Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X and Windows Vista...some random thoughts...
- Thread starter qtip919
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
Randall said:
Number one, I reserve to the right to make fun of Windows, especially in the cases where it fails. Your remark about being paranoid about attachments is a perfect case in point. Mac owners simply do not have to be paranoid about such things, if only because Apple hasn't created an OS that allows e-mails to hose your computer. Pretty simple stuff, really, only Microsoft hasn't thought of it yet. Microsoft's lack of real caring about these issues never fail to amaze me, but only half as much as the people who'd make excuses for it. This is the subject of entirely legitimate ridicule from people who happen to understand this stuff, and BTW, are not morons.
Second, from my travels, I suspect that the number of Apple haters out there in the big wide world easily outstrips the number of Microsoft haters. Little doubt, Apple hatred is far out of proportion from the number of actual Macs in use. But more importantly, I always challenge those who would claim that it's simply a matter of the raw numbers of Windows PCs vs. Macs and/or the raw numbers of Microsoft haters vs. Apple haters that is the cause of the never-ending virus scourge aimed at the Windows platform, to explain how a replicating virus could be propagated in OSX, or how a spambot or some other form of malware could be installed on a Mac remotely without any user intervention. Yes, like it can be in Windows.
Nobody has told me yet. Not even once.
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
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/default.mspx
After G
macrumors 68000
I am the only Mac user in my apartment.
I have three roommates who are PC users.
One of them says he "knows what he's doing" (which means he doesn't) and has an uptime of 2 days or less. His system (self-built) is very unstable and random problems crop up every so often. This is with no viruses or spyware, just regular software. He spent $5000+ on components and it still acts like crap.
One of them has no idea what he's doing, and his computer is full of crap from porn surfing. Took forever for me to clean it out.
One of them really knows what he's doing, and his system is okay stable. Doesn't have high uptimes though, ten days or less. He shuts down regularly; he told me himself that he wouldn't get very high uptimes because Windows "bogs down".
Watching them is enough to convince me to get computers only from Apple.
I have three roommates who are PC users.
One of them says he "knows what he's doing" (which means he doesn't) and has an uptime of 2 days or less. His system (self-built) is very unstable and random problems crop up every so often. This is with no viruses or spyware, just regular software. He spent $5000+ on components and it still acts like crap.
One of them has no idea what he's doing, and his computer is full of crap from porn surfing. Took forever for me to clean it out.
One of them really knows what he's doing, and his system is okay stable. Doesn't have high uptimes though, ten days or less. He shuts down regularly; he told me himself that he wouldn't get very high uptimes because Windows "bogs down".
Watching them is enough to convince me to get computers only from Apple.
displaced
macrumors 65816
Without a major departure from Windows's "attitude", I can't see myself using Vista on my home machine.
On technology:
Will Vista overhaul the half-assed solution that is the 'shortcut'? Will they finally track movement and renaming of the original item?
Will Vista address the babysitting the user has to perform on their machine? Will I still need to run a defragmenter? Will there still be a reliance on a system file cache and the SFC tool to fix broken/replaced system files, when the real question should've been "how comes these integral files could be overwritten in the first place?"
On the subject of System File Protection, will I finally be able to trust it? Or will every virus scanner require that it be disabled? (viruses manage to poison the SFC cache, so that the infected files are oh-so-cleverly restored by the system when a removal tool operates)
Will true security be implemented so that the system is safe? The solution to this is not to incessantly bug the user with "x program is trying to do y. Is this OK?"... because users always seem to click Yes.
Will the registry be well and truly shown the door? MS should adapt the Win32 registry calls to act as mere wrappers around a collection of easily manageable, portable, application and purpose-specific configuration files (xml or binary-transformed xml files, for instance).
Will it enforce a clear delineation in the filesystem between System, Application and User domains? A truly organised filesystem provides a huge number of trickle-down benefits: correct security permissions become transparently obvious, users know exactly what data to backup, settings and preferences travel with the user not the system, domains are easily grown across multiple volumes (the number of cool things you can make OS X do with just a few aliases often makes me smile).
