PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft's Windows Vista will attempt to incorporate many ...


MacBytes
Aug 1, 2005, 11:03 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Microsoft's Windows Vista will attempt to incorporate many features from Apple's Mac OS X Tiger (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050802000322)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

TrashCanDan
Aug 1, 2005, 11:56 PM
Let me be the first to say... Duh!

Flowbee
Aug 2, 2005, 12:01 AM
From the article...
Certainly, Windows is a target of more malware than is Mac OS X, and security in Vista is more sophisticated than in Tiger.

For instance, Internet Explorer 7 will run in a Vista "containment area" called Low-Rights mode that will attempt to keep worms and spyware out of Windows.

Malware simply won't have the privileges needed to write files or change the Registry. There will also be anti-phishing techniques employed.

Vista will support laptops with Trusted Platform Module chips, which creates a secure boot that protects hardware and applications from being run by unauthorized users or by malicious software.

Both Vista and Tiger have the ability to automatically encrypt all data on the hard disk.

How is any of this "more sophisticated?"

freiheit
Aug 2, 2005, 12:07 AM
A whole lot of that article sounds like it's just reciting Microsoft's press releases. I mean seriously, what does "the ability to send presentation to connect to a project on the network" mean? How many Windows users right now have any idea what this is or why they would want to use it? The words don't even seem to fit together.

And I always love when they claim some technology built into the core of Windows will allow any program to make use of it (RSS in this case, from the linked article). Yes, but historically with Windows this has only been the case when the program being built is simply a redressed interface sitting on to of IE. In that regard, RSS support is built into the core of MacOS X Tiger as well, because anyone can design a Dashboard Widget or any WebKit program that would then make use of it -- but just like the mentioned Windows programs they'd be locked into using the OS developer's web browsing engine by doing so.

And talk about an open XML format for document archiving (in place of OSX's PDF support) -- when has Microsoft EVER created an "open" file format? Office XP used an "open" XML format that was 90% closed by means of being wrapped inside a proprietary binary package. Unless you could work out how to legally get through that, you couldn't make any use of Office XP's wonderfully open XML format.

Is Vista an improvement over Windows XP? It seems like it may be. Is it just my imagination that Microsoft's products only ever make significant advances when they have a worthy competitor to steal ideas from (sorry, innovate)? Nope, I've been watching that happen since 1994.

nagromme
Aug 2, 2005, 12:18 AM
A good article, fairly noting where Tiger is ahead, but also noting where Panther and Jaguar were ahead! And where Vista has its own new things to offer, such as "stacks" of files, and weblog support (buzzword, check!), and a new "universal" format that MS will use instead of PDF. And noting that Leopard is on the way.

But no mention of one big feature we KNOW will be in Leopard--big enough that I'm already excited about Leopard: a TRUE Resolution Independent UI.

In some ways OS X is better at this than XP: nice big icons you can size at will, and Exposť in essence grants you more UI real estate temporarily on demand. And you can zoom the whole display very smoothly thanks to Quartz.

And I know that in some ways XP is better: more control over things like menu fonts. You can run a display with high DPI and tiny pixels, but boost the font size to compensate and achieve better readability.

And BOTH OS's permit an individual app to give you zoom control and/or font size control.

But none of that is a TRUE Resolution Independent UI: where you simply set your desired scaling, and EVERYTHING transparently obeys. Window borders, icons, buttons, menus, fonts, the contents of app windows... EVERYTHING. With ONE single scaling setting. You could, for instance, set your 23" display to have the same "real estate" as a 20" display, with everything bigger--but still using the full res of the display. So everything is sharper and more detailed, and fonts are clearer. Or, the flip side, you could scale down to 1/2, and give a 15" PowerBook the same real estate as a 30" Cinema Display.

How close to this does XP come? (I have XP but I hate to boot it :D ) Does Vista do this?

