Luna vs Aqua

[Foocha]

I've been a Mac fan for years, and I love what Apple is doing with OS X.

However, my work involves software development, and I need to use Windows sometimes as well as OS X. I've just installed Windows XP on a laptop at work, and I'm blown away by it.

I assumed Microsoft, true to form, would have done an cheap & dirty job on the UI for XP, expecially since they'd given it the corny name Luna (sounds kinda familiar). I assumed it would be a cheap copy of Aqua.

But instead it seems streets ahead of Aqua in many areas:
- Task Bar behaviour is now way ahead of the Dock
- Window Explorer suggests tasks and recognises folder contents. For example, a folder full of movies shows previews of all the movies simultaneously (theaded task which doesn't keep you waiting). A link offers "Play all" and then lets you play them in sequence (handy for watching your fav TV shows!)
- ClearType Font Anti-aliasing throughout (not turned on by default, but try it out, it looks great) even in IE 6 - I wish IE 5.1 on OS X did this.
- Large icons with 8 bit masks (not as large as Aqua's but they still look pretty good).

The main weakness of XP's UI is compositing - they don't have the power of Quartz, so some areas are a little flaky (the round corners to the windows are jagged) but in other areas, XP is a lot better thought out.

I hope Apple has a team studying XP in detail, and are going to add the best of features into 10.2. Afterall, what's sauce for the goose if sauce for the gander (I don't know if you have that expression in the US ;) )

Oh, and of course IE for Windows has a better implimentation of Javascript, which makes the Smilies panel in the Post New Thread screen of this messageboard work properly!

[IndyGopher]

I think that ClearType is evil. I have a P4 1.8GHz, with a GeForce 3 Ti, running a 18.1" flat panel through DVI (1280x1024), and all that ClearType does is make it look fuzzy. Most of your other observations, though, I would agree with.

[spuncan]

I know some people who use XP most of them say that its junk. So I sit down look at the desktop and start to laugh then I actually start to use it. XP/luna has many of the same problems that Windows used to have. Examples
1. hard to change a documents name (have to goto file pulldown) compared to all mac os's wher u just press enter.
2. C:/ wtf is that I understand its basically the system folder but come on where's the organization I mean even OSX a unix based OS has organization.
3. Fisher price icons- XP has these sudo 32bit icons that look like a cross between that hue in tvs that make it addictive and a little plastic childrens toys.
4. Start bar- direct copy from be OS still and it still s**** compared to the dock or the OS 9 desktop. Same with the tast bar at the bottom that is nothing compared to the finder menu or the dock.
5. My computer - that is basically home but was borrowed from someone other that apple it has a lot les funtionalit then the X home or the 9 hd.
6. .Net- let me explain this to all of you who dont understand it. .Net is Microsofts key to the world. It is a program to switch all websites to a .net address that will only be readable by IE running on Windows. That is what it is not some open culture of the future but a controlled area only veiwable by windows not free at all.
7. security- hahahahahahahaha sorry but that doesnt seem to even exist in XP. Bill G@**$ says hes going to have people fix that but come on it will never happen.
I'm probably forgetting alot but these are some of the biggest so please nobody say that luna is even some what decent ever again.

[chicagdan]

What you say is true for the most part, Windows XP is a major improvement for Microsoft. But I must add that the bloom comes off the rose rather quickly with Luna and XP. As with every MS OS, XP runs and looks like a dream at first, then the bloat and memory leaks start to take over.

MS is wonderful at adding features but is incapable of doing so efficiently. Their answer to everything is to pile more code on top of code instead of looking for simple, elegant solutions. As a result, XP gets slower every time you use it, the boot ups take longer and the inevitable service releases to fix the horrendous security errors eventually turn every gleaming new version into another Win 95 in due time.

I installed Win XP on an IBM PII 450 in October. Microsoft recommended at the time that it be installed on nothing slower than a PIII 600, but that seemed like a joke to me, Win XP made my system much faster than Win 98. But now, just three months later, I'm beginning to understand why MS made these suggestions. The test of any MS OS is not on the day of install, it's 6 months down the road, and this OS is starting to choke my system.

[me hate windows]

I am forced to have a windows XPeeeee laptop for work(they payed for it:D )
It has a built in dvd. But you have to go through and switch a bizzillion things to get it to play on the TV, and that is each time that you do it. But I bought a PB G4 for myself and all I have to do is plug it into the TV, it recognizes that the TV is connected, and it will actually play something instead of showing a black screen. Yay for Apple:p :cool: :D , screw Microshizz.:o

[networkman]

the day windows gets really good is the day i am out of work

windblows creates many jobs

apple is great with quality so there are few well paid apple techs comparatively

[sparkleytone]

can i have your sony m81 plz??

[crassusad44]

Sorry Foocha, but I have to say I disagree with you strongly. Luna is far from an efficent UI. First time I saw it, I though to myself, well MAYBE Micro$oft finally made a decent UI, but no. After using it for a couple of minutes I was on the floor laughing myself to death. Luna is yet another half-hearted try at an userfriendly UI from Micro$ofts side. The most disturbing thing I found with Luna, is that the whole UI is built so that users constantly will be pointed towards Micro$oft $ervice$ or apps.
Aqua beats Luna even on a rainy day. And by the way. The dock is really useful, and quite handy. You just have to learn how to use it right!
Hint 1: Put your harddrive and favorite folders in the dock, and browse your whole hd from within the dock.
Hint 2: You can control several apps from the dock, without switching to the app. Example, you can, switch songs, and manage playlist from the dock...

