If you asked me a year ago what I thought about Windows, I probably would have said something along the lines of "disorganized", "a mess", or "not adequate for my needs".So I was very surprised when I gave the Windows 7 beta, and then the release candidate, a real test run. I was one of the people who never really liked Windows Vista, and to this day I dread working on computers that have it installed. While I believed it was a step up from XP in many ways, Windows XP had a certain consistency to it that Vista still lacks. But I have been playing around a bit with Windows 7 for a few months now, and as a Mac user, I must say I am very impressed. The amount of polish Microsoft has added to their product, the added consistency, and all the small things are what really make the difference.
As many Mac users are, I'm quite picky on how my operating system "feels". An operating system can do as much as it wants, but if it is not presented in a consistent, good looking way, I won't be able to use it. Vista lacked consistency, simply put. There were different colors on each window, there was a drastic difference between Windows Live and built-in Windows applications, and many Microsoft applications were still using predominantly Windows XP styling. Windows 7, however, has a consistent light blue highlight, similar to the way grays and blues are used in OS X. Having a few different programs open feels right. Other windows in the background don't distract from the window in the foreground. And application switching is seamless with the Superbar.
I have seen the concept behind the Superbar before: it's exactly what I'm used to on OS X (with some additional tweaks like window thumbnails and jump lists). We have compared the two before. Frankly, I think it's impossible to deny that OS X, and the dock, had some influence on the Superbar. The implementations are very similar: developers can implement icon badges and progress bars in each. Application switching is not done based on a window anymore; it's based on the last window opened in each application, rather than having a list of windows you can choose from. But there is still a list available through those handy window thumbnails, and Aero Peek.
Aero Peek is, in my opinion, a far better implementation of window switching than Expos or Flip3D. Both of the latter only offer a shrunken down view of each window, while Aero Peek makes seeing what is in each window simple, whether in an alt+tab interface or using the Superbar.
Finally, Microsoft finally listened to my biggest complaint for years: vision accessibility. While we've detailed how the magnifier can hinder the more heavily vision impaired, for people like me who don't need a high contrast theme, but only a zoomed in view of the content on the screen, the new Magnifier available when using Aero is superior to the almost dizzying magnifier in OS X. The Mac OS X magnifier works in one of two ways: following the mouse as it moves around the screen, or moving the zoomed in area every time the mouse hits the very last pixel on the screen. The former can be difficult to use, and takes practice to get used to, but it is my method of choice within OS X. The second mode is simply impossible to use: moving the mouse right across the screen just to view the end of a sentence takes a painstakingly long time.
The Windows 7 Magnifier has found the right balance between following the mouse and keeping the screen a little bit still. There is about a 100 pixel padding on each side of the screen: when the mouse hits it, the magnifier moves. If the cursor is moving to the right and a little bit downwards at the same time near the edge of the screen, the magnifier moves to the right and a little bit down (the OS X zoom feature, in the screen edge mode, only moves right, left, down, or up, depending on which screen edge in use). Overall, I'm very impressed with Microsoft's implementation of a feature I have required for a long time.
So Microsoft, thanks for cleaning up your act. You've taken something I hated using, and made me enjoy it. While I will remain a Mac user (I've invested too much in OS X to turn back now), I will no longer groan when I reboot my MacBook Pro into Windows. I'll look forward to it. Had you made Windows Vista what Windows 7 is, I may not be a Mac user right now. I can now say that I'm a Mac user, and I enjoy Windows, something I never thought I'd say when I first invested in a Mac and left Windows behind. Keep up the good work, and you just might win me back one day.
What's the author waiting for?
He already claimed that MS did a great job on Windows 7. What else is he waiting for?
Basically, I need a really good reason to move at this point. The real point I'm trying to make with this article is that as a Mac user, I consider Windows to now be perfectly usable, and I won't hesitate to recommend it to people anymore.
Oh in that sense... sorry I feel hate everywhere on Neowin, I thought you meant he was waiting for a flame war or something... He will answer sooner or later!
Windows is still a horrible mess. It is like watching a retarded kid catch the ball for the first time - it doesn't mean that the kid is NBA material.
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
Invest a few billion and wait 30 years and I'm sure they'd be happy to do that for you.
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
Still with the drive letters crap? You do realize most people completely disregard your post when you use such an argument, right? Come on, test it, see for yourself, read, learn; don't pick up someone else's opinion.
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
Invest a few billion and wait 30 years and I'm sure they'd be happy to do that for you.
Ok here it goes.
300,000,000 that is 300 million americans. %90 is windows users. Right. that comes out to
270,000,000 multiply that by about $300 that comes out to 81,000,000,000 so we payed 81 billion for windows to be perfect and we got crap still. And the numbers are only ruffly. But you figure if you bought win 95,98,98 se 2000 xp pro vista $89,$120,$120,$150,$250 for vista ultimate crap. So $300 is about average spent if you skipped some versions not to mention dos 1.0 to 6.4 and win 3.0 to like 3.5 or something and all the office and other products. My friend download the torrent that had windows all install and didnt even need a key to install xp corporate edition he got less problems and smooth operation.
So go microsoft make windows 7 a make up for all our troubles and tie the op system to our finger print not our hard drive that crashes every 2 years. As far as drive letters I dont know if //hda like in lenux is better. Or fluffy the first hard drive and ben the second. I think its more confusing that way.
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
Drive letters? Like "disk0s1"? Yeah, remove those from all operating systems. Then the OS won't be able to address the drive.
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
Drive letters? Like "disk0s1"? Yeah, remove those from all operating systems. Then the OS won't be able to address the drive.
That isn't a drive letter but a device map to which devices are mounted to a directory, in my case /Volumes/Macintosh HD1
Atleast in my case when I put devices in I don't find that it moves from K to W to Z to T back to S and occasionally it settles on M.
What makes sense; mounting it to a letter that constantly changes or mounting to a directory whose name is the same name as the drive itself.
Basically, I need a really good reason to move at this point. The real point I'm trying to make with this article is that as a Mac user, I consider Windows to now be perfectly usable, and I won't hesitate to recommend it to people anymore.
I agree. I have been using windows 7 since it was in pre-beta ( I love leaked software ;-) ) and it has been consisentently more stable and better performing than vista. That being said, it probably wouldn't be much of a jump from Objective C to C# if you like the Windows OS that much.
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
Drive letters? Like "disk0s1"? Yeah, remove those from all operating systems. Then the OS won't be able to address the drive.
That isn't a drive letter but a device map to which devices are mounted to a directory, in my case /Volumes/Macintosh HD1
Atleast in my case when I put devices in I don't find that it moves from K to W to Z to T back to S and occasionally it settles on M.
What makes sense; mounting it to a letter that constantly changes or mounting to a directory whose name is the same name as the drive itself.
Windows drive letters don't change. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. When you connect an external storage device it's assigned the next letter on the list and stays that way unless you manually change it. The drive letters also map to a volume name, something easily discovered by doing some reading.
If you change the number of partitions on say, your master hard drive on IDE0, don't drive letters change for your partitions on IDE1?
Regarding usb devices, I guess there's a reason why some people map their network drives starting with Z and going backwards
Drive letters? Like "disk0s1"? Yeah, remove those from all operating systems. Then the OS won't be able to address the drive.
That isn't a drive letter but a device map to which devices are mounted to a directory, in my case /Volumes/Macintosh HD1
Atleast in my case when I put devices in I don't find that it moves from K to W to Z to T back to S and occasionally it settles on M.
itself.
Learn to partition properly and that wouldn't happen.
Regarding usb devices, I guess there's a reason why some people map their network drives starting with Z and going backwards
No. The new drive letters are still assigned in order of availability. If I chop up my C: drive into partitions, my D: drive is still my second (SATA1) drive. If you assign a drive letter manually out of order, (i.e. change your CD drive to W) any new storage will be assigned after C, D, etc and your optical drive will stay W.
The letters are only for extra convenience. Windows has volume maps just like Unix/Linux/OSX/whatever. You just don't have to mess with them.
