the Mac platform crowds out and eliminates the motivation for other people to come in and develop competing products. On Windoze there isn't a 'clear leader' in the area of video editing, so out of the anarchy come more options and choices. I like options and choices. I also cannot justify spending the tons of money for a new Macintosh, and all the new software I'd have to buy to get equivalent performance with other tasks.

Really, though, for most purposes at home I use NetBSD these days. But for video editing and reproduction, good old Windows 2000 works okay, and I've registered a collection of shareware apps to meet my needs.

Re:It doesn't matter

[kcarlin]

Speaking of utterly unimpressive, Read TFA. InformationWeek != Macworld.

InformationWeek is a long standing IT periodical that is not editorially tied to any one vendor.

Macworld and the various Windows XXX publications can reasonably be expected to make a case for their own platforms, but will point out at times where the competition is doing something better.

The feature that TFA latches on to as the key failure of Vista is the implicit surprise in Vista that something the user tried actually worked. Plug in a USB device, get a dialog box. Connect to a network, get a dialog box. And my favorite, the Word button that wants you to stop everything to tell you what it does because there was absolutely no better way imaginable to convey the button's functionality. (You would think that whole dancing paperclip fiasco would made an impression on someone somewhere in Redmond. Perhaps the fact that they 1) haven't added a feature to Word in a decade worth paying for an upgrade and 2) have, thanks to 1), trained longtime users to simply catalog the breakage in new versions rather than explore new features which have proven to be of limited or negative value (like the grand unity between numbered lists and numbered paragraphs that rendered numbered paragraphs totally unusable in the 21st Century).)

Big RTFA.

Re:It doesn't matter

[a.d.trick]

Except that then it takes a long time for someone to become an 'Advanced User'. Most Advanced Users didn't learn what they know by reading some Advanced Users manual chalk full of al sorts of arcane knowledge of keyboard shortcuts and stuff. They were just regular users who accidently pressed tab one day on an found that it cycled through the form elements. Experimentation is *the* way that users learn stuff. We all know that getting them to read the manual is about as likely as getting a slashdotter to RTFA.

Re:It doesn't matter

[L0rdJedi]

The Mac approach - simplicity and usability with the option for power use - wins out every time.

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.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Thoron77]

Windows can't touch Mac OS X. Linux can :P

touch MacOSX

Re:It doesn't matter

[Monsuco]

The Mac approach - simplicity and usability with the option for power use - wins out every time.

sorta reminds me of KDE vs. Gnome. Gnome is easier to use, but KDE has more features. I personally use KDE, as do many Linux users, but many also use Gnome, and several also use other side stuff like XFce, Fluxbox, and the like. You can't really say one is better than the other.

I would also say price has to be considered, OSX probably can do more than Vista, and it's easier to use, but most people dont want to pay that kind of price.

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

[gobbo]

however, like all programs that makes a task 'easy' tends to direct the user along it's prescribed method for doing the task.

OK, I think you're confusing iMovie (free, or nearly) with FCP ($300 - $1200 or so, depending on discounts). Final Cut is not easy, nor prescriptive. I can edit, colour correct, audio edit, capture, etc. in dozens of ways, depending on workflow and habits. In fact, other than media management and settings (both of which SUCK on FCP), it's pretty much like Avid's functionality--and complexity.

None of what it accomplishes can't be done using other programs. And I feel more in control picking and chosing components. Plus, the existence of 'Final Cut Pro' on the Mac platform crowds out and eliminates the motivation for other people to come in and develop competing products.

Well, one can build a house with a can opener and a rock, but who wants to? FCP is the rage in the industry because it has an excellent balance of usability, reliability, and power, and it scales fairly well, including sliding into many an established workflow, especially now that it handles multiple cameras and better formats. No other programs offer that combination. In a sense, it breaks the rule of "cheap, fast, good: pick two." THATS why it dominates on the Mac, when Premiere and Avid were well entrenched leaders for... well, a decade. They dropped the ball.

I also cannot justify spending the tons of money for a new Macintosh, and all the new software I'd have to buy to get equivalent performance with other tasks.

Well, I guess you aren't billing $80/hr as an editor. Downtime (do you hear me, cinelerra?!) is costly, and in an afternoon of lost business, you've lost any price advantages; at 20 minutes per day of lost productivity, over the course of a year, well, that's just bad math, because at 40 weeks per year, that's $4800 you've sacrificed to the gods of false frugality.

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:It doesn't matter

[Niten]

No, he's right on the point. The reason our old Apple ][s are easier to program than a modern computer is that the Apple ][ didn't have an operating system with nearly as much functionality as a modern version of Windows, OS X, Linux, or BSD. Today's more sophisticated (yes, I would argue sophisticated) systems necessitate more complex APIs.

The large number of functions and libraries that a modern programmer has to dig through while writing software for today's systems is an unfortunate – but necessary – byproduct of these more advanced OSes. You generalize that these APIs are a waste of time: "Not worth the effort: just do it yourself and get it over with." That may be fine for some very small tasks, but when it comes to the more complex aspects of writing software, that stance is completely unfeasible. Would you like to implement that TCP stack you're using all by yourself? How about that windowing system which your customers seem to love so much? Maybe the filesystem, too? Where do we draw the line?

A similar case can be made for less fundamental system APIs, such as Apple's Core Data API in Tiger. You might think of it as a waste of time, and if so you're free to roll your own data persistence framework in each of your applications; by merely providing the API, Apple isn't forcing you to waste your time learning Core Data if you don't want to use it. But when I need to roll out an OS X application on a deadline, having something like Core Data to save me development time can be a real lifesaver.

If you know what you're looking for, having a variety of pre-built solutions to build on top will save you way more time than you will "waste" looking through the docs. Sure, that shifts some of the difficulty of software development from the skill of laying down code to the skill of figuring out which pieces to glue together under certain circumstances, but that's just the art of programming. As developers, it is our job to solve problems in the most efficient way feasible.

Re:It doesn't matter

[vrochette]

Try the Apple+TAB shortcut. Same as Alt+Tab in Win.

Re:It doesn't matter

[somethinghollow]

That's why PHP.net is a boon to PHP developers. They didn't just throw the kitchen sink into PHP. They threw in the furniture, the windex, and even the toilet brush. They even went out and got more stuff to throw in. However, if I need to do something that I feel like there ought to be a function for, I just Google PHP.net, and I usually find it. My fingers never leave the keyboard, though I do leave my editor. That said, good luck finding an easy-to-use reference for, say, C#. If the documentation is there, most of the time having an obscure function is nice.

Re:It doesn't matter

[GeffDE]

What the parent is trying to say is that games use DirectX to access sound, video, network and CD drivers, basically. If the DirectX API was ported, it wouldn't matter much to a game what OS it was running on because all it cares about is the DirectX API calls. This is the idea behind cross-platform game APIs, as well as OpenGL etc.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Paradise Pete]

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.

Apparently, Lord Jedi, you are not quite as powerful as you can possibly imagine.

Re:It doesn't matter

[gobbo]

You've described a market of about 60,000 annual sales to Apple, though, you know. They can't survive in niche markets like that.

