So.. for all the mac users who have tried windows 7...

[giga Veteran]

Alt-F4 closes the app, CTRL-F4 closes documents.

...I just explained how ALT-F4 doesn't close the app.

[Eric Veteran]

...I just explained how ALT-F4 doesn't close the app.

It was incorrect. Alt-F4 send a quit message to the application. It's up to the app programmer to decide if they want to ignore the message or not.

[giga Veteran]

It was incorrect.

How? I have two documents open right now in Word 03 and alt+f4 didn't close the app. Are you saying that Microsoft Word doesn't adhere to their own HIG?

CTRL+Tab didn't cycle the Word windows either. Neither Firefox.

[Eric Veteran]

How? I have two documents open right now in Word 03 and alt+f4 didn't close the app. Are you saying that Microsoft Word doesn't adhere to their own HIG?

It does. Word uses a document/view architecture and opens multiple documents with the same base application instance. CTRL-F4 closes the documents, and when the last one is gone the application will quit.

And your Firefox must be broken. I'm switching between 3 Neowin posts with CTRL-TAB right now.

[giga Veteran]

It does. Word uses a document/view architecture and opens multiple documents with the same base application instance. CTRL-F4 closes the documents, and when the last one is gone the application will quit.

And your Firefox must be broken. I'm switching between 3 Neowin posts with CTRL-TAB right now.

So how again was my post incorrect? Yet again, there is no universal/standard quit applicaiton shortcut in Windows because of their smorgasbord of paradigms.

You're saying you have multiple Firefox windows open? Because none of them are cycling for me. It's only cycling tabs.

[Mercellus]

Windows 7 is a good improvement over Windows Vista, but there's no way I'd switch back to using Windows as my primary computing platform. I just find that I am much more productive on Mac OS X.

[Eric Veteran]

So how again was my post incorrect. Yet again, there is no universal/standard quit applicaiton shortcut in Windows because of their smorgasbord of paradigms.

You're saying you have multiple Firefox windows open and and none of them are cycling. It's only cycling tabs.

Exactly. If you want to switch application instances, you use ALT-TAB. If you want to switch documents in an application, you use CTRL-TAB. The universal "quit" shortcut IS ALT-F4. If the application doesn't act on the message the way you expect, it's not the fault of Windows. Document/View is a funky model, and I'm still using Office 2003 as well, so I can't tell you if 2007 behaves differently. You have to remember Office 2003 is only about 6 months newer than XP.

There is one HIG shortcut specified for "app quit" and it's Alt-F4. Microsoft does not require any developers support the HIG, and neither does Apple. (You said Adobe doesn't.)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb545461.aspx

Navigation shortcuts

Alt+F4 - Close the active window or program.

Ctrl+F4 - Close the active document (in programs that allow you to have multiple documents open).

Ctrl+Tab, F6 - Moves to next pane or palette within a program.

Ctrl+Shift+Tab, Shift+F6 - Moves to previous pane or palette within a program.

Ctrl+F6 - Moves to next window in a group of related windows (or between MDI document windows).

Ctrl+Shift+F6 - Moves to previous window in a group of related windows (or between MDI document windows).

[Trong]

2. The Control Panel has become overly complicated. There is no more "classic" view..instead things are now more buried in sub-menus and dialog boxes than they ever have been.

I dunno if anyone's showed you yet but...

[giga Veteran]

Exactly. If you want to switch application instances, you use ALT-TAB. If you want to switch documents in an application, you use CTRL-TAB. The universal "quit" shortcut IS ALT-F4. If the application doesn't act on the message the way you expect, it's not the fault of Windows. Document/View is a funky model, and I'm still using Office 2003 as well, so I can't tell you if 2007 behaves differently. You have to remember Office 2003 is only about 6 months newer than XP.

There is one HIG shortcut specified for "app quit" and it's Alt-F4. Microsoft does not require any developers support the HIG, and neither does Apple. (You said Adobe doesn't.)

I already know about alt+tab, which is fine and dandy but ctrl+tab is not universal and standardized. Firefox doesn't respect it. Hell, Windows Explorer doesn't respect it. (XP) I can't cycle only Explorer windows.