(You can even assign a folder path to a secondary drive and it will act as if it's a folder on the primary.)
Yes, because your second drive has the second primary partition. If you had C: and D: on your first drive and then added a second one with a primary partition, wouldn't D: be assigned to that one while what was D: becomes E:?.
That is, if you don't manually assign the letters creating the volumes from Windows.
MacOS is relatively unique among desktop systems in that it's "disc-oriented" -- a disc named "Foo" mounts at the same location whereever you connect it.
CP/M, DOS, Windows, and Unix followed a "drive-oriented" mindset-- whatever disc is in a specific drives (or partition location) lands at that location in the filesystem.
Windows can be mildly annoying with the addition and removal of drives, but I still tend to think in terms of drives-- "the disc in the upper drive"-- rather than specific volumes.
For Windows to be ready for me it would involve completely removing win32 all all the gunk, replace it with a nice new GUI akin to a cross between IRIX/Amiga with drag and drop installation of applications where there is a separation between applications and operating system - where the operating system isn't subjected to programmers sprawling their gunk through the Windows directory.
It would, in otherwords, keep the good parts of Windows, throw out the old and build a new operating system based on the good bits which throw away all the legacy concepts (drive letters etc) from the system; maybe look at Plan9 for inspiration whilst retaining the NT kernel (and good parts lie DirectX, .NET etc).
Drive letters? Like "disk0s1"? Yeah, remove those from all operating systems. Then the OS won't be able to address the drive.
That isn't a drive letter but a device map to which devices are mounted to a directory, in my case /Volumes/Macintosh HD1
Atleast in my case when I put devices in I don't find that it moves from K to W to Z to T back to S and occasionally it settles on M.
What makes sense; mounting it to a letter that constantly changes or mounting to a directory whose name is the same name as the drive itself.
You do realize that drive letters are not needed in Windows and only left for compatibility? WindowsNT deals with Volumes and Mount Points...
The OS sees the main volume not C:, as C: is an arbitrary assignment that is given to the main volume when the OS boots. If you do a alternative boot from another OS or even the WinPE, your mian OS drive could be 'assigned' F: G: R: or whatever at the time of the boot, as the drive letters are just for ease of enumeration, they have no real meaning.
Windows uses a standard volume/device naming system that is very UNIX like, as NT has done since 1993. Win9x which would be like your System 9 was the last Windows versions that actually did require and use Drive letters.)
If you have a removeable drive that is getting an arbitrary assignment, Open its properties and force a Drive letter or even better, remove the drive letter all together and assign it a mount point so that you can access the drive as MyCoolDrive instead of a drive letter.
BUT HE HAS INVESTED TOO MUCH IN MAC OX TO TURN BACK.
Yep.
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
Seriously, though. You can say it's a disorganized mess... but that's my opening sentence. If you didn't read past that, then you didn't realize that I'm quite happy with Windows 7. At least give me some credit rather than trashing the first line.
I dislike the fact that there is no distinguished button to make every application full screen/maximised like there is on Windows.
Also, from my experience with Macbooks, not every Macbook was able to use functionality to bring up that 'right-click' menu thing. Has that changed yet?
Finally, being able to change the colour of that awful, outdated grey, maybe to a nice black-ish sort of colour would be nice
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
You do realise ctrl+r also refreshes in Windows and has done for many years???
Edit: oh and to answer what's the point of F5.... F5 and Ctrl+F5 are refresh but use cache and "hard refresh" regardless of date stamp on webpage. I do not have a clue where these options are on a Mac, but they are useful when I'm developing web pages.
Last edited by mmck on 24 May 2009 - 02:44
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
You do realise ctrl+r also refreshes in Windows and has done for many years???
i actually didn't. Thanks for the tip.
As far as i knew, f5 was the shortcut for it... and still, while the example may be invalid i still think the main idea behind my post holds up
Also for the life of me I can't understand why you can't merge two folders non destructively in OSX. It that kinda one-click thinking that prevents you from getting 'features' like having your laptop not goto sleep on lid close or true window maximization in age of widescreens. I couldn't possibly be that vain and no amount of elegant eye candy is enough for me to forgo things like Blu-Ray, Biometrics, Gaming and the plethero of software that debuts on the Windows platform before eventually making its way to OSX. Nothing says Novelty OS quite like that reality.
Thank god for diversity so the effete can have their choice of OS.
A dock indicating active programs debuted in Windows 1.0 3yrs before NexTOS' implementation btw.
When has Mac not been a mess?
It's easy picking out the F5 example and it's yet another example of Apple users criticizing Windows but not knowing what they are talking about. There are many, I mean many, examples of unintuitive key shortcuts (or other functionality for that matter) in OSX. But when you point those out...you're thinking like a Windows user and your point is not valid...
Also, from my experience with Macbooks, not every Macbook was able to use functionality to bring up that 'right-click' menu thing. Has that changed yet?
Finally, being able to change the colour of that awful, outdated grey, maybe to a nice black-ish sort of colour would be nice
All valid points, and I, an ex-Windows users, have to most definitely agree. The first thing that bothered me with OS X is the maximize button, but I've come to terms with that. As for the right-click menu, there's no problem there fortunately... it does have a setting that you can turn off though
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
Those are application shortcuts, nothing to do with the OS. And crtl+r is probably an industry standard for refresh, has been for years.
Try pressing alt together with the zoom button. Boom.
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
ctrl+r in IE...
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
I don't know why there is F5. Probably a developer needed it at the time, or just the fact that is so much simpler and requires no combination (I personally love it). But in fact, you do refresh a webpage with Ctrl+R, or do a cache-clearing refresh with Ctrl+Shift+R.
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
Then you clearly haven't used it that much.
In Windows OS, each window has a menubar associated neatly and located near the top of the window.. (You know..the part that has File, Edit, View, etc..) whereas in OSX, the menu bar can be found at the top panel on a screen. This usually means you gotta drag the mouse a wee bit more to access commonly used functions in the menu bar. Another fact being that when having multiple application windows open. An unfocused application will not have its menubar visible unless you bring it into focus, which can be a bit annoying if you are multitasking. This usually means more clicks or keystrokes. The same scenario in Windows on the other hand is simply point and click as long as the unfocused window is visible.
Another point I may raise is that there is no doubt that Macs (hardware design) and the OSX operating system (+ software) they run are both beautiful. On a positive note, there is a consistency in the UI in terms of the wonderfully neat and neutral light grey. This is also apparent in the new Windows 7 like mentioned in the article but with a light cool blue colour instead. But when it comes to icons, they tend to be very flashy and rather distracting for some people. The same applies, but to a lesser extent, to newer Windows OS's. A good example of icons that are rather simple and not so distracting is the Tango icons used in various linux applications. I believe flashy icons is one of the reasons why the “dock” in OSX stands out very much.
Talking about the dock, I do think that there is quite a lot of mouse dragging, when say you were using the menu bar or “status icons/notification area” in the top panel and now you gotta move all the way to the dock to open a new app or if you wish switch to another app. In this point of view, I love the windows taskbar. There is only need for one bar at one edge of the screen, where you can find all the stuff you want and need fast and easily. I think the new Win7 superbar is a bit neater, but I really dont like how when switching between windows using a mouse, it is inefficient to say: wait on an icon (for multiple open windows), move up when the thumbnail thingy pops up, and then click that thumbnail to switch. It freakin ****es me off.
A much much better way of doing this would be like this: when the mouse hovers over a combined icon for multiple windows, without clicking, the icon expands into a “connected ungrouped” format with labels AND previews. So you never have to move your mouse upwards and then click on a thumbnail. But wait they will probably save that for Windows 8 as an improved feature. I just hate moving my mouse up carefully and then going right and left.
And no, im not freakin handicapped or some **** like that, I do use a mouse no problem, and more often a touchpad, These points I raise, is simply to reduce time wasted, shaving seconds and milliseconds off to get your work done faster. I.e: efficiency and convinience while maintaining some pleasant eyecandy and neatness at the same time.
