OS X and Windows Vista...some random thoughts...

[iloveosxp]

The practice of strong-arming the OEMs (the basis for the antitrust suits from other OS manufactures like Be, Caldera, IBM, Novell) was a lame move on Microsoft's part, and I'm glad they got their pants sued off over it.

I'm confused about the product tying. So it was illegal for Microsoft to include a browser and a media player with Windows because that was anti-competitive to companies like Netscape and Real Audio (whose products require Microsoft's OS to run, so how exactly are they competiting with Microsoft?)

And since Microsoft is being sued currently in the EU for bundling, ... maybe it still is illegal.

So how does Apple get away with product tying Safari and Quicktime with OS X? Or all of the Linux distributions that come with a browser and media player?

Intel does the same thing. And look who apple chose to use for their upcoming processors.

Microsoft does it. Bad. Apples processor manufacturer does it. Not bad?

 

[aristobrat]

My only point was that he has no right to complain about something I believe he did not legally obtain.

Huh?

So his thoughts are valid if he legally obtained the preview, but his exact same words are meaningless if he illegally obtained the preview?

 

[iloveosxp]

Huh?

So his thoughts are valid if he legally obtained the preview, but his exact same words are meaningless if he illegally obtained the preview?

Stick up for your little mac buddy. All I am saying is that its pretty stupid to go on a forum, publicly show that you installed an illegal copy of an operating system and then post your complaints about it.

Shows the true character of that individual, and apparently since you are at his defense, yours also.

 

[aristobrat]

All I am saying is that its pretty stupid to go on a forum, publicly show that you installed an illegal copy of an operating system and then post your complaints about it.

And my point is that where his copy of Vista came from is a non-issue because regardless of the source, it wouldn't have changed the fact that he didn't like it.

 

[iloveosxp]

And my point is that where his copy of Vista came from is a non-issue because regardless of the source, it wouldn't have changed the fact that he didn't like it.

You are right.

My original post just noted the humor of complaining about something a user installed illegally.

How about this. I will install OSX-86 on my pc, post how i dont like it to your gracious forums and count how many people slam me for installing it illegally in the first place. Yeah, that would go over about as well as a fart in church.

 

[madmaxmedia]

I'm no expert. I'm just describing what I see: lots of bad information about Windows.

I don't expect cheerful Windows discussions. What I do expect are rational comparisons between OS X and Windows--not so much to ask from fairly intelligent individuals if you ask me.

Ignorance is universal, there's plenty to go around on all sides. We can't prevent wars in this world, much less stop arguing over much more trivial matters like this.

There are rational comparisons between the 2, and some irrational ones. There are always trolls of all orientations-

 

[madmaxmedia]

Well, that could also be turned around against Apple, such as a user having to double-click the HD, then double-click Applications. I always thought that was a pain in the butt.

But then how would you get the higher-up view (entire drive contents)?

One of the best things about OS X for me is the keyboard commands. Shift-apple-A is all I use to get to the Apps folder.

I also like Finder with the shortcuts on the left side. It works well for me for getting to commonly used folders like Apps.

Other than that, you could just have an alias on the desktop, or put one in the Dock.

 

[madmaxmedia]

What's with these uptimes?

A normal user will shut OSX or Windows down when he or she is finished. Who on earth cares about if it takes 10 seconds or 40 seconds before it is useable? Who really cares if a computer stays up for 40 days? Other than the environment people of cause. Is there a price or?

People with notebooks care. I love the sleep feature of OS X, after I got my PowerBook I got rid of my PDA (which I often used for jotting down quick notes and ideas, etc.)

Our home Mac is always on, and put to sleep rather than shut down. 40 seconds is not a long time, but when you just want to quickly check your email, 2 seconds is much better-

 

[madmaxmedia]

Oh my word...

people get so wrapped up in constant uptime out of their computer, and we are all acting like children when we brag about our uptime vs. Windows uptime

just so you know, I have been running Windows media center for about 2 1/2 weeks straight, and this computer is undergoing constant load...

In fact, I often play games on it while my wife is logged in checking her mail, my son is watching a recorded TV show, and another show is being recorded in the background...

Now THATS multitasking. I would love to see a mac handle all of those tasks, but sadly that is not happening right now. I tried to do 3 out of 4 above on a Powermac to see what would happen to the performance, and I couldnt even get the game to Load...

It's childish to brag and compare about uptimes, so now allow me to do so..

 

[madmaxmedia]

I hate to break it to you, the person that Photoshopped that isn't very cleaver, there is no BSOD in Vista, it's RSOD (the error screen is red).

Which is why it's a joke- if they used a red screen, no one would get it-

 

[iloveosxp]

Which is why it's a joke- if they used a red screen, no one would get it-

I don't get it.

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Stick up for your little mac buddy. All I am saying is that its pretty stupid to go on a forum, publicly show that you installed an illegal copy of an operating system and then post your complaints about it.

