Luna vs Aqua

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by Foocha, Jan 27, 2002.

  1. Foocha macrumors 6502a

    Foocha

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    London
    #1
    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!
     
  2. IndyGopher macrumors 6502a

    IndyGopher

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    #2
    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.
     
  3. spuncan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Location:
    Detroit
    #3
    Luna ha!

    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.
     
  4. chicagdan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #4
    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.
     
  5. me hate windows macrumors 6502

    me hate windows

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    #5
    stupid windows crap dvd

    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.:eek:
     
  6. networkman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    california, usa
    #6
    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
     
  7. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
  8. crassusad44 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Scandinavia
    #8
    Luna s*cks ass

    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...
     
  9. Beej macrumors 68020

    Beej

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Buffy's bedroom
  10. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #10
    Ummm Did we forget?

    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
     
  11. voicegy macrumors 65816

    voicegy

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Sandy Eggo - MacRumors Member since 1-1-2002
    #11
    Re: Luna vs Aqua

    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
     
  12. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #12
    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.
     
  13. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #13
    So

    ^^I take it you think that NT is GOOD?!?! then?:rolleyes:
     
  14. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #14
    Sorry Sparks

    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.:eek:
     
  15. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
  16. dhdave macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #16
    Sorry, NO DOS

    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
     
  17. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
  18. spinner macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota
    #18
    XP sucks

    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.
     
  19. dhdave macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #19
    Explain what you mean by GUI based??

    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
     
  20. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #20
    OS X

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

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    #21
    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.
     
  22. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #22
    C'mon

    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!
     
  23. dhdave macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #23
    Nope.

    There is NO DOS in it. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.
     
  24. kansaigaijin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    the great ether
    #24
    dross based pcs

    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!
     
  25. atomwork macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2001
    Location:
    Miami Beach
    #25
    Not even close

    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
     

Share This Page