PDA

View Full Version : Is there anything that Windows has that OSX doesn't?


vniow
Dec 16, 2002, 02:47 PM
I was asked this question a couple days ago and was basically stumped.

Is there a feature or an option or something else in Windows that's not, but should or could be, in OSX?

The only thing I can think of is that XP has this eye-candy killer feature that increases the speed and performance of it in case it's needed. It helps a bunch in VPC, just do a quick search. When you turn on that feature it's ugly as hell, but it's definately faster.
Aqua can be slow at times especially if you're on an older computer so being able to adjust some if not all of the eye candy would help us poor low-end users a lot.

Are there any other features that I'm missing or is OSX better in every possible way?http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/winky.gif

dricci
Dec 16, 2002, 03:05 PM
Viruses.... :cool:

cr2sh
Dec 16, 2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by edvniow

Aqua can be slow at times especially if you're on an older computer so being able to adjust some if not all of the eye candy would help us poor low-end users a lot.

It'd be great if this function was self-calibrating though... It recognizes video memory, total ram, and cpu speed and then calculates an optimal display setting.

I use ther charactermap in wndows a lot, and I'm sure I could pull down a third party though. Also, Right click access to Display features.. other than that... dunno.

What is this face suppossed to mean? :o blow me?

MisterBlack
Dec 16, 2002, 03:18 PM
Video Games.

Tommy!
Dec 16, 2002, 03:46 PM
can't windows log out a user while keeping their application open? so when someone else logs in, the other application is running in the background invisibly? i want a feature like that in osx really bad.

Gaz
Dec 16, 2002, 04:07 PM
- Try highlighting a few files and just renaming one of them

- The catagorising of files and folderes is pretty smart

- Good preview of all files in a folder

- .NET but that's not really for your avg customer, plus I have a very strong feeling this will be appearing on OS X in the very near future - they recently ported all CLI which is a good start

- Good developer tools. OS X is improving but if you want to get in to some real development OS X is still lagging. Please note the developer tools are a little limited. Add intellisense and they would be vastly improved.

- Better file sharing apps

- IMO better grouping of open documents and I prefer the task switching

- Vastly improved user switching but if the rumors that were circulating recently come true, then the Mac will rule (even more so)

- ClearType fonts, I remember reading somewhere this was one of the best features of XP and was better than the AA on OS X. The result being readability of text is vastly improved and can help people read documents much more quickly.

That's probably about it and yes I do realise you can can download extras to do some of the stuff but you shouldn't need to that.

kiwi_the_iwik
Dec 16, 2002, 04:34 PM
*Kiddie-style graphical interface

*No imagination - it plagiarised from OSX in the first place (since when has MS ever had an original idea come forth from their brains that they didn't have to get from a hostile takeover of a smaller competitor?)

*A hefty price tag

*US Government backing - via the newly-established "Department of Homeland Security" - to give them the ability to spy on your computer, unknowingly to the user, over the internet - as a so-called deterrent to terrorism.

...to name a few. Any others?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

;)

cr2sh
Dec 16, 2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
*A hefty price tag

As opposed to Jaguar?

GeeYouEye
Dec 16, 2002, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh


As opposed to Jaguar?

$500 to $130? Yeah, as comparted to Jaguar.

cubist
Dec 16, 2002, 04:47 PM
Even the XP Home, with its Machiavellian "product activation" feature, costs more than Jaguar.

I think Windows' network control panel has a little more flexibility than the corresponding system configuration panels in Mac OS X.

I can't get the PPTP feature in Mac OS X to work. I think my office has selected some optional encryption authentication feature.

Windows includes drivers for floppy drives.

Windows includes support for analog joysticks, whereas the Mac has traditionally had keypads with kludgy game-specific mapping to keyclicks. That's kind of weird, because the Apple II had nice analog joysticks that IBM copied for the PC.

Some folks mention that Windows supports "Dolby 5+1 surround sound". I don't know what that is.

Now do you want a list of what Mac OS X has that Windows doesn't? That'll be a much longer list!

rainman::|:|
Dec 16, 2002, 04:54 PM
well jaguar lacks the feature of asking you every time you click something in IE if you really want to [enter a secure site][leave a secure site][submit a form on an insecure site] despite telling it that you DONT want to see that message again, it just can't save your preference to your network volume...

blah. one of my pet peeves, if you can't tell.

it also has a handy method of making sure you REALLY want to shut down, by making you tell it up to 3 times (and god forbid you try shutting it down with network apps open)... jaguar, by comparison, simply shuts down, with NO reguard to personal indecisiveness...

i kind of like the fact that almost every contextual menu in Windows has an option for "set as wallpaper"... if i changed my background image often, it'd be handy...

:)
pnw

cr2sh
Dec 16, 2002, 05:00 PM
a current windows user can upgrade to XP home for $99
a current osX user can upgrade to Jag for $129

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/pricing.asp

http://www.apple.com/macosx/

Originally posted by cubist
Even the XP Home, with its Machiavellian "product activation" feature, costs more than Jaguar.

What you're saying is just wrong.

vniow
Dec 16, 2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
a current windows user can upgrade to XP home for $99
a current osX user can upgrade to Jag for $129

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/pricing.asp

http://www.apple.com/macosx/



What you're saying is just wrong.


The price you're quoting for an upgrade to Home is just that. An upgrade.
You must have a previous copy of Windows (which would cost another ~$99) in order for it to work.
The full price for XP Home is $199 which is also the same price as an upgrade to XP Pro.