Will Microsoft embrace the idea of componentisation? Small, well written chunks of code, dedicated to a single task, working together. Make these tools well documented and accessible to developers and users alike. Don't bundle it all into a poorly doc'd DLL and leave devs to look at MS apps and wonder "how on earth is that doing that?!".
Now, many or even all of those technical desires may be addressed by Vista. However, due to the size of MS's market, I doubt they'll be able to pull off what Apple did in the Classic>OS X transition. There's no way they'll be able to demand a move to an entirely new system and relegate everything else to a Classic-like environment.... no matter how much I'd like to see that happen.
OS9 had clean usability, but nightmare internals which, eventually, limited its progression. OS X brought across much of OS 9's approach to the user, but built it on modern technologies.
On Usability:
Much of the following is personal preference, so I hope that no 'argument' will result from it. In the days of Win3.11 and from the dawn of the Macintosh System, they've taken quite different viewpoints on how a desktop OS should look and feel. You may have always prefered the Mac's style or (like I have) come to appreciate it more than Windows relatively recently. But you're going to be on one or t'other side of the fence.
You either dig the 'one menubar to rule them all' approach, or you just can't see why each window shouldn't have its own, for example. Now, Vista seems to be another progression down a UI route which, personally, I prefer less than that of the Mac. You either like the "the Application IS the Window... and if you want it any other way, then we'll just stick another icon in your system tray!" approach, or you like the Mac's "Documents and Views are all: heck! If you've got the RAM, just treat apps as services and keep 'em running -- we'll just leave a little triangle under the dock button for ya!"
Personally, I'm looking forward to Vista. The millions of Windows users out there have the right to demand that Microsoft do something better. I'm a .NET developer, and I can say that from an API and programming POV, they're on the right track. They're right in the middle of their equivalent of the Mac's transition from the old Pascal, Toolbox development to the modern world of Cocoa frameworks. MS's ATL, C++ as far as the eye could see, crufty old house-of-cards API had to go. And .NET's a step towards this. Hopefully Vista will be the bait to get Windows applications to modernise and start behaving in the nice, integrated cooperative way that we're used to on the Mac.
On technology:
Will Vista overhaul the half-assed solution that is the 'shortcut'? Will they finally track movement and renaming of the original item?
Will Vista address the babysitting the user has to perform on their machine? Will I still need to run a defragmenter? Will there still be a reliance on a system file cache and the SFC tool to fix broken/replaced system files, when the real question should've been "how comes these integral files could be overwritten in the first place?"
On the subject of System File Protection, will I finally be able to trust it? Or will every virus scanner require that it be disabled? (viruses manage to poison the SFC cache, so that the infected files are oh-so-cleverly restored by the system when a removal tool operates)
Will true security be implemented so that the system is safe? The solution to this is not to incessantly bug the user with "x program is trying to do y. Is this OK?"... because users always seem to click Yes.
Will the registry be well and truly shown the door? MS should adapt the Win32 registry calls to act as mere wrappers around a collection of easily manageable, portable, application and purpose-specific configuration files (xml or binary-transformed xml files, for instance).
Will it enforce a clear delineation in the filesystem between System, Application and User domains? A truly organised filesystem provides a huge number of trickle-down benefits: correct security permissions become transparently obvious, users know exactly what data to backup, settings and preferences travel with the user not the system, domains are easily grown across multiple volumes (the number of cool things you can make OS X do with just a few aliases often makes me smile).
Will Microsoft embrace the idea of componentisation? Small, well written chunks of code, dedicated to a single task, working together. Make these tools well documented and accessible to developers and users alike. Don't bundle it all into a poorly doc'd DLL and leave devs to look at MS apps and wonder "how on earth is that doing that?!".
Now, many or even all of those technical desires may be addressed by Vista. However, due to the size of MS's market, I doubt they'll be able to pull off what Apple did in the Classic>OS X transition. There's no way they'll be able to demand a move to an entirely new system and relegate everything else to a Classic-like environment.... no matter how much I'd like to see that happen.