You did invoke Final Cut Pro--the consumer space is another matter entirely. If you want to compare iLife (includes iMovie + iDVD) to anything out there, I suggest you take a swing at it yourself, as it's hard to understand how much "more in control" one feels when everything works without grief, instead of spending lots of time figuring out how to integrate programs from different vendors, different codecs, what parts go where, etc. Your "in control" feeling as a tinkerer puts you into a niche as well, and your comments are contradictory in that sense--Apple has the consumer space for media production figured out, it's a legit driver of sales and part of the reason for their current growth.

I've spent lots of time teaching video production to beginner and advanced students on Premiere Pro, Ulead products, discreet! products, and iMovie - Final Cut Express/Pro, and I can tell you that beginners are much more productive and creative when using iMovie, and that Premiere Pro is harder to keep running than Final Cut. Would you feel even more in control if you got more done, to a higher standard, in the same amount of time?

Choice is good, as long as they're good choices. Hooray for shareware video software on Windows, for the few who can stomach them, and blessed are those who don't know better. Anyway, as a *nix user, shouldn't you be using Kino or MainActor? Try out the LiveCD for dyne:bolic sometime, or try blender--it runs on Windows too.

Re:It doesn't matter

[supermank17]

I think what the gp might have been referring to is that even if you in general know what you're doing, if you don't know an option exists, you aren't going to look for how to enable said option. I've been using OSX for a couple of years, but I never knew that it was possible to enable this extra keyboard support until today. I'd just noticed that, huh, I can't use the keyboard to do some things, weird. I never thought to look for a way to enable keyboard support, because I didn't know it was even possible.

Re:It doesn't matter

[notwrong]

Another great shortcut is the Apple-backtick/tilde keystroke to cycle within the windows of the foreground application. Physically right above the tab key, so the related functionality is quite intuitive (to me at least). I have used this all the time since I heard about it!

Re:It doesn't matter

[Storlek]

It should also be pointed out that in many dialogs, pressing command(apple key) and a letter will press a button. For example, in the shutdown dialog, command-R restarts. Actually, in the shutdown dialog, you don't need the command key. Elsewhere, yes, that is correct.

Re:It doesn't matter

[linuxfanatic1024]

HELL NO. I know several girl geeks, and over half of them are Linux users. My girlfriend even wants to learn it. And I know a lot of guys who just don't have a single clue how to work a computer. It's people like you who scare the girls away, not the complexity of computers.

The truth is that geeks come in all shapes, sizes, ages, and both sexes.

Apparently your experience in the real world is limited.

Re:It doesn't matter

[dan828]

Unfortunately, though, computer non-experts fear Macs because they're not Microsoft. People have been brainwashed to believe that the Microsoft way is the only way they can learn. Too bad for other operating systems, though--they can't win converts with the majority of computer users thinking "it's too hard to use anything non-Microsoft!"

Bullshit. People generally don't want to learn a new way of doing things because it's an investment of time and energy that they don't want to spend. For most people, computers are tools that they have to use for work or that they want to use for entertainment. Having learned how to use one with a specific OS, they don't see the point in learning another way of doing the same thing. No one is scared or brainwashed, they just don't care about the things enough to want to do things differently. Belittling people in that fashion is idiotic.

Re:It doesn't matter

[elbobo]

Just type "php.net/[keywords]" and it'll search PHP's function library.

Re:It doesn't matter

[cferthorney]

I deal with both sides of this everyday. Joe and Jan sixpack are admittedly are amoung the few with something as advanced as a mailserver but we do get the odd "How do I send mail from Outlook" etc. I personally would never dream of getting those sorts of users to say force a coredump if their Mac based server hung for an unknown reason and restarting the service didn't work. Any person can use a computer to the best of their own ability.

If they are happy knowning what they know (Send email, print from a word processor, get the spreadsheet to do a little bit of maths for them etc) then thats grand, they can use the computer. The worst sort of user in my opinion is in fact the ones who think they know everything; know a few buzz words like "terminal" or "command prompt", "sudo" etc and think they are gods gift to geekdom. I've only once been able to agree with someone being comfortable in the terminal when they said "mac user, and I love the terminal" and this was coz he clarified he cut his teeth in Unix years ago on Solaris. (Its nice to not have to receit the keystrokes force kill a process with coredump!)

To Joe and Jane, it doesn't matter if they use Windows or OS X. As long as they can do all they need for their day to day work, either is satisfactory. Just accept they will come crying to the techies over what we see as the littlest of things, as we know what we're doing, and they don't! (Joe and Jane pay our wages most of the time! Be grateful :) ) A lecturer at uni once said "Computers are like the workings of the car. Everyone can use the basic product, a few can tinker and be comfortable with fixing, but b***er me only a few can truely understand the inner workings of them" and he was right :)

Re:It doesn't matter

[dbrutus]

Actually, Mac OS X does this vis a vis Windows in the business space because OS X Server does not require CALs. This is the vast majority of the cost on most business installations. Try costing out Windows print and file services with mail for 100 people and compare it with a Mac OS X server solution. You need to pay money for each Windows CAL, an Exchange CAL and an Outlook CAL to get the full MS experience. Mac OS X requires none of that except if you are using Apple networking services at which point you have to pony up an extra $500 for the "unlimited" server license. That's peanuts. The CAL licenses in the above scenario might be $80 a seat for all three CALs. You can get a lot of OS X education for your admin for $8000.

Re:It doesn't matter

[dbrutus]

No matter what your platform, it's important to acquire the habit to save often. Save twice per page and you're going to be "ok" in 99% of circumstances.

Re:It doesn't matter

[garote]

Cool. Then you'll appreciate that you can do exactly the same thing you describe, on OS X - with the added bonus that if you want to cycle through the windows of only the foreground application, you use command-`, which is right above the tab key. So you can tab through your Word documents without ever accidentally tabbing into something else. (By the way, command-` is implemented by the OS, so it works automatically across ALL applications.)

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).

Why not wait for Leopard?!

[Lord Satri]

Isn't this strange. Why don't they wait for the just-around-the-corner Leopard to compare with Vista. At least they would be comparing apple with oranges instead of pineapples and watermelons! ;-)

Re:Why not wait for Leopard?!

[samkass]

This is especially true considering the industry rags were comparing the Longhorn announced features with the then-released MacOS X 10.3 years ago, then again when 10.4 came out. Now that we're a few months from 10.5, you'd think they'd compare the 10.5 announced features against the now-released Vista, but no, the Mac doesn't get that advantage. Admittedly it's a little bit of Apple's fault with them being so secretive, but still... compare 2007 releases if you're going to compare.

Re:Why not wait for Leopard?!

[catwh0re]

it's more like comparing Apples with lemons.

.NET

[iJed]

In my opinion the only place where Windows is really far ahead of Mac OS X is .NET. Or more specifically: C# 2.0. C# is simply the nicest programming language and .NET the most consistent and easiest API that I've ever used. I went from a Java and Obj-C advocate to a C# maniac in about one month of using it. The biggest drawback with .NET is Visual BASIC which is horribly verbose and seems to attract idiot developers.

I think it would be great if Apple would adopt C# as the future of development on Mac OS X. I hate to say this but in comparison Objective-C 2.0 looks positively dated.

Other than .NET I think Mac OS X 10.4 and the up-comming 10.5 are still much better operating systems than Vista. Mac OS X is more consistent, nicer to use and is more stable than any version of Windows I've ever seen.