Because Leopard will... and Tiger already does, it's just disabled by default. (It's there so that developers can prepare for Leopard.) And Apple has already expanded the OS X icon format to allow 256x256 and maybe larger.

http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html

See sample image (with Safari at 200% scaling--only imagine that the window borders/buttons were as nice as the fonts are) here:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/20
(Search for "Scalable User Interface" and click to zoom it.)

Scaling up OR down at excellent quality would be SO useful. Readability vs. windowing real-estate? No more trade-offs! Set it how you like, WHEN you like, at will :) And bring on the high-DPI, tiny-pixel screens, because there will be no downside (other than cost) to them once the UI is res independent. No more need to lose readability just because your pixels are small. High DPI used to mean fitting more windows, but losing readability. With Leopard, you'll have the choice to make that high DPI INCREASE readability if you wish.

Has anyone tried the Quartz Debug app and used it to increase the real estate of your screen? Apps (and even OS elements) may not yet look good scaled bigger--but scaled smaller should work well (or at least, for Cocoa apps). Anyone tried running OS X at 50% just to see what it's like? I plan to try it but I still have Tiger sitting in the box!

winmacguy
Aug 2, 2005, 12:59 AM
How is any of this "more sophisticated?"

That is why I posted the article under "opinion" ;)

SilvorX
Aug 2, 2005, 01:01 AM
reminds me of what homer said on the simpsons when marge found out that patty is a lesbian, "hey marge, I like beer!"

outerspaceapple
Aug 2, 2005, 01:03 AM
This article really started to get under my skin when it started talking about Vista having a more advanced security system than Tiger... I mean seriously. Measure security like everyone else - how susceptible is the OS to viruses compared to another OS. Tiger wins hands down because WE HAVE NO VIRUSES, 0 NADDA NILL. Vista, like all other flavours of windblows will have a hefty share of virri and malware to slow it down while Leopard, like all other flavours of Mac OS X will have none.

Fact or fiction? try it and decide 4 yourself. :rolleyes:

Blackheart
Aug 2, 2005, 01:18 AM
Vista will use a new universal format called Metro, based on XML, for viewing and printing files. The aim is consistency of documents on screen and in print.

How exactly is a format "universal" if it's never been used before?

AmigoMac
Aug 2, 2005, 03:21 AM
How exactly is a format "universal" if it's never been used before?

It's MS:

How many Microsoft engineers needed to screw a light bulb ??
None. Microsoft declares darkness the standard.

;)

GodBless
Aug 2, 2005, 04:01 AM
How is any of this "more sophisticated?"It's not. I am tired of uneducated writers writing articles on ignorance and brainwashing their readers. And I thought eWeek was getting better with their articles. I guess not. :confused:

freiheit
Aug 2, 2005, 04:05 AM
But no mention of one big feature we KNOW will be in Leopard--big enough that I'm already excited about Leopard: a TRUE Resolution Independent UI.

Has that been officially announced for Leopard? I'd heard last year that it would be included "for developers" in Tiger but never heard an official pubic release. It looks promising. I enjoy using large displays (19" LCDs for example) but I hate how small everything is at native resolution. My eyes don't work that well. Being able to scale a 19" at full resolution to display like a 15" would be fabulous. One of my biggest complaints so far with MacOS X has been the inability of the user to enlarge fonts of title bars, menus, status bar text, etc. Resolution independence would give a nice boost in that department.

GodBless
Aug 2, 2005, 04:32 AM
This article really started to get under my skin when it started talking about Vista having a more advanced security system than Tiger... I mean seriously. Measure security like everyone else - how susceptible is the OS to viruses compared to another OS. Tiger wins hands down because WE HAVE NO VIRUSES, 0 NADDA NILL. Vista, like all other flavours of windblows will have a hefty share of virri and malware to slow it down while Leopard, like all other flavours of Mac OS X will have none.

Fact or fiction? try it and decide 4 yourself. :rolleyes:eWeek provides evidence of your claim in this (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1834607,00.asp) contradictory (compared to this thread's eWeek article) article of theirs.