Lastly, an interesting point I would like to raise is that i've noticed that Macs are ever getting closer and closer to being more like usual windows computers. I keep noticing more and more cleaners and application uninstallers! growing in numbers on download sites for osx. Maybe its just me. Haha.
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
Well most people click the Refresh button at the top of the Window or 'Right Click' and select refresh as when they are browsing the web, keyboarding isn't the preferred input method.
However, what is funny is that this is your example after years and years of fighting with the one-button mouse kludges that create tons of inconsistencies across applications as developers implement context menus and other concepts that a multi-button mouse offers.
Also while we are talking about consistency that makes everyone outside of OS X roll their eyes are things like how the Backspace and Delete keys are handled, and lack of any consistency scattered throughout applications, and finding new users that have no idea if the key is going to erase the character to the left or the one to the right depending on what application they are in.
Or we could talk about other 'keystroke' conventions from the Mac that even finally forced Windows to adopt. How is Cmd/Ctrl-V paste? Does that really make sense to you? Windows originally used Shift-Insert, as it made sense.
If you really want to pick a few keyboard assignments and pick on them, we could go back and forth with OS X having just as many insane and senseless assignments as Windows.
Let alone getting around on a Mac with only a keyboard was at one time impossible, and still to this day is painful - yet Windows has always inherently offered a standardized keyboard input model for everything.
It would be like a non Illustrator designer going, Atl-Click to zoom out WTF, why can't I just right click, as it makes more sense as this is how 99% of all other drawing applications work, and surely makes more sense than Alt. Really who thinks, Alt to Zoom out?
(And as you notice, this is where an application and culture of people have been 'conditioned' to use Alt because Macs only had one button for years, so Left and Right Clicking to Zoom in and out easily wasn't possible.)
This is more about what you are familiar with, than really bad design choices, truly...
But ideally, having no menu bar is an evey better design model. (Notice Vista, Win7, Office 2007).
Menus were a kludge when it came to GUI designs, as there was at the time of the early GUIs and even the Lisa and Macs to implement a GRAPHICAL interface and yet provide all the features and commands that an application offered without a 'list of words', which is what you now know as the Menu Bar.
Menus are truly just a list of words to access items in a graphical application.
At the time of the first GUIs, there wasn't a better choice necessarily, as processing was limited and screen space was limited and the concepts for 'interacting' with graphical applications was still too new in the mainstream for better ideas to come along.
However, 30 years later, there are better concepts than a 'Word List' (Menu) to work in a GUI.
This is one area where Microsoft deserves some respect, as they gambled their pride and joy 'Office' to get people to think without Menus, and it really could have killed their big cash cow if they couldn't get people to adapt.
Microsoft's research people have done some really good work with regard to UI and GUI design, and that is why you see 'Menus' being eliminated from the Windows world.
(And not just to be replaced by a fancy Ribbon Bar either - instead the ways of working with objects and getting to the features and commands that normally were only accessible via a Menu have been rethought out to just work differently.)
Think of it like this, there once was a time that they only way to 'copy and paste' was to use a Menu to select Copy and then the Menu to select Paste (ignoring keystrokes)..
Then someone came up with the idea of picking something up and moving it to where they wanted it, and *bang* drag and drop replaced the need to use the menus for copy and paste most of the time.
Then from 'files' this progressed to drawing items, and with MS Word to words themselves.
So as you watch this progression from needing a menu, to the first drag and drop concepts, all the way to the what we ALL have today where you can just pick up objects, files, or text and drop it where you want without even having to think Copy/Paste and removing one more dependency on MENUs or 'Word Lists of Features'.
And this is what MS has been doing for many years and they are at the point of introducing this to users and 'forcing' them to think forward and let go of concepts like Menus, which truly come from a non-Graphical UI desing, as 'word lists/menus' are not a graphical UI construct but a character based UI design construct.
This is why Vista and IE and Win7 and Office 2007 all either turn off the Menus and offer new ways to do the same things or completely remove the menus like Office 2007 and shove people into the new UI model that is far easier to use and get to the features you need.
And this shove is especially seen in Office 2007 by giving users a new 'interactive' model where the ribbon bar has live integration with the documents, demonstrating how you can get to things and be more productive without menus and dialog boxes. This is why you now have users flipping through 20 different picture borders and see them applied in real time, and know the feature is there and be able to do 'advanced' things without digging through a menu or dialog.
PS I do get what you are saying about the Single Menu vs Multi-Menu design differences of OS X and Windows of the past, and there has always been a good debate on this in the UI world.
Hopefully though, we can all get rid of non-graphical concepts like Menus and word lists, and move on to even newer GUI and plain UI concepts that replace this older systems.
Cut and paste's control keys mimic what most people use when doing handwritten editing of manuscripts. From that standpoint, they make perfect sense. To cut something out, you would draw an X over it, to insert something between two words, you would put the new word or words above the line with a V showing the insertion point.
Try it in IE: F5, why F5? what about F5 screams refresh? little details like this are all over windows.... cram features in there without creating a thought-out, unified package
You do realise ctrl+r also refreshes in Windows and has done for many years???
i actually didn't. Thanks for the tip.
As far as i knew, f5 was the shortcut for it... and still, while the example may be invalid i still think the main idea behind my post holds up
Alright, you have to LEARN that F1=Help, F5=Refresh. That doesn't stretch the human brain to its limits, does it? Why, for the first time you saw someone do a Ctrl+Alt+Del on a Windows® PC (that must've been fairly quick), you didn't KNOW about it, did you? As with every new toy you confront, there some things that need to be 'encountered', not 'RTFM'. You kinda get used to principle stuff like that.
Basically, I need a really good reason to move at this point. The real point I'm trying to make with this article is that as a Mac user, I consider Windows to now be perfectly usable, and I won't hesitate to recommend it to people anymore."
No need to buy anything but a copy of 7. Repeat after me, Boot Camp! You should just use Boot Camp and that way you have the best of both worlds and you can develop for both OS's natively.
I think Windows will become my work environment, where I can write essays or study without being distracted by Xcode. I always have this nagging feeling to code when I'm in a place where it's easy to do so.
My job works in OS X, coding for iPhones, so that's where my programming focus needs to be.
Why do i need to use MCE Multimon to make a video/tv window full screen and continue working on the other?
Why do i need ultramon for multiple taskbars?
MS can't do diddly these days without some cretin crying foul and trying to sue.
crossing fingers on pricing, my bet is its steep but... i'll buy it, screw it... well worth $200+ for ultimate
But for windows with text or if there's too many windows open per application, or the desktop, then Aero Peek is better for easily identifying which window is which.
+1
To use the Finder menu, you have to have desktop active or you can't do anything. In windows world, you just have click start button.
Except the Finder menu isn't the Start button... The finder menu gives you access to the options of finder (equivalent to Windows Explorer).
And that post is a perfect example of how Windows still has a LONG way to go before it is as organized as OS X. Every app you mentioned has a different layout for the menu bar (or lack thereof). There is something to be said for consistency between applications.
Of course, one UI layout does not work for all programs.
Overall consistency is good, but not at the expense of functionality and the needs of individual programs.
Last edited by Kirkburn on 24 May 2009 - 18:25
I think what he means is that if you want to use one of the features in the Finder menu, like "Go" or the Utilities option you have to make the Finder active either by clicking on the desktop or by selecting Finder in the dock.
So? If you want to use a Windows Explorer feature you also have to open it. I don't see his point...
You mean it's at the top of only ONE display! Woo how much fun that is when you have multiple displays.
EXACTLY. I wish other people would see that =
another thing, which is how osx preserves your settings, you can reinstall osx or move just your user files into any new installation or mac and it will start up the same where you left it!
another thing, which is how osx preserves your settings, you can reinstall osx or move just your user files into any new installation or mac and it will start up the same where you left it!