[Beej]

Luna == Garish

[MacAztec]

I think we are leaving something out. OS X is a Unix based system. Luna a.k.a. XP is still on DOS. I am sorry, but Microsoft is still in hte dust

[voicegy]

Originally posted by Foocha


I hope Apple has a team studying XP in detail, and are going to add the best of features into 10.2. Afterall, what's sauce for the goose if sauce for the gander (I don't know if you have that expression in the US ;) )



Hrumph. More like the XP team studying OS X in detail.

"Sauce for the goose."

"What is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander, but it is not necessarily sauce for the chicken, the duck, the turkey or the Guinea hen." Alice B. Toklas -

...also said ("Sauce for the goose Mr.Saavik. The odds will be even.") by Spock to Saavek in "The Wrath of Kahn"

(yes, way too much information) :p

[sparkleytone]

XP does NOT operate on top of DOS. it is part of the NT family, which were built from the start as a graphical OS. its basically windows 2000 SE. again, it is NOT dos. an easy test for this is to run command.com in winXP and youll see that it EMULATES DOS.

[GeeYouEye]

^^I take it you think that NT is GOOD?!?! then?:rolleyes:

[MacAztec]

Sorry, but you are wrong. XP is not written on a graphical interface, it is still based on DOS. I have talked to designers at Microsoft and they do not plan on starting GUI anytime soon. I dont know where you got your info. but it IS wrong.:o

[MacAztec]

And Windows NT.

[dhdave]

I love OS X and think it superior, but I have to tell you that I was a beta tester for XP. There is absolutely NO DOS code in XP. It is based completely on the NT/2000 Kernel. As Apple itself has said, it's window's best effort to date.

dh

[MacAztec]

Is it GUI? DIdnt think so.

[spinner]

My neighbors got a new PC a couple of months ago with XP on it. They hate it with a passion. When their daughter was heading back to college they were considering keeping their old machine and sending the new one with her.

I was over there one day and they were showing it to me, my first impression was, "This looks so kiddie its not even funny." It looks like it was designed for a child more like a toy than an OS. Given the choice between NT and XP, I would choose NT everytime.

[dhdave]

You said it was based on DOS. It is not. It has a graphical user interface as does OS X. OS X is based on free BSD. Which is a command line os. No disrespect intended, but I'm unclear on the distinction you are making.

dh

[MacAztec]

Actually, OS X is NOT gui based. It is Unix based. NT still has DOS in it. It is still using exe

[TylerL]

A file extension means nothing.
That's like saying because you can make .txt files on a Mac that it's DOS-based.

If XP/NT was DOS based, you'd be able to quit Windows and get to the command line directly.

[MacAztec]

It is not GUI based. It is not Unix nor Linux based. It is something like DOS, and there is still MUCH DOS in it!

[dhdave]

There is NO DOS in it. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

[kansaigaijin]

dos or dross, who cares? it still sucks.

Hey crassusad44
thanks for the coment on the dock re contol the apps, wow I knew you could popout volumes and folders, but itunes controls etc! also, neat!

[atomwork]

Hi all,

i cannot believe that people they know and work on a mac and now OS X would even say that windows XP is a great system.

I used to play with it around with it when I had a min at an office depot. For me, a longtime macuser, it was the plain horror. I couldn't do what i want when i want. I always had to click this amazing and genius "start" button to get into the main hd. Where is the nice lovely comfort that I have on a mac.

Then, I used to check out some web sites. I don't know why but always on a PC with not a special monitor or extra graphic card (just reg configs) the colors look so bad. Why is this so. I experient this now couple of times.

So, why should XP even come close to the beautiful OS X 10.1???

Never ever! But, hey. Some people just don't get it. How was it again, 95% of them. LOL


-
but thats just me

[dhdave]

As I said, I VASTLY prefer OS X. (And 9.1 for that matter) I was only pointing out the fact that there is no DOS in XP, 2000 or NT. Period. I mentioned Apple's quote that it is window's best effort to date. Does this mean it's in any way better? NO WAY!

dh

[sparkleytone]

no dos...period. thank you those who have knowledge.

mac_user, do your research b4 you show your tail. i generally like you, but you have made us all dumber with your incessant posts of "winnt/2k/xp = DOS"

the last dos based OS was winME even tho m$ SAID it wasn't dos-based.

just because certain command-line things like "dir" are able to be used doesn't make it DOS.



woohoo 200! :/

[b8rtm8nn]

I hate Luna. Although I like Win2k, XP's Luna interface seems to be irritating to me. The Home version might work out quite well for ordinary Joe's, but I was suprised that XP Pro loaded Luna by default. Even after removing all the corny graphics, I was still left with those ugly icons - Fisher Price interface is the best description and hits it right on the head.

I do agree with the functionality of the taskbar - oh wait, I like Win2k's not XP's giant sized Candyland version. I do think that MS is ahead on the taskbar, but they have had it since '96 - the dock is still new and has already shown improvements.