OS9 had clean usability, but nightmare internals which, eventually, limited its progression. OS X brought across much of OS 9's approach to the user, but built it on modern technologies.
On Usability:
Much of the following is personal preference, so I hope that no 'argument' will result from it. In the days of Win3.11 and from the dawn of the Macintosh System, they've taken quite different viewpoints on how a desktop OS should look and feel. You may have always prefered the Mac's style or (like I have) come to appreciate it more than Windows relatively recently. But you're going to be on one or t'other side of the fence.
You either dig the 'one menubar to rule them all' approach, or you just can't see why each window shouldn't have its own, for example. Now, Vista seems to be another progression down a UI route which, personally, I prefer less than that of the Mac. You either like the "the Application IS the Window... and if you want it any other way, then we'll just stick another icon in your system tray!" approach, or you like the Mac's "Documents and Views are all: heck! If you've got the RAM, just treat apps as services and keep 'em running -- we'll just leave a little triangle under the dock button for ya!"
Personally, I'm looking forward to Vista. The millions of Windows users out there have the right to demand that Microsoft do something better. I'm a .NET developer, and I can say that from an API and programming POV, they're on the right track. They're right in the middle of their equivalent of the Mac's transition from the old Pascal, Toolbox development to the modern world of Cocoa frameworks. MS's ATL, C++ as far as the eye could see, crufty old house-of-cards API had to go. And .NET's a step towards this. Hopefully Vista will be the bait to get Windows applications to modernise and start behaving in the nice, integrated cooperative way that we're used to on the Mac.
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?
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?
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).poohat1000 said:
XP is very stable, more so than OS X in my experience. I have had one of my computers running XP Pro for 9 months, it is used day in day out and never had a problem. Also, Vista is a new kernal.Randall said:
I have also had web servers running for months, one which had over 2,000 people coming and going each minute, over 1,000 requests a second, Windows handled the request fine.
Best uptime I ever had was with RISCOS, just over two year. A long powercut killed it.
Load average was 100%, it has been folding away, and running as a file server.jhu said:
Randall
macrumors 6502a
My point was, that the childish naming can stop, and should stop. Intelligent conversation would be a welcomed change when it comes to Mac vs PC like this. You are intitled to your opinion, but when you hate on a group, you're bound to piss people off. Legitimate ridicule is one thing, the name calling is not. Can't we all just get along without making fun? I think I'm asking for too much here.IJ Reilly said:
displaced
macrumors 65816
The practicality of the platforms also 'trump' technical abilities.
I'm sure even my Windows 2000 PC is pretty stable. It should be: I've essentially built a stable system, then 'frozen' the configuration. It's built for one purpose -- playing games -- and it does that superbly. I dare say, even if I were using it for day-to-day work, it'd also perform pretty stable.
But here's where uptimes may mean absolutely nothing whatsoever for home users. I simply cannot leave my PC turned on. Even in sleep mode, the PSU fans still run, making a very bedroom-unfriendly racket. Sure, I can use hibernation, but I've got two problems with that: Going into and out of hibernate isn't instantaneous. My boot times are already under 1 min (lots of RAM!) ... and the only thing better than that which has any meaning is 'instantaneous'. Also, I've had the machine fail to wake from hibernation once or twice -- I don't want that sort of uncertainty. It's got to work right 100% of the time.
My Mac Mini always has great uptimes. Sleep is instantaneous and silent. Waking is similarly instant, and has so far (10 months) not failed or even given the hint of failing even the once.
So perhaps uptimes shouldn't be used as a marker of stability. Instead, they can give a clue as to how the 'whole package' affects usage.
Since my Mac's unobtrusive, but always available when needed, it means it can perform roles which my PC simply couldn't -- through no real fault of Windows... it just wasn't designed with what I want in mind.
For example, when my phone alarm wakes me up in the morning, the Mac will wake too. I can take a quick glance at the Mail icon to check for the 'new mail' count on my way to the shower.
