Originally posted by Unregistered
Let me start out by saying I'm glad to see Mac users responding to criticism in a intellectual manner, rather than simply saying 'Windows sucks my balls' and running away, as is fairly typical. That isn't to say that Windows users don't do the same, but... you get my point.
Coming from a PC/Windows background, I'm going to have to say this: Apple has the better hardware, though you end up paying too much for it, but PC's have the better OS, ie Windows. Here's why, in no particular order, ignoring OS X for the time being.
I don't understand the point of debating previous versions of Apple's OS. I don't think anyone with a gripe against Windows goes into why 3.1 runs on DOS and how unstable that was. OS X is Apple's OS. It is the default. It is the future.
* Okay, let's take interface. We all know that Classic has all sort of usability reasons to it, but let's get down and dirty. Ever since Windows 95, we've been able to see every application that we're running with but a glance. Apple obviously realized this was a very good thing, and released the ability to 'tear off' the task switcher in Classic. Without this little feature, I have to first move all the way up to the upper right hand corner of the screen, click, then sort out what I'm looking at, then click again, or release on the app I want. All this happens in micro-seconds, but compare it to Windows, where as I'm moving the mouse down to the task bar, I can be looking for the app I want at the same time, and 'click' I'm moving along. Again, all in micro seconds, but much faster under Windows.
Let's talk Windows Interface. OS X addresses your "what's running" issue which I agree was a pain with previous MacOS releases. But as you acknowledge, Apple created a work around, even in OS 9, so I am not certain why you are complaining about how it used to work 'back in the day'.
Try this CURRENT WIDNOWS GRIPE on for size: non-modal windows. You know, those popups that require action THIS VERY SECOND and prevent you from doing anything until you answer their question. And what if thaat question requires you to look something up on your computer? Well you have to cancel your action and look up whatever and then start all over. Could be an easy thing to restart, could be an install. Non-modal windows are a serious user interface flaw in Windows.
* Let's talk launching apps. Start menu. 'Nuff said? At most, I'm 2 clicks away from whatever program I need. Under ANY MacOS, without some sort of 3rd party software, I either have to have a very cluttered desktop, or I have to go searching through my hard drive looking for the application I want to launch. Time wasted, again.
With OS X I drag my Applications folder to the Dock. I have now created a folder I can mouseover, crtl-click, drill down into subdirectories, see icons with file names, and launch documents or applications - AND I CAN DO IT AS MANY TIMES AS I WANT - creating as many custom 'start' buttons as I like. I can even creat a folder names 'start' if I wish (which I don't). No 3rd party anything needed. Cool huh?
* 31 Character filenames? This is really annoying. Granted DOS was even worse, but we left that part of DOS behind a LONG time ago. Furthermore, the inability of Classic to distinguish between two different files of the same name, because of the resource fork thing, and not needing to have .jpg or .html or whatnot, is really annoying. I do a lot of work with web design, where I'll have Photoshop files and JPEGs of the same name, but they can't be in the same damn folder, so I have to rename them.
Well DOS limits us to 8.3 characters. DOS left that behind a LONG time ago? Well what's the cut off for being able to complain about it? The first Apple as a circuit board with no CASE and a set of eight (I think) LEDs, the iMac on the other hand has a built in LCD, so let me know how far back we can go.
OS X allows you to associate a particular file or set of files with an application, so UNLIKE Windows, which will launch either IE or Netscape, etc. for a .htm file, I can create a whole slew of .html files I am working with and associate them with Dreamweaver (for OS 9) under OS X, while another set I associate with OmniWeb.
* I'm not sure on this one, but I feel that Windows does a better job of swapping applications that aren't being used into virtual memory, leaving more physical ram free for the applications that are currently being used.
I may have more gripes, but those are the ones I can think of right now. Now, this isn't to say that windows isn't without it's annoyances - Registry, anyone?
Windows is excellent at chewing up memory and NOT cleaning it up. That is what the "Blue Screen of Death" is. Windows is trying to address memory space which is being used by another app or is empty when it shouldn't be. OS X doesn't hit me up with that - not since the public Beta was available nine months ago. Windows does it every Tuesday.
Welcome to 2002.
* Slow. 'Nuff said? Again no? The GUI while kind of pretty, is annoying in just how slow it really is. Click a menu, wait micro seconds for it to pop up. It should be instantaneous, like Classic, or Windows for that matter.
"Slow" is too subjective to really argue. Perhaps one system has a better graphics card which does better screen redraws. Perhaps another has a faster chip for SETI@home computation, perhaps another has tons of RAM to handle multitasking several apps. What do you consider slow? from the above I assume graphics. I don't find OS X to be slow at all. Launching apps is very fast, switching between apps has an almost instantaneous 'fade' to it. (I am on a TiBook G4 400 w/ 256mb RAM).
I used to own a Nissan and when I opened the door, an interior light would flash on in an instant, and it blinded me if it was night time. Now I drive a Volvo and when I open the car door, it very rapidly
fades on, which doesn't kill my night vision. The Nissan was 'faster', but the Volvo is 'better'.
* Options. What the hell is up with not being able to turn off the animations when you minimize and maximize a window? These 'features' only serve to cut productivity even further. I should be able to make an app 'go away' instantly, and make another come forth at the click of a button. This is really one of the most annoying things about X.
So what are you going to get done in that micro second anyway? Apple gives you two annimation options. The Scale Effect is so fast I can't even begin to time it. It does however give me a subconscious clue as to where the window was added to the Dock so I don't ahve to look for it. See the above Nissan/Volvo example.
* The Dock - Windows taskbar anyone? All those who attack Gates for never having had a good idea in his life, where did Apple get this whole 'dock' thing from. And don't give me any **** about how it's different. Yes, it is, but the concept is the same.
Let me get this straight, I'm not allowed to use the defense that they are different, even though you admit they are. Strong arguement there. Let me rebuff it with this one, Where in the Windows Task Bar are the features to see a scaled down version of the window you minimized? Have icons animate to indicate an action taking place (e-mail receive for instance)? Add folders to the Taskbar to drill down and launch apps from? How about the ability to launch apps from the Taskbar at all? How about select where on the screen OR MULTIPLE MONITOR HEAD the Dock, um, Taskbar is located? And don't tell me they're in there, because they aren't.
I've run out to steam.
One more thing: why the HELL can't they include an eject button on the laptop optical drives? I shouldn't have to sit there and wait while I press f12 for my CD to eject. What was so hard about putting a physical eject button on the damn thing?
I don't know what kind of drive you have, but I have NEVER seen a physical eject button on an optical drive. An easy test is that physical eject buttons create mechanical resistance - like a floppy drive or a PCMCIA card button. On a Laptop space isn't cheap. What do you care if the button also serves as a Function key? Sounds like you are grasping at straws.
It's nice to see the new imacs with g4 processors. X on a G3 is awfully slow, especially if you use it for a while, then switch back to 9.X
Feel free to spam away.
blair
Now that I have replied to this post, I feel that you would be well served to revisit OS X and give it an honest try. Not trying to be an ass for a second, but from your posting, it doesn't appear that you are versed in the robustness of the OS. Give it an honest try and see if the overall user experience is not superior to XP.