Re:.NET

[blackpaw]

Word - .NET and C# are just amazing, and Visual Studio is a *really* nice IDE. SharpDevelop (GPL) is pretty good as well.

I actually see .NET as a real opportunity for linux. If there was a decent 2.0 implementation on Linux I would switch my web development to it just like that.

WinForms problems? I have written custom from designers for DevStudio, it would be (relatively) easy to implement a GTK or QT hierarchy, experts and designer that integrated with DevStudio.

Re:.NET

[TheRaven64]

I haven't used C# much, and not used C# 2.0 ever, but my understanding is that is is semantically similar to Java. Here are a few things off the top of my head that I can easily do in Objective-C that I can't in Java (all of which I have used in real code):

1. Enumerate all the subclasses of a given class, or classes that implement a particular interface, including those supplied in plug-ins, at runtime.
2. Call methods by name.
3. Query whether a delegate object implements a given method, allowing for informal protocols.
4. Handle the case where an object tries to call a method on my object that doesn't exist, to allow the simple creation of generic proxy objects.
5. Add methods to a class, even if it's part of the standard library and I don't have the source code (I can even do this at runtime, although it's messier, and I haven't ever needed to).
6. Separate the allocation and initialisation of an object into separate methods, to allow different allocation policies to be implemented (e.g. pools for commonly re-cycled objects) transparently to users of the class.

Perhaps C# 2.0 has these features, but Objective-C has had them for years.

As to preferring .NET to OpenStep, I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I find this one very difficult to understand.

Re:.NET

[Agilus]

I actually had a reason to do all of those things, with the exception #of 5 (but it might be do-able, don't know off the top of my head) with ancient Java 1.4 a few years back. You can find that Java's Reflection API will handle most of the stuff you're talking about, while its JNI API will let you call separate methods for object allocation and constructor initialization. It's also possible that you might be able to do it all with the Reflection API, without having to resort to JNI - I just came across the allocation functionality while I was creating some Java-C++ bridge code.

That said, I'm looking to getting my hands dirty with some Objective-C code in the near future.

Re:.NET

[PetiePooo]

Have you ever used Delphi or C++Builder? The .NET API and the Borland Visual Component Library (VCL) were built by the same guy. .NET has the advantage of being his 2nd iteration, and C# the second iteration of Java, so his team had a chance to work the kinks out... Still, C++Builder/Delphi were vastly superior IDEs to VB6, not to mention that they didn't require programming in VB... (gag)

Borland has even released a free (as in beer) version called Turbo C++ Explorer. Not expandable like the original C++Builder from a few years ago, but still very nice for writing simple Win32 apps. Installation can be a pain, but if you make it through that, you'll notice many similarities between its VCL and the .NET APIs.

p.s. Yes, I'm a Borland fanboy.. 8-)

Re:.NET

[TheRaven64]

In Objective-C, you allocate space for an object with +alloc, initialise it -init, and free it with -dealloc. If you want to implement pools for a particular object type, then the simplest way of doing it is to simply override -dealloc so that is adds the object to a list, and +alloc so it gives you the first object from the list. If you want to do something a bit more clever, take a look at +allocWithZone:. NSObject's +alloc method actually calls this with the default zone. If you want to create a lot of short-lived objects, you can create a zone which will just allocate objects linearly, and then free them all at once. With the GNU runtime, you can do a lot more with NSZone, but on OS X it's an opaque type. Similar functionality, however, is exposed via some of the stuff in malloc.h on OS X.

Re:.NET

[nickallen]

1. Enumerate all the subclasses of a given class, or classes that implement a particular interface, including those supplied in plug-ins, at runtime.

This is not directly possible in Java API but can be done with a small utility function that uses reflection.

      2. Call methods by name.

Again this can be done by reflection. You loose type safety so it's not encouraged.

      3. Query whether a delegate object implements a given method, allowing for informal protocols.

Again this can be done through reflection. As Java tries to be type safe this is not part of the language syntax. You should use interfaces in this case. But it is possible to do this using reflection API as well.

      4. Handle the case where an object tries to call a method on my object that doesn't exist, to allow the simple creation of generic proxy objects.

This is something Java and most statically type safe languages try to avoid as in most cases this is a programming error and it is better to catch at compile time. Using reflection you could check if the object supported the method or not though.

      5. Add methods to a class, even if it's part of the standard library and I don't have the source code (I can even do this at runtime, although it's messier, and I haven't ever needed to).

This can be done with AspectJ.

      6. Separate the allocation and initialisation of an object into separate methods, to allow different allocation policies to be implemented (e.g. pools for commonly re-cycled objects) transparently to users of the class.

Java implementations try to detect this automatically. In fact I think some implementations of Java can allocate objects faster than a malloc because they do pooling for you. But it would be nice if this could be done in Java I guess.

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

[MrHanky]

Yeah, he basically ignores every technical aspect of the operating systems to choose a few UI and HCI aspects that are more consistent on OS X. Even Apple does this better, with their "Hello, I'm a Mac" commercials. This is a fucking advert, not a review.

Solving the world's problems with vista

[scenestar]

f you believe all the hype, installing the new Windows Vista operating system will solve world famine, end the AIDS crisis and bring about world peace.

If those windows zombie botnets were used for scientific work instead of sending spam I'm sure it would in fact have a positive impact.

Re:They both lose at source availability.

[iJed]

Mac OS X and Windows Vista completely fail in this area, however. I cannot see the source code to the window systems of either, for instance. Nor can I inspect the kernel source code.

You are correct that you cannot view the OS X window system source but wrong about the kernel. The source to the Mac OS X kernel (XNU) is easily available from Apple. Apple also releases source to other major parts including things like launchd and bonjour as part of the Darwin core operating system.

Inactive windows - he's got it wrong

[natd]

TFA has quite a bit about how OS X does a better job of making it clear which windows are active/inactive etc.

His example is of Safari in the background of something else, and the Back/Forward/Reload/Stop buttons being greyed out. On Vista, he points to the similar buttons still being full colour and equating that to confusion.

The only reason his Safari buttons are grey is because he hasn't loaded a web page and has nothing to go back to, reload or stop. In OS X, with a page loaded those buttons would indeed look active. Yes, I just tested ;)

Re:Inactive windows - he's got it wrong

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

I'd have to re-read the article, but I thought he was refering to the "traffic lights" in the top left... I thought the point the author was trying to make was that the Vista equivalent is not as clearly identifiable and that the eye is drawn to the bright back button on the inactive window in the example screenshot. Still, he's a Mac user - so his familiarity with the OSX is understandable.

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:Tuesday!

[Andy_R]

That's 'yes', 'no' and 'ask again later' covered, shall we shoot for the whole set of magic 8 ball tags on this story? 'Outlook good' might be hard to find support for...

Ever used Python, OCaml, Common Lisp, Smalltalk

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you have had limited experience with various programming languages. Most of the best features of C# 2.0 have been available in other languages for some time now. In the case of closures, Lisp has offered them since as early as the 1960s! The OO capabilities of Smalltalk are still superior to that of C# 2.0. OCaml has a far more performant and portable bytecode interpreter than .NET, while also allowing for native binaries on Windows, Linux, *BSD, and most commercial UNIX systems. Python offers a practical mix of OO and functional features, while also being very portable, and offering a very practical and complete standard library.