The HIG defines the shortcut for app quit as alt+f4, but yet it is not universal standard because of the clumsy document model. The majority of the apps I use (Firefox, Word, Pidgin, Utorrent--like I outlined) don't respect the HIG which again proves the point of my post--there's no standardization among Windows developers.

Now I'm not saying that all Mac developers respect the HIG (Adobe was my example--they refuse to use CMD+H for hide because they think older users will get confused), but that the majority of them do.

^

[shockz]

I've gone back to Windows. 7 has definately made a great impression.

I was thinking of purchasing another mac... but they missed it with the mini... regardless of the rumors for MacWorld... its been far too long for an update... and I'm tired of waiting. I'm planning on picking up a real nice HP next week.

[KevinN206]

And this comes down to the different philosophies the two OSes have. Windows being traditionally document-centric, and OS X application-centric. Alt+F4 will close the current window but will not necessarily terminate the entire application and related processes.

That said, they could implement something like Windows+F4 that will close all grouped windows.

I think you got that reversed. According to arstechnica:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/doc...s-7-taskbar.ars

The fundamental distinction between OS X and Windows is that, in general, windows on Mac OS X represent documents; on Windows, they represent applications. This conceptual difference motivates many of the UI features of both OSes, and understanding it is key to understanding the two operating systems.

[the evn show]

A question for people that praise the Apple Human Interface Guidelines: have you read them?

At work I've been tasked with porting some of our command-line only development/management tools to Mac OS X Desktop Applications. I haven't written Cocoa apps since Project builder was still considered 'new hotness'. I've been slowly getting back up to speed on things like key value coding, core data, the scripting bridges for python/ruby, etc.

My current project is to unify some of the document management tools and given them a flashy interface that our project managers can understand. So I'm at the point of designing a preferences box to setup server locations, files, time-outs, and default behaviors and I check the AHIG to get some direction.

What is the proper way to show the folder that will hold 'source files' and allow the user to pick a new one?

The AHIG was worthless: it doesn't discuss standard work-flows for things like this (but if you want some tips about what angle to design your application icon: they've got your back).

Interface builder offers a standard control (NSPathControl) that can take on a few different looks. One example can be found at the bottom of Spotlight window search results. The other two views I've never seen. One looks behaves like a pop-up menu but by default looks nothing like the standard pop-up menu path choosers you'll have seen. The other is a more 'glossy' version of the finder path display with some neat core-animation effects tossed in.

Without any real direction from the official documenation I went poking through applications. Safari does it using an NSPopupMenu.

iTunes uses a group box and some nsbuttons.

Time Machine goes all out (also, I should probably back up this iBook).

Aperture uses a bunch of controls grouped together - and they're extra small for no god damn reason.

Third party utilities seem to be split too. I like the "iTunes style" (Candy Bar uses it too, but slightly different) but it's hugely wasteful: 90% of it is dead space. Based on my non-scientific study I think the Safari-style popup menu is the most common. Completely unique approaches like the ones form iTunes and Aperture are rare.

The point isn't that they all look different, but that they don't work the same way and that nobody uses the standard control for the job. I don't really care if the pixels are different colors—like toolbars in Safari's preferences vs Keychain Access, I do care that they don't work the same way.

You see lots of things like this in the HIG. Another great example is Quick View in Finder and those little boxes come up when you're setting up bindings in Interface Builder. Here's the relevant quote from the HIG concerning transparent panels:

A transparent panel gives users a way to make quick adjustments to their content or task without being

distracted from their work. Although the behavior of a transparent panel is similar to the behavior of a

standard panel, its appearance is designed to complement applications that focus on highly visual content

or that provide an immersive experience…

Finder and XCode don't fit the bill for any of those things and yet the transparent panels in quick view is a center-stage demonstration technology. I can't deny that it works very well, but it's things like this that show how worthless Part 3 (the Aqua part of the HIG) really is. The first few parts cover general application design practices and are worth reading (they're about 25% of the document). The third part covers the use of controls for workflows: it can almost be discarded because they are incomplete, inconsistent, or ignored.

I've taken to the "What Would Panic Do" style of interface design: you'll get a better interface, and you don't spend your afternoon poking through a 250-page document that probably won't answer your questions anyway.

ow I'm not saying that all Mac developers respect the HIG (Adobe was my example--they refuse to use CMD+H for hide because they think older users will get confused), but that the majority of them do.

