InformationWeek Reviews Vista vs. Mac OSX

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill Marriott
  • Start date Start date
WHAT? No "driver" is 200 meg.

The reason that the install was smaller is that the included software was
incompatible. Therefore, it didn't install at all.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
Bill Marriott said:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800670

As someone who picked up a MacBook in November, I can wholeheartedly agree
with the conclusions in this article.
Click to expand...

I found the article to be interesting but as a long time Windows user
couldn't help but think, so what? I think Mac has had a more elegant UI
than Windows from day one but it still only has 5% of the market share.
Does the average Windows user have any trouble determining the active
window? While it might be more evident on Mac as long as we can determine
it who really cares? As for the number of times a person needs to look up
their IP address, is it really a big deal how many mouse clicks it takes?

An earlier post mentioned the only hold back to people moving to Mac was
price. The problem is that moving to Mac means moving away from the MS
software monopoly to Apple's hardware and OS monopoly. If OS X could be
legally run on IBM\Lenovo, Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, Acer and other hardware
many of us would consider running both OS X and Windows but fact is Apple
won't allow that in order to protect it's hardware market.

The Mac marketing folks seem skilled at showing the differences between Mac
and PC in their advertising. Poor old boring PC only seems good at that
business related stuff. Yep look in the majority of business offices and
what do you see, PC's and Windows. So what machines are the majority of
people familiar with using day in and day out - PC's and Windows. Do you
think we will see a major shift to OS X in the business realm with one
single hardware vendor? If businesses went this route wouldn't they be at
the mercy of a single hardware\software vendor? So if the majority of end
users are familiar with PC's and Windows and associated applications from
the workplace do they really want to learn a different way to do things just
because OS X has a more elegant UI?

The only way I can see OS X dominating the operating system market is if it
were distributed similar to Windows for a variety of different hardware
platforms. Is Apple likely to do that, I doubt it. So Windows will likely
remain the dominant operating system even if the OS X UI is more elegant.
What the reviewer touched on but didn't address with Vista, where I think it
beats out the Mac, is Windows Aero. Eye candy yes but what is wrong with
some eye candy if there isn't a major performance hit. The reviewer skips
over this stating most users will need to run Vista without Aero but if the
majority of users move to Vista with their next new PC I suspect that the
majority will all be running Aero.
 
I build all my own "white boxes" even though they're generally black these
days - except the one I built my granddaughter for Christmas that was pink.
They generally cost me twice what I could go into Wal-Mart or Dell and buy a
"similar" box for.

Dale
 
Dale said:
I build all my own "white boxes" even though they're generally black
these days - except the one I built my granddaughter for Christmas that
was pink. They generally cost me twice what I could go into Wal-Mart or
Dell and buy a "similar" box for.

Dale
Click to expand...

I buy my stuff from a wholesaler and all my white boxes are also black.

Alias
 
A *lot* of existing software and hardware doesn't work properly on Vista.

But the existing software and hardware works just fine on XP.
Folks don't have to install Vista. The hardware that comes
in new computers with Vista installed, will work fine.
That is a huge expense upgrading applications.
Click to expand...

Only if a user makes the *choice* to move to Vista on
an older machine. Actually, "huge expense" is debatable.
On this two year old laptop, Vista works just fine.
What applications are you referring to? I've had to buy
another copy of some programs or another license because
the copy I had was still installed on XP, which I have on
another partition. Perhaps, not entirely smart financially
since I rarely use XP any longer. But, that was my choice.

You argue as if folks will be *forced* to incur these expenses.
That is only true if they make the choice to move to Vista
while on an older computer. WinXP has not stopped functioning
or being updated, and won't be for quite awhile.

Most users will never have to worry about what you are going
on about, because their first experience with Vista will be on
a new computer that has it already installed.


-Michael
 
In Windows it would have been easier to remove the bad driver that came on
the CD and install the good driver that was on the Epson site. This is an OS
function. There are bad drivers on all OS'. How easy it is to fix something
when things go wrong is what I was commenting on. The driver on the CD was
for PowerPC Macs but it was not labeled with any warnings. It damaged some
system files. Fixing them was not easy. The OS is not to blame for the
original problem. It did exacerbate the problem by making it hard to fix.
 
And how much cheaper is it from your wholesaler than what I pay from NewEgg?
Certainly no more than a few per cent.

Dale
 
Yes the other things you mention have a big say in how popular an OS
becomes. It all starts with the kernel though. If it's crap the rest won't
matter in the long run.

I think you misunderstood my post. The author of the article has some valid
points. I just didn't agree with the statement I quoted.