I consulted with some developers recently who thought C# 2.0 was the top dawg. After a 15 minute introduction to Python, they were sold. I have talked with them since then, and they are quite glad they switched to Python for their development. It not only has increased their productivity, but it has allowed them to easily move from Windows Server 2003 to FreeBSD and Solaris, decreasing their server costs while also vastly increasing their performance.

C# 2.0 is lightyears ahead of Java. But compared to other languages, Java shows signs of severe mental retardation, and C# 2.0 looks like a preschooler.

Re:Ever used Python, OCaml, Common Lisp, Smalltalk

[FreeUser]

C# 2.0 is lightyears ahead of Java. But compared to other languages, Java shows signs of severe mental retardation, and C# 2.0 looks like a preschooler.

Unfortunately I have to develop software in the real world. This (for the most part anyway) completely rules out every language you suggested. It sounds like you lack experience programming in the real world.

In the past I have worked with trading companies on various exchanges (FTSE in London, NYSE in New York, CBOE & CME in Chicago, etc.). It doesn't get much more "real world" than winging around millions of dollars, pounds, and euros electronically in markets where seconds can mean the difference between profit and loss. Many of the infrastructure components for the real-time trading systems used were written in Python (the speed of development and platform flexibility made it invaluable), so your notion that Python programming isn't done in "the real world" is more than a little misguided. Of course, if your "real world" is limited to the subset of computers running Microsoft Windows, then I can understand how your impressions of "real-world" computing may have been skewed.

Of course, I quite like Ruby, but Python is very nice for what it does, and has many more real-world applications already in use than you realize.

Re:Ever used Python, OCaml, Common Lisp, Smalltalk

[iJed]

The problem with knowing a large number of programming languages is that the disadvantages of of each language become so much more clear. Recently, I was devising a class in C# and .NET 1.1 that would sort a large text file. My approach was standard enough; divide the file into chunks, sort each one in memory, and then progressively mergesort each file pair until only one output file remained. In C#, the class took well over 60 lines of code. In Haskell, it would have been barely over 6 (lazy evaluation is extremely useful for these sorts of problems).

The Haskell version may well be shorter but it generally takes a much longer time to write and then, when somebody comes along to maintain the code, it is very difficult to understand the deeply nested recursion. It probably also runs 50x slower! I actually did a fair amount of Haskell 98 programming a few years back and while functional languages are certainly interesting Haskell has very few real applications.

Replace Windows when I can

[AnyThingButWindows]

Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.

Most businesses don't care about games. As Microsoft's continued move to game consoles helps my strategies more, and more. Most businesses want to have easy access to their financial information and sell what they have. For the small business owner OS X is ideal, and I have deployed several iMac Core 2 Duos at business sites, replacing the far dated XP/Dos systems. In pharmacies we often deploy Linux based servers that run their core applications, and write scripts for OS X that automatically bring up the login to their Linux box to run their terminal applications via SSH.

I have been working on Windows replacement strategies for 3 years, and have so far converted more than %20 of my customer base from windows to another platform, mostly OS X and Linux. One or 2 scenarios involve FreeBSD, and Solaris. The next step is finding solutions to replace, and convert data from 3rd party software vendors that have little, or no support, and attempt to charge for support when their software is corroded with bugs. Ridding of these shoddy software vendors are my next target, which will cover %60 of my user base, which is about 800 businesses in Mississippi.

The replacement costs, or TCO is as estimated.

Average Dell = $700
Windows Costs = $250
Yearly Crap Cleaning = $300 (per machine)

Replacement options:
Average iMac = $1200
Average Linux Costs = $40
Yearly Maintenance = $40 (per machine if at all)

As for Vista, its happy hunting, and fair game for me. The TCO of Vista will be so high for many small businesses that when they see the numbers they will more than likely convert quickly. Microsoft continues yet again to hack off their own foot in a Monty Python skit while claiming "Its just a flesh wound", while I will continue the battle, and the fight will be mine.

Re:Replace Windows when I can

[InsaneGeek]

I think your numbers are just a *bit* exagerated there me bucko.

I can get a brand new dell XP-pro system with free upgrade to Vista business from Dell's small-business line of servers for $500. I don't know anybody's business, that isn't getting fleeced by people (which I guess like you are implying you do when they stay on Windows) who pay $300 annually per system to clean up their crap. Either their internal IT staff don't do their job/the outside support staff (your group) is milking them for cash or more likely your made up numbers are just out of wack and you are hoping nobody notices.

of getting a fair comparison

[v1]

I don't believe it's possible to get a fair comparison of two so completely different things unless you have been forced to use both of them for an extended period of time and have truly given them both a chance.

I am in that position where I work, and I have to support both macs and PCs in the desktop support world. For me what it all comes down to is simplicity of use. Just pulling an example out of thin air... 99% of mac software runs as non-admin, and better than 70% will run as a very restricted user. (kids) 98% of software can be installed as a non-admin so long as you know the admin l/p. Then we have windows. 0% of software can be installed as a non-admin, even if you know the admin l/p. After that, 80% of it requires you to be logged in as an administrator. So make them an administrator you say? (like THAT is a good idea in a school!) In OS X that is one check box and takes 15 seconds to do. I have a sheet of paper somewhere around here with all the steps needed to promote a user in Windows, I was astounded by what the PC tech said had to be done. Anyone that says windows is easier to use needs a closed door meeting with a baseball bat. When it all comes down to it, the amount of software available isn't truly what's important, it's how easy, pleasant, and non-frustrating the system is that actually matters to a lot of people, tho they may not admit it. Having a flying car isn't so great if it takes you 45 minutes to get it into the air every day and is prone to running into buildings. I admit I get a little personal enjoyment when I see a windows user is just totally frustrated and ranting and I say well you know how we can fix that? and they scream back, "Don't tell me about macs, I don't want to hear it. I *LIKE* my pc!!!" Yessir, I can see that, looks like you've having a great time. The 5% of them that finally switch come to me later and say why didn't you tell me about this before? I triiiiiied.....

Re:of getting a fair comparison

[Dan_Bercell]

By your statements you seem to have limited use with Windows. A few points I would like to make. 1. Their are plenty of programs that do not require Administrator accounts to install. This is up to the Program Devs to write proper code. Unfortunately Windows made it easy to write crappy programs, Apple did this before also, but they could EASILY change their code base because they do not have thosands of businesses and thosands of programs relying on their OS. 2. You said you let the 'Kids' install their own applications on the computers, well that is just asking for trouble. Their are plenty of hardware or software solutions on the market designed for your enviroment that will wipe out any changes after a reboot. The fact that you don't use such a solution says alot about your 'experience'. You have to understand that Windows has about 100 times more programs available, and most of them will cause issues once installed. 3. 'When it all comes down to it, the amount of software available isn't truly what's important'>/i> Sure it is very important. Windows has more and better programs built for it then the MAC, which is one of the reasons why Windows has such a large share of the markett. Learn how to properly admin a Windows network, then try to justify your statements.

They're different...

[cookd]

I will certainly admit that there are a lot of things to like about OS X, and for some people, it will be the better choice. For others, Windows is better, and Vista is a big step forward.

The article comes across as "Why OS X is better than Vista" instead of "Comparison of OS X and Vista". But that's par for the course. The author does have some valid comments about areas that could have been done better in Vista.

I do disagree on some of the evaluations of Vista's merits. The most misunderstood area is User Access Control.