Wow, what a misconception. My XP and Vista installations have been working great for 6 and 1.5 years, respectively, with no need for installation, and with Vista's optimization and indexing routines, it actually works faster now than the first two days after the initial installation.
another thing, which is how OSX preserves your settings, you can reinstall OSX or move just your user files into any new installation or mac and it will start up the same where you left it!
Windows doesn't slow down either since Vista was released. I have a PC here that has Windows Vista installed for two years with no slow downs. The only issue I have with the PC is even with all the power saving features turned off, including sleep, screen savers, and the turn off monitor feature, it still puts the monitor to sleep. I have found that to be a Nvidia driver issue that is not a huge deal and not worth nuking the install over.
And in regard to your second point, Windows has that feature too. You can either do a in place upgrade or use file, settings transfer wizard. The one thing Windows does not lack is options when it come to upgrading to the next version of Windows
another thing, which is how osx preserves your settings, you can reinstall osx or move just your user files into any new installation or mac and it will start up the same where you left it!
So what was the last version of Windows you used? Windows 98? You lack of knowledge would seem to indicate such...
and by the way I am a high end user, and not clueless and i had known what i was doing and how to maintenance my installation. but its still a fact that windows corrupts itself up overuse because of the registry and how the system is built to work.
PC users don't have to troll and trash osx and claim that windows is better than osx!
osx really smartly built, and its very convenient and better than windows in how its built and also how you interact with it. thats a fact, but i've got used that PC users are used to troll, so it does not bother me anymore, specially here.
and by the way I am a high end user, and not clueless and i had known what i was doing and how to maintenance my installation. but its still a fact that windows corrupts itself up overuse because of the registry and how the system is built to work.
PC users don't have to troll and trash osx and claim that windows is better than osx!
osx really smartly built, and its very convenient and better than windows in how its built and also how you interact with it. thats a fact, but i've got used that PC users are used to troll, so it does not bother me anymore, specially here.
You were the one who posted trashing Windows and trolling and now you are accusing us of trashing OSX? Where in any responses to your original post did OSX get trashed?
Then you post obvious false hoods like that Windows slows down because of the registry (It does not. Only people clueless about what the registry actually does claims that.) and that Windows can't do in place upgrades or doesn't have a files settings and transfer wizzard. That tells me you don't know as much about Windows as you think you do and are a clueless fanboy of OSX.
It is not a fact that OSX is better than Windows. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and both are excellent operating systems. They just cater to different demographics. OSX is targeted at people that want a appliance and don't care about the gazzillion ways Windows can be configured. Windows is targeted to an array of different types of users and hardware.
If OSX is so much better than Windows, than why does it not properly implement security features like ASLR? Windows and Linux both implement this important security technology. Snow Leopard is sup[posed to fix that, but will be only available on the Intel Macs. That leaves a ton of Power PC Mac users without that proptection.
and by the way I am a high end user, and not clueless and i had known what i was doing and how to maintenance my installation. but its still a fact that windows corrupts itself up overuse because of the registry and how the system is built to work.
PC users don't have to troll and trash osx and claim that windows is better than osx!
osx really smartly built, and its very convenient and better than windows in how its built and also how you interact with it. thats a fact, but i've got used that PC users are used to troll, so it does not bother me anymore, specially here.
You were the one who posted trashing Windows and trolling and now you are accusing us of trashing OSX? Where in any responses to your original post did OSX get trashed?
Then you post obvious false hoods like that Windows slows down because of the registry (It does not. Only people clueless about what the registry actually does claims that.) and that Windows can't do in place upgrades or doesn't have a files settings and transfer wizzard. That tells me you don't know as much about Windows as you think you do and are a clueless fanboy of OSX.
It is not a fact that OSX is better than Windows. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and both are excellent operating systems. They just cater to different demographics. OSX is targeted at people that want a appliance and don't care about the gazzillion ways Windows can be configured. Windows is targeted to an array of different types of users and hardware.
If OSX is so much better than Windows, than why does it not properly implement security features like ASLR? Windows and Linux both implement this important security technology. Snow Leopard is sup[posed to fix that, but will be only available on the Intel Macs. That leaves a ton of Power PC Mac users without that proptection.
File and settings trasnfer wizard is totally different than what i was talking about in osx, research first on how the osx works with the users folder and there report back.
and also i said that osx is much more smart than windows in handling your activities, and that was the fact. don't respond without knowing what you talk about.
for me i criticize windows because i was a long time windows users. and everyone knows that windows slows down with use, you cannot deny that just because you are comparing!
also with running windows you may have to do occasional restarts, in osx i can keep an uptime over 1 month without needing for a restart, this cannot happen in windows!
In fact i tried many approaches to keep my installation longer with different methods of maintenance, and i managed only once to keep it as long as 4 years steady, but in expense of being slowed down.
and also i said that osx is much more smart than windows in handling your activities, and that was the fact. don't respond without knowing what you talk about.
for me i criticize windows because i was a long time windows users. and everyone knows that windows slows down with use, you cannot deny that just because you are comparing!
also with running windows you may have to do occasional restarts, in osx i can keep an uptime over 1 month without needing for a restart, this cannot happen in windows!
I have a question. Have you used Windows Vista for any length of time? Vista will stay running for as long as you want with no reboots as long as you don't install certain drivers or updates. The PC in the other room has been on for over a month now with no reboots and it is still running fine.
And as to your opinion that OSX is smarter in handling activities, that is just bunk. OSX is simpler in many task, but that is the demographic it is targeting. Windows is about options, has more choices and is aimed at a wider array of users. It is not aimed at the lowest common denominator, like OSX is.
Everyone does not know that Windows slows down over time. If talking about XP, then the answer is yes if you don't defrag and use disk cleanup on occasion. Defrag is automated in Vista and disk cleanup, while still important for privacy and security, it doesn't have the same effect on Vista due to it's smarter automated system management.
You said in your previous post:
"another thing, which is how OSX preserves your settings, you can reinstall OSX or move just your user files into any new installation or mac and it will start up the same where you left it!"
Files, Settings and Transfer Wizzard along with the inplace upgrade option does precisely that. It may do it different, but it still accomplishes the same task. I don't care if the same feature is simpler to use in OSX because you implied Windows couldn't do it at all in your previous post.
From this post I gather your experiences are with XP. XP is no longer the current version of Windows, that is now Vista and soon it will be 7. I will agree that in certain circumstances XP is know to suffer from bit rot. That is just not true of Vista and now 7. If you are going to discuss problems with Windows, at least stick to the problems with recent versions and not antiquated ones.
and about my idea on how osx perserve settings and such, another huge difference is that osx most of its applications work without installation, and i just put them in my users/application folder. so if i moved for example my users folder on another osx machine i will have all my applications running without reinstallations, and they will also run with my customized settings and preferences that i set on them, even on another machine than mine. don't tell me that files and settings wizard do that too!!!
and about my idea on how osx perserve settings and such, another huge difference is that osx most of its applications work without installation, and i just put them in my users/application folder. so if i moved for example my users folder on another osx machine i will have all my applications running without reinstallations, and they will also run with my customized settings and preferences that i set on them, even on another machine than mine. don't tell me that files and settings wizard do that too!!!
Yes, Windows does that too.
For example, people who ditch mainstream IM programs to use open source alternatives, from Miranda to Trillian, that utterly fail to (or in Trillian's case, flat out refuses to) incorporate elements of your current GUI. Then there's Firefox that continues to look awful in glass, even when using the highest rated Aero themes, and Google Chrome also manages to ditch consistency by ditching the menu bar as some sort of bizarre statement that apologists have gobbled up and defend passionately as some sort of intuitive space-saver even though it's a matter of only a couple dozen pixels.
Meanwhile, security software frequently uses even more alien UI elements (I'm looking at you, BitDefender).
Whether it's contempt, laziness, or just a simple lack of creativity and programming skill, developers targeting the 'enthusiast' are by and large responsible for the ugliness of the Windows experience.