[Six]

A friend of mine's parents bought a new gateway running XP. They hate it, I do too, nuff said.

Lets talk security ;)

[MacAztec]

I am outnumbered. I know NT and XP are not full GUI interfaces, so what are they? I prefer 10, and I have not even used XP or NT. My friend that has a peecee is buying the 1799 iMac because he HATES his peecee! Hooray for him!:D

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by Mac_User
I am outnumbered. I know NT and XP are not full GUI interfaces, so what are they? I prefer 10, and I have not even used XP or NT. My friend that has a peecee is buying the 1799 iMac because he HATES his peecee! Hooray for him!:D
OS X is built on top of BSD Unix, with Aqua being the GUI. Does the presence of the terminal mean that OS X is not a "full GUI"? I'm not sure what you are using as a yardstick here.

[arn]

Originally posted by Mac_User
I am outnumbered. I know NT and XP are not full GUI interfaces, so what are they?

Well, I think you are argueing semantics - which is difficult without clear definitions.

There is no such thing as a "full GUI interface"... by which I assume you mean a full GUI Operating System. It's just a program (the OS)... and whether or not you are able to get to a CLI vs GUI does not make one "better or worse"... so the whole "full GUI" vs not is not even a useful arguement...

However... due to the way Windows evolved... on top of DOS... it did limit it's abilities... so whether or not Windows is based on DOS or not is a valid issue.

And it seems (based on popular opinion) Windows XP is not based on DOS... which only means it doesn't have the kludges and baggage that comes with it.

arn

[atodd]

I found a few PeeCee's running at my local computer dealer running Windoze XP. I managed to crash two in two minutes. Just by fiddling round. Not removing files or tinkering with the cmd line or anything, but just by playing around.

The interface looks like a child's plaything (to quote Woody) and not suitable for a professional system. It looks as though they've tried to copy Aqua but kind of missed the point. While Aqua is a functional interface, Luna is just colors for the hell of it with icons to match. Also, the lack of shadows/transparency. Heh.

Plus it was dog slow.

I renamed IE to Internet Exploiter, WiMP to Windoze Media Slayer, My Computer to My beige PeeCee, and Outlook Express to OutMuck Unimpress.

By contrast, the Macs were named with things like ::::::::;;;;;;kkkjjj or QUICK TIME 5 PLAYER FOR MAC so I changed it to the proper names.

[Marvenp]

I don't know much about Windows XP but I can tell you it's extremely hard to crash OS X. Hell you'd almost have to be trying for a crash to make the system come down. I won't say Aqua is the greatest because it is more demanding on the processor then previous OSes and it does slow down the system but I will say it looks cool. And the icons; freakin' gorgeous! I've played around with Windows on friends' PCs and I can say that I HATED IT. It seems like nothing is where it's supposed to be. Every desired action is a task in itself.

I can't believe with all the people who hate Windows it's still used by 95% of the computing world. How could stupidity be so popular. When I think of Windows users, I think of sheep being hearded to the slaughter.

[Bobd]

Hi you all

I use both PCs and Macs, and I actually teach people how to use them. Still, by habit and by philosophy, I prefere to use PCs which are more convenient for what I do (3D), and more flexible. Which is not to say that I dislike Macs.

What I mostly found when teaching people who usually work on PC how to work on a Mac and vice versa, is that these people lose have a hard time forgetting their habits and adapting to the new OS. Schematically, Apple users look for the Apple menu in Windows, Windows users just can’t find the Start menu.

That’s why you will always find in a Mac users forum a lot of criticism like: “Luna made me laugh” as you will always find in a PC forum “OS X looks nice, but who cares?”

I think it is time for us to look at the other side with interest and not disgust. Yes, OS X is a great OS, but do you remember how it started about a year ago? Do you remember not being able to burn a CD or view a DVD other than in Classic? Do you remember how long it took to launch an application? Still now, I do not hear only good remarks from Mac users.

As to Windows XP: I’m sorry to say it, but some of you should actually use it a little bit more before bashing it the way you do. I use it at home and it hardly ever crashes, and when it does, only the faulty software crashes. I do not like the “fisher Price” style buttons and defaults colors, but hey, if you don’t like them, change them in 3 clicks. I hate MS messenger launching all the time but I uninstalled it (which is not the easiest thing to do, I must say). I appreciate a lot of the new functions and features, such as the contextual links that appear on the left side of the explorer : ie, if you click on a photo, you can resize it, rotate it, set it as your desktop wallpaper, print it (different options given : size, resolution, quality…), send it via email, publish it to the web or have it printed for you and sent home – yes, that reminds me of iPhoto, too. Only, that came before. Anyway, I could go on and on, and tell you what I appreciate about Windows XP; as I could go on and on and tell you what I dislike about it; and I could also tell you what I like about OSX and what I don’t…

I actually think that Apple and MS follow this way of thinking, since many features of the 2 OS’s look alike. Think Taskbar and Dock for example. I’m not saying that they are the same, but they have the same basic functions: they both tell you which programs are opened, and give you a handy access to your applications. And of course, it goes the other way: some features in Windows come from Mac OS’s. Again, instead of just rejecting the other OS, why couldn’t we analyze it and start actually adopting its best features and even make them better (again, like the dock and the taskbar – or the right mouse button)? I find this to be a far more constructive way of thinking.