10.2's $129 beats them all for value.

backspinner
Dec 16, 2002, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
I use ther charactermap in wndows a lot
Do you mean like the standard character palette of OS X?

SilvorX
Dec 16, 2002, 05:14 PM
hmm on winblowz media player, it sends data from your comp to microsoft...probably the first phase of palladium :p jk
ie is fully integrated on winblowz...personally im a mozilla/phoenix fan so that pisses me off when i DID use windows...
user-unfriendly setup (for installing win xp/reinstalling xp)
ugly user interface
thats what windows has that mac doesnt...

backspinner
Dec 16, 2002, 05:24 PM
On windows you have good programmers text editors with tabs (ie Ultraedit).

And I like the two pane idea of the file explorer. Therefore the preview of a folder is also nicer/easier.

On Windows you have a zillion half-working pet project programs, on the mac you only have 1% of that number of decent applications.
On windows you have driver problems, on the mac you have drivers or you don't have them (well, most of the time).
On windows you have the latest hardware gadgets (but no applications to take advantage of it).

BenderBot1138
Dec 16, 2002, 05:25 PM
I think you said "that should be in OSX" right... hmmm the only thing I can think of is Window's users' attention/focus.

kiwi_the_iwik... that "kiddie style graphics" comment was HILARIOUS (http://soundamerica.com/sounds/sound_fx/F-R/laugh1.wav)

:cool:

cr2sh
Dec 16, 2002, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by edvniow
The price you're quoting for an upgrade to Home is just that. An upgrade.
You must have a previous copy of Windows (which would cost another ~$99) in order for it to work.
The full price for XP Home is $199 which is also the same price as an upgrade to XP Pro.

10.2's $129 beats them all for value.

The upgrade to XP costs $99, the upgrade to Jag costs $129.

To say it has 'a hefty price tag' means that the Jag is even more hefty.
I agree that Jag is the better value, I agree that XP is complete garbage.. and if you didn't already have an OS (respectively) Jag is cheaper, but I think that is a very rare scenario.

Raiden
Dec 16, 2002, 06:03 PM
Yeah, I do like the windows explorer program thing that my windows 98 has. I know apple has the search thing built into the finder, but a whole mac explorer program would be great.

Scanning my brain, there really isnt anything that 98 has that OSXJ doesnt.

pimentoLoaf
Dec 16, 2002, 06:13 PM
Windozzzzzzzz XP supports:

[list=a]
Flight Simulator Pro
Combat Flight Simulator 3
InterActual Player
[/list=a]

The latter toy allows linking from DVD's to the Internet.

JupiterZen
Dec 16, 2002, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by edvniow
Is there a feature or an option or something else in Windows that's not, but should or could be, in OSX?

Are there any other features that I'm missing or is OSX better in every possible way?http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/winky.gif

If you want to make a disk mirror set in OS X you MUST format both drives to make the mirror set.

If you want to create a mirror set in Windows 2000/XP you can take any existing volume and let it be mirrored on another volume without the reformat. So you can easily mirror existing data.

...

Oh, and a Novell Groupwise Client would be nice ;-) But that is more something Novell is to blame for. And I must say the mail.app in Jaguar does a nice job IMAPping to a Groupwise Server. And you can always have WebAccess.

Chaszmyr
Dec 16, 2002, 06:24 PM
For those of you who do digital photography, WindowsXP has the ability to view EXIF info from within the OS, whereas on a mac you need to do it with Photoshop. Windows also has a built-in netmeeting. Other than that I can't think of anything Windows has that OSX doesnt.... OSX sure has a lot that WinXP doesnt though.

Nipsy
Dec 16, 2002, 06:45 PM
To address a few points:

OSX has as many developer tools than Windows has (thanks fink), however many of them exist only on the command line (not really a problem for developers). However, certain things will never exist for either platform.

Windows has a broader selection of IDEs. However, the Mac is emerging as a developer friendly platform FAST.

Windows will always have more game titles than Mac, primarily because of the audience.

There are numerous VERY useful utils for Windows only, however, it is becoming increasingly easy to WRITE these as apps in OSX.

Windows has more in the way of graphical OS extensibility, if that's your thing.

MacOSX still struggles with some VPNs, some codecs, some poorly coded sites which rely heavily on ActiveX (scary), share mounting ease (smb remounts, etc.).

Windows struggles with privacy, security, ease of use, and consistency.

OSX is a better, but slightly more limiting experience. Windows is a more common, but less pleasant interface.

kylos
Dec 16, 2002, 07:27 PM
On Windows you have a zillion half-working pet project programs, on the mac you only have 1% of that number of decent applications.

Hmm... Let's see, 1% of a zillion... that's a whole lot more decent apps than I'll ever need or use.:)

pantagruel
Dec 16, 2002, 07:31 PM
um no one has mentioned the blue-screen of death.

and I quote"who cares if there are a thousand programs for the pc when the five you want most are available only for the mac"

alex_ant
Dec 16, 2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
*US Government backing - via the newly-established "Department of Homeland Security" - to give them the ability to spy on your computer, unknowingly to the user, over the internet - as a so-called deterrent to terrorism.
Can you elaborate on this?

ibjoshua
Dec 16, 2002, 08:36 PM
<grrrrrrrr>Mozilla just crashed as I was about to submit my first reply</grrrrrrrr>

soo....
in summary:

I liked Nipsy's summary.