/I'm a PC
/I'm a PC
Couldn't agree with you more, here. It's one of the reasons why I can't stand most open source software. It's all just so damned hidious.
I'm a programmer by trade, and I specialise in user interfaces. Every single screen I design is painstakingly laid out to be as UI consistent as possible, and the users love it.
OSX is not for me but if there is one aspect about OSX that I would want on Windows, that would be the same care for consistency and use of native widgets, windowframes and such.
I diabolically hate applications using their own widgets and looking out of place on my desktop. When I was using XP I can even remember applications hardcoding Luna style buttons in the application. So there you are, using the classic theme, and you still get Luna styled applications...it's ridiculous. If I want Luna, I'll use Luna...what's the point of spending time and effort on stupid crap like that?
It's also the developers need to do something just because it's new, not because it's functional. Office 2007 was released, tons of applications showing up using the Office look plus ribbon. It's not that I don't like the ribbon, but use it where it makes sense, not just because you can. I've seen ribbon applications which had 1 tab...yeah that makes a lot of sense.
But hey, what do you expect when even MS is not following their own Interface guidelines? Even in new UI parts in Windows 7 they are making the same mistakes. Old icons, different system fonts...a mess. Note that I do think Windows 7 is a big improvement, but it's still missing that final perfect touch when it comes to UI.
Also, what's wrong with me wanting to save those 20px. If, other than the bookmarks item, I haven't accessed the menu in several months why shouldn't I find an alternative. If I can replace my usage of an entire menu bar with a single button placed on a separate, already existing toolbar it makes sense to do so.
Not all software deserves the same UI, or can even work with the same UI.
Office ribbon, useless for anything with only a few options. Menu bars, very complex for anything with many many options.
Also, what's wrong with me wanting to save those 20px. If, other than the bookmarks item, I haven't accessed the menu in several months why shouldn't I find an alternative. If I can replace my usage of an entire menu bar with a single button placed on a separate, already existing toolbar it makes sense to do so.
Ah, fwiw, my bizzle--I meant title bar. Was confused by your comment and had to look at what I typed. It's Chrome's abandoning of the titlebar that is bizarre and poorly compensated for (random google branding to the right next to min/ma
Regarding Firefox, it's consistent, yes, in the sense that notepad is consistent. But as a browsing environment, it should at least try to somewhat match the pattern set by the primary OS 'browsing' environment: Windows Explorer. Microsoft showed us that the menu bar was no longer necessary, and though critics of IE mocked the decision initially, they wound up embracing it whole-heartedly when Google planted the same thing in Chrome. If Firefox followed suit and at least allowed us to hide the dang thing without bending over backwards, then the navigation bar would be in a great position to take advantage of Glass by default and be that much closer to looking like it wasn't written in 2001.
Again, the freedom to change this and customize the look and feel would be fantastic, but default to maintaining consistency.
My point is if Windows 7 is SOOOOO good, Vista wasn't that bad. If Vista was that bad, Windows 7 isn't that good.
Last edited by tuxplorer on 24 May 2009 - 05:57
My point is if Windows 7 is SOOOOO good, Vista wasn't that bad. If Vista was that bad, Windows 7 isn't that good.
Have you seen the shape of the US Government right now? We're not going to make it out of this recession..
Sure. Right. They said the same thing during the Depresion.
This is simply a cyclical recession, same as all the others we've had EXCEPT for it's depth.
That increased depth will mean it will likely take quite a bit longer to pull out of the recession, but to say we won't make it out is hyperbole at the very least snd delusional at the very worst.
This is simply a cyclical recession, same as all the others we've had EXCEPT for it's depth.
That increased depth will mean it will likely take quite a bit longer to pull out of the recession, but to say we won't make it out is hyperbole at the very least snd delusional at the very worst.
What helped the US wasn't FDR but WWII, FDR and the Marshell Plan were little more than policies to hold back back Communism (and other extreme alternatives) by ensuring that the seeds of hopelessness weren't not sown.
huh wut? poor compatibility? Are we talking about the same OS here? Windows 7's HW and SW compatibility is excellent. What are trying to use, a dot printer from '85?
It's so funny that now everyone that commends MS on something is called a fanboy. It's laughable because Windows fanboyism is neglectible compared to Linux and Mac. For years they have willingly slammed anything MS in the name of so called "truth" and praised and worshipped their OS, while announcing the inevitable fall of MS. So, it's been years since then and Linux has painstakingly reached 1% marketshare. OSX, while gaining marketshare is still a niche product. And now that more people like where Windows is going, their world is upside down. Suddenly, there's people actually liking Windows! That cannot be! Does not compute! What to do now? Well they have no other choice then to project their own fanboyism on the Windows users and start objecting to what they have been doing for years.
Yeah because that is a totally unknown concept to Linux and Mac users. If there's one platform where opinions are different and balanced it's Windows.
Last edited by k7of9 on 24 May 2009 - 08:58
other than that, i'm running vista and 7, i have minor issues with vista but i have to say 7 takes care of them, everything is much more simple, not that i needed that but many users do
And it's doesn't make IMO to go overboard in showering praise on a product because it's competitors have fanboys as well. Look at how XP has dominated with Windows fanboys in hiding/almost non-existent. Windows 7 for Vista upgraders doesn't offer "value for money" and enough number of killer features to justify the upgrade. In fact Vista had a whole lot of new killer features but they were marred by other problems. Compatiblity and usability of Windows has went downhill since Vista RTMed.
You are absolutely clueless about Windows 7. The only apps that refuse to work are mainly coded in 16 bit or have unneccessary ties to the kernel or are improperly coded to begin with. XP compat mode is not targeted at the home consumer. It is targeted at enterprises that are heavily invested in ancient software that will not work on Vista and 7 due to neccessary security, stability and architectural changes like UAC. It is to help these companies to move to a much better and more secure OS than XP while still allowing them to remain compatible with legacy applications until they can invest in something more up to date.
64 bit support is excellent and both Vista and 7 runs every 32 bit application that I throw at it just fine. All my devices work, there is nothing I can't do that a 32 bit user can. Now try doing that with 64 bit Ubuntu out of the box. 32 bit software doesn't work unless you know how to add the 32 bit libs and to tweak 64 bit ubuntu to get it to work. With WoW compatibility layer, there is no tweaking to get 32 bit apps to run on 64 bit Vista/7.
Actually, compatibility, usability, performance and stability has drastically increased since Vista SP1. Only people that have not used Vista or have not used Vista after SP1 was released say such nonsense.
[sarcasm]
Aero Peak, Superbar, less agressive Superfetch, Services Triggers, Libraries, More consistant UI, Improved start menu search results, ability to remove IE, Media Center, Media Player, less bloat, smarter indexing, cleaner look and feel. You are right, there is absolutely nothing to justify a Vista user to upgrade to Windows 7.[/sarcasm]
And it's doesn't make IMO to go overboard in showering praise on a product because it's competitors have fanboys as well. Look at how XP has dominated with Windows fanboys in hiding/almost non-existent. Windows 7 for Vista upgraders doesn't offer "value for money" and enough number of killer features to justify the upgrade. In fact Vista had a whole lot of new killer features but they were marred by other problems. Compatiblity and usability of Windows has went downhill since Vista RTMed.
Comments like these really irritate me...
Working as a Microsoft Gold Partner in a .net development house as the systems administrator I can tell you that if your developers bothered to look up Microsoft's development guidelines in 2003 on the free MSDN site then the application(s) you are talking about would work in Vista and Windows 7. Poor coding in your application is no reason to blame the OS.
Theme Hospital, DOOM, and Dungeon Keeper work on both my Vista and my Windows 7 box. But compatibility is worse?
Now tell me again about these API's that were removed from Vista that weren't security issues... I'll see if my development team are also aware....
Wow, you are going to insult my intelligence over a obvious typo. You are not only a troll, but are rude and most of what you have posted in the comments section are demonstrably wrong. Get new software if your ancient, improperly coded software doesn't work or just stick with XP in dual boot for that software if it is so important to you. I won't stoop to your level and point out your typos and grammar mistakes since this is just a comments section on a web forum.