Anyway… Just thought I could add to the debate…

[dricci]

Bobd - Microsoft and Apple do not think together. Apple thinks, Microsoft copies..poorly.

Since everything is integrated in XP (and 2000, and NT, and 95, and 98, and Me) that makes it one big security blackhole. Sure, looking at XP you may think it's "cool," but look at it - it's still Windows, it's still made by a MONOPOLY (law breakers. would you use something made by murderours?), it's still got more vulnerabilities and flaws than carrot top has red hairs. Microsoft says they're fixing it, it's all PR! They OWN the industry, they don't have to do anything. All the Cows in the field follow them, even when they're out to chop their heads off and make beef jerky. But yet people keep following blindly. They don't expect quality, they get exactly what they pay for with their $666 beige box that the Cow and the Eddie Haskal kid tell you to get.

If you're a Mac User who thinks XP is an improvement, then take a step back. Take a deep breath. Drink the KoolAide and face Cupertino. Think happy things like dancing iMac and lickable OS X gui. You should start getting back to normal soon. If not, you'll have to pilgrimage to a MacWorld keynote (or atleast to your local Apple Store) and drink the Water.

[Bobd]

Well, this is typically the reaction I wish people wouldn't have...

1) I never said that XP was an improvement over OS X : I actually said that I had likes and dislikes for both.

2) I find it rather easy to say that MS copies Apple... It is certainly true for some features, but, again, take my examples : the taskbar/dock, iPhoto, the right mouse button... Where did they appear first?

3) If you have evidence of MS employees being murderers, I think you should reather go to the police than tell us: I guess they would be more interested.

4) Talk about a monopoly: hey, who uses other MP3 management and player software other than iTunes? Ho buys any OS X based computer other than from Apple? Where is the competition? See it that way for a minute if you will...

5) I certainly agree that there are numerous security holes in Windows. But what if OS X was used by 95% of the world. Don't you think there would be more security related problems in this OS?

6) The Water. I think you forgot "Holy". It seems to me that if MS is a monopoly, Apple begins to look like a sect... :-) More seriously, what differenciates Mac users and PC users, in my opinion, is the fact that we do not feel like we belong to a group of different (maybe, superior?) people who have drank the Water... I just use my computer, I like it the way I built it and fine-tuned it, but I know there is a lot of room for improvement in hardware and software. Some of it may come from the Macs and Apple: fine with me. Do you ever question yourself and try to see things in a new perspective? I do all the time and I never take anything for the best around. I constantly keep on checking other people's points of view. That's why I visit this forum for example. I just wish there would be more constructive talk... Never mind.


Answers welcomed !!!

[atomwork]

hey Bobd,

you said couple of things i think they are not right so:

1) I never said that XP was an improvement over OS X : I actually said that I had likes and dislikes for both.

Well, if its similar then just complain please by copycat BILL GATES & crew


2) I find it rather easy to say that MS copies Apple... It is certainly true for some features, but, again, take my examples : the taskbar/dock, iPhoto, the right mouse button... Where did they appear first?

The right click was long time with appls control key.



3) If you have evidence of MS employees being murderers, I think you should reather go to the police than tell us: I guess they would be more interested.

LOL. Thats funny:)



4) Talk about a monopoly: hey, who uses other MP3 management and player software other than iTunes? Ho buys any OS X based computer other than from Apple? Where is the competition? See it that way for a minute if you will...

Sorry that your PC universe contains of fully idiots they cannot even build a) a great looking computer (maybe sony...maybe comes close) and b) have a great operating system. Its a shame for me to see that so much billions of dollars cannot even hire a great designer team. ????. And iTunes and so. Its just the full right of Apple as its own manufacture to build their own things. Don't give me that argument please that Microsoft has with Netscape. Its Netscapes own fault too if you ask me.




5) I certainly agree that there are numerous security holes in Windows. But what if OS X was used by 95% of the world. Don't you think there would be more security related problems in this OS?

You are right on this one, but i was talking about the design issures and the well implemented freedom of use in OS X. You really are more free to move and do what you what.



Hey, thats just my thoughts. please don't take it the wrong way... LOL, even if my German English may sounds affending. IT IS NOT MENT THIS WAY:)

[Bobd]

Thank you very much for your answer.

First of all, sorry if I sound offending too, my French English is not great nor always precise...


I think that once you've learned how an OS works, you can start to make it work for you. For example, it doesn't take me a long time to explore the content of my hard drive, and I do not have to use the Start menu to do so. As a long time windows user, I've taken the habit to customize it according to my preferences and the way I work, just like anybody I guess. And, since I use more often a PC than a Mac, I do feel a bit confused and lost when facing OSX; and I'm sure it takes me a hell of a longer time than you to do very simple things. Example (not true for OSX, though): the right mouse button (again). I use it to create a new folder ever since Windows 95. How am I supposed, by intuition, to press Apple+N (if that's what the shortcut is)? I have to go to File, New Folder, and I could have done it with one click in Windows. of course, the same goes for a Mac User using a PC : where are the usual and handy shortcuts? All of this to say that, in my opinion, user friendliness is not a relevant issue. Unless, of course, that a person is totally new to computers, in which case I personnaly advise that person to chose Mac, since overall, when you have no habit whatsoever, I think you get used to it more easily (which I experienced when doing private teaching).