Adobe had CMD+H long before Apple chose to use it. They retain that keyboard short cut to avoid ****ing of their customers. You've been able to change that binding in Photoshop for years. I agree it's an annoying default but the designers in my shop get right-****ed when change it on them.

I have a similar fit of rage when I come across one of our devs that have bound option+arrows to switching Spaces.

[Ambroos]

MS themselves should then be the first to make some of their apps - namely Office - follow their own UI guidelines.

If you always use the version of Office that is released closest to the version of Windows you are using it fits in quite well actually. Office 2007 on Silver/Black + Vista = win.

And if you then look at https://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/15/o...creenshots-leak

Which are Alpha screenies, and will probably be slightly different with Aero on, I think it fits very well into the bright, clear and clean feel Windows 7 gives. Windows 7 is also kinda the big 'Unity' release. Microsoft is bundling all it's online services into Live, all desktop services are going to Windows/Office. And wasn't Office Live going to be the online version of Office? I think, in terms of unity, Microsoft is doing a great job compared to Apple.

One thing Microsoft does have over Apple, is the unlimitedness of it. When I'm using OSX (and I did for quite a long time to get the 'feeling' of what Mac people think is so good about their OS) I always start feeling limited after a week or so. I want to do this in this app. Oh wait, you can't, you'll have to do with what we have built in. I'm not saying that their software is bad, not at all, and it does an excellent job in doing what it comes with, but extendability on Mac is really evil. If you need to do something on Windows, you probably have 100's of programs making your life easier for you. Same with addins for Powerpoint/Office/Messenger/.. (compared to Keynote/other iWork apps/iChat, ...) There are thousands for Microsoft's software, and way less for Apple's counterparts. You might say it's due to their lower market share, but that doesn't matter. I don't think that I should be limited because I want to use something that isn't so common. I just use what I can use to the full degree, and for me, the only OS that has been able to do that is Windows. Wether I want it or not. Wether I think OSX itself does a better job than Windows. It just doesn't matter. The possibilities on Windows are endless, on OSX they are limited. That's just it.

Gee, what a trollpost. I don't like the way I put it and it's late so it's probably full of speako's/grammar-o's and typo's, sorry!

Anyways. What I am trying to tell is that Microsoft is doing a great job catching up with Apple in terms of uniformity between applications.

[+virtorio MVC]

I already know about alt+tab, which is fine and dandy but ctrl+tab is not universal and standardized. Firefox doesn't respect it. Hell, Windows Explorer doesn't respect it. (XP) I can't cycle only Explorer windows.

The HIG defines the shortcut for app quit as alt+f4, but yet it is not universal standard because of the clumsy document model. The majority of the apps I use (Firefox, Word, Pidgin, Utorrent--like I outlined) don't respect the HIG which again proves the point of my post--there's no standardization among Windows developers.

Now I'm not saying that all Mac developers respect the HIG (Adobe was my example--they refuse to use CMD+H for hide because they think older users will get confused), but that the majority of them do.

^

I've come across loads of OSX apps that don't follow the Apples HIG, and just because YOU don't like the MDI structure doesn't mean it's clumsy or bad. From my perspective having all windows for each app floating around without some kind of container is an total pain. But that doesn't mean it's bad, it just means I don't like it.

If I still had my iMac I could post loads of screen shots showing inconsistencies where Apple have done the same things in different ways in their apps so get off your high horse. Apple and Microsoft are both lousy when defining and following their own standards.

But you know what, it really doesn't matter. Lots of people use Office and they don't have a problem, yet the Office team loves to take the Windows UI guidelines document, run it though a shredder, and then try to follow it. They both do the job, they both do it pretty well and whether you like they way it's done or not is down to personal preference.

[LTD]

I've come across loads of OSX apps that doesn't follow the Apples HIG, and just because YOU don't like MDI structure doesn't mean it's clumsy or bad. From my perspective having all windows for each app floating around without some kind of container is an total pain. But that doesn't mean it's bad, it just means I don't like it.