Not that UAC is perfect -- I've got a nice list of things I don't like about it. For example, if the system incorrectly detects that a program probably needs to run as Admin, it is a bit of a pain to convince the system to just run it normally. And there aren't any good tools for working with UAC from the command line (i.e. I want an equivalent to Unix su). I've written some myself, but they really should have been included with the system. And some tasks that should be able to be done by accepting one UAC prompt end up requiring 5 or 6.

However, the author of the article passes UAC off as useless and annoying. Well, it is annoying, but so is finding my car keys every time I want to drive my car. But it is definitely not useless - just misunderstood.

UAC consists of three mechanisms, along with related tools for configuring them:

1. The shell of an Administrator can optionally be run with reduced permissions. This means that if UAC is enabled, the user's shell (explorer.exe) will drop privileges when it is initialized (after the user logs on). In other words, the shell tells the kernel that even though it is running under the account of an Administrator, the kernel should deny any requests to use administrator privileges, and should not grant any access to resources based on the user's membership in the Administrators group.

2. There is a mechanism to regain administrator privileges so that administrative tasks can still be performed. If you are logged on as a user in the Administrators group, this mechanism requires a confirmation dialog (ok/cancel). If you are logged on as an unprivileged user, this mechanism requires a username + password of an administrator ("over the shoulder login").

Note that this mechanism must be protected from abuse. Potential abuses include: keyloggers (capture the administrator's password), event injection (simulate a mouse-click or keyboard event to respond to the confirmation dialog automatically), and luring (put a malicious executable with the same name as a trusted executable into the user's path, then trick the user into trying to run the trusted executable). Protecting against these abuses leads to a bit more inconvenience, but a lot more safety. This is why nothing else can be done while the UAC prompt is active -- the UAC prompt turns on some security features to protect against keyloggers and event injection. This is something that is more annoying than OS X's system, but also significantly more secure.

3. There is a mechanism to detect programs that require administrator privileges. Vista-aware applications include a manifest that tells the program loader whether administrator privileges are required. Vista also tries to automatically detect non-Vista-aware applications that require administrator privileges (such as installers). For now, this is a bit of a pain when it doesn't work, but in the future, this will end up working well. For example, as the author indicated, it becomes more challenging to install a pre-Vista application to your personal folder without help from an admin (Vista detects that the installer probably needs admin privileges). In the future, the installer will have a manifest telling Vista that it doesn't need admin privileges immediately, and will ask for them only if the user decides to install the app onto the system instead of to a personal folder.

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:Oops

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Again, I think the consistency that the author was talking about can be seen clearly in the OSX "traffic lights" and their behaviour. I can't think of a single application that does not have these (even WOW...) Now look at the Vista screenshot - Office looks completely different from the OS itself. Only the red X function appears to highlight the active window. Not as distinctive as the OSX method. Still, not the end of he world either...

Re:Wrong. XNU source code is no longer available.

[Megane]

Since the x86 switch, Apple no longer makes the XNU source code available.

Wrong. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/ 2359256

Re:Wrong. XNU source code is no longer available.

[hattig]

Apple made it available a few months after that storm in a teacup.

They were probably tidying up the code, and people thought that it was Apple not releasing the kernel source code anymore.

What's worse is that you replied with this to a post that gave you an explicit link to the page you could get all the sources from. One click on "Darwin" and what do I see?

Mac OS X 10.4.8
Darwin 8.8
  Source (PPC)
  Source (x86)

So, yeah, 100% completely wrong.

Re:They both lose at source availability.

[westlake]

When I use a system, I expect the source code to be fully accessible to me. I want to be able to inspect the quality of that system for myself, and fix it myself if the need arises.

Microsoft's customers would rather pay for competent technical support.

Programming is not their competence, the internals of an OS is something they have no desire to muck with, ever.

My $.02

[OSXCPA2]

I use Windows XP at work and OSX, FC3, Win2000 and XP at home. I am a heavy duty business user and student developer. I offer the following observations:
1. I use OSX primarily, on a pre-Intel iMac. Speed is good. System slowdowns are generally longer under Windows than OSX, but the 'pinwheel' in OSX drives me insane.
2. The UI and system administration tools in OSX are hands-dows way easier to use. I used every version of Windows from 3.1, and worked at a support desk in college - and once I learned OSX (ok, BSD) - style system maintenance and operation, I never went back. *NIX is far more discoverable and has a well-engineered feel that I like.
3. I have yet to run into any software package that I needed that did not have a counterpart on Mac.
4. I still have not played Half-Life 2. I do not need to, but I would like to, and I bought WinXP just to do so. I can't really blame Apple for this. In fact, Apple, by moving to Intel, has made it easier for their user base to access windows apps. Microsoft, by making it more difficult (from what I've read - haven't tried it yet) to run Vista in any kind of virtual environment is not really helping the user base much. Although they probably don't care about Mac users, there are many business reasons to support virtual environments, from posts I've seen on /.
5. Searching in OSX returns better results than WinXP or 2000.
6. Mac help, for system related issues, returns more relevant results than WinXP or 2000.
7. Mac hardware just works. I have a hetogenous network - my Mac has no problems, nor does my FC3 laptop. I have a dual-boot PC with WXP and 2000 - 2000 recognized my wirelss card and the built-in ethernet adapter. WXP doesn't have a driver for the built in. The wireless card has a driver, but cannot acquire a network address from my AirPort. Win2000 has no problems with the wirelss card or network address. The driver in both OSes is up to date. I should NOT have to put in this much effort, especially for supposedly supported hardware - it stuns me that 2000 is actually better at 'figuring out' what to do than XP. Needless to say, the Mac setup has never caused any problems for my Mac hardware.
8. Development - I do mostly Java and Ruby. Java runs pretty much identically on both boxes, but setting up newer versions of the Java environment is more difficult on Mac. Installing and configuring Ruby also requires a lot more effort. However, it is easier to troubleshoot in the Mac environment. XP and 2000, the installs seem to 'just work' but if they go wrong or there is a misconfiguration, it is a lot harder for me to figure out what went wrong.
9. Licensing - I can install my OSX CD/DVD on any Mac I have, no registration necessary. I do not do this, but I can. Windows XP, I installed and because it couldn't get on my network, I had to use the dial-in service to validate my copy of XP, which was a PITA.
10. I took C in college, working in a UNIX environment. It was amazing and taught me a ton. I took Java in college, working on a PC with NetBeans. Worked great. I used VBA to do corporate work and learned two things - first, an IDE is very nice, especially to learn UI implementation and second, VBA makes it way too easy to write crap code. You can write crappy Applescript too, but I've seen far less of it. Xcode is a nice balance and can hit multiple targets. I like it, although I've not done much Objective C work.
11. I like scripting and *NIX tools. Scripting is far easier in a *NIX-like environment than on Windows. Yes, there is Cygwin, but that was designed to remedy the lack of such tools in Windows.
12. C# for web development is, in a word, crap. Sure, it is easy to learn. Sure, it is free. Sure, the MS IDE is ok if you choose to use it. HOWEVER, it is so wrapped up in Microsoft-specific 'stuff' it sucks to use. Example - to simply change the color of a button in a web-form, I spent several hours working through my code to see what went wrong. I sent it to my professor, who told me it was fine and worked. I was mystified

gcc? bash? X support?