As for the designs, it is true that mostly, the PC box is not very appealing... But, at least, you have tons of different ones to chose from, and if you look carefully, you can find one that you may find suitable to your tastes... If, of course, that's what you're looking for: keep in mind that many people just put the case under their desk, so who cares what it looks like... Apple computers are quite good looking, in my opinion, but I understand that some people may not like their design: after all, there's no universal liking in fashion or in art. The trouble is, Mac users always call PC beige boxes, but, hey how many different designs can you chose from when buying a G4? How many colors? What about the new iMac? Like it? You'd rather if you want to buy one, because there's no other option... As I said, I personnaly like these designs, and I wish more PC companies would, like you said, invest money in this sort of research. And by the way, MS doesn't actually build computers, so the billion of dollars they win will be of no use here... Too bad indeed.

Finally, about this monopoly thing, I disagree with you about Netscape. Or rather : if you approve of MS unloyal concurrency politics about this one, how can you disagree about the rest? Personnally, I'd prefer MS to just let room for concurrence. By the way, I use ZoneAlarm as a firewall, not the one included in Windows XP, I use ICQ and not Messenger, and I use Winamp to listen to MP3s... Diversity in PC makes its more interesting and richer. I would love to be able to say that diversity and concurrence in computers (ie, Mac and PC) makes them richer too...


Voilà voilà.

[dricci]

I find it rather easy to say that MS copies Apple... It is certainly true for some features, but, again, take my examples : the taskbar/dock, iPhoto, the right mouse button... Where did they appear first?

NeXTStep.

hey, who uses other MP3 management and player software other than iTunes?

If there were any (decent) free ones, I'd surely check them out.

Ho buys any OS X based computer other than from Apple? Where is the competition? See it that way for a minute if you will...

Plenty of 3rd party retailers compete every day to have the lowest price. It's a nice feeling knowing that if there's a problem with my computer, I won't have to read a 10 page report to a support rep so they can get a vague idea of what my system has.


I certainly agree that there are numerous security holes in Windows. But what if OS X was used by 95% of the world. Don't you think there would be more security related problems in this OS?

I think we'd be pretty safe if Office and Internet Explorer were forbidden to run on OS X :-) Besides, there's the whole open source community behind Darwin and FreeBSD. If there's a bug, it's probably already been found.

Do you ever question yourself and try to see things in a new perspective?

Yup. And I usually don't like what I see from the wintel side.

I just wish there would be more constructive talk... Never mind.

Plenty of Constructive Talk happens. A lot are just sick of this "Windows is better than you!" stuff. We're Mac users for a reason, we've seen the big glowing light of Apple and we've followed it, and plan on staying here for a while. Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to being constuctive. New thread!

[atomwork]

hehe, thanks for the long answer;)

A mac vs. PC discussion can be truly extent to an endless nirvana.

[Foocha]

I never meant to start a Mac vs PC debate - that would be a difficult one to resolve, and with respect, this is probably not the most balanced forum for that debate ;)

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that XP is better than OS X. What I said was that the XP interface has some features that are better than Aqua. I would like to see Apple take a long hard look at it.

I think Bobd has made some great points, and I agree that Apple & Microsoft clearly take a lead from each other. If you image that Apple has never pinched GUI ideas from Microsoft, you're kidding yourself. How about: hiding suffixes, the arrow on alias icons and context menus? I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples if you really think about it.

I would like to see Apple integrate the functionality of iTunes, iPhoto and QuickTime into the Finder - there are plenty of billiant examples of how this might work in XP. The "services" concept in OS X should make this possible. Imagine having iPhoto's zoom feature for photos in the Finder. Imagine the Finder automatically recognising a folder full of photos and turning it into an iPhoto window, or a folder of movies into a QuickTime window.

The idea that OS X does not crash is just plain wrong - anyone who uses it day in day out and uses a lot of networking will tell you a very different story. With its UNIX underpinnings I'm sure it will become stable one day, but they clearly need to do more work on the kernel.

XP is not DOS based - it's NT based, and does not even run DOS apps! It does have a command line though, which may superficially appear to be similar to DOS, but say that's DOS is like saying OS X is based on DOS!

[Bobd]

Thanks indeed for showing an open mind and welcoming "other" ideas and thoughts...

I plainly agree with you. I, too, never said anything about an OS being simply better than the other, and I think diversity and complementarity are the key to progress.

[Taft]

The features that the original poster listed as Luna triumphs, really are not necissarily part of Luna at all. While it is true that most window managers lump their file system browsers in with themselves, I think their is a distinction between the window manager and the file browser. The features you list are part of windows explorer and contrast with features of the Finder.

The features listed in this forum (like previews of all movies in a folder or the ability to manipulate pictures) are big additions to the windows explorer. I personally believe that this features have NO PLACE in either the finder or the windows explorer. What is really happening is that application level features are being brought down into the operating system.

