OS X is still better looking than Vista

[psyko_x]

Says who? Where did you get that nugget of info from? Considering every single Apple system currently being sold supports 1280x800, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. Hell, even my windows systems are all running a minimum of 1280x800, and all my desktops are at least 1280x1024.

Off-topic; why are people still "signing" their posts by sticking their screen name at the bottom of their statement? Seriously, it looks retarded. Just quit.

http://www.prismo.ch/surveys/mac/results.php

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressb...esolutions.html

It doesn't matter what you have. The first link shows that by far most mac users have 15 or 17 inch screens. Theres a bunch of websites showing that 1024*768 is the most common resolution and that's why most web designers design their sites with that in mind. And yeah, every apple current system supports at least 1280*800 but that doeesn't mean anything. If the average resolution is lower than that then it's obvious that most people still own older systems. Apple has the new Macbook Pro and the expensive cinema displays but it's not like everyone goes out and rushes to buy those things upon release.

Anyways you missed the entire point of what I was saying. My point wasn't about 1024*768 or whatever. It was that you need as much real estate as possible at times like photo editing, viewing high def movies (which can be 1920*1080 res), reviewing/editing big documents etc and as a result, it's really lame to try to excuse apple for not implementing such a simple and useful function like maximize.

[oldaccount1]

Microsoft just needs to call in some 3rd-party visual design specialists or something, because on a whole, Vista looks like hammered sh*t. The control panel is just an extension of a much larger problem; there is just too much crap *everywhere* in Vista. It looks like an unorganized mess.

exactly

[Jazket]

Yes a few posters are right at something:

Vista's screenshot shows Control Panel in classic view. Not to fair if you ask me. Try taking another picture this time with Vista's Control Panel in Standard View. ;)

Though, certain parts of Mac OS X make it look better than Vista, that's a fact.

edit:

Microsoft just needs to call in some 3rd-party visual design specialists or something, because on a whole, Vista looks like hammered sh*t.

The Skin Factory Perhaps? :)

Link:

http://theskinsfactory.com/skinsfactory/

Edited June 28, 2006 by Jazket

[myNando]

***k Vista & OSX. This one's 1000% better:

:laugh:

[xxdesmus]

You be the judge:

Ok, I'll be the judge. You have no idea what you're talking about. Try picking the most useless pictures to compare two operating systems. AND, you purposely picked the "classic view" of the control panel just to make it more cluttered ...way to go my friend...real slick. :whistle: :rolleyes:

[John S. Veteran]

Says who? Where did you get that nugget of info from? Considering every single Apple system currently being sold supports 1280x800, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. Hell, even my windows systems are all running a minimum of 1280x800, and all my desktops are at least 1280x1024.

Off-topic; why are people still "signing" their posts by sticking their screen name at the bottom of their statement? Seriously, it looks retarded. Just quit.

1440x900 is the max resolution on my 17" iMac, the 20" will go 1680x1050.

[phantasmorph]

Yes a few posters are right at something:

Vista's screenshot shows Control Panel in classic view. Not to fair if you ask me. Try taking another picture this time with Vista's Control Panel in Standard View. ;)

Though, certain parts of Mac OS X make it look better than Vista, that's a fact.

Someone already posted a shot of the Standard View in comparison. Problem with standard view is it will take twice as long getting anything accomplished because Microsoft over-simplified standard view, and it takes forever to find what you want until you are familiar with it. And more often than not, logical places where options for certain things COULD be integrated, aren't. Perfect example of this...why not just integrate the control panel entries for Windows Firewall and Windows Defender into Security Center and leave it at that? Why couldn't Mouse, Keyboard, Phone and Modem, Game Controllers (and a whole hell of a lot of other stuff) be integrated into Device Manager itself? Device Manager *sucks*, always has, always will. The way Microsoft adds features makes it seem like a bolted-together Frankenstein mess, and the control panel is, again, another indication of a greater problem.

People always complain that Microsoft copies everyone else. I wouldn't care a bit if they did, if they'd copy the *right* stuff where it matters.

Edited June 28, 2006 by phantasmorph

[Jazket]

Try comparing it to this one now :D

[Southern Patriot]

Anyways you missed the entire point of what I was saying. My point wasn't about 1024*768 or whatever. It was that you need as much real estate as possible at times like photo editing, viewing high def movies (which can be 1920*1080 res), reviewing/editing big documents etc and as a result, it's really lame to try to excuse apple for not implementing such a simple and useful function like maximize.