I can leave the machine alone, knowing it'll happily go back to sleep if I don't need it. I can take notes, add contacts and appointments to my phone during the day. As soon as I've got the key in the front door, the phone's proximity has woken the Mac up and they're already sync'ing information without me touching a thing (or even feeling like I have to check to see if it's worked. It always does.) My mac's email addresses, address book, calendars will just simply be updated. There's no roaring of fans, beeping of speakers or anything that makes me feel like I'll have to put my geek hat back on after a day in the office to make my home machine do what I want.
They're the sort of experiences that Windows and the PC platform can't give me yet. I know some of that might sound pretty fussy... but it's those little touches that make me feel that both the Mac's software and hardware have been designed with the intention of doing useful things for me... not of sitting about waiting for me to make it do stuff amidst a howl of fan noise 🙂
[edit] ... it's also the small touches like those I've mentioned that can bring a real shift in how a computer's used. I've used computers for 20 odd years. I've seen untold numbers of address book and calendaring apps. Occasionally I'd put all my data in, and for a week or so, I'd actually use it. But I'd always end up back with good ol' paper and pen. The information would be locked up on the computer. Or, it'd be on a portable device that I'd have to remember to synchronise somehow. Even if that were automatic, I'd have to ensure the computer was always available and working... which I'm afraid just isn't practical with most of the machines out there.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I feel Intel were always so keen to get Apple on-side (apparently for over 5 years pretty much constantly, and occasionally over the Mac's life). Intel make processors... but they're just a component in the PC platform which really hasn't done anything particularly 'cool' for the user in a long long time. Intel will now be involved in Apple products which can really show off Intel's processing, wireless and multimedia hardware without the encumberances of the PC platform. If I were an Intel engineer, I'd be pretty excited at the prospect of seeing the kinds of systems Apple would be building with my stuff.
I'm sure even my Windows 2000 PC is pretty stable. It should be: I've essentially built a stable system, then 'frozen' the configuration. It's built for one purpose -- playing games -- and it does that superbly. I dare say, even if I were using it for day-to-day work, it'd also perform pretty stable.
But here's where uptimes may mean absolutely nothing whatsoever for home users. I simply cannot leave my PC turned on. Even in sleep mode, the PSU fans still run, making a very bedroom-unfriendly racket. Sure, I can use hibernation, but I've got two problems with that: Going into and out of hibernate isn't instantaneous. My boot times are already under 1 min (lots of RAM!) ... and the only thing better than that which has any meaning is 'instantaneous'. Also, I've had the machine fail to wake from hibernation once or twice -- I don't want that sort of uncertainty. It's got to work right 100% of the time.
My Mac Mini always has great uptimes. Sleep is instantaneous and silent. Waking is similarly instant, and has so far (10 months) not failed or even given the hint of failing even the once.
So perhaps uptimes shouldn't be used as a marker of stability. Instead, they can give a clue as to how the 'whole package' affects usage.
Since my Mac's unobtrusive, but always available when needed, it means it can perform roles which my PC simply couldn't -- through no real fault of Windows... it just wasn't designed with what I want in mind.
For example, when my phone alarm wakes me up in the morning, the Mac will wake too. I can take a quick glance at the Mail icon to check for the 'new mail' count on my way to the shower.
I can leave the machine alone, knowing it'll happily go back to sleep if I don't need it. I can take notes, add contacts and appointments to my phone during the day. As soon as I've got the key in the front door, the phone's proximity has woken the Mac up and they're already sync'ing information without me touching a thing (or even feeling like I have to check to see if it's worked. It always does.) My mac's email addresses, address book, calendars will just simply be updated. There's no roaring of fans, beeping of speakers or anything that makes me feel like I'll have to put my geek hat back on after a day in the office to make my home machine do what I want.