Shows the true character of that individual, and apparently since you are at his defense, yours also.

hehe...I like this guy. A lot. I'm not being sarcastic, either! But most everyone is right thus far - I'm in the same boat as most other Mac users. Vista is STILL far away from completion, although we're certainly interested in its potential and competative aspects. Therefore, I posted an in-depth review of things I thought relevant to this forum - good reviews are hard to come by these days (most people here still don't trust Paul Thurrott, for example... )

Anyway, I stand by my first complaint - it's stupid to have the product key decide which OS you install. Just because I typed the wrong code doesn't mean I should be stuck with the server installation. It's dumb, even in this early phase. But lets end the discussion on this personal manner, and move on with all the relevant comparisons between Vista and OS X that we had been discussing earlier.

iloveosxp, we all have our biases, including me - but lets stop the rant, for now, and move on. Nothing personal, but it's the night before MacWorld - we have better things to do with our time...(i.e. staring at the computer screen, pressing the refresh button every 5 seconds and waiting for updates even though MacWorld is still hours away... )

 

[squirrelette]

Outlook Express

Hello, all. My first post, so my apologies if this is not the best place to pose this question.https://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Does anyone have any thoughts on how the new Intel platform and Rosetta will affect those of us who must deal with Outlook Exchange Servers as remote clients?

For a couple of years I have been struggling because while I can access my mail from my Mac, I can not search the inbox. There is no way to display and use the search function or flag a message unless I borrow a Windows PC.

Is it too much to hope that this combination will allow Mac users to use all the tools in the Outlook Express mail program? I've tried FireFox, Safari, Opera, and Explorer, but none have been able to overcome this problem.

 

[madmaxmedia]

I think your problem has more to do with incomplete features than CPU compatibility (100% software issue.) It's something that I would expect someone to address at some point, regardless of whether Apple switched to Intel.

However, it will be interesting to see if the Intel Macs can have Windows installed on a second partition, or go as far as run both OS's simultaneously with virtualization.

Another option would be to run Win Outlook with a x86 VPC, which should run very well.

Yet another option is for WINE (system to allow many popular Win programs to run on x86 UNIX/LINUX) to run on Intel Macs (which are basically x86 UNIX machines at heart). I am pretty sure Outlook can run under WINE-

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/24/2157206&tid=130&tid=201&tid=125&tid=4

Hello, all. My first post, so my apologies if this is not the best place to pose this question.https://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Does anyone have any thoughts on how the new Intel platform and Rosetta will affect those of us who must deal with Outlook Exchange Servers as remote clients?

For a couple of years I have been struggling because while I can access my mail from my Mac, I can not search the inbox. There is no way to display and use the search function or flag a message unless I borrow a Windows PC.

Is it too much to hope that this combination will allow Mac users to use all the tools in the Outlook Express mail program? I've tried FireFox, Safari, Opera, and Explorer, but none have been able to overcome this problem.

 

[qtip919]

It's childish to brag and compare about uptimes, so now allow me to do so..

Hi, welcome to the "i just missed the point club"

The reason I wrote that is because so many people run around here acting like it's physically impossible to run windows XP for more than 20 minutes without a system-wide failure...

 

[qtip919]

Hello, all. My first post, so my apologies if this is not the best place to pose this question.https://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Does anyone have any thoughts on how the new Intel platform and Rosetta will affect those of us who must deal with Outlook Exchange Servers as remote clients?

For a couple of years I have been struggling because while I can access my mail from my Mac, I can not search the inbox. There is no way to display and use the search function or flag a message unless I borrow a Windows PC.

Is it too much to hope that this combination will allow Mac users to use all the tools in the Outlook Express mail program? I've tried FireFox, Safari, Opera, and Explorer, but none have been able to overcome this problem.

The latest version of Entourage allows users to connect to Exchange servers from outside of the corp. network. You should also really be using outlook web access...for offline access to Exchange based mail, you will need to use Entourage.

Outlook is a big-time memory hog, and I wouldnt dare use it in VPC...Especially after enabling RPC-over-HTTP, your performance would be abysmal. OS X is simply not capable of running RPC-over-HTTP commands to Exchange

 

[madmaxmedia]

Hi, welcome to the "i just missed the point club"

The reason I wrote that is because so many people run around here acting like it's physically impossible to run windows XP for more than 20 minutes without a system-wide failure...

Well, I welcome you with open arms...

I understand your point. But you first said it's stupid to compare, then made a comparison anyways about what you can do on your Win PC and how you can't do the same on your Mac, blah blah blah...

If you had just said 'this is what I can do with Windows XP, it works fine', that would have been enough.

It's not big deal really, I was just pointing out that you did exactly what you said was childish (if only in an ironic sense.) If I sounded snippy, I apologize.

I personally think Windows XP is just fine (more or less), with the exception of IE and its various vulnerabilities in the past. (I don't know how it is now, I switched to Firefox a long time ago.)

 

[qtip919]

Well, I welcome you with open arms...

I understand your point. But you first said it's stupid to compare, then made a comparison anyways about what you can do on your Win PC and how you can't do the same on your Mac, blah blah blah...