Edit:Another thing, instead of insulting someone you should try to win your argument on facts and merits. All insulting someone does is make you look dumb and uninformed.
Of course you can't - as your not a developer. There are two API's that have been removed. They were flagged by Microsoft in 2003 (as part of the SDL) that they will be depreciated.
However there are a hundred or so new API's. Found here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383874.aspx
The "broken" applications are due to the fact that they require Administrator rights to run. Again, this was stated in 2002 by Microsoft that developers should develop and test their applications as standard users (e.g. don't assume the user is an administrator)
If your application tries to write to areas of the registry that don't exist, or don't use system variables to get the My Documents path then Microsoft have coded Vista and Windws 7 to automatically and dynamically take care of it.
Vista didn't "break at lot of compatibility with XP". Applications from the open source 7-Zip through to Adobe Photoshop run fine. As to development tools, productivity applications, utilities and media programs... the common thing is that they are all developed by professionals who took the time to look at the platform they are developing against and work within the suggested guidlines.
Even DOS applications run OK in Vista....! I've yet to come across an application where running as an administrator (poor coding) or compatibility mode fixes it - other than twice, which after investigating (to the point of debugging!) the application is trying to use a API in a DLL that was annouced as depreciated prior to Windows XP.
Out of the two API's removed from Vista, both have replacements that work, although they do so in a more secure manner. The only other changes likely to have an impact are different location of user data and registry entries (which is apps use system variables like they should then it doesn't matter) and security whereby applications shouldn't assume they can write to the binary directory. (Instead they should use the user running the application's profile path - again a system variable and on MSDN since 2000!)
Unless you have more, the application compatibility complaints thrown around are little more than FUD.
It's it just me that is amazed by the amount of mac users that show clear sighs of OCD?
It's it just me that is amazed by the amount of mac users that show clear sighs of OCD?
No, it is because if one is going to spend several hundred dollars on a copy of a piece of software - we expect attention to be spent on all the aspects of the product. The presentation of the piece of software is just as valuable as the underlying technology. I interact with my software via its interface, if the interface is horrible then I'll be just as unproductive as a piece of software with a horrible underlying technology.
I think you'd be surprised how many people show elements of OCD, or signs similar to such. In my opinion, it's quite normal - people like consistency, safety, less change, simple choices. Take that away from them, and they feel vulnerable, worried, etc, and may seem a little neurotic.
In any case, happens on both sides of the fence.
Also, you can't say that an OS is getting better because it's magnifier is better, haha, that's like saying Mac OS is better than Linux because it looks prettier than Linux.
I don't know, I just had to comment here, because I hate when someone tries to compare something, but saying it in a sort of pitiful way, or boasting about "how easy blah and blah, my apple programming skills" and ****.
I'm going to go back to programming my Windows mouse into downloading pornography for me in my Windows .WMV formatted video player, formatted to play Windows formatted videos, plus many others, with my Windows typing language.
Yeah, I get that with Windows people too (except reversed, obviously) :p
Same with Windows users trying Linux.
Get used to it, HeLGeN-X. It's just the way it is.
Advice to the author:You should also write an article about upcoming snow leopard!And it should be steamy one since you are a mac user!
PS:And don't write if it threatens your job from neowin ;-)
Jealous, much?
You should probably read this.
tl;dr: None of us are barred from writing about anything we like.
Actually, the more Linux advances, the more it feels like Windows...95.
On my desktop I use Linux, it screams on my hardware, I can use all the apps I use on OS X & Linux (as well as Windows), for example: Inkscape, Firefox, Handbrake, Transmission, Pidgin, VLC, FileZilla, XBMC, and more, so all my data files are usable across all systems, and I get to use familiar apps no matter what OS I'm using.
On my desktop I use Linux, it screams on my hardware, I can use all the apps I use on OS X & Linux (as well as Windows), for example: Inkscape, Firefox, Handbrake, Transmission, Pidgin, VLC, FileZilla, XBMC, and more, so all my data files are usable across all systems, and I get to use familiar apps no matter what OS I'm using.
Maintaining and tweaking what? If you’re not a tweaker then it really doesn't matter. If you don't have the urge to tweak then you won't tweak. I do almost everything on my PC except play games and I don't tweak or spend time maintaining it because I just don't have to. aYou can do as little or as much as you want. I run an antivirus and I have never gotten a virus. I just don't get it why Mac users think they have a unique experience computing. I'm guessing because they need to justify the cost difference, or the cool factor. I just want to compute at the lowest cost and do everything I want without walls and that’s why I’m a PC user.
A default install of OS X and Linux are much easier, it's already set up fine, I just have to start adding my apps right away. On Linux it's a matter of checking a few boxes, and on OS X it's a matter of dragging a few files over. On Windows there are installers that require me to turn off different settings so programs won't hijack my defaults and preferences. Even some freeware I like to use still requires me to change the date when I install it, but runs fine afterward.
Windows also doesn't support a lot of file systems so I can't view my data from other computers, and there aren't a lot of drivers available for other file systems, so it's completely useless for some tasks.
To each their own I guess.
How's the weather in 1998? I mean, registry cleanups? You must be joking.
So you like PC Hardware better than PC Hardware, wtf, anyone else confused by his comment?
The mouse disappears when you type and you can NOT turn that off, so when you have a mouse over a button (such as "Submit") and then you start typing in a box, it disappears and you're not sure if you click, where it's going to actually hit.
Still, not bad overall, I haven't really had many complaints.
Can you please answer the question. What is so bad about it?
I would argue that Explorer in Windows 7 is the best out of bundled file browsers in Windows, OS X, and several Linux distros, even if it's a bit slow at times.
Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about. Give some reasons as to why it's horrible and maybe your opinion will have slightly more value than that of manure.
- You can't undo more than one delete like XP.
- Advanced file type functionality gone. Can't create secondary user actions/set default action, customize file *type* icon, MIME type, can't even delete defined file types OOTB, can't show or hide extension for only particular file types
- You can't set permissions/ACLs on multiple selected items
- Standard actions like Cut/Copy/Paste/Delete require more than 2 clicks for mouse users (Organize menu instead of toolbar) - I thought menus was passe so where's the consistency here?
- You can't set customize your own toolbar buttons. The command bar is fixed and devoid of icons
- You can only edit metadata for JPEGs, MP3s, ASFs not for PNGs, AVIs, MPEGs, MP4/MOV, GIF. In XP you could edit metadata for any file.
- Column handlers in Explorer can't display custom information from shell extensions
- Free disk space is not quickly accessible except from (My) Computer or drive properties
- Size of all files in a folder is not shown unless you select it
- Size of 15+ files requires clicking "Show more details", again changing selection of a single file + 15 again requires "Show more details"
- You can't map a network drive without assigning a drive letter
- Can't customize folder background using desktop.ini
- Can't set folder thumbnails using Folders.jpg
- Alt+Enter to see properties of selected items in left/navigation pane of Explorer doesn't work
- Files are compulsorily autosorted, 100+ files pasted in another 100+ set get scatterred all across.
- Rename or new folder creation also autosorts assuming you won't be doing any more action on that same item again. Several times, quickly pressing the New folder button and hitting Enter has given me the error message "Can't find new folder" because it has been autosorted
- You can't do batch actions on 15+ files from the GUI. The registered verb handler disappears after selecting 15+ files.
- You can't open two different files types by selecting them and pressing Enter, e.g. DOC and DOCX. Must open them individually.
- WMP's thumbnail preview lacks volume unlike earlier behavior
- You can disable combining taskbar buttons but not grouping. Two windows of the same app e.g. Explorer, IE are always grouped, can't set them to appear on extreme right as you were accustomed to for years
- Network activity animation isn't shown in notification area. Dial-up users are screwed.