I agree with some of the points about Windows File Manager/Explorer. Although I think OS X's literal representaion of mounted volumes and the file system is less confusing than Windows 'helpful' pseudo-heirachy where the Desktop is above My Computer, My Documents, My Network Places etc etc. That's what shortcuts are for aren't they?

I also agree that there is still a lack of fast and free Aqua based text editors but the field (http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/TextEditors.html) is closing. I personally like mi (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/%7Egf6d-kmym/en/) (which is really fast to load and has nice tidy toolset) and Apple's Project Builder (http://developer.apple.com/tools/projectbuilder/) looks like a pretty handy IDE even if you're just doing HTML or PHP. Although I have to admit I'd really like to have HTML-Kit (http://www.chami.com/html-kit/) (which I use every day on my work PC) on my Mac.

And lastly I'd like to say what a good discussion this has been so far. I hope (someone influential at) Apple reads this thread. It's nice to be part of a thread that is not full of whining, flaming and grandstanding for a change.

Thanks guys and gals.
i_b_joshua

alex_ant
Dec 16, 2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Chaszmyr
For those of you who do digital photography, WindowsXP has the ability to view EXIF info from within the OS, whereas on a mac you need to do it with Photoshop. Windows also has a built-in netmeeting. Other than that I can't think of anything Windows has that OSX doesnt.... OSX sure has a lot that WinXP doesnt though.
You're right that the Finder can't show EXIF data, but iPhoto can, and also a program called "jhead" if you use the command line. I agree though that Apple needs to beef up the Finder a bit in this area. I'd like to see them get rid of list view (it's worthless) and improve column view. (Larger preview area, ability to double-click on a picture to open it, show image dimensions in the preview area, and maybe offer an "extended" preview area or something that allows you to view EXIF data and other things about the image that would otherwise only be viewable in Photoshop or with the Get Info option.)

AmbitiousLemon
Dec 16, 2002, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

You're right that the Finder can't show EXIF data, but iPhoto can, and also a program called "jhead" if you use the command line. I agree though that Apple needs to beef up the Finder a bit in this area. I'd like to see them get rid of list view (it's worthless)

hey i like the list view.

also i think 'beefing up' the finder is a bad idea. i thin this is one of the major faults of windows. ms trys to add everything to the finder. it creates a buggy bloated os. sure it can do a lot of things, but doesnt do any of them very well. the os should simply be the platform for applications to operate in. if you want to work with photos use iphoto. i dont want to be doing any elaborate application level tasks in my finder.

cr2sh: regarding price (i know this is a tangent), the upgrade path to jaguar was $20. I will never understand why people complain about jaguar pricing when it has been the same pricing model that apple has used for as long as i can remember and is still significantly cheaper than the windows. if you dont think it is worth the money, then dont upgrade. most computer users never upgrade (even free upgrades). os10.2 was the first os i actually purchased separate from a computer purchase. i thought it was worth it.

and back to the point of the thread, os features are important, and i am glad so many people have focused on developer tools (although not really part of the os) because what is more important than os feature is applications. offering developers a wealth of developer tools is far more important than imbedding every conceivable fetaure into the os. One of the valuable lessons from the unix/linux community that apple should be following as they join the community is that applications should perform single tasks. do not try to create one application to perform every taska user may require. this is what ms trys to do with windows. they package everything together and sell it as windows. many of the 'features' people have been mentioning here are not what i would consider useful os features, but are instead important tasks that applications should be performing.

try to keep that in mind when making suggestions.

alex_ant
Dec 16, 2002, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
also i think 'beefing up' the finder is a bad idea. i thin this is one of the major faults of windows. ms trys to add everything to the finder. it creates a buggy bloated os. sure it can do a lot of things, but doesnt do any of them very well. the os should simply be the platform for applications to operate in. if you want to work with photos use iphoto. i dont want to be doing any elaborate application level tasks in my finder.
Well, the idea behind this is that if the Finder can do more, then maybe it won't be necessary to open another app to do something that can be done more conveniently with the Finder. Sure there's a limit, a place where the line has to be drawn, but... it would be nice if I could see the dimensions of a photo, or view its EXIF data, without opening a photo viewer. (Which can be a pain when my photo viewer has 3000 pics and takes 30 seconds to load.) Yes it is a photo and therefore yes it should be iPhoto's responsibility, but it's also a file, which makes it the Finder's responsibility as well. So iPhoto should do its job as a photo organizer/viewer, and the Finder should do its job as a file organizer/viewer, which means the two should duplicate some of each other's functionality (not necessarily by creating bloat - I'm sure it would be possible to create an "EXIF viewer object" that could be called by both iPhoto and the Finder). I'm not saying we should turn the Finder into Photoshop. Actually I think the Finder is very close to where it should be at the moment.

With regards to following the Unix example of having many small utilities perform specialized tasks, I think that works well for Unix thanks to Unix's I/O redirection and scripting abilities. I'm not so sure it works well for GUIs.

d1e
Dec 16, 2002, 09:40 PM
Is there anything that Windows has that OSX doesn't?

Simple. OSX doesn't have nearly enough software for what I do.

After Janurary, without the ability to boot to OS9, audio production will be impossible on the Mac with lack of support from 3rd party vendors.

I really hope Apple pulls an ace out of their sleeve at MWSF, or else I'm switching....back to PC.