I prefer the feel of OS X over any versions of Windows. I prefer to use
Windows because for me it's easier to get things done but the feel of OS X
is a big selling point. I'm sure if I used a Mac everyday I would come to
like it very much. I came very close to buying a Intel Mac notebook last
month. In the end I bought a Vista capable notebook and am happily running
Vista. The difference came down to price. The Mac I wanted was $2,200 CDN. I
got a comparable Vista notebook for $1,100 CDN. Note that I get wholesale
prices on Windows stuff. For a consumer the price difference is smaller.

The other comment about specific architecture features isn't really
relevant. Those points can be debated but in the end stability and security
are the main concerns. The details of how this is achieved isn't that
important to most people. Both Vista and OS X have good and bad points in
the details.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


Bill Marriott said:
Um, ok, if you say so. He's just saying he's not covering that in the
article, which is fine by me. I'm sure that's a worthy topic for another
day or even another author. In any event, he doesn't award that aspect to
either one, and it's not one of the "conclusions" I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, the idea that the kernel ultimately determines success is a
geek fantasy. It's the whole ball of wax. Usability, technology, industry
support, marketing, consumer inertia, and so on.

(But if you want to talk about architecture, how about EFI over BIOS, the
journaling HFS file system, BSD underpinnings [known for its stability and
speed], leaner resource usage, and other advantages the Mac seems to
enjoy?)

Kerry Brown said:
In the long run this statement is not true:

[...] "Most people just don't care about things like who has the superior
kernel. People care far more about the parts they see and work with, so
that is what I'm going to deal with here."

[...] even if they don't care about it consciously in the long run it
will determine which OS will be more successful.
As someone who picked up a MacBook in November, I can wholeheartedly
agree with the conclusions in this article.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Was it the user interface of Windows ME that was bad, or the kernel?

Ah, I don't feel like arguing.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

Bill Marriott said:
Um, ok, if you say so. He's just saying he's not covering that in the
article, which is fine by me. I'm sure that's a worthy topic for another
day or even another author. In any event, he doesn't award that aspect to
either one, and it's not one of the "conclusions" I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, the idea that the kernel ultimately determines success is a
geek fantasy. It's the whole ball of wax. Usability, technology, industry
support, marketing, consumer inertia, and so on.

(But if you want to talk about architecture, how about EFI over BIOS, the
journaling HFS file system, BSD underpinnings [known for its stability and
speed], leaner resource usage, and other advantages the Mac seems to
enjoy?)

Kerry Brown said:
In the long run this statement is not true:

[...] "Most people just don't care about things like who has the superior
kernel. People care far more about the parts they see and work with, so
that is what I'm going to deal with here."

[...] even if they don't care about it consciously in the long run it
will determine which OS will be more successful.
As someone who picked up a MacBook in November, I can wholeheartedly
agree with the conclusions in this article.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Alias said:
BS. The only thing that holds people back from buying a MAC is the price.

Alias
Click to expand...

Nope! Not for moi! Macs hate me, and I refuse to work on something that
hates me. :)
 
<grin>

Nothing about Windows ME was good!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!



Robert Firth said:
Was it the user interface of Windows ME that was bad, or the kernel?

Ah, I don't feel like arguing.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

Bill Marriott said:
Um, ok, if you say so. He's just saying he's not covering that in the
article, which is fine by me. I'm sure that's a worthy topic for another
day or even another author. In any event, he doesn't award that aspect to
either one, and it's not one of the "conclusions" I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, the idea that the kernel ultimately determines success is a
geek fantasy. It's the whole ball of wax. Usability, technology, industry
support, marketing, consumer inertia, and so on.

(But if you want to talk about architecture, how about EFI over BIOS, the
journaling HFS file system, BSD underpinnings [known for its stability
and speed], leaner resource usage, and other advantages the Mac seems to
enjoy?)

Kerry Brown said:
In the long run this statement is not true:

[...] "Most people just don't care about things like who has the
superior kernel. People care far more about the parts they see and work
with, so that is what I'm going to deal with here."

[...] even if they don't care about it consciously in the long run it
will determine which OS will be more successful.

As someone who picked up a MacBook in November, I can wholeheartedly
agree with the conclusions in this article.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800670

As someone who picked up a MacBook in November, I can wholeheartedly
agree
with the conclusions in this article.
Click to expand...

This review is the biggest load of crap I have ever read, talk about
making fatal assumptions, everyone is different. Whilst a mac would suit
someone with very basic requirements, it would be totally useless for me..

Proof is in the pudding, as they say, Whilst XP is now 6 years old, it's
still got a MASSIVE marketshare, compared to the shrinking Mac
marketshare...
 
I originally ran Windows 95 in a 386 with 4MB of RAM and a 32 MB hard drive.
When I got the money, I upgraded to 8MB of RAM so I could at least swap
apps. Windows 95 was a great OS. I can't think of much that Vista offers
in terms of real OS functionality than what Windows 95 offered.

Dale

Richard Urban said:
<grin>

Nothing about Windows ME was good!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!



Robert Firth said:
Was it the user interface of Windows ME that was bad, or the kernel?