- Simple right click actions now require keyboard+mouse usage that is, Shift+right click
- There's no UI to customize your search, you must memorize the search syntax
- Default setting of new taskbar requires 2 clicks to switch, first on button then on thumbnail instead of 1 click directly on non-combined button
- Common dialogs for Open/Save don't remember their views
- Auto arrange and Align to Grid are not available in Windows Explorer
- The horizontal Sort bar that appeared for ANY view in Explorer now only appears for details view
- Left/navigation pane doesn't automatically scroll horizontally for longer folder names like Vista, there's no horizontal scrollbar either for manual scrolling
- Arrange By/Stack By is only available for libraries, not regular folders
- Restore previous windows at logon feature gone and not working anymore
That's some list. I never even noticed all those changes. But then again, it's been awhile since I really used Windows 7 regularly; work has me stuck with XP, for now.
As for the article itself, if it's only took the superbar, which aero peak is part and parcel of, and an improved magnifier to convert you then there obviously wasn't a whole wrong to start with. My personal list of OSX gripes is a good deal longer.
(In case people misread this, like I did at first, he's listing the rubbish people are spouting, not confirming it)
Microsoft have moved on. Apple have moved on. They're both making great products. Of course there are going to be quirks on each side. I run a Mac at home, but I admin Windows for a job.. I could list things about both which drive me up the wall.
These discussion threads on Neowin turning into slanging matches EVERY TIME there is an article with an Apple-centric theme are starting to make me hate this place frankly. There's a lot of kids who need to grow up.
Microsoft Windows RULES the world. Million people can't be wrong.
Also: Choice is better than dominance.
Also: Choice is better than dominance.
Well, why would they want to choose an OS that does less than Windows? Because of how it looks? That's just Apple all over isn't it!
Million people can't be wrong.
You have examples of "millions being wrong" everywhere.
Also: Choice is better than dominance.
Apple does not give you a choice of operating systems either. You get OSX even if you want nothing.
Million people can't be wrong.
You have examples of "millions being wrong" everywhere.
Guess that explains the iPod.
It's nice to see an article from a predominantly Mac based user praising windows 7 and rightly so.
Vista was an epic fail in comparison and its good to see MS getting their act together and trying to do something about it, And the fact that a Mac user has noticed must say something about the fact that they are trying to head in the right direction.
I have Win7 RC1, OS X and Ubuntu Linux 9.04 on my triple boot Macbook, but no longer would I have one OS without the other, we live in a homogeneous network environment now days and it pays to have more strings to your bow.
Are you aware you are arguing about something as subjective as "nice"?
+1
There is something to be said for the customizability of Aero Glass.
BSOD's may be the hook line of most Apple vs. M$ jokes, but at least they give you error messages and codes. A system that can't even tell me why it froze or crashed is none I consider superior.
BSOD's may be the hook line of most Apple vs. M$ jokes, but at least they give you error messages and codes. A system that can't even tell me why it froze or crashed is none I consider superior.
Yes, win. I get frustrated when the Mac just keeps rebooting and showing me a plain white screen with the Apple logo and nothing else.
Then boot in verbose mode and get more information than you can imagine.
Or boot your install CD and use the Console to look at logs.
Quite frankly, Error Code 0x0003541_1 isn't helpful at all, especially if you can't access the net to find out about it.
Yeah what is so special about Aero interface?? Even Linux ditro "Backtrack" has it .
I was a Windows user for a long time but I switched to a Mac (surprise). As an average user (so I'm like 99% of the world) I don't want to deal with all that registry stuff, or viruses. In my times as a Windows user, I remember that just buying an anti-virus wouldn't help. Reinstalling would be painful. What are drivers (I know OS X needs them too but not as "much" as Windows and no BSOD)?! I'm sorry that I can't really mention things about OS X which I don't like, which is quite unfair I think. The reason I switched to Mac is because I bought three (Windows-) laptops, which all had the Blue Screen problem. Gave them all back and decided to buy a Mac.
I just think that Windows user need a lot of time to get used to OS X because they are so different (especially the zoom button, or how it handles windows). But when you get used to something, you will love it, as for Mac & Windows users (sorry that I don't mention Linux but nobody cares about it anyways - jk).
Since I have my Mac I just became a real fanboy. I don't know how that happened but it's a real phenomenon. But there must be a reason an I think it's because my Mac worked better than my PC. Maybe it's not Windows fault, maybe because of the wrong drivers and the infinite number of manufacturers. What I can say though is that Windows 7 is really really nice, and that's another reason why I love my Mac - the fact that I can run both on the same machine.
I hope that I am not unfair, but I just think that average users would have less troubles with OS X. And just a word to Linux: I haven't used it much, but I think that it is really nice and that it is like a Mac, pretty much virus free, if not, even more than that (yeah Macs have viruses too but you know you cannot compare it to viruses available for Windows). You get a lot in Linux just for free. Some people prefer to pay though to get high quality apps. I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have quality apps. What I mean is that you might want to motivate and pay someone in order to get out more of it. Installing apps could be a pain though. Not what the world wants (you know, that think called Shell or Terminal or whatever).
What's really unfair though, is that some people compare i.e. the UI's. Aero ind Windows or that gray in Mac OS X. Some people like that and some don't. What nobody likes is trouble, like the driver problems I mentioned above, or viruses.
So if you are to criticize me, then please make sure you see my point of view - as an average user, and don't just talk crap (I hope I didn't).
Maybe some positive things to say about Windows so some readers can settle down a bit. I love it that there are so many games available for Windows. There is also a lot of software which can be seen as good and bad. I see both sides of it.
I'm sorry again for not mentioning any bad things about OS X. I hope you don't think I'm unfair (you probably do) but I just got so used to it that I can't think of anything right out of my head. Oh wait. Macs are quite pricey (I'm not saying too expensive) and I think - I'm pretty sure - that you could get "better" hardware for that money for a PC. However, I am willing to pay more because of the OS, and because it just works so great with its hardware. You might get more powerful hardware with less money, but you will never get the same as with Macs. Some people care about that and some don't. And I am probably paying for that awesome feeling too.
Over the last three and a half years, I've spent a considerable time on Macs. I presided over upgrading my school's labs to Leopard as soon as we got ahold of it. I did lab maintenance, and software deployment, as well as user support, so I was (and still am) damn well familiar with the applications as well as terminal commands. At times, I was using "my" Leopard machine at work more often than my own Vista laptop, and I even transferred some of my music to it, so it was like a second personal machine, though I didn't technically own it. I'll even admit that I'm more familiar with the guts of Leopard than I am with Vista. Still, I consider Windows my primary "home" OS, because I like it more.
I just think that Windows user need a lot of time to get used to OS X because they are so different (especially the zoom button, or how it handles windows). But when you get used to something, you will love it, as for Mac & Windows users (sorry that I don't mention Linux but nobody cares about it anyways - jk).
My experience setting up various distributions of Linux helped make me far more comfortable using Terminal to interact with OS X, and in many ways, the command line in Linux is far more powerful and simple to use. To address your earlier issues, I don't touch the registry, and I don't scrub it with random programs that I download from the internet. My Windows machines (XP and Vista/Ubuntu/7) take care of themselves. I also don't get viruses, because I stay up to date, and try my best to be vigilant against them. The last thing I got was a trojan injected into Neowin's main page. AV automatically shredded the file, and that was it. Drivers haven't been a huge deal thanks to Windows/Microsoft Update, which can scan your computer and offer up appropriate drivers to download and install. This is a consequence of choice - OS X supports a relatively small number of well-defined hardware configurations, while people demand that Windows support everything (and it does a surprisingly good job at it too). I've seen BSODs and Kernel panics on everything. It happens. Nothing is perfect.
It is a shame that you've become a fanboy. It is too bad that the predominant attitude among Mac fanboys is "think like us" rather than "think for yourself".
No. My last job was dealing with average users. You underestimate the capabilities of a truly determined idiot. Neither Windows, nor Linux, nor OS X provide a silver bullet that protects the computer from the user.