While this seems like a good idea at first--it gives people more abilities, right?--I think it is eventually detrimental to the consumer. This is because it gives us less choice in how we get things accomplished and clutters the concept of a file browser. As more features get inserted into the file browser more people, by default, will use those features rather than going to thrid party developers. Also more people will use those features simply because they don't know how to turn them off--or are sufficiently lazy as to not want to find out.

I feel that this eventually hurts a platform. While I do like the preview feature of the Finder, I hope two things will happen: 1) no additional features seap into the Finder and the option will exist to turn off Preview 2) other technology plug-in are enabled to allow, say, Windows Media Player or Real Player handle files of a specific type in Preview in the Finder.

Where I think Mac OS is doing a good job is in the fact that the Finder has avoided many of these win explorer pitfalls. Mac OS still lets applications handle most features of the OS. This means I can swap out iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, etc. for any application I want. This is easy and straighforward to do. Explorer is bringing more features to itself making this level of choice much harder.

As far as the Dock vs. the Taskbar goes, I personally think the Dock is way ahead. It allows complete customibility as far as what applications are permenant residents or documents or folders exist in the dock. Contextual menus potentially allow for complete control over ANY ITEM, application or document, in the dock. In XP, an addition to the Taskbar has been made to allow for application grouping (that is all open windows are grouped into a single application item). Sound familiar? This is default behavior of any application opened in Mac OS X. Simply bring up a contextual menu on an application in the dock and get a listing of all open windows in the program. This combined with window minimization and application hiding offers all of the flexibility anyone would ever need.

Change the order of appearance of item, contextual menu control, file and application holding abilities, folder browsing, application level hiding, minimization of windows, floating trashcan for always available trashing abilities...the dock has it all. Try exploring all of its capabilities and you will not be dissapointed.

Hope everyone gets some use from this rant!

Matthew

[mywar2000]

It's like confessional, for all of you "secret win users".
someone should start a twelve step program for you guys!

[Pants]

This kind of statement makes my blood boil.....
"Oh, and of course IE for Windows has a better implimentation of Javascript, which makes the Smilies panel in the Post New Thread screen of this messageboard work properly!"

better? excuse me? how is taking an agreed standard and then screwing around with it so only your browser deals with it properly an 'improvement'? jeez - if it is, then its no wonder you think XP is "better" .



Im not even going to bother with teh daft accusation that "if 95% of the world used it it would be just as insecure". That simply belies a lack of knowledge of the roots of osX.

[Rower_CPU]

Just to add my 2 cents...

I have been using XP since the preview period last summer, and OS X as my primary OS since September. I feel that I have a pretty good handle on what each one offers.

XP is referred to as the "Fisher-Price" OS by many techs in the business. The first thing that most of us do is to turn on "Windows Classic" theme so that we don't have to see it. Plus you gain better performance by turning off the "features" of the Luna theme. The GUI is a resource hog!
The taskbar has not evolved much from prior versions of Windows, other than the annoying pop-up windows that don't go away until you click on them.
My PC system is more than capable ( Athlon 1.33 Ghz, 768 MB DDR). That said, I still have had several problems with programs crashing repeatedly in use. Dreamweaver 4, Media Player and IE ( especially when viewing QT, hmm, suspicious ;) ).
I've also had problems where XP goes out to lunch trying to implement its "feature" of slideshow previews in folders with many high resolution images. But the OS overall has been much more stable than any of the 9x/Me series. It's about on par with 2000.

OS X is simply a thing of beauty. It's eye-catching and pleasant to look at. It's VERY stable. I have seen maybe 3 kernel panics EVER, and those were on unsupported machines, or machines with hardware problems.
Dock functionality is way beyond the combined taskbar/quicklaunch area in XP. Overall the experince is fantastic.
However, the main thing hindering it (other than waiting for all the applications to port to Carbon/Cocoa) is the speed. If you compare IE side by side on an XP machine and an OS X machine, the PC version is much faster. Now we can argue forever about IE being built into XP and taking advantage of that fact, but the plain truth is that it is just faster. Until Opera comes out with an alpha version, we're left without many alternatives. And since for most people, surfing and email are the most common activities, this is a big deal.

In order for OS X to really take off, we need two things:
1) Faster performance without insane hardware requirements, and
2) A completly native application base. Photoshop please hurry!!!
Right now Classic feels like a tacked on solution. It's the conjoined twin (SouthPark fans rejoice) that's going to keep it's sibling from getting too many dates.

Hope my post interests some of you.

And Bobd, thanks for some good points.
Ton anglais et bien meilleur que mon français!

[Bobd]

Thanks to you all.

I enjoy very much sharing points of view with others on subjects where, I think, there is no absolute truth nor any unique answer. What I enjoy less is, let's put it that way, people who think they have this unique answer and will not consider any other proposition. Still, I apologize if I may have sound a little bit harsh on previous posts. Open and public forums are good places to have these kind of discussions, but one may get carried away... Anyway, I'm pleased with the overall open minded community I've found in Macrumors and I'll sure continue to check on new threads !!!


A plus tard...