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2005, 04:52 AM
How exactly is a format "universal" if it's never been used before?

It's not, Microsoft is just claiming it is. Apple did the right thing to begin with. They used PDF, and since then what had PDF done but gotten bigger. MS tried to debunk PDF with their own garbage when it first started to become popular and they're trying it again. It will be about as universal as WMA.

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2005, 04:58 AM
Malware simply won't have the privileges needed to write files or change the Registry.


Until at least 13 minutes after the OS is released, at which point all the holes that the black hats found in Micosoft's armor are exploited.

There will also be anti-phishing techniques employed.This is where each PC that comes with Vista Pre-Installed will have a small arm that extends from the back of a machine and hits the user in the head with a hammer, thus rendering them unable to be phished. The user has always been the weakest link in computer security, and they always will be. No OS can change that. The sophisticated features that MS is talkin about are probably adaptive mail filtering features a la mail 2.0.

mgargan1
Aug 2, 2005, 08:24 AM
you know what... it doesn't matter in the long run if Apple came out with it first. Because Microsoft will make it popular, mass produce it, and everyone will forget who came out with it first. Well 94% of the population atleast.

No matter how much I like Apple, they don't need to be a step ahead of the competition; they need to be four steps ahead. Microsoft could be four years behind the competition (they are), and still outsell Apple by leaps and bounds.

So keep coming out with those ideas Apple, listen to what everyone is saying, and make the best decisions possible.

JtheLemur
Aug 2, 2005, 08:40 AM
The article is hilariously sad for all reasons listed above (and in the article's comment section), but primarily because:

Tiger is, and has been, shipping.

Vista may ship in 12 to 18 months.

Do you see car reviewers comparing the ride of a 2005 Lexus to a 2008 Lexus? No, because the 2008 model doesn't exist yet. Sure they may have an engine and a frame lined up (a 'beta'), but tooling down the highway in that sure as balls couldn't compare to the finished product.

jettredmont
Aug 2, 2005, 09:14 AM
How is any of this "more sophisticated?"

I think he was trying to say, "more complicated", but his Microsoft keepers wouldn't let him.

Windows security is certainly more complicated. "Sophisticated" implies greater effectiveness. I think the writing is pretty well on the wall there about how effective Windows XP's complicated security model has been, and the improvements in Vista will go far, but even on paper only appear Tiger's equal, not its superior.

Then again, on paper, XP's security looks significantly more effective than it is. The ratio of paper goodness to actual crappiness with Microsoft Windows has always been fairly constant from release to release, so I don't have very high hopes for the effectiveness of Vista's security model.

That having been said, Microsoft is, slowly, making moves in the right direction. We all benefit from fewer worms and rampant viruses in Windows. But you know that there will be a special "compatibility mode" which will open the door to viruses of all sorts so that users can still use their 1989 DOS software.

mainstreetmark
Aug 2, 2005, 09:33 AM
That "Icon on the folder, indicating it's contents" idea was my first Feedback to Apple, back in the Jaguar days. I've always wanted that. I've been making use of FolderIconX, but even that's been too much of a bother for me recently.

nagromme
Aug 2, 2005, 09:34 AM
I think people may be complaining too much. The article STARTS by saying Tiger has shipped while Longhorn is late--and that the REAL competitor will be Leopard. They aren't trying to hide that at all. And the overall message of the article is that Tiger is ALREADY better than Longhorn, and Apple's got something even better on the way.

Re res-independent UI:
Has that been officially announced for Leopard?
I don't think ANYTHING has been officially announced for Leopard. But it's as solid as a rumor gets, in my view:

* Tiger supports res-independent UI (disabled by default because apps aren't ready), and it has THREE paths for supporting it: one for Cocoa apps, one for Carbon apps, and one "last resort" method simply to make sure apps that don't support it still run on a scaled display. Those layers of compatibility aren't something you'd be likely to do if you weren't planning on releasing the technology.