Ah, I don't feel like arguing.

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

Bill Marriott said:
Um, ok, if you say so. He's just saying he's not covering that in the
article, which is fine by me. I'm sure that's a worthy topic for another
day or even another author. In any event, he doesn't award that aspect
to either one, and it's not one of the "conclusions" I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, the idea that the kernel ultimately determines success is
a geek fantasy. It's the whole ball of wax. Usability, technology,
industry support, marketing, consumer inertia, and so on.

(But if you want to talk about architecture, how about EFI over BIOS,
the journaling HFS file system, BSD underpinnings [known for its
stability and speed], leaner resource usage, and other advantages the
Mac seems to enjoy?)

In the long run this statement is not true:

[...] "Most people just don't care about things like who has the
superior kernel. People care far more about the parts they see and work
with, so that is what I'm going to deal with here."

[...] even if they don't care about it consciously in the long run it
will determine which OS will be more successful.

As someone who picked up a MacBook in November, I can wholeheartedly
agree with the conclusions in this article.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Dale said:
And how much cheaper is it from your wholesaler than what I pay from
NewEgg? Certainly no more than a few per cent.

Dale
Click to expand...

You probably pay less but you're dealing in dollars. If the dollar
should go up -- and it looks as though it may -- you would be paying
more. Remember, I pay in euros and can only compare to the systems that
are offered here, not by NewEgg or Best Buy. I know you would pay less
for OEM XP Pro at NewEgg, which is why I had a friend buy me one when he
was over there. I bought one ready built computer, an HP. It has since
evolved into a white box :)

Alias
 
Well, I finally broke down and read the article. I found the article very
informative and interesting. Even if it does appear to show the author's
bias, that bias doesn't make those specific points he covered any less true.

The one thing I agree with is the point raised by Kevin Young below. Who
cares how many keystrokes it takes to get an IP address. Any user who
doesn't have to be hand-held through this process by the help desk they're
talking to, in the article's example, probably already knows to simply open
a command prompt window and type Ipconfig and press enter. That said, it's
a real shame that Microsoft still refuses to include an equivalent to
Windows 95's Winipcfg.exe in any of the NT-based operating systems.

So, with the exception of the IP address issue, the author is exactly
correct on all issues. They're all good points and they are all worth
making in the hopes that Microsoft will consider improving on for their next
OS version. Even more important, hopefully Microsoft will consider
following their more of their own guidelines in the future and to be more
consistent in the UI in the future - in other words, fix the systemic
problem rather than just these few symptoms.

In another thread, titled "first impression of a stupid design" (no, my my
choice for a subject), I gave just one example of how Vista doesn't follow
its own guidelines for UI design. There are plenty of others I could list,
especially between various Microsoft products including Vista, Office, and
especially if you add in Windows Media Player 11. That was one of the main
points the reviewer tried to make - inconsistency and lack of following
Microsoft's own published usability guidelines.

I have long complained about the inconsistent behavior in Office versus
Windows and even worse, Word versus Excel - two products in the Office
"suite". Office has never really been a "suite" but more a "collection".
Suite implies common functionality or UI that just doesn't exist in Office.

Dale
 
Dale said:
The one thing I agree with is the point raised by Kevin Young below. Who
cares how many keystrokes it takes to get an IP address. Any user who
doesn't have to be hand-held through this process by the help desk they're
talking to, in the article's example, probably already knows to simply
open a command prompt window and type Ipconfig and press enter. That
said, it's a real shame that Microsoft still refuses to include an
equivalent to Windows 95's Winipcfg.exe in any of the NT-based operating
systems.
Click to expand...

You mean like right clicking on the Network icon in the system tray, Network
and Sharing Center, View Status, Details?

You haven't needed IPConfig at a command prompt since XP was released.

Mike
 
That's what I meant why faster users will just use ipconfig. That's a lot
of clicking and a lot of having to identify the correct link in the windows
to get where you're going. I can easily open a command prompt and type
ipconfig as fast as I can navigate all of that. You never needed ipconfig.
It was just often, especially for people who could type fast and were more
efficient with the keyboard than the mouse, a quicker way to get to the IP
address than going through all the other windows.

In support of the reviewer's thought that it was just plain too difficult to
get to the IP address, I wonder why Microsoft didn't just include that
simple detail in the popup when you mouse over the network icon.


Dale
 
a) I thought the review would be on-topic and of interest.

b) I'll still have to use Vista on some of my machines; maybe Microsoft
could get some more ideas to improve it?

c) I thought someone would be able to offer examples where Vista is better
thought-out or better designed than Mac OS X [they haven't]

d) I like making trouble ;^)

Richard G. Harper said:
Then why did you stop by here? ;-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


Bill Marriott said:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800670

As someone who picked up a MacBook in November, I can wholeheartedly
agree with the conclusions in this article.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top