If I still had my iMac I could post loads of screen shots showing inconsistencies where Apple have some the same thing in different ways in their apps so get off your high horse. Apple and Microsoft are both lousy when defining and following their own standards.

But you know what, it really doesn't matter. Lots of people use Office and they don't have a problem, yet the Office team loves to take the Windows UI guidelines document, run it though a shredder, and then try to follow it. They both do the job, they both do it pretty well and whether you like it or not is down to personal preference.

We'll be sitting here on the edge of our seats waiting for your "loads" of screenshots.

Apple isn't perfect but it isn't nearly as bad as MS in this area. Apple has the basics down and has stuck to them from day 1. They are not both lousy, because only one of them really is. In fact in this area, they are about the same as night and day.

[giga Veteran]

I've come across loads of OSX apps that don't follow the Apples HIG, and just because YOU don't like the MDI structure doesn't mean it's clumsy or bad. From my perspective having all windows for each app floating around without some kind of container is an total pain. But that doesn't mean it's bad, it just means I don't like it.

If I still had my iMac I could post loads of screen shots showing inconsistencies where Apple have done the same things in different ways in their apps so get off your high horse. Apple and Microsoft are both lousy when defining and following their own standards.

But you know what, it really doesn't matter. Lots of people use Office and they don't have a problem, yet the Office team loves to take the Windows UI guidelines document, run it though a shredder, and then try to follow it. They both do the job, they both do it pretty well and whether you like they way it's done or not is down to personal preference.

I wasn't criticizing the concept of the MDI, but the fact that there was no standardization in basic tasks, such as quit application, among the different apps.

This is not merely about following interface guidelines stringently (no one is perfect, not even the people who wrote the guidelines), but at least attempting a shot at it.

[the evn show]

We'll be sitting here on the edge of our seats waiting for your "loads" of screenshots.

My post had a handful of different ways that OS X allows you to choose a folder. You can start there and then poke around. It really doesn't take a whole lot of time to find examples when you go looking.

just because YOU don't like the MDI structure doesn't mean it's clumsy or bad.

Microsoft's Windows Experience Guidelines disagree[1].

Should I use SDI or MDI for my application?

SDI (single-document interface) is appropriate for most productivity applications. MDI (multiple-document interface) is still in use, but does not fit as well with today's users and operating systems. Users are demanding simpler and easier-to-use software; SDI presents a simpler interface that is better understood by most users, especially consumers and home users. Many users are frustrated when child windows are locked into the parent window in an MDI interface. Also, the taskbar does not provide a way to switch between windows in an MDI application.

If your application is more specialized and you are considering an MDI interface, you should investigate alternative, MDI-like designs, such as workbooks and projects.

It goes on to link a detailed discussion of MDI vs SDI: these are the highlights (aggressively edited for brevity)[2].

• MDI also has a number of limitations…the application interface must be visible for the user work with multiple documents within the same MDI parent window.
  
• MDI can confuse or be frustrating to users switching between documents with taskbar buttons or ALT+TAB.
  
• Users cannot easily determine what documents they have open.
  
• The storage relationship between the child windows and the objects being viewed in those windows is not consistent.
  
• The relationship between the files and their windows more abstract, making MDI challenging for beginning users to learn.
  
• MDI cannot support an effective design for reopening the application's windows to their last state.
  
• MDI can make some aspects of the COM interface more complex.
  
• The MDI technique of managing windows by confining child windows to the parent window can be inconvenient or inappropriate for some tasks
  
• the nested nature of child windows may make it difficult for the user to distinguish between a child window in a parent window and a primary window positioned on top.
  

The linked document describes two advantages to MDI over SDI interfaces (again, edited for breviety)[2]:

• Sharing the parent window's interface components to make it a very space-efficient.
  
• Separation of its views from other document or application windows.
  

The first advantage is nullified by the movement towards tool bar palettes shared between windows (see: Office or Photoshop on Mac OS X) and the second second is irrelevant with with UI conventions such as "Hide Others".

EDIT

I always start feeling limited after a week or so. I want to do this in this app. Oh wait, you can't, you'll have to do with what we have built in.

I'm willing to bet this has more to do with inexperience than any actual short-coming.