Taft
Dec 16, 2002, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Well, the idea behind this is that if the Finder can do more, then maybe it won't be necessary to open another app to do something that can be done more conveniently with the Finder. Sure there's a limit, a place where the line has to be drawn, but... it would be nice if I could see the dimensions of a photo, or view its EXIF data, without opening a photo viewer. (Which can be a pain when my photo viewer has 3000 pics and takes 30 seconds to load.) Yes it is a photo and therefore yes it should be iPhoto's responsibility, but it's also a file, which makes it the Finder's responsibility as well. So iPhoto should do its job as a photo organizer/viewer, and the Finder should do its job as a file organizer/viewer, which means the two should duplicate some of each other's functionality (not necessarily by creating bloat - I'm sure it would be possible to create an "EXIF viewer object" that could be called by both iPhoto and the Finder). I'm not saying we should turn the Finder into Photoshop. Actually I think the Finder is very close to where it should be at the moment.

To add to this particular topic...

I really like what the finder does with its preview technology. While I believe the Finder should be kept simple, the preview does add a great and straightforward function to the finder.

The only problem I have with it is that it starts the Apple Finder on the slippery slope towards the Windows Explorer. I especially don't like the fact that the preview technology seems to be closed to Apple products. I think it should be opened up as an API plugin technology to third parties. This way, I can preview not only Quicktime files, but also Windows Media files, html files, etc, etc.

This should definitely be an open technology.

Taft

usersince86
Dec 16, 2002, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by d1e
Is there anything that Windows has that OSX doesn't?

Simple. OSX doesn't have nearly enough software for what I do.

After Janurary, without the ability to boot to OS9, audio production will be impossible on the Mac with lack of support from 3rd party vendors.

I really hope Apple pulls an ace out of their sleeve at MWSF, or else I'm switching....back to PC.

Hang on, they're coming (fast).

I understand your "pain" -- I've been doing sequencing and audio on the Mac since 1986. PCs have caught up and , in the consumer based apps, passed the Mac platform. But I think Apple will retain the high ground, and the majority of high-end applications are still there for Mac. Consumer based stuff exists and will become more available because of the Unix based OSX.

And unless I'm mistaken, you can still boot into OS9 on any machine that exists today, just not any that come out after the first of the year (although that might be pushed back 'til June, if I remember from another thread, because of Quark).

Switch back if you want to, but I predict that if you do, you'll eventually wish you hadn't.

But that's just my 2 cents...

Durandal7
Dec 16, 2002, 10:45 PM
Let's see,
Windows browses files via *Explorer*
OS X can't put those wonderful ads on your desktop if you want :(
OS X doesn't have that wild Luna interface
OS X may never reap the benefits of Palladium

I swear if Apple doesn't shape up I'm going to switch to Windows.

kylos
Dec 16, 2002, 11:54 PM
AmbitiousLemon, I never saw any $20 upgrade to Jag and I'm not sure where you could have seen that either.

AmbitiousLemon
Dec 16, 2002, 11:57 PM
Apple website. Thats what the upgrade coupons are for. Also it was announced the same time the $130 price tag was announced. This is common knowledge.

kylos
Dec 17, 2002, 12:12 AM
The only way I saw to get Jag for $20 is to purchase a non Jag mac on or after July 17 2002. So most mac users don't qualify.

AmbitiousLemon
Dec 17, 2002, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Kyle?
The only way I saw to get Jag for $20 is to purchase a non Jag mac on or after July 17 2002. So most mac users don't qualify.

not extactly. it works the same way mac upgrades always work. if your purchase a mac or the old os 2-3 months before the new s comes out you qualify for the 'free' upgrade (apple claims the $20 is for shipping and handling only so the upgrade is technically free).

lmalave
Dec 17, 2002, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Tommy!
can't windows log out a user while keeping their application open? so when someone else logs in, the other application is running in the background invisibly? i want a feature like that in osx really bad.

Is this a new feature in Windows XP? Because it certainly isn't in Windows 2000. In fact, when you go to log off, the option text says "Close all programs and log on as another user".

kylos
Dec 17, 2002, 12:25 AM
I got that from apple's website. Either way, it doesn't benefit most, since the range affects very few mac users, so in essence most people upgrading to Jag are paying full price.

Rower_CPU
Dec 17, 2002, 12:38 AM
Using XP Home as the comparison point against OS X is like pitting your local tee-ball team against the New York Yankees: they both play the same game, but at completely different levels.

For a better "apples to apples" comparison of the feature sets, you need to use XP Pro and it's higher pricing:

OS X v 10.2 - $130
XP Pro upgrade - $200
XP Pro full - $300

Hmmm...;)

IJ Reilly
Dec 17, 2002, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


not extactly. it works the same way mac upgrades always work. if your purchase a mac or the old os 2-3 months before the new s comes out you qualify for the 'free' upgrade (apple claims the $20 is for shipping and handling only so the upgrade is technically free).

Not exactly. The upgrade price for Jag only applied to people who bought a Mac after Jag was announced and before 10.2 shipped. It was perfectly possible to buy a Mac after Jag shipped with 10.1x installed on the hard drive and no rights to a $20 upgrade. I should know, I bought one. Bad policy, and a first for Apple, I believe.

Anyway, one thing OSX doesn't offer and Windows does are different "Professional" and "Amateur" editions. That is such a great idea,

cr2sh
Dec 17, 2002, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Using XP Home as the comparison point against OS X is like pitting your local tee-ball team against the New York Yankees: they both play the same game, but at completely different levels.