[aleator]

comparing osx with vista has to include also the level of usability for an a liettle bit more experienced user. can you open a terminal with bash in vista? compile and run code for Xorg? or is that oging to come when microsoft figures out how to implement this?

i never tried vista running, but from what i see from all the screenshots all oover the internet is basically: it has a new widget-style, some of the GUI elements are inspired form osx and diverse opensource apps but there is nothing "new" and really unique to vista.

oh, boy

[oohshiny]

You can't determine whether something is usable by writing a review, you have to observe actual users and what problems they have. And in that regard, I have seen little indication that OS X is significantly better than Windows or Gnome. Just from observing my parents on some of the points discussed in the article, I noticed

* They keep getting confused about which application is active; among other things since the frontmost window may not correspond to the menu bar.

* Wireless configuration causes no end of problems for them: the configuration panel is confusing to them, and the Mac often picks the wrong wireless network even if it could easily figure out what the right one is.

* Having to confirm some System Preferences changes with a password is a feature that makes OS X more secure in a corporate environment, where random people may walk up to your desktop trying to change things; it's a nuisance in a home environment.

* The green button thingy is as unintuitive to them as it is to me.

That's just some off the top of my head; there are many other usability problems in OS X.

Not having tried Vista, I don't know whether OS X is "better than Vista" in terms of its UI, but I don't see that it's a breakthrough in usability and it doesn't seem to be better than XP for real-world users. I suspect something like "Sugar" may be way more usable than either OS X or Windows "for the rest of us".

Re:oh, boy

[earthbound kid]

Huh?

1. What are you talking about? The active window gets the menu bar. How is that confusing?

2. You're just making stuff up. There's no "configuration panel" in which to select wireless networks at all. You just click on the WiFi icon in the menu bar then select one from the list.

3. It's called security. Guess what, if you can change the settings without a password, so can XYZ Soft that you downloaded and ran for some other reason. There is a reason that Windows has a spyware problem and OS X doesn't this is it.

4. Fair enough. There is a logic to the zoom button, but it's not always clear to people. I think it should be reformed some.

Re:OS X would be way ahead - wrong

[slide-rule]

You should realize that one of the top features of a Mac system is that things work well together -- OS, software, and hardware. This is due to a hell of a lot of QA testing on Apple's part, and I just cannot fault them for it one bit. On the other hand, just releasing a DVD for people to install on whatever frankenbox they've cobbled together (or whatever cost-cutting box Dell sells now for $500) will mean the OS and software will no longer "just work" -- it'll turn into the driver/hardware support nightmare that Windows has enjoyed for quite some time. Given the beast that MSFT has helped create in terms of hardware diversity, there is now simply no way MSFT and/or anyone else can do the level of QA Apple performs -- at least not where the software would be meaningfully improved. I'd rather never see this happen to OS X, and if that means you turn your back on OS X as a result, that'd be just fine here. [shrug]

OS X is way ahead of Vista - why?

[Sosigenes]

"Most people just don't care about things like who has the superior kernel. People care far more about the parts they see and work with, so that is what I'm going to deal with here."

So immediately, this article is already biased to a "who has the best user interface" because people don't care about the rest of the operating system - I highly disagree, and while most people might not directly care, it still matters. Afterall, the most important parts of the OS are Process management, Memory management, Disk and file systems, Networking, Security, User interface, Device drivers - to only focus on one yet claim that OS X is miles ahead because of it seems a little biased. But even then, is it a fair review?

So lets have a look at what this article boils down to, at the start:

> Messages from the operating system: Windows by default gives you feedback when you do things, wheras Mac OS X doesn't have to because "it just works".

Some people like feedback, I plug in a mouse to a windows PC, and it "just works", just like their mac example, yet it tells me it's installed new hardware. I like the feedback, and if I don't, I can disable it. Some people like feedback, some people don't. If I plug in a stranger hardware device, it's nice to know what Windows had the drivers, rather than me needing to install them. Surely this would only be a flaw if the messages were forced upon you, but the fact you can turn them off and gives you the choice suggests to me it's not really a problem with the operating system.

> User Interface: It is difficult to tell which application is active because buttons are still coloured even when the window is not active. Furthermore, Vista is both consistenty yet not consistent at the same time, wheras Mac OS has great consistency.

I found this quite a long shot, I've never had problems telling windows apart because there is colour in a non-active window. I'm typing this in notepad right now, and firefox is behind me with coloured buttons. The window is darker because it's active, the window behind is lighter - people have been used to that, and I haven't heard of people having problems with it in Vista or Pre-vista. If you don't like the UI, you can change it too, to make it easier to tell the difference, or even to go back to windows classic. As for consistency, I've frequently heard people complain about the lack of consistency on Mac OS X, so I found their reference to it amusing. For example, this article on the 'many facces of Apple's OS X applications' here http://www.robservatory.com/archives/2005/05/17/co nsistency-of-design/ - not to mention the fact that different programs often need different interfaces. Internet explorer does not look like Media Player. iTunes does not look like safari - they're different things alltogether. On Windows, most of the time things are fairly consistent, however, on Mac, you can have 3 or more different interfaces showing at the same time ( eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TigerDesk.png )

Change and renaming: Some things have changed in Vista, for example "My computer" to "Computer"

I would say change is a natural part of the evolution of an operating system. There were lots of changes from OS 9 to OS X, it takes a bit of getting used to at first, but most is done logically, and I wouldn't say it's a significant disadvantage.

> UAC: It doesn't ask for a password, and it's annoying because it isolates the rest of the operating system when it asks, therefore it's bad and it's different.

Ok, it's different but it's not as flawed as they seem to make out - first, it does require a password unless you have the priviledges to not require a password (contrary to what the article would have you believe) - this is an added convenience in the fact that if you're the system admin, you don't want to constantly be putting in the p

Re:.NET from hell story - happened yesterday.

[Dan_Bercell]

This is a perfect example why Mechanics should be Mechanic and the IT Staff should be the IT Staff. Your poor experience with a program was more to do with the crappy design of the program and your lack of knowledge of the software you use, then with the Framework itself.

Re:what vendor support ..

[novus ordo]

I think he means the practice of bundling Windows through manufacturers. They used to make OEMs pay per computer whether or not they wanted to install Windows on it(do they still?) so the logical conclusion would be that they would install Windows on every computer.

But on a side note, I think Apple would be a bigger challenge because they are much bigger control freaks than MS. When was the last time you saw a mac being sold that wasn't in a white shiny box? And don't forget how IBM kicked their asses all over the place because they wanted to keep a tight lid on their components. Look where that got them.

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.

Some reasonable criticisms, but terribly biased..

[d_jedi]

First off, this really isn't Vista v. Mac OS X.. it's a comparison of their user interfaces (the author ignoring everything else about them..) - OK fine, but let's just make that clear from the get-go.. because while Vista has a lot of nice UI improvements, many of the exciting changes (at least, from my perspective) are more "under the hood" (one of them.. a I-can't-believe-they-took-so-long-to-get-this is per-application volume levels).

Now, here's where the article gets a bit nonsensical. It's a comparison of the UIs.. but he turns OFF part of Vista's? OK.. I see we've got an objective comparison coming here..