Wanting to preserve an exact workflow isn't an option and it can no-more be used to damn Mac OS X or Windows than it can Linux or BeOS. While there are no-doubt some tasks that are completely impossible on Mac OS X (ie: high end engineering work with solid works) there are equally impossible tasks for Windows: (editing Motion sequences). For people interested in those specialized tasks one operating system may well be excessively limiting but for common-use cases Mac OS X and Windows offer similar base levels of functionality.

Please provide more details.

Sources: 1,2

Edited January 27, 2009 by evn.

[Reimroc]

Performance, in my opinion, was about the same as Leopard. I like Windows 7, but it's not enough to make me switch, not by a long shot.

[LTD]

MS' standards are almost nonexistent. I'll leave Windows 7 out because it is unreleased and MS can still find a way to mess up a good thing.

Consider applications in Vista. None of them works in the same way as any other. Only one of them (Notepad) uses the "native" built-in appearance (i.e. the one most easily available to third-party software). Many of them have features in common: opening and saving files, typing words, editing properties, and yet somehow they conspire to all do so differently. It is a total mess. These aren't just minor failures of consistency, either. The people responsible for these applications have deliberately chosen to give the platform's standard look and feel the finger. That's bad enough for standalone applications; it's even worse when some of those applications are part of the platform itself.

There isn't even any kind of internal consistency. The Explorer Window and the IE window look, at first glance, to be similar; similar graphical style for the forward/back button, for example. But they're not. The spacing is different; the drop-down arrow in the IE window has more space around it than the counterpart in Explorer.

Even when the same nonstandard concept is used, it's done differently. Windows Live Messenger, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player all have a "hidden" menu bar. The menu bar is still there, just not visible by default. And each one of them exposes its menu bar in a different way, doing essentially the same thing gratuitously differently. It might well be that getting rid of the menu bar is a good idea?but there's no justification at all for making them all similar-but-different.

Taken alone, these are all fairly minor things. Put together, the interface is just completely shambolic. It looks amateurish. The quirks of each new interface have to be learned anew. This slap-dash approach to look-and-feel gives the impression of a platform that no one really cares about. That same contempt for norms and standards inflicts third-party applications. And, really, why shouldn't it? If Microsoft can't be bothered to make Windows applications that feel like Windows applications, why should anyone else go to the effort? And even if a developer does want to go to the effort, what's he meant to take his cues from? Should he copy IE? WMP? Explorer? Notepad? Office? Visual Studio?

To add insult to injury, it's wasteful. Explorer and IE may look similar, but they're different codebases. The code to give that kind of no-menu window with an address bar and a search box and this and that, it's not shared between the two. It might have been at one time. But now it's not. So there's twice the development effort to create and maintain these applications. What could have been done once now has to be done twice. And again for Word, and Outlook, and Visual Studio, and Visio, and Expression Blend. Each time I have to learn a new UI, some team at Microsoft had to write a new UI and test a new UI and maintain a new UI. That's not a good use of their time, when they could have done it once.

Mac OS X is by no means perfect in this regard, but it's nowhere near as bad. Applications like the Finder and iTunes establish certain norms and conventions, and third-party applications do a pretty good job of following these (or adapting them to new situations). There aren't OS X applications where the menu bar works totally differently. Apple hasn't produced a different UI style for each and every application. Sure, they do have more than one style?the "pro" apps (Aperture, FCP, etc.) use a darker scheme than normal apps?but there's still an order of magnitude more consistency and coherence on OS X than on Windows. Apple cares about appearances and Apple provides strong GUI models to copy. The result? Third parties produce good-looking applications that work like the OS they run on. And accordingly, users demand that their applications conform to the overall look and feel of the platform.

[the evn show]

Consider applications in Vista. None of them works in the same way as any other. Only one of them (Notepad) uses the "native" built-in appearance (i.e. the one most easily available to third-party software).

Just on what I can see on screen right now had 5 different styles of tool bar bar. And I've already pointed out situations where the 'easily accessible' interface element for developers on OS X is ignored both by third parties and apple themselves.

There isn't even any kind of internal consistency. The Explorer Window and the IE window look, at first glance, to be similar; similar graphical style for the forward/back button, for example. But they're not.

Finder and iTunes (it's a fair comparison: Steve Jobs made it when the brushed metal finder was first demonstrated).