They're the sort of experiences that Windows and the PC platform can't give me yet. I know some of that might sound pretty fussy... but it's those little touches that make me feel that both the Mac's software and hardware have been designed with the intention of doing useful things for me... not of sitting about waiting for me to make it do stuff amidst a howl of fan noise 🙂
[edit] ... it's also the small touches like those I've mentioned that can bring a real shift in how a computer's used. I've used computers for 20 odd years. I've seen untold numbers of address book and calendaring apps. Occasionally I'd put all my data in, and for a week or so, I'd actually use it. But I'd always end up back with good ol' paper and pen. The information would be locked up on the computer. Or, it'd be on a portable device that I'd have to remember to synchronise somehow. Even if that were automatic, I'd have to ensure the computer was always available and working... which I'm afraid just isn't practical with most of the machines out there.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I feel Intel were always so keen to get Apple on-side (apparently for over 5 years pretty much constantly, and occasionally over the Mac's life). Intel make processors... but they're just a component in the PC platform which really hasn't done anything particularly 'cool' for the user in a long long time. Intel will now be involved in Apple products which can really show off Intel's processing, wireless and multimedia hardware without the encumberances of the PC platform. If I were an Intel engineer, I'd be pretty excited at the prospect of seeing the kinds of systems Apple would be building with my stuff.
Randall
macrumors 6502a
Heh. I am a fan of both OS X and Windows XP if that is even allowed here? Let's just say I'm a fanboi of computers. Even I got a kick out of this picture. It was clearly Photoshopped, but it amused me none the less.howesey said:
<rant>Tasteful stuff like this doesn't bother me at all. It is the childish renaming to Wind-blows, Win-dohs, Micro$haft, PeeCees, etc. that really annoys the h3ll out of me. If you can't refer to a product in an intelligent way by using it's proper name, then how are we supposed to take what you have to say seriously?</rant>
From my experience, the majority of Windows malware is installed with user intervention.IJ Reilly said:
There are web browers popups that look close enough to real Windows OS prompts that inexperienced users will click the OK button, and free programs from fairly trusted sources (like the old Kazaa or Weatherbug) installing spyware like Gator (after actually telling the user in the User Agreement that they clicked 'yes' to agreeing to, ... but nobody reads those).
IMO, the weakest link in computer security is the user, which I think really helps explain why some Windows users have no problems with viruses/spyware while others can't even get their PC to boot half the time.
As for this happening on a Mac, ... take this example from last week:
http://www.securitytracker.com/alerts/2005/Dec/1015396.html
Now make a website that looks official, put a fubar'ed .MOV file on it and come up with a creative way to get users to download it. Since it runs with regular user permissions, if it tries to do anything bad, I'm sure OS X will pop up the box asking for the users credentials. Do you really think that at least 10% of the users aren't going to type in their password?
And as more and more less savvy users "switch" to Mac, do you not think the percentage of people who will type in their password "just because it asked" isn't going to grow?
I agree, and as a fan of both Windows and OS X, it's hard for me to take people seriously when the majority of what they're posting are the same tired fanboy statements that everyone's been hearing ad naseum on forums for the last upteen years. 😱Randall said:
BakedBeans
macrumors 68040
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Vista doesn't look bad, but the transparency is an interesting affect that's horribly applied. It kills legibility and makes things more difficult to read. The only reason it's there is because it CAN be done. Bad, bad, bad...
The Aqua pinstripes were bad for the same reason. "Brushed Metal" makes the same mistake as well.
Heck, why not have windows wave around like they're floating on water all the time? It would look cool, but would make usage impossible..
The Aqua pinstripes were bad for the same reason. "Brushed Metal" makes the same mistake as well.
Heck, why not have windows wave around like they're floating on water all the time? It would look cool, but would make usage impossible..
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
Randall said:
Frankly, I think you might be too new around here to know what you can expect. Most of the discussions are pretty good, and many of the posters are very knowledgeable and go to no small amount of effort to post detailed comments. I would suggest that you to focus more on the people and posts that interest you and less on superficial issues, like whether someone types "Micro$oft" or "Winblows." Casting aspersions on the entire board because of such things is really bound to piss everybody off.