In all, he makes a few good points about Vista (UAC nagging and "personalization" vs "display" notable), but it's mostly just nitpicking.. and he doesn't criticize MacOS in any way, and doesn't point out any of the deficiencies in the MacOS UI (because it's plainly obvious what action clicking on red, yellow, or green circle has, to someone who hasn't used OSX..)

Re:No OS X on common hardware, so no need to evalu

[Beer_Smurf]

But by your own logic, a Mac would be better.
A new Mac will run Windows (2000, XP, Vista), Linux or BSD and OSX.

Apple needs a good desktop that is not a AIO

[Joe The Dragon]

And the macpro cost is high and the mini is low end and hard to open.
They need a mid-end system that does not have a screen build in.

Summary: Apple is better because it is Apple

[semiotec]

I use about 90% Kubutun and 10% Windows XP, I've spent perhaps a total of 1 hour on OS X, porting a small Java application for a friend, so I am definitely not qualified to talk about OS X.

But after skimming through this article, it seemed like the author's just using a lot of words to say that, he likes Apple's OS X.

From his other articles, obviously he uses OS X a fair bit and is his preference of platform. And all signs of Apple favouritism is there in his writing, albeit wrapped in much nicer language than your typical fan writing. Nevertheless, it comes across.

But this article is almost not worth reading. I mean, he spends most of time talking about the UI experience between the two, which is completely subjective to users, rather than anything that can be compared objectively. So he ends up saying, OS X is superior to Vista, because he likes it better. Pretty much nothing more, just _because_ he's used to it and likes it better, and he's probably been using OS X since its inception, and likes things to stay that way for a long time.

He complains that it takes complicated steps to find the computer's IP address in Vista. Two questions here, 1) do users who care that much about whether the title bar goes transparent on inactive windows really need to know the computer's IP address? 2) I believe you can get it in one step by typing in ipconfig or something like that.

and spouting stuff like "being able to use USB memory sticks as additional RAM"...
WTF... in words of Pauli, this is "not even wrong". why is he even worth reading?

I've run out of steam, so don't actually know how to finish this off properly.

Re:Summary: Apple is better because it is Apple

[Lacota]

About the ipconfig thing.. Most Windows users are terrified of using the GUI as it is, can you imagine telling them to use the command line? We're not the normal Windows user. Why do they want their IP (Ever play older online games?)? ipconfig is obscure. It's a throwback to the command-line day. Joe-Six-Pack won't know the difference between backslash and slash, let alone how to navigate DOS. You're making the assumption that the user knows how to find and use the command line, you're also assuming they know what the command line is. It's not one step either. Start Run Type in 'cmd' Type in 'ipconfig' No, you cant just type ipconfig from the 'run' menu. it executes the program, then closes the window, a 'feature' of XP.

Re:dumb article...

[phillymjs]

Something a lot of people tend to forget is that Windows has to account for much more different hardware then Apple ever had to...

That's also something that escapes everyone who whines that they'd use OS X if oooooonly Apple would sell it to them for use on a generic PC they built themselves.

As if Apple could support all that generic bargain-bin crap overnight and have all it work as well as it does on genuine Macs. Microsoft has spent billions over the last 20 years trying to achieve the kind of HW/SW synergy that the Mac offers, and they still haven't gotten there (and probably never will).

If Apple tried to open up OS X for generic hardware and things didn't go absolutely perfectly, the impact to their "it just works" reputation would be devastating. Think about the bargain bin hardware these fools want to run OS X on. Shoddy drivers, poor "documentation" (i.e. a short text file written in Engrish)-- Apple would never let their corporate reputation ride on the quality of 3rd-party Mac drivers, so the only other option would be for them to write the drivers for everything, which is completely and totally impractical.

The best they can hope for is a return of how things were in the NeXTStep for Intel days, which was something like: "Here's a list of the dozen or so motherboards, CD-ROM drives, network cards, etc that we support. If you don't wanna use this stuff, you're SOL."

~Philly

windows is annoying

[codemachine]

I've always found working in Windows XP to be frustrating and annoying, but never was able to articulate it as well as this author has (even though he was mostly referring to Vista). Of course any version of Windows is frustrating for someone used to Unix just due to its lack of certain features, but I found XP so much more difficult to adjust to than 98 or 2K.

The fact that Windows XP is so incredibly verbose about what is happening is extremely annoying. Constant bubbles popping up from the system tray talking about hardware, updates, firewalls, unused desktop icons (yes, I know it can be disabled), etc. Dialog boxes popping up for everything. I just want the OS to leave me alone and let me work. But UAC in Vista will make this even worse.

As the author mentioned, they also have the habit of renaming and moving commonly used tools, and making them harder to find for someone who really knows what they're looking for. Probably the worst example in XP was the changes to the control panels regarding network settings, workgroup computers, etc. Things that were easy to find in 98/2K became more difficult to find. Apparently Vista moves the "Add and Remove Programs" feature to "Programs and Features", and "Display" to "Personalization". I don't see how that makes the OS more intuitive to use at all, whether it is for a new user, or a power user with prior Windows experience.

Despite having a much different UI than GNOME/KDE/Windows, I found OS X much easier to adapt to. The Unix underneath certainly helped a bit, but the bigger part was how things just worked. There are still a couple annoyances, 'Finder' being the biggest one (the unix command line somewhat mitigates this), but overall OS X is so much better at not getting in the way of the user.

I think that if I could replace Finder with Windows Explorer or Konqueror (which I could probably do actually), I'd have very little to complain about on my OS X desktop. Add Fink and suddenly you've got something similar to Linux. Add Parallels and Boot Camp, or maybe free tools like DarWine and Qemu, if you need Windows applications. OS X has become the ultimate desktop (can run almost anything but Windows games), and Macs the ultimate hardware (can run OS X, Windows XP/Vista, and Linux on the bare hardware). The fact that Mac OS X has gotten faster every release, and Windows has instead eaten gobs more memory every release, is just icing on the cake.

Ah, but what games and applications DO people use?

[Shag]

Vista still has all the games and applications people use, most not available on any version of OS X.

Um... right. Take a look at Amazon's best-selling software list sometime.

1. Many of the top 25 ship media containing both Windows versions (World of Warcraft, TurboTax, H&R Block Taxcut, Rosetta Stone Spanish)

2. Others are available in separate versions for both OSes (Microsoft Office 2003 for Windows/Office 2004 for Mac, QuickBooks, Quicken). What're you left with that's Windows-only?

3. Some Windows-only apps compete with things that come free on every Mac (Photoshop Elements, Premiere Elements)

4. Some Windows-only apps are largely unnecessary on a Mac (Norton Antivirus, Norton Internet Security Suite)

So out of the top 25, what apps are we left with that are Windows-only?

Microsoft Money, the Pets Expansion Pack for The Sims 2, Age of Empires: Collectors Edition, and Dragon Naturally Speaking.

Yep, the games and apps people use are definitely not available on any version of OS X. :)

Or the Quicker way

[ProfessionalCookie]

Or you could just press control-F7 to toggle Text Boxes+Lists to All Controls.

Re:Ah, but what games and applications DO people u

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yep, the games and apps people use are definitely not available on any version of OS X.