For a better "apples to apples" comparison of the feature sets, you need to use XP Pro and it's higher pricing:

OS X v 10.2 - $130
XP Pro upgrade - $200
XP Pro full - $300

Hmmm...;)

This is the simplest argument EVER, and yet you guys are completelly blind to the links I posted. I don't care about quality, or home versus pro, or even about whether its 'worth it' or not... that is not the discussion.
Someone said that XP had a hefty price tag, the fact is osX costs more! Stop confusing the issue of 'value' or 'quality' with sheer price. (we all know that osX wins those arguments)

The $20upgrade thing was for a very short time and to a very small audience and quite simply: no longer applies.

It's funny, one of the mod's posts said "If you don't think its worth it, don't upgrade." He labeled me as an anti-jaguar because I stated the simple fact that it costs more to upgrade. I'm using a mac because I love it, I'm an ardent supporter of osX, I've been hounding my campus-tech services director to buy more macs, and yet because I see things the way they ACTUALLY are - I'm shunned.... :rolleyes:

Rower_CPU
Dec 17, 2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by cr2sh
This is the simplest argument EVER, and yet you guys are completelly blind to the links I posted. I don't care about quality, or home versus pro, or even about whether its 'worth it' or not... that is not the discussion.
Someone said that XP had a hefty price tag, the fact is osX costs more! Stop confusing the issue of 'value' or 'quality' with sheer price. (we all know that osX wins those arguments)

The $20upgrade thing was for a very short time and to a very small audience and quite simply: no longer applies.

It's funny, one of the mod's posts said "If you don't think its worth it, don't upgrade." He labeled me as an anti-jaguar because I stated the simple fact that it costs more to upgrade. I'm using a mac because I love it, I'm an ardent supporter of osX, I've been hounding my campus-tech services director to buy more macs, and yet because I see things the way they ACTUALLY are - I'm shunned.... :rolleyes:

You're trying to make a concrete, black and white statement as to which is cheaper, which is impssible to do in this situation.

In some cases XP is cheaper, and in some cases it's not. Period.

As for the $20 upgrade thing, it no longer needs to apply, since all Macs now ship with 10.2. I agree that the lack of an upgrade path was a little tough to stomach at first, but if you look back at the fact that 10.1 was a "free" upgrade from 10.0...how much do you want from Apple?

cr2sh
Dec 17, 2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
...how much do you want from Apple?

You're joking right?
Did you even read my post? ;)

Lower price is something we should expect from a lower quality product. :)

One last thing, my 10.0 was a free upgrade to 9.2... I had to pay for 10.1.

elmimmo
Dec 17, 2002, 03:11 AM
True FULL KEYBOARD ACCESS.

And universal Explorer (what-would-be-Windows'Finder) shortcuts that work from WHATEVER application you are working on. They are unstealable for those apps since Windows use the pretty intuitive way of cataloguing shortcuts: windows+something=OS shortcuts; ctrl+something=common shortcuts; option+something=interface shortcuts, such as accessing to menus, windows controls or buttons which are hinted by an underlined letter.

IMO this is wicked mad in Mac OS as there doesn't seem to be any logic when its is command alone, command+option, command+shift (they in fact swapped command+option+H to command+shift+H for Home in the upgrade from 10.1 to 10.2), and when command+option+D is going to be an OS shortcut (hide/show the Dock, which SHOULD be universal) and when it is going to be an application shortcut.

Windows+E, for example, new Explorer Window & turn it the front-most window WEREVER you are at any moment. Windows+F Find files WEREVER you are. Windows+D hide all and show desktop WEREVER you are...

This is the single most important feature that they should have sit and think about in the first alpha of Mac OS X, rapsody or whatever. This affects your whole workflow and it will affect you for all the years of future existence of Mac OS X, since it is damn difficult now to get back to a universal, intuitive and consensuated way among developers.

Oh, and ALL applications recognize the space the TaskBar is taking and do not try to invade it.

Are this interface thingies that make me wonder why Apple has not just robbed them from Windows yet.

PS: And they have Exact Audio Copy & LAME at decent speeds.

irmongoose
Dec 17, 2002, 04:49 AM
What's missing: A good voice chat program.

cr2sh: the Jaguar update might cost more than the XP Home edition, but remember, the Jaguar update is the FULL version. Not just an update like XP. And plus that's HOME edition, while Jaguar is on the same level as PRO edition, which is $199 for the upgrade, let alone the full version.

See a difference here?




irmongoose

ibjoshua
Dec 17, 2002, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by irmongoose
What's missing: A good voice chat program.

cr2sh: the Jaguar update might cost more than the XP Home edition, but remember, the Jaguar update is the FULL version. Not just an update like XP. And plus that's HOME edition, while Jaguar is on the same level as PRO edition, which is $199 for the upgrade, let alone the full version.

See a difference here?




irmongoose

That's right.

There is no such thing as OS X Lite which is what XP Home is.

i_b_joshua

backspinner
Dec 17, 2002, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by elmimmo
They are unstealable for those apps since Windows use the pretty intuitive way of cataloguing shortcuts: windows+something=OS shortcuts; ctrl+something=common shortcuts; option+something=interface shortcuts, such as accessing to menus, windows controls or buttons which are hinted by an underlined letter.After using Windows for about 8 years I didn't found that out by myself... so I didn't know about these features.