Randall
macrumors 6502a
I was directing it towards the people that are the culprits. All in all I enjoy the quality of discussion on these forums very much. I was just trying to vent my anger of people lowering themselves to the level of the mob in order to be "cute" or "cleaver" when discussing something they don't like. I think most of the people on the forum know that I'm not directing my anger towards them. Then again I have only been on these boards for less then a month.IJ Reilly said:
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
aristobrat said:
Like opening an e-mail? That's all it takes in Windows. Any time complete paranoia about the outside world is seriously suggested as a security solution, then I have to wonder about how the problem got so bad in the first place. Blaming the user just won't do. The creator of the software made this so, not the user.
As we all know, social engineering (trojan horse) attacks are virtually impossible to prevent. But when a technology like ActiveX invites external attacks on a system with no safeguards against installing code at the PC's root whatsoever, then I think it's disingenuous to suggest requiring a password for installing an application isn't a reasonable, minimal level of protection. I mean, aren't you amazed that it's still perfectly possible in this day and age to set up an XP box without creating any user password at all?
The truly astonishing thing to me about Windows is that it essentially trusts the outside world more than it trusts the user of the machine. In its default settings, XP is constantly asking the user "do you really want to do what you just did" and prompting the user to take various courses of action -- to such an annoying extent that most people who know how to turn these things off, do. Yet, XP still allows a web site visited by the user with MSIE to install any kind of code it wishes at the user's root with absolutely no notice of any kind -- and most of it is malware. This is a 100% successful attack, not a 10% successful attack.
As I said, I've often asked for an explanation for how such invisible attacks could be implemented in OSX. Nobody has ever been able to produce a plausible scenario.
IJ Reilly said:
aristobrat said:
Doh!
IJ Reilly said:
Hopefully, you consulted with experienced PC users and not Mac users who "know" PCs.
My recipe for successful Windows usage:
1. Install XP.
2. Install good antivirus software, i.e. not Norton
3. Set XP to automatically download patches (or "updates", as Apple euphemistically calls them)
4. Install Firefox. Avoid IE like the plague it is.
5. Let go of the whole "You click the Start button to shut down!!! Bwhuhahah!" thing. You'll feel better, just like I did when I placed a folder with aliases to all my apps on the Dock and quit using the Finder to launch them, which is just as awkward and dumb.
IJ Reilly said:
Lurking here has led me to a very different conclusion. If I pointed out every error and false assumption presented here regarding Windows, I'd be labeled a troll and likely banned. It seems Windows bashers, more than anybody else, really don't like being told that they don't know what they're talking about.
Sadly, while I do enjoy my Mac, the biggest turnoff in its use so far comes not from the machine, but from the community and its elitist attitude. As long as the discussion is centered around Apple, everyone is friendly and helpful. Mention something that Windows might do better, and you're greeted with scorn and vitriol. My observations in my previous post are valid based on my experience. There was nothing confrontational about them.
Thank the baby jesus for guys like Randall who simply enjoy computers and can discuss OS X and Windows in the same sentence rationally.
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
belvdr said:
Most of the applications I use are one click away in the Dock and the applications folder is located in every Finder window sidebar by default. I've also dragged my applications folder into the Dock for another shortcut. In fact when Windows users tell me how great the Tray/Task bar is, I ask them whether it can do any of those things -- which of course it can't.
The Dock is little more than a Windows toolbar. Its only major improvement is that you can drag documents onto it so they open in the selected application.
The old apple menu was a better solution.
The old apple menu was a better solution.
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
thirdkind said:
Sorry, but this is just plain silly. Here you've been a member of this board for all of two months and made all of two-dozen posts and already you're the expert?
Secondly, I think it's also pretty darned silly to come to a Mac-oriented board and to expect cheerful discussions about Windows and Microsoft. Let me tell you, it's almost impossible to seriously discuss things Apple and Mac almost anywhere but a place like this. You can cut the hatred with a knife. Still you will find no shortage of Mac and Apple criticism on these boards, probably no less than you will find of Windows and Microsoft criticism. It seems that for some the Microsoft criticism is out of bounds. Sorry, but I really don't get it.