You don't seem to understand the concept behind the "+" button in OS X. No, it's not "maximize" as you think of it from Windows. When you click the "+" in OS X, the window resizes to fit as much of the current document on the screen as possible. If the document is tall and narrow (such as a portrait picture), then the window will resize to fit it. You won't end up with lots of blank space on each side of the document, like you would in Windows. Here are two pictures that illustrate this nicely (the Apple web site in Safari and Internet Explorer):

img=http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5452/appleinsafari5my.th.jpg

Both are after hitting the "+" / "maximize" buttons. Notice how the Safari window perfectly fits it's contents, while the IE window has lots of wasted space?

Edited June 28, 2006 by roadwarrior

[phantasmorph]

1440x900 is the max resolution on my 17" iMac, the 20" will go 1680x1050.

I meant at a minimum. The lowest is 1280x800 standard, and go up from there. :)

[Jazket]

Someone already posted a shot of the Standard View in comparison. Problem with standard view is it will take twice as long getting anything accomplished because Microsoft over-simplified standard view, and it takes forever to find what you want until you are familiar with it. And more often than not, logical places where options for certain things COULD be integrated, aren't. Perfect example of this...why not just integrate the control panel entries for Windows Firewall and Windows Defender into Security Center and leave it at that? Why couldn't Mouse, Keyboard, Phone and Modem, Game Controllers (and a whole hell of a lot of other stuff) be integrated into Device Manager itself? Device Manager *sucks*, always has, always will. The way Microsoft adds features makes it seem like a bolted-together Frankenstein mess, and the control panel is, again, another indication of a greater problem.

People always complain that Microsoft copies everyone else. I wouldn't care a bit if they did, if they'd copy the *right* stuff where it matters.

I find it ironic that the only people with nothing relevant to add to the discussion, and instead blindly lash out at criticism are the ones with Vista-esque sigs and avatars.

Yes you are right. It is too complicated to navigate throught the entire CP in Standard View due to massive amount of features shortcuts when most of the times two or three of those shortcuts link to the exact same feature or preference; that is something I find ridiculous... :huh:

[aristotle-dude]

Try comparing it to this one now :D

Ok, assume that you are novice user looking to change something. Where are you supposed to go? It is too simplistic.

My problem with windows XP is that some options are hidden where you would not expect them to be or settings that you would logically think would be grouped together are not. Take Desktop icons settings for example. You have to dig into the appearance tab on the "display" control panel and click on the Advanced button and then search for icon size to set the size of icons on the desktop. Now if you want to decide on which icons you want to have appear on the desktop, you have to go into the Desktop tab and click on a customize desktop button.

How does that make sense? Why isn't there an ability to set different icon sizes per window?

[macro]

All I know is I do tech support for an Internet company, and if I'm talking to someone who knows nothing and I need to get their IP address on a Mac I say "Apple, System Preferences, Network" and on Windows I say "Start, Control Panel, Network and Internet Connections, Network Connections, Right click on Local area Connection ("Which one?") Status, Support" So from my job perspective finding everything on a Mac is way easier. In general OS X is set to have less clicks to find anything, in Windows its all buried with no purpose, the user interface is so poorly designed in my opinion and is very annoying to use honestly, but thats enough of my ranting hahah

[.Neo]

Try comparing it to this one now :D

People already did few pages back...

[BlueFiberOptics]

I do agree that OS X has a fine Preferences pane. About the maximizing argument, I don't maximize windows anymore in XP because of my widescreen 24 inch. It is more trouble viewing maximized because it is sprawled out on my widescreen. I think the bigger/wider the screen, the less you should maximize. My two cents.

The Vista control panel looks better than the XP default one, at least. Microsoft is making progress, but they are still not up to par with Apple's efficient design.

[rockwolf]

Personally I prefer the Windows Standard look when I'm using Windows, whether its Win2k/2k3 and its all thats available, or Windows XP or Vista. I like simple better.

For any Control Panels/Centers, I would prefer to see all my options all at once instead of having to click around. Whenever I have to click too many times to get to what I want I get impatient.

[cosrocket]

Ok, I'll be the judge. You have no idea what you're talking about. Try picking the most useless pictures to compare two operating systems. AND, you purposely picked the "classic view" of the control panel just to make it more cluttered ...way to go my friend...real slick. :whistle: :rolleyes:

Yeah that's what I meant to be, "real slick". You know, I know of "no one" who uses the category control panel in XP because it's just dumb. The first thing I do when I get a PC is change to classic view, not because I like it but it's the only way I see all of the options without having to click a million times to get where I want to be. Think of OS X System Preferences as a classic view in OS X that works better and looks better than classic view in XP or Vista.

[Jazket]

All I know is I do tech support for an Internet company, and if I'm talking to someone who knows nothing and I need to get their IP address on a Mac I say "Apple, System Preferences, Network" and on Windows I say "Start, Control Panel, Network and Internet Connections, Network Connections, Right click on Local area Connection ("Which one?") Status, Support" So from my job perspective finding everything on a Mac is way easier. In general OS X is set to have less clicks to find anything, in Windows its all buried with no purpose, the user interface is so poorly designed in my opinion and is very annoying to use honestly, but thats enough of my ranting hahah

Or you could simply say:

Start Menu > Run > cmd > type ipconfig.