* Developers were given the tools early this year (with Tiger) to make their apps fully ready to take advantage of it. They have said this feature IS coming, they just haven't said when. To give them tools for something big that the current OS doesn't do, and then over a year later release ANOTHER OS version that STILL doesn't do it would be highly unlikely. It would be telling them to put work into a great feature and then bury that work for 3 years or more until OS X 10.6.

* The feature seems to be DONE--not a work in progress. Make higher-res bitmaps for UI elements and go. So there seems to be little reason to wait for 10.6.

* It's a splashy AND highly useful feature that would be great to position against Vista (and against Tiger). Especially if Vista doesn't do this.

* I think everybody knows this is where OS's are headed. Even without this evidence, I'd be amazed if BOTH Vista and Leopard didn't have this. But is there any evidence that Vista has it? I'm pretty sure XP does not or I would have found it by now :)

jettredmont
Aug 2, 2005, 09:49 AM
Example of Windows' "sophisticated" security?

Microsoft is also promising the ability to access applications and desktops over the Internet without a virtual private network.

Wow. That sounds like an excellent way to publish my company secrets to the world!

But here's my favorite howler:

Apple will need a further move away from the desktop and folder metaphor with further development of Spotlight and possibly new file management techniques.

Why the hell would Apple "move away from" a metaphor that makes sense to the vast majority of users, is fast, efficient, time-tested, and easy to teach newbies? Take Microsoft's "stacks" (which sounds ... hmmm ... strangely familiar ...). While I like the idea of a Smart Folder I can drag stuff to so that it always shows up in the results set, I can see a user with a couple of stacks on their desktop, drag a file to the stack, and have no idea why the file is still where it started. Windows has never, ever, been good about illustrating this type of metaphor. Maybe they'll sprout brilliance now that their OS has some real competition out there, but that's just conjecture. Probably they'll put some cryptic icon over the "stack" folder icon, which makes it still pretty much indistinguishable from the other 20 or so "special" folders Windows presents.

IMHO, search-only-all-the-time is a really bad idea. My filing system makes sense for me a good 90-99% of the time. That remainder, a good, fast, failproof search is a godsend. But if I had to do a file system search for every little file I use ... I can't even imagine. As fast as Spotlight is, a Smart Folder still takes a couple seconds to pop up in Finder. While "a couple of seconds" isn't that big of a deal, multiplied by the number of files I need to find each day, divided by the size of the smart folder in which I can glance and just grab the file I want ... still leaves me with hours of wasted time.

Advantages in Vista (on paper) are better system-visible file meta-data, and potentially it's wider ability to thumbnail documents (remains to be seen ... an icon with little lines where the text was, which lines properly represent the actual lines and paragraphs of the document ... just doesn't seem like it would be effective in identifying the document). The rest is Microsoft attempting to catch up to Apple, but with the weight of their backwards compatibility still resting on their shoulders, I don't see them making the great leaps and bounds they are predicting.

The article also spends a good amount of time extolling the virtues of Windows' implementation of Windows networking. An inexperienced observer would say, "duh". However, having experience in Windows networking environments, I have to beg to differ here. I have seen many instances where the only machines "working" on the Windows network were my Macs. The Windows machines couldn't see each other at all, just the Macs. In fact, the first thing I suggest for Windows networking problems is to take a Mac, add it to the network, and turn on Windows File Sharing on a public folder so that both Windows machines can exchange files via the Mac.

Yes, Tiger's Samba-based implementation of Windows File Sharing has its quirks. That's, essentially, because Windows File Sharing is a quirky little half-baked "standard". Windows' own implementation is certainly no better in its quirks. This is a case where several dozen really smart guys (the Samba folks) have done a significantly better job than several thousand guys with $50 billion in the bank to think about. Like we have to look far for such examples ...