[Bobd]

Forgot something


As for the dock Vs taskbar mini-debate, I just wanted to point out that I don't think I mentionned the taskbar to be better. All I said is that there are some similarities and that the taskbar did come first (as far as I know). It is actually a very good point to illustrate my saying about Apple and MS getting some of their inspiration from concurrence and, more often times than not, improving the original idea...

[tadpole]

Thank you BobD for your moderation. We need more objective people like you. What we have here is a mob, a festering puss ridden mob. You say one critical thing about their Mac Idolatry and they crap on you. I frequent this site to get news on whether or not the new G5 is coming out, all I want is a 64bit machine to run linux on. Is that too much to ask? If no G5's are out this summer, I'm getting an UltraSparc.

Here's my two cents: Both UI's SUCK!!!!!!

XP's Luna and OSX's Aqua are bloating corpses, I run both of them with all of the fancy schmuck turned off to conserve processing power for more important tasks- like watching divx vids or crunching mathematica. i couldn't care less for eye candy, its the core os behind the sexy screen that counts. and for the millionth time, osx is not a unix, its based on GPL licensed freebsd, which is based on BSD Unix but the code is from the ground up unique. all of the free versions of BSD's and Linuxes are not Unixes, they are free because they were written from the ground up to be unix compatible with out paying royalty to AT&T, the owners of the original unix trademark.

Anyway, the only really sexy UI that I've seen and like is a little puppy known as GNOME. Gnome just rocks, it has the fancy stuff without all the processor overhead and its opensourced, so its free and hackable. Solaris 9 is going to be shipping with Gnome 1.4 as default instead of the horribly boring CDE.

[rastalin94]

I debate all the time with my roommate about OS's and we have come to the following conclusion.

Linux - Windows - OS X are all-different. One is not truly superior to the other; they are all different, created for different purposes for different types of users.

Linux – Free and can run on very cheap hardware, lots of apps out there, great for low level type stuff (routing, firewall), and did I mention free.

Windows – Most popular OS in the world, tons of apps, great for the general business world, fairly cheap, decent for most people. Kind of like the Model-T of computers. And you can easily make a decent living by making these machines talk to each other. Very backward compatible, yes this has caused many problems, but it is still a rather impresses feat.

OS X – expensive but the cost is in quality, great for the digital creative person, almost a blend of Windows and Linux.

Personally I found Windows 2000 to be better than XP. In the IT world I think everyone should stay with Win2000, but the home consumer will benefit from XP.

I am not positive about this but I think the major different with the NT line of OS’s from Microsoft is that there a lot closer to a true 32-bit OS over dos/Win 9x, which were mostly 16-bit with 32-bit hacked on.

[Xapplimatic]

OK, truth, Windows NT is probably the most stable one ever because it doesn't share the 95/98 heritage of bugs.. not that I'm a Windows fan, because I'm totally not, but as far as having been forced to use it, NT was the only Windows that rarely crashed on me. XP? Bloatware! The fisher-price analogy is actually quite fitting. It offers really nothing significantly beneficial over 2000 or 98. Not DOS based, but it still seems like it. Everything just seems like something glommed onto something else.. It all feels like everything has strings.. oh wait, they do.. every function leads you back to some kind of .net or IE marketing scam..

[kansaigaijin]

I use it at home and it hardly ever crashes,

hah, need we say more about Windows?

never had a crash in OS10.1

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by rastalin94
I debate all the time with my roommate about OS's and we have come to the following conclusion.

Linux - Windows - OS X are all-different. One is not truly superior to the other; they are all different, created for different purposes for different types of users.

Linux Ð Free and can run on very cheap hardware, lots of apps out there, great for low level type stuff (routing, firewall), and did I mention free.

True enough, but there are less apps for linux than for OS X.

Windows Ð Most popular OS in the world, tons of apps, great for the general business world, fairly cheap, decent for most people. Kind of like the Model-T of computers. And you can easily make a decent living by making these machines talk to each other. Very backward compatible, yes this has caused many problems, but it is still a rather impresses feat.

WTF? Cheap? Not in this lifetime. $299 just for the home version ($199 to upgrade) and $399 for the Pro version ($299 to upgrade) is NOT what I would even consider calling "fairly cheap" To use your car analogy, it is like a Bentley crossed with a Vega: Expensive as Hell and more likely to break down than work. Also if the OS weren't so damn difficult to use, then no one would have to be overpaid to network them. As to your "backwards compatible, in OS 9 there is exactly one program I can't run from the OS 1.0 days: Microsoft Flight Simulator. I tried that and I got a sad mac.

OS X Ð expensive but the cost is in quality, great for the digital creative person, almost a blend of Windows and Linux.

I don't consider $129 or less too expensive for an OS, especially when compared to XP. It is more like it is Linux, but a decent flavor of it with a lot of apps.

Personally I found Windows 2000 to be better than XP. In the IT world I think everyone should stay with Win2000, but the home consumer will benefit from XP.

I'd call it the other way. In IT, companies can buy the latest and greatest hardware that will delay the inevitable slow-down of XP. Home consumers can't do all that upgrading.

I am not positive about this but I think the major different with the NT line of OSÕs from Microsoft is that there a lot closer to a true 32-bit OS over dos/Win 9x, which were mostly 16-bit with 32-bit hacked on.

Yeah, pretty much, but now XP is 32 with 16 hacked on.