Even when the same nonstandard concept is used, it's done differently. Windows Live Messenger, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player all have a "hidden" menu bar.

iChat, Finder, and iTunes have equally noticeable differences in their toolbars.

Taken alone, these are all fairly minor things. Put together, the interface is just completely shambolic. It looks amateurish. The quirks of each new interface have to be learned anew.

One word: Dashboard. This keystone demonstration piece is by design a jumble of non-standard, shockingly different interfaces.

And even if a developer does want to go to the effort, what's he meant to take his cues from? Should he copy IE? WMP? Explorer? Notepad? Office? Visual Studio?

I'm a mac developer and I had to ask the same damn question about choosing paths. I ended up copying iTunes because it "looked pretty". I'll be ****ed if I know it's right or not, but at least it does the job.

Interestingly, Microsoft's experience guidelines have an example addressing my question about choosing paths.

To add insult to injury, it's wasteful. Explorer and IE may look similar, but they're different codebases. The code to give that kind of no-menu window with an address bar and a search box and this and that, it's not shared between the two. It might have been at one time. But now it's not. So there's twice the development effort to create and maintain these applications.

Do you have any idea how ****ed up NSToolbar is? A particular bit of gold I found is that Apple went to the trouble of exposing the class in Interface Builder (finally) and did a pretty reasonable job of many parts. What they completely failed to allow you to specify itemIdentifiers for NSToolbarItems (which is a primary method of identifying items that the user interacts with and for controlling the display of toolbar menu choices).

To work around this you can either

• Build your toolbars by creating and adding items using Cocoa like you're writting some ****** version of MFC
  
• Deal with the fact that all your have 64-byte randomly assigned itemIdenfiers like "d2aef-eac9dc-661bc9-8eebd-6cc12f-0b82fd-661bc9" in all your code
  
• Use Interface Builder as long as you can, then quit and hack the XIB file yourself.
  

Most developers go with the first option resulting in truckloads of redundant code.

There aren't OS X applications where the menu bar works totally differently.

NSMenuItem is a perfect example of exactly this.

Apple hasn't produced a different UI style for each and every application.

You're wrong.

It would be a good time to bow out now, you're clearly talking beyond your experience.

[TruckWEB]

Running Win7 x64 on my main desktop and OS X on my Macbook, I really enjoy Win7. We all know that Win7 is based on Vista and it's just a bunch of improvement, but it's much better, run faster, use less resource.

I'm really unbiased, I love both machine and OS. The killer (for me) is iLife. Nothing like that exist for Windows. Tightly integrated apps that just work together. The ease of iMovie and iDVD is a joy to use. And I do prefer to use iTune over MS Media player. When I'm on Windows, I use iTune or Winamp, I avoid WMP and I find Win7 WMP blant. And you can't compare iPhoto with MS Photo Gallery. Worst, Gallery crash on me all the time, I seem to have a too huge library of photos. Never had any problem with iPhoto.

Lets talk about gaming on OS X... It's not about the OS, it's about the poor hardware inside Mac. You can't be serious about gaming on a Mac. I'll switch to my PC or console to game.

But if I want to surf the Web and not worry about any kind of virus (even when going to obscure site..!), well, can't beat the Mac/Safari/Firefox. I don't use any kind of Anti-Virus on my Mac.

Still, I prefer to do my work with MS Office 2007 on my PC. Office for Mac is nice, but it's not the same. And I do have some small stuff with MS Access, something missing in Mac Office.

So, in the end, I'm not in love with any OS... But I use the machine for the work I need to do. It's all about the applications. Be it on my Mac or PC.

Edited January 28, 2009 by TruckWEB

[BajiRav]

So how again was my post incorrect? Yet again, there is no universal/standard quit applicaiton shortcut in Windows because of their smorgasbord of paradigms.

You're saying you have multiple Firefox windows open? Because none of them are cycling for me. It's only cycling tabs.

I already know about alt+tab, which is fine and dandy but ctrl+tab is not universal and standardized. Firefox doesn't respect it. Hell, Windows Explorer doesn't respect it. (XP) I can't cycle only Explorer windows.

The HIG defines the shortcut for app quit as alt+f4, but yet it is not universal standard because of the clumsy document