You are correct in your facts, even when you just consider games, but I think you are looking at the wrong information. Whether or not the most popular software is needed/available on OS X is not as important as if the average person wants to run software or perform a function which they cannot. There are many applications that don't have a port and while individually they may not have a lot of market share, together they account for a lot of people being stopped from doing something. Also, software piracy/lending plays a big part. A whole lot of people use games and applications they borrowed or copied from someone else, and even if there is a Mac version for sale, that does not mean there is a Mac version accessible to them.

Re:Because Tiger is already better.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Major innovation will be on Linux and OS X. It will take a month or two for Linux to absorb new OS X features...

I wish. I don't see linux absorbing major new features from OS X in a month, nor many of them even in years. I like Linux. I run Linux, even on the desktop. Linux is ahead of OS X in a number of ways. But Linux is still missing a whole lot of features that lay the groundwork for what makes OS X my main desktop. Most of what I see Linux taking from OS X is minor eye candy and UI ideas.

...and OS X will generally absorb some of the good ideas from Linux in the next release of their OS...

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head here. OS X adds a few Linux/UNIX features with every release, while ignoring yet other features. Yay! traceD and virtual desktops. Boo! no ubiquitous update manager for all applications.

I don't know about Java

[melted]

I don't know about Java, but you can do much of this in .NET:

      1. Enumerate all the subclasses of a given class, or classes that implement a particular interface, including those supplied in plug-ins, at runtime.

** You can, through reflection

      2. Call methods by name.

** You can, through reflection

      3. Query whether a delegate object implements a given method, allowing for informal protocols.

** You can, through reflection

      4. Handle the case where an object tries to call a method on my object that doesn't exist, to allow the simple creation of generic proxy objects.

** That can never happen in C#

      5. Add methods to a class, even if it's part of the standard library and I don't have the source code (I can even do this at runtime, although it's messier, and I haven't ever needed to).

** What's wrong with inheritance?

      6. Separate the allocation and initialisation of an object into separate methods, to allow different allocation policies to be implemented (e.g. pools for commonly re-cycled objects) transparently to users of the class.

** Not needed in .NET by design. You can't allocate anything on your own.

Re:UAC dialogs are modal?

[thona]

::I didn't realize that UAC dialog boxes were modal and prevented you from using the system.

It is "worse". They are not "modal". They open a compelte separate user interface session.

Is this annoying? yes.

Is this necessary? YES.

Why? OTherwise the stupid spyware could just simulate a mouce click on the modal dialog. MS had to totally isolate it. So they make basically a screenshot, open a new ui session, show the dialog there and the screenshot in the background - but no interaction is possible.

Have you ever actually used Windows?

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

Um ... what? Why was your incoherent rant modded up?

0% of software can be installed as a non-admin

Wrong. Any program that can be installed by copying it to any folder (besides Programs) does not need admin access. This includes small programs like uTorrent and VG emulators.

even if you know the admin l/p

Wrong, again. In XP, for example (I haven't used Vista), right-click > "Run As ..." is all you need. Not knowing this trick can cause confusion--installers might finish way too quickly and actually install nothing, without a single "permission denied" notification--but installation is indeed very possible.

After that, 80% of it requires you to be logged in as an administrator.

Uh, no. Enter the password as above and you're good to go.

Please, there's plenty of material for which to bash Microsoft. Don't make stuff up.

And mods, don't mod something up because you agree with the opinion; that's what digg is for.

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.

Re:Because Tiger is already better.

[atrocious cowpat]

"...everything migrates seamlessly while I go for coffee and a bagel."

Ah, that's where you're hiding the big Mac-Disadvantage:

The "Migration", obviously, is usually over before you're half done with your Bagel. So what do you do now? Cheat on your employer's time, just finishing off that Bagel, or finish off that Bagel while griping about your work overload (you are a SysAdmin, right?).

;)

Helpful Mac Enthusiasts...

[DivideByZero]

Highlight and [cmd]- C to take data from X11 to the apple side.

Hold down [opt] and click to paste from the apple side into X11 (That's the middle-click emulation)

I had this question earlier today, and looked it up.

Re:Service Packs

[VGPowerlord]

Microsoft introduced driver signing in an attempt to fix the problem with unstable drivers. If you try to install an unsigned driver, XP bitches at you about it, but lets you continue anyway if you really want.

However, some companies intentionally defraud Microsoft's test lab.

Re:Did they finally fix I/O annoyances in Windows?

[newt0311]

uh... if the GP is decomping a file and wants to do something else, it is the OS's job to make sure that the other processes get their fair share of CPU time. If the OS instead lets that one process consume the entire CPU, then the OS is badly written.

Re:Because Tiger is already better.

[redanzl]

I use AppZapper. Cleans out everything that was related to the installed app.

Re:In Vista's defense when the OS X zealot bites

[alanQuatermain]

No, if I want to know what my IP address is, I run the application called "Network Utility". It doesn't get any more intuitive than that.

Sure it does -- on my Macs, I just open Sys Prefs, goto 'Network', and when I pick an interface (like, say, the topmost one with a green 'active' light), then I can see my IP address. And the important thing here (to me) is that I can see my IP even if I'm using DHCP. One thing which always annoys the crap out of me on XP is that the IP dialog (which takes a few clicks & modal dialogs to reach) has the option to either enter the IP or use DHCP, and if you use DHCP, the IP address field is not filled out (un-editably) with the obtained address. In this case, you have to go to the DOS prompt & use 'ipconfig'. Or at least, I've not found anything simpler for that.

-Q

Re:In Vista's defense when the OS X zealot bites

[Theaetetus]

While I can agree of Windows traditionally being quite attention seeking, this is a poor example as it's often been useful for me to diagnose USB device or driver problems. Is he saying OS X doesn't tell when you that the USB connectivity is working? That seems like a quite big disadvantage here.

No, when USB connectivity is working, it's just working. Plug in a mouse or keyboard and start using it, plug in a USB drive and it visibly appears on the desktop. Plug in a USB printer, and next time you print, there it is. It's only when something isn't working that you need more data. I find this preferable to XP - "you've inserted a USB device" "found: USB memory stick" "your USB device is installed and working". Now, I could see having the second one there, since Windows doesn't update its explorer windows as quickly, but do I really need the OS telling me I plugged something in? I should already know that, since I did the plugging.

It does more than Adding and Removing programs. That's why the name was changed. It's a center for managing your applications, like upgrading and repairing them. Duh!

Then it should be called "Program management", not "Programs and Features". The "Programs and Features" folder is where you'd go looking to run your programs, not to install them (yes, I know it's in the control panel, but from a design standpoint, it's almost as if MS thought that they couldn't have more than 20 or so letters in a window title. You get the same problem with program identifiers, too - run task manager, and you see a whole pile of 8.3 named processes running. I thought we got rid of that limitation 20 years ago).

At least they aren't calling their network center something unintuitive as an "airport".

As opposed to a Lynksys WRT54GS+?
Or a Zune?
Let's just agree that marketing people are dolts.

If you're logged in with admin privilegies already. Otherwise you have to provide the admin password as in Linux and OS X.

But didn't XP show us that most people are running admin by default, particularly since many games and programs (I'm looking at you, ProTools) only work if run by an admin? The same thing will happen on Vista - outside of corporate IT, most users (and 99% of home users) will run as admin... which means it's just an Annoyance control instead of an Access control. Even as admin on OSX, you still have to password authenticate to modify system-level stuff. That's safer, and since people can go months without ever seeing the password box they know that something important has happened, and they can't just click to okay an action.