Platform
Aug 4, 2005, 05:07 AM
Intresting read...........but WHY are they comparing an OS that was released a few months ago with another that will be released next year the earliest. :eek: :eek: :confused:

It says Tiger and Vista has a lot of the same features but Vista is more advanced on those features..........well it damn better be since it is a year or more late :cool:

So clearly Tiger is better...........compare Vista with Leopard then we can see who wins the game ;)

JFreak
Aug 4, 2005, 05:47 AM
Or, the flip side, you could scale down to 1/2, and give a 15" PowerBook the same real estate as a 30" Cinema Display.

...knowing that one pixel is the smallest possible particle within the display, so if a line is one pixel thick, making it smaller only makes it fuzzy. what would be the point of making everything so small it becomes unreadable?

of course, all this is just preparation for those high-resolution display panels we will get to use some day in the future. today the only useful implementation would make images bigger, which would in a way make 14" ibook obsolete ;)

JFreak
Aug 4, 2005, 05:49 AM
but WHY are they comparing an OS that was released a few months ago with another that will be released next year the earliest.

because there is no comparison as soon as the windows is released. the current windows always looks dull and old compared to the current macintosh, and the only way to even make comparisons is to compare microsoft vaporware to whatever apple sells today.

and even vista screenshots remind me from jaguar eyecandy - not panther, and definetely not tiger. translucent window titles? whee, back to 10.1 ;)

JFreak
Aug 4, 2005, 05:55 AM
The rest is Microsoft attempting to catch up to Apple, but with the weight of their backwards compatibility still resting on their shoulders, I don't see them making the great leaps and bounds they are predicting.

you probably know the history and can see that microsoft has been 20 years doing just that - catching up apple and never delivering the great leaps they always predict.

in fact, they can never succeed as long as they keep their backwards compatibility. not ever. the windows 2000 should have been the holy grail of pc world, but instead we now know a mediocre operating system (XP pro, essentially a w2k fix with a new gui) with even more mediocre sibiling (XP home).

i'm willing to give the company some credit if they some day manage to do it right. so far i haven't had to...

840quadra
Aug 4, 2005, 06:25 AM
Why the hell would Apple "move away from" a metaphor that makes sense to the vast majority of users, is fast, efficient, time-tested, and easy to teach newbies?

Would you prefer that apple had not continued were PARC left off on developing the GUI? We could all still be using Text based computing now. If apple can make an easy to use system that is void of files and folders, better search functions, and easier to keep clean, I am all for it.

You can always keep Tiger and not move to the next OS :)

I am all for apple taking their time, and moving forward and changing what people precieve as being the "personal computer"

rockthecasbah
Aug 4, 2005, 07:44 AM
it's just rediculous that the names of the folder won't have the "my" anymore because Apple does it...we are talking about the name of a folder. People don't stay with windows because it is documents instead of my documents.. :mad: stupid microsoft :mad:

greatdevourer
Aug 5, 2005, 10:14 AM
1) In the words of Steve Jobs, "They can't even copy fast"
2) IE 7... horrible. Every single story on Slashdot about it is another complaint from a developer about how, once again, it's completely forgotten the idea of standards, and uses it's own forms of HTML, XML and CSS, which is pissing off more and more page-designers, who are having to re-write them to take into account M$ and their "standards" which no-one else uses, has used and probably never will used unless forced to

Blackheart
Aug 5, 2005, 02:38 PM
It's MS:



;)

LMAO! Nice, I love it!
:D

nagromme
Aug 9, 2005, 09:42 PM
...knowing that one pixel is the smallest possible particle within the display, so if a line is one pixel thick, making it smaller only makes it fuzzy. what would be the point of making everything so small it becomes unreadable?

Most people would scale up instead of down, for the very reason--but down has its uses for sure: Lots of things are prefectly usable/visible at reduced size (as we know from Exposť), and being able to do that SOMETIMES--when a particular task calls for it--and then scale back to normal--would be great.

Very few people would work at a reduced size for long stretches, but it would be a great tool to have on hand, just like scaling up would be.

Of course it all becomes even MORE useful as physical DPI of screens gets higher.