Which brings me to something missing in OS X: cut/copy/paste in the finder isn't possible as it should be: just working like wherever. At least it works in Windows...

benixau
Dec 17, 2002, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by backspinner
Which brings me to something missing in OS X: cut/copy/paste in the finder isn't possible as it should be: just working like wherever. At least it works in Windows...

Tell me about it. Windows' way of ddiong this is good. Cut it, it goes 50% transparent. Move around a million directories (in windows dir) and then paste.

I also have to agree with those who spoke of universal shortcuts. We need those.

OR

Standardized ones. Cmd-F = Find (good :)) Cmd-D = Send/Bookmark/Delete (bad :()

oh well cant have it all. rather a mac than a dell.

mrpepsi
Dec 17, 2002, 08:25 AM
The main thing that keeps me from going Mac only is the overall feeling of slowness that OSX has. Though it's rock solid, and does many things faster (thanks to PowerPC/BSD), simply scrolling through windows and stuff can be painful.

I like how from any explorer window in XP, you can type in a url, or network name and connect without manually executing a program.

I like how compressed files can be executed and manipulated without actually unzipping them, and no additional software is required.

If OSX had the speed of XP or even OS9, I'd be Mac only at work.

Now at home....I gotta have my games, so I'll always be using some version of windows. ;-)

macmax
Dec 17, 2002, 08:28 AM
PROBLEMS,hahhahhahahahhaahhaha:D

kiwi_the_iwik
Dec 17, 2002, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Can you elaborate on this?

Whoa - has THIS thread really taken off in the few hours that I've been away...

Well, alex -

I was surprised to read in the latest issue of UK Mac User magazine (13 Dec 02 - Vol 18 No 25 Page 16) of a new arm of the US government department - created by good 'ol George "W" - called the "Department of Homeland Security", which has the juristiction to sirrupticiously scan your computer whilst you're connected to the net - as a safeguard to terrorism. The benefit for Apple users is that this will only be able to be done if the user is on Windows (Bill Gates swiftly raised his hand when the Government asked for help, hoping that copious amounts of butt-kissing might persuade the Attourney General to "look the other way" in any further Microsoft Trials).

Here's the full article...


US President George Bush has approved a bill to boost US national security that threatens the privacy of computer users around the world.

The full extent of the new arm of the US government - called the Department of Homeland Security - is still being determined, but it will ensure that computer operating systems, hardware, data and the Internet are secure. The US government will be able to access these computer systems to fulfil its remit of protecting national security.

Industry experts suggest the ramifications of this agency are huge. 'What kind of control will the US government have over the development of commercial computer operating systems so it can access private information under the guise of "national security"?' said Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

'In the end, how much more will "Big Brother" know about you and me because it will now have access to information they previously couldn't get?'

The department brings together 22 existing federal agencies, ranging from the Secret Service to the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol. Its stated aim is to guard against the ever-increasing terrorist threat to the US.

While the roles and rules of most agencies in the new department are remaining the same, much of what the body does is directly related to protecting the US from computer terrorism.

However, Rotenberg believes the agency's real goal is to create large-scale data warehouses to analyse everyday activities, such as credit card purchases and travel reservations, as well as to access personal computers if necessary.

The Department of Homeland Security has been given new powers to prosecute computer crimes. New laws have been enacted, which include life prison sentences for computer hackers found guilty of serious crimes.

While today's existing operating systems are being developed to provide as much security protection as possible, operating system developers, such as Apple and Microsoft, will have to weigh customers' privacy concerns against the US government's desire to access personal data.

Already, Microsoft is working with the US government to develop its IT framework for homeland security. The software company has also committed itself to work with the government to create better security systems for Windows.

Judge for yourself - OSX seems to be the safer bet. And if this new idea of Apple's to sell its intel-based OSX variant "Marklar" gets onto the shelves, then I'd expect a great deal of consumers will be voting with their feet, and changing operating systems, if they feel their security is being compromised by the government, and their right to free speech is being challenged.

agreenster
Dec 17, 2002, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by mrpepsi
The main thing that keeps me from going Mac only is the overall feeling of slowness that OSX has. Though it's rock solid, and does many things faster (thanks to PowerPC/BSD), simply scrolling through windows and stuff can be painful.

I like how from any explorer window in XP, you can type in a url, or network name and connect without manually executing a program.

I like how compressed files can be executed and manipulated without actually unzipping them, and no additional software is required.

If OSX had the speed of XP or even OS9, I'd be Mac only at work.

Now at home....I gotta have my games, so I'll always be using some version of windows. ;-)

I completely AGREE! OSX (Jag) is too slow, even with dual systems with the required Vid card etc.

Also, I wish there was a way, when opening or saving a file from an App like Photoshop or Maya or whatever, you could sort the files viewed in the save/open window in any way you want (date modified, by name, etc.) I hate that its Alphabetical order ONLY. Also, in Windows, you can edit names of files from those windows and move them around, etc--just like thru the Windows explorer.

Rower_CPU
Dec 17, 2002, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
<snip>
One last thing, my 10.0 was a free upgrade to 9.2... I had to pay for 10.1.