If you had just said 'this is what I can do with Windows XP, it works fine', that would have been enough.

It's not big deal really, I was just pointing out that you did exactly what you said was childish (if only in an ironic sense.) If I sounded snippy, I apologize.

I personally think Windows XP is just fine (more or less), with the exception of IE and its various vulnerabilities in the past. (I don't know how it is now, I switched to Firefox a long time ago.)

I forgot to mention that I am the founding father of the club

 

[beatle888]

I was just over at Microsoft's web site and I noticed that the menu bar is no longer on the top of each window. Does it autohide now? Where did it go?

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/default.mspx

awful. i couldn't even finish looking at those screen shots of vista.

look at the finer details. the font sucks. the radio buttons look primitive compared to "other" modern OS's. it really is funny how bad they are at doing things. it takes an artist to fine tune a UI. the mentality of MS has nothing to do with art. you wont find an ounce of greek in them. geeks dont know how to beautify and simplify.

just look at those ICONS for crying out loud. and look at that red "X" on the image controls. how about the ill thought out way they interface designer decided to solve the problem of the window buttons in the far upper right. just my 2cents

another thing i can point out about "informational design"

look at the second image. see how they have the main catagories grayed out and the options under the main catagories are bold and black? for a quick read this is all wrong. the main headings should be bold and darker since they carry the main information for a user to digest. why should "On, Enforce current settings" be easier to read then "Parental Controls"? if im browsing through a dialog, i would want the main headings easily readable and the options under those main headings to be toned down. this allows the eye to see the important info at a glance. then when the user finds the main heading while quickly scanning, they can go on to the secondary info. but in vistas case, they make the secondary info that makes no sense unless taken into the context of the main heading BOLD. in other words why bold On, Enforce current settings and off instead of Parental controls?

its just bad informational design. sorry, im not trying to piss anyone off, im just pointing out the obvious. this doesnt work

 

[jhu]

awful. i couldn't even finish looking at those screen shots of vista.

look at the finer details. the font sucks. the radio buttons look primitive compared to "other" modern OS's. it really is funny how bad they are at doing things. it takes an artist to fine tune a UI. the mentality of MS has nothing to do with art. you wont find an ounce of greek in them. geeks dont know how to beautify and simplify.

just look at those ICONS for crying out loud. and look at that red "X" on the image controls. how about the ill thought out way they interface designer decided to solve the problem of the window buttons in the far upper right. just my 2cents


another thing i can point out about "informational design"

look at the second image. see how they have the main catagories grayed out and the options under the main catagories are bold and black? for a quick read this is all wrong. the main headings should be bold and darker since they carry the main information for a user to digest. why should "On, Enforce current settings" be easier to read then "Parental Controls"? if im browsing through a dialog, i would want the main headings easily readable and the options under those main headings to be toned down. this allows the eye to see the important info at a glance. then when the user finds the main heading while quickly scanning, they can go on to the secondary info. but in vistas case, they make the secondary info that makes no sense unless taken into the context of the main heading BOLD. in other words why bold On, Enforce current settings and off instead of Parental controls?

its just bad informational design. sorry, im not trying to piss anyone off, im just pointing out the obvious. this doesnt work

i don't know what you're bitching about, but it looks fine to me. perhaps they should have consulted you for their interface design?

 

[madmaxmedia]

i don't know what you're bitching about, but it looks fine to me. perhaps they should have consulted you for their interface design?

Actually, he does make some good points. Having the categories in such a light font, and having the individual options in a bolder font is somewhat askew.

It's like writing an outline, but all your sub-items are in big bold fonts, but your top level items are in a small font.

There may very well be reasons for why they did this, but it's a lot more than "It looks fine, that's all there is to it."

EDIT- Actually, the example of the 'Parental Controls' and 'Activity Reporting' items is a very good one. Why would they have the 'Yes' and 'No' so much more prominent that the actual item you are setting? It would be one thing if 'Parental Controls' was in just a regular font in black, but it's in a lighter gray color. Very odd IMO...

 

[stunna]

Power Users will skin their windows vista UI how ever they want, while the normal user probably won't care what it looks like

 

[XNine]

Actually, I do think The idea of customizing the GUI from inside the System Prefs instead of having a haxie to do it would be great. This is one area that OS X lacks.

If I want my windows to be pink, and my scroll bars yellow, and my folders green, I should be able to do that. OS X definately needs to implement this.

 

[aristobrat]

The look of XP changed significantly from its betas compared to what actually shipped out the door, so until Vista gets much closer to its RTM build, I'm not sure it's worth the time to critique it significantly now.

 

[howesey]

The look of XP changed significantly from its betas compared to what actually shipped out the door, so until Vista gets much closer to its RTM build, I'm not sure it's worth the time to critique it significantly now.

2007 until Vista goes gold. It can change an awful lot between now and then. OS X changed a lot between RC build - they looked more Mac OS 9 than OS X.