Drivers and viruses are not typically a problem, but some people like to pretend that they are somehow always there. The real deal is that most computers aren't perpetually being bombarded by viruses - most infections are brought on by the user.
What a condescending assumption... I can't see your point of view even though I have used Macs. Odd isn't it?
But I am happy because I know other Mac users who still can think rationally.
I said that MANY Windows users have not used OS X much. I did not say that everyone is like that. Of course there are people who have used both but like Windows more. I'm not saying that it is impossible.
I know my Mac isn't perfect either. I had a problem once after an update where I could not get to the login screen. Took a while to fix that. Some people are aware of what they are doing, some don't. You do. My dad has no clue what Ubuntu is or what it is doing on our desktop PC. My mom has no idea what that update is. I mean those people who really don't know much about computers. And I just think that that is the average person. No, my parents are not new to computers. They use it everyday. I know that my parents don't represent the rest of the world. But they are surely part of it. And I think I'm too. Friends in my age ask once in a while to reinstall Windows, or how the f*** they can get the sound working and stuff like that. I know, not everyone has those problems. They don't ask those kinds of things everyday but they ask like one or twice a year. They screw up form time to time and it's they fault, not Window's. But I think it's easier to screw up in Windows than you do on OS X.
I had, as I mentioned before, BSODs on three of new purchased laptops before. I just got one last weekend in Windows 7. I still love Windows 7 though, don't get me wrong.
Yeah I admit that I want to make everyone else think that OS X is better. It is because I just think that they are better left off with a Mac rather than a PC. People care for each other, you know. I don't want to keep that little secret for myself, I want to share what I've found. Everyone knows Windows. But only a little number of people know what OS X is (outside of the US and maybe the UK). I don't want to act like as nothing happened and just pull out my Mac right next to their laptop. They will ask why I own that thing. And I tell them why.
Drivers might not always be a problem. When I get the right drivers than everything works fine most of the time. I just had those stupid BSODs quite often and cannot seem to forget them.
Viruses are one the main reasons why I don't use Windows much. It IS the users fault, but they always seem to get them.
And yeah. I was talking about an average user. You seem to be one who knows a little bit more. But thanks for taking your time (: You do mention some real reasons and not things like "you can't play games on a mac".
But I am happy because I know other Mac users who still can think rationally.
Again, I said MANY. I did not say that no Windows user has ever used Macs.
Now for all the fuzz its interesting to see how many applications the user at the second bullet point is using:
iTunes, Safari and something i ve never seen before.
I use Windows 7, but if it didnt exist i ll go for Linux, it makes more sense. Changed my mind i ll go for unix
To take it one step further there is windows steady state that is available from Microsoft for free. This software is simply amazing. It gives the option of saving changes to the system temporarily/permanently or loose them upon reboot making your machine very sturdy towards viruses and malware if you really want to go crazy. So windows has come a long way.
Last edited by sweetsam on 25 May 2009 - 11:38
Let me see I run the following:
Outlook
Word
Excel
PowerPoint
Visio
Visual Studio 2008
SQL 2008
IIS 7.5
SharePoint
MagicDisc
MagicIso
Got my (WM 6.5) phone hooked up
In an Active Directory at home with file shares
Running Sun VirtualBox for Virtualisation
Photoshop CS 4
and when i get the time I also enjoy
HAWX
WoW
NFS Undercover and others
tell us what your mac run; iTunes, Safari
Outlook
Word
Excel
PowerPoint
Visio
Visual Studio 2008
SQL 2008
IIS 7.5
SharePoint
MagicDisc
MagicIso
Got my (WM 6.5) phone hooked up
In an Active Directory at home with file shares
Running Sun VirtualBox for Virtualisation
Photoshop CS 4
and when i get the time I also enjoy
HAWX
WoW
NFS Undercover and others
tell us what your mac run; iTunes, Safari
erm, the mac runs 3/4 or more of those programs/games or equivalents.... If you're going to pick a list of programs the mac doesn't have try more niche windows software next time.
Oh, and at least the Mac can run them ALL within a virtual environment, try doing that (legally) with mac software on your store bought PC.
Outlook - Mail (Why would i want outlook anyways)
Word (Yep Can Run Word)
Excel (Yep Can Run Excel)
PowerPoint (No but has it's own version 'keynote', and they are compatible with MS Office)
Visio (Ok You got me on that one)
Visual Studio 2008 (Well why would u even want to run a windows programming enviroment on a mac?)
SQL 2008 (We talking MS SQL here or MYSQL)
IIS 7.5 (Again this is a specific Windows service)
SharePoint (Load this onto your network server)
MagicDisc (What does this do anyways)
MagicIso (Disk utility works a treat for this)
Got my (WM 6.5) phone hooked up (Again this is a WINDOWS MEDIA phone, no doubt their is a third party app that will allow this to work)
In an Active Directory at home with file shares (This is highly possible and i have it done)
Running Sun VirtualBox for Virtualisation (Yip this works on mac to)
Photoshop CS 4 (Oh look at that, this works too)
and when i get the time I also enjoy
HAWX (Okay no)
WoW (Yea this works)
NFS Undercover and others
tell us what your mac run; iTunes, Safari
So if you want to come here slagging the mac off when the OP is trying to make a valid point about the windows enviroment from a mac users point of view at least do some research first.
And yes, older versions of Windows used to crash sometimes, but all that is pretty much history (if the person knows how to go about things).
And you never want to accept that your "almighty" OSX also has a lot of flaws. For instance, your operating system makes use of right click menus in a lot of places, and so does almost all 3rd party software, yet why did Apple stick to a 1 button mouse for so long?!
What happens in the event of a failure; OSX just stops responding, with no indication of what has happened whatsoever. What do you do then, restart. If it keeps happening, you call up Apple. The guy comes over and also has no clue what is going on, and proceeds to restore your computer to factory settings!! At least in Windows you get an error message of some sort everytime, and even if you don't know what to do, someone else will.
I could go on and on, but I won't. Nobody says Windows is perfect, because it isn't. But you guys go on ranting about how perfect your stuff is, even though it is quite far from it. The fact remains, most of you mac users are just plain thick headed.
And yes, older versions of Windows used to crash sometimes, but all that is pretty much history (if the person knows how to go about things).
And you never want to accept that your "almighty" OSX also has a lot of flaws. For instance, your operating system makes use of right click menus in a lot of places, and so does almost all 3rd party software, yet why did Apple stick to a 1 button mouse for so long?!
What happens in the event of a failure; OSX just stops responding, with no indication of what has happened whatsoever. What do you do then, restart. If it keeps happening, you call up Apple. The guy comes over and also has no clue what is going on, and proceeds to restore your computer to factory settings!! At least in Windows you get an error message of some sort everytime, and even if you don't know what to do, someone else will.
I could go on and on, but I won't. Nobody says Windows is perfect, because it isn't. But you guys go on ranting about how perfect your stuff is, even though it is quite far from it. The fact remains, most of you mac users are just plain thick headed.
"But my wireless router manual doesnt mention a single word about Airport"
hahahaha
I thought that 1 button mouse is history? Or do you mean on the MacBooks/MacBok Pros? Sorry for having a multitouch trackpad. As if swiping with 4 fingers isn't enough now.
I know MS can't force all PC hardware to be the same, but Apple had the right idea here..
It'll never be history, Software is made by humans, humans have faults, so will software.
Never heard of CTRL+click eh? And the Mighty Mouse has had the option for years now.
Read what I said above about reading the Console, or As someone else said, use verbose mode. If a Genius, or even technician can't figure this out, then they have a problem, and likely shouldn't have their job.
I honestly don't hear the majority of mac users claiming OS X is perfect.
Most people are quite thick headed if you ask me.
Really?! 100% of them!??
Come on, get a brain. Or stop being a Windows fanboy.
meanwhile, i'll continue to use vista until 7 becomes available, you know Microsoft's slogan really does ring true in most instances, life without walls... the rest? put them in a box where they can't break things, usually, i'm sure many have found a way lol
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.