:confused: ...really? You "upgraded" from 10.0 to 9.2 for free? ;)

If you purchased 10.0, you could get 10.1 for free at an Apple Store or authorized reseller, or for a $20 "shipping fee".

digitalgiant
Dec 17, 2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
Let's see,
Windows browses files via *Explorer*
OS X can't put those wonderful ads on your desktop if you want :(
OS X doesn't have that wild Luna interface
OS X may never reap the benefits of Palladium

I swear if Apple doesn't shape up I'm going to switch to Windows.

You MUST be joking right!? And one more thing,,,,just go on and switch to PC,,,bye,,,be gone. i am so over peopl,e saying that they are gonna go to the dark side,,,just go be gone,,,and dont ever come back here.

Have a great day!!!!
Digi

digitalgiant
Dec 17, 2002, 02:09 PM
Sorry i didnt mean to fly off they handle.:rolleyes:

etoiles
Dec 17, 2002, 03:26 PM
explorer in windows is not really rock solid, but I really like the 'unified' browser idea. Not just for files and web, but also ftp...plus, it is super fast to 'launch' (since it is always open).

I also would like more options to view/arange files in OSX, but maybe I just did not look in the right places for these options...

Oh, and a configurable GUI ! Aqua is nice, but it gets a bit tiresome after a while (am I the only one thinking this ?), also, it would be so nice to be able to switch it to a barebones UI, minimal button/bar sizes and no 'funky' effects: maximize speed and screen real estate.

ibjoshua
Dec 17, 2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by digitalgiant
Sorry i didnt mean to fly off they handle.:rolleyes:

It's alright. I think that was sarcasm on durandal's part.

i_b_joshua

stromie952
Dec 17, 2002, 05:25 PM
The one thing I have been envious of from Windows XP is the remote desktop feature.

It is much better than any VNC and has many more features than Apple's Remote Desktop. You can actually listen to sound on your computer from another location among other things.

Its something that would be very useful as I like to use VNC a lot and have played aroun with Apple's Remote Desktop. I don't see why they couldn't have a remote desktop built in similar to Remote X, the true remote desktop for Linux systems.

Just my two cents

Durandal7
Dec 17, 2002, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by digitalgiant


You MUST be joking right!?
Well, yeah...

Anti
Dec 17, 2002, 07:15 PM
Well im a windows user... and a mac user.
My PC is my main machine... a 1.4Ghz T-Bird Overclocked to 1.8Ghz. yada yada yada. Im a tweaker... and i find that mac os x is not so tweaker friendly.

That and macs are so damn expensive. compared to what i can build for half the price.

Also, Mac OS X feels slow. It may do five gazilion floating point calculations a second... but it comes down the the fact that its slow to use.

Windows XP is lighning fast.

Im a graphics designer so i use macs for photoshop and whatnot...
but what made me use a mac in the first place (photoshop WAS faster on a mac) is now reversed. I can do anything in photoshop on my pc at least twice as fast as i could in mac os x (or 9 for that matter).

I can find any application i want for windows... but i cant do the same for macs.

and... i never thought i would say it.. but... my mac crashes more than my windows machine. my mac (dual G4 800Mhz) doesnt like dealing with large files. my mac will crash at least once a week... whereas my windows machine has crashed about 3 times in the year ive had it.

I have to say.. the quality of macintosh programs is far superior to windows.
I WISH i could run REALbasic on my windows machine (RB is awesome www.realbasic.com)

my two cents.

Fukui
Dec 17, 2002, 08:26 PM
I think there are a lot of good ideas here, I think that everyone should tell apple at thier OS X feedback site.

I really wish that they would just trash the finder and re-write it in cocoa, and fix all of those "little" bugs like broken FTP and SMB connection through the finder. I like the task switching in windows, maybe if the Dock was tabbed with a "app window," "minimized window," "short cuts" tabs etc...

cr2sh
Dec 17, 2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


:confused: ...really? You "upgraded" from 10.0 to 9.2 for free? ;)

If you purchased 10.0, you could get 10.1 for free at an Apple Store or authorized reseller, or for a $20 "shipping fee".

yeh, I bought what was suppossed to be a dual 500 from MicroCenter August two years ago. Microcenter (somehow) gave me a 733 with superdrive instead (valued at much more than what i payed) ... anyways, it came only with 9.2 but there was a mail in thingy at that time, where I got the 10.0 disk for free. When 10.1 was released, I had to buy it.

Several people have noted that XP Home is a "lite" version of XP, okay.. maybe that should be noted... you can't get a 'lite' osX for any price...

pianojoe
Dec 17, 2002, 09:03 PM
Drivers for my Fastlane USB MIDI Interface, or my Midiman USB MIDI Interface.

Drivers for my MOTU 828 Firewire Audio Interface.

Drivers (I mean, working drivers) for my HP AOI Laser Printer-Scanner-Fax

Drivers for my Philips ToU Webcam.

Running versions of all (!) my $4000 audio plugins. Heaven knows if/when any of them will be ported to OSX. I could get a crossgrade to Windows for most of them for a nominal fee.

Shall I continue?

All these things worked fine in OS 9, and still do for my part. I can't switch to OS X when the bread and butter software isn't available.

AmbitiousLemon
Dec 17, 2002, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by pianojoe
Drivers for my Fastlane USB MIDI Interface, or my Midiman USB MIDI Interface.

Drivers for my MOTU 828 Firewire Audio Interface.

Drivers (I mean, working drivers) for my HP AOI Laser Printer-Scanner-Fax

Drivers for my Philips ToU Webcam.