[tadpole]

dude, are you out of your ******** gorde?


there are more server warez for linux, more science warez for linux, more math warez, more molecular modelling warez for linux than there are for OSX. maybe if you weren't such a desk jockey using only word processing software, you would realize that in the wide world of OS's, unix warez have been ported to linux since time immemorial.


man, you really do try to sound like a smart *ss. you mac fanatics make me sick because you don't qualify your statements. you want to get into a piss war over this? bring it, home boy!

we can measure up our nerd manhood, chumpo! :-)
I have a black belt in: Debating, engineering, unix, linux, political science, molecular biology, biophysics..... yeah that's right, baby, i can even slice, dice, integrate, sum series, take limits, and i'm a certified machinist! i can tell which way to sand when working wood, i know more joints on cabinets than drug addicts, you really wanna fight me? i'll take you in half life, center flag game and kick ur camping *ss through clean. don't get me mad, cuz i'm a lean mean, nerd killing machine! don't let my scrappy stature, my thick glasses and my pocket protector fool you, cuz dude- i can vaporize ur rear with a homemade high yield super duper momma ain't never seen nothing hotter laser!


okay man, don't blow an aneurysm, just don't worship OSX, its just another OS, a young one at that.


peace,

tadpole

ps- SARCASM is an ART.

[Foocha]

I didn't mean to make your blood boil. I was merely pointing out the irony that a Mac messageboard is based on a system which has limited features on a Mac.

Having said that, I understand that it would not be possible to implement such features on IE 5.1 for Mac - this is no disrespect to Mac OS X - the problem lies with Microsoft IE. I hope that they update IE for Mac to 6 soon. It is a problem for Apple, however, that they can't compete with Windows as a platform for Web browsing.

This thread seems to be going completely off track. It was originally about differences in the Aqua & Luna GUIs, and has become a pissing contents for Mac v Windows v Linux. That's a really lame debate, in my opinion. Different horses for different courses.

[kansaigaijin]

Originally posted by tadpole
dude, are you out of your ******** gorde?


there are more server warez for linux, more science warez for linux, more math warez, more molecular modelling warez for linux than there are for OSX. maybe if you weren't such a desk jockey using only word processing software, you would realize that in the wide world of OS's, unix warez have been ported to linux since time immemorial.


man, you really do try to sound like a smart *ss. you mac fanatics make me sick because you don't qualify your statements. you want to get into a piss war over this? bring it, home boy!

we can measure up our nerd manhood, chumpo! :-)
I have a black belt in: Debating, engineering, unix, linux, political science, molecular biology, biophysics..... yeah that's right, baby, i can even slice, dice, integrate, sum series, take limits, and i'm a certified machinist! i can tell which way to sand when working wood, i know more joints on cabinets than drug addicts, you really wanna fight me? i'll take you in half life, center flag game and kick ur camping *ss through clean. don't get me mad, cuz i'm a lean mean, nerd killing machine! don't let my scrappy stature, my thick glasses and my pocket protector fool you, cuz dude- i can vaporize ur rear with a homemade high yield super duper momma ain't never seen nothing hotter laser!


okay man, don't blow an aneurysm, just don't worship OSX, its just another OS, a young one at that.


peace,

tadpole

ps- SARCASM is an ART.


what a tinyminded idiot loser

[macfreek57]

the thing i find wrong with this discussion is that people ignore the problems evident in their prefered OS and try to highlight the problems with others.
mircrosoft's new os was just a way to keep them from being totally blown away by OS X. their os's have always been nothing more than dos with a "graphic" mask. os x is more than that and does a better job of making your computer appear to be something you would think of as being found in a modern world. XP is just an 82 bonneville with a BMW shell thrown on (cheaply too).
truth be told:
all emotion, intelligence, and "loyalty" aside, i would much rather be using XP than X (actually i'd rather win98 than either). as far as i'm concerned, os x is still in beta. but i'm not an unintelligent, unemotional, or disloyal person. that's why i am using os x now waiting for it to be brought up to par.

[mywar2000]

tadpole is funny.


"we can measure up our nerd manhood, chumpo! :-)
I have a black belt in: Debating, engineering, unix, linux, political science, molecular biology, biophysics..... yeah that's right, baby, i can even slice, dice, integrate, sum series, take limits, and i'm a certified machinist! i can tell which way to sand when working wood, i know more joints on cabinets than drug addicts, you really wanna fight me? i'll take you in half life, center flag game and kick ur camping *ss through clean. don't get me mad, cuz i'm a lean mean, nerd killing machine! don't let my scrappy stature, my thick glasses and my pocket protector fool you, cuz dude- i can vaporize ur rear with a homemade high yield super duper momma ain't never seen nothing hotter laser! "


I wish I could back that statement up...cuz if I could, that would be my signature. hehehe

[tadpole]

um, before you ever call anyone else a loser again, could it be possible for one minute moment that they were simply rolling in sarcasm and quite possibly have been poking fun at the NERD Stereotype? Or perhaps the subtleties of the english language is beyond you? i mean, its okay man, if its not your native language.

to mywar2000, thanx man, that was the intent of it, to capture the "nerd" thing to make light of our own stereotypes :-)