Try not to complicate the process using the longest one. There are many ways to do it, and finding the easiest way to explain and help the customer, that is what technical support stands for. I've done tech support for years now so I know what you mean but you also knew the "Start Menu > Run..." option exists and could save you time...

[rockwolf]

Yeah that's what I meant to be, "real slick". You know, I know of "no one" who uses the category control panel in XP because it's just dumb. The first thing I do when I get a PC is change to classic view, not because I like it but it's the only way I see all of the options without having to click a million times to get where I want to be. Think of OS X System Preferences as a classic view in OS X that works better and looks better than classic view in XP or Vista.

I agree, category view makes it look a little bettter but it just ads an extra step. That's why I don't use it. I find the descriptions pretty useless too.

[myNando]

Start Menu > Run > cmd > type ipconfig.

You know, I did that just now and the command prompt gave me an error and then closed:

What the heck!? lol

[John S. Veteran]

I meant at a minimum. The lowest is 1280x800 standard, and go up from there. :)

We're not disagreeing on the issue of real estate, but the minimum is 640x480, again for my 17" iMac.

[aristotle-dude]

You don't seem to understand the concept behind the "+" button in OS X. No, it's not "maximize" as you think of it from Windows. When you click the "+" in OS X, the window resizes to fit as much of the current document on the screen as possible. If the document is tall and narrow (such as a portrait picture), then the window will resize to fit it. You won't end up with lots of blank space on each side of the document, like you would in Windows. Here are two pictures that illustrate this nicely (the Apple web site in Safari and Internet Explorer):

img=http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5452/appleinsafari5my.th.jpg

Both are after hitting the "+" / "maximize" buttons. Notice how the Safari window perfectly fits it's contents, while the IE window has lots of wasted space?

This difference is a result of historical design decisions made with windows and mac os. The former was originally designed with a single window at a time interface and had no concept of overlapping windows whereas the latter was designed around working with mulitple windows at a time. To me, the windows "maximize" feature is retarded because you are not maximizing your desktop real estate that way nor are you enabling the user to see more of the document. It is just a waste of space and defeats the concept of multiple windows.

When you look at windows and mac os, there is another difference. Window is application focused. When you close the last document window, you are closing the applicaiton whereas with mac os, the interface is focused on documents and the applications are merely tools to interact with and open the documents. It is a different way of working. Windows has a concept like MDI which sort of emulates the mac desktop metafor but again even there, you are able to maximize a document completely blocking out access to the other document windows.

[1759]

This difference is a result of historical design decisions made with windows and mac os. The former was originally designed with a single window at a time interface and had no concept of overlapping windows whereas the latter was designed around working with mulitple windows at a time. To me, the windows "maximize" feature is retarded because you are not maximizing your desktop real estate that way nor are you enabling the user to see more of the document. It is just a waste of space and defeats the concept of multiple windows.

When you look at windows and mac os, there is another difference. Window is application focused. When you close the last document window, you are closing the applicaiton whereas with mac os, the interface is focused on documents and the applications are merely tools to interact with and open the documents. It is a different way of working. Windows has a concept like MDI which sort of emulates the mac desktop metafor but again even there, you are able to maximize a document completely blocking out access to the other document windows.

Don't see how either really affects productivity, I can still only so many things at once, and only then, with dual monitors (or more), is it a real difference, like in Photoshop. I guess it's all in what you're used to.

[Jazket]

You know, I did that just now and the command prompt gave me an error and then closed:

What the heck!? lol

Ahem? anybody else?... You have problems with your Windows :unsure:

[redfish]

aristotle-dude

when a window is maximized, other windows you open still appear above it, try it, maximize an application and click on another taskbar button. plus you can have windows that stay on top. maximizing a window does make it take up a full screen, but it also locks it in place as full screen, and then clicking restore puts it back into the size it was at in non full screen mode, which is useful, and why it isnt 'retarded'. it doesn't block out other windows. why are you talking as if it does

windows was based on MDI in windows 3.1 , it became deprecated in windows 95 as things moved to document-centricity. MDI windows still today look every bad. ms office moved from an mdi interface to a single window interface. the reason it wasn't a loss of funtionality in most ways is because in windows, you can access any document related functions that wouldnt need the document open anyhow through the shell or other applications (through evil concepts like OLE automation, ActiveX, context menus, and task panes). the only reason i see it as losing functionality is that (even given grouped taskbars) it is a loss in organization. this is why you see tabbed interfaces gaining popularity.