Running versions of all (!) my $4000 audio plugins. Heaven knows if/when any of them will be ported to OSX. I could get a crossgrade to Windows for most of them for a nominal fee.

Shall I continue?

All these things worked fine in OS 9, and still do for my part. I can't switch to OS X when the bread and butter software isn't available.

it has to be annoyng listening to everyone rave about osx when all of you audio guys are stuck in os9, but i just want you to know you aren't the only ones stuck there. at least you audio guys know that 'some' audio apps are coming by years end. scientific software is far worse. many of the applications we use were discontinued years ago, so osx versions will never come. many companies moved to pc ony in the early 90s and the majority of scientists still use the 10 year old mac versions (will developers ever realize they lost 70% of their market when they switched/). luckily every application i and my colleagues use works flawlessly in classic (in fact they run faster in classic than when i boot into os9). the only hope we have though is that new applications to replace the ones we have been using for years are created that have osx ports. (on the bright side, many unix apps are now available via the command line).

cr2sh
Dec 17, 2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
scientific software is far worse.

Such as? What is scientific software? :confused: Give me a program name so I can say "oh.. thats scientific software!" :)

Editing rules! (and now i'm off to LOTR..)

AmbitiousLemon
Dec 17, 2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh


Such as? What is scientific software? :confused: Give me a program so I can say "oh.. thats scientific software!" :)

ABI software

sequencher

systat

Over Achiever
Dec 17, 2002, 10:20 PM
For me, I use Scientific Workplace (much more user friendly than mathematica).

I also use LabWindows which lets me interface with PCI cards, and the PCI cards are all PC compatible.

I also use PSpice to draw schematics and simulate complex electronic circuits.



So far these do not have Mac versions. :(



Another gripe I have about switching to the mac platform is that my scanner isn't supported to my knowledge. Its a Visioneer 8100...

Ah well. Guess I'll live with VPC or the sorts. :( Maybe I'll have to learn to program in mathematica :(:(:(

kylos
Dec 18, 2002, 01:29 AM
Really, I don't see how people say that OS X is so terribly slow. My iBook (500mhz, 8Mb VRAM, 384 MB RAM) runs Jaguar great. Office is slow all the time (the project gallery hangs majorly), but most other apps run well. Now when I just had 17 apps open and Omniweb filling up 100 megs of cache, that was slow.:D But the dual 1 gigs I've seen open iPhoto, iCal, iTunes and other substantial apps in 1 bounce. So there's some substantial speed here.

benixau
Dec 18, 2002, 01:51 AM
I am a habitual "open all apps i might need at boot up/login" person. I find that jag (on a DP 1ghz) compared to XP Pro (on an XP 1800+) has much better boot time. I open at least ten apps at boot/login and jag loads tham an we are away. If i want to hibernate i have problems. if i sleep i work fine.

Jag works and runs fine. I only started having probelms when we had a power blackout in OS9. then she needed a re-install. Not that XP didnt need one. An, jag was easier, faster and moved all existing apps, fonts, files over to the new system. Actually i didnt move files it thought were corrupted. No prooblems.

Go Jag. XP is ok, jag is just better thats all.

springscansing
Dec 18, 2002, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
Windozzzzzzzz XP supports:

[list=a]
Flight Simulator Pro
Combat Flight Simulator 3
InterActual Player
[/list=a]

The latter toy allows linking from DVD's to the Internet.

Whatever man. We have X-Plane!

springscansing
Dec 18, 2002, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


it has to be annoyng listening to everyone rave about osx when all of you audio guys are stuck in os9, but i just want you to know you aren't the only ones stuck there. at least you audio guys know that 'some' audio apps are coming by years end. scientific software is far worse. many of the applications we use were discontinued years ago, so osx versions will never come. many companies moved to pc ony in the early 90s and the majority of scientists still use the 10 year old mac versions (will developers ever realize they lost 70% of their market when they switched/). luckily every application i and my colleagues use works flawlessly in classic (in fact they run faster in classic than when i boot into os9). the only hope we have though is that new applications to replace the ones we have been using for years are created that have osx ports. (on the bright side, many unix apps are now available via the command line).

hey, at least your stuff works on classic! No audio apps work in classic. :-(

redAPPLE
Dec 18, 2002, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by d1e
Is there anything that Windows has that OSX doesn't?

Simple. OSX doesn't have nearly enough software for what I do.

After Janurary, without the ability to boot to OS9, audio production will be impossible on the Mac with lack of support from 3rd party vendors.

I really hope Apple pulls an ace out of their sleeve at MWSF, or else I'm switching....back to PC.

...here we go again... another switcher to the darkside...

<insert lightning and thunder sound here>

eric_n_dfw
Dec 19, 2002, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by benixau
Standardized ones. Cmd-F = Find (good :)) Cmd-D = Send/Bookmark/Delete (bad :()

oh well cant have it all. rather a mac than a dell.
Windows has some oddities too, my daily pet pieve on Win2000 at work is that CTRL-F on 99% of moder app's opens a "Find" window. Not in Outlook though - there, from the Inbox, it does a "Forward Email". :rolleyes:

benixau
Dec 19, 2002, 06:08 PM
thanx for that eric_n_dfw. Now i know that windows is just as bad as X in this field.

Still, Win+R = run no matter what and Win+L = switch user no matter what.
The mac needs some sort of OS only key like windows has with the windows key.
And i am talking as in fresh out of the box. Any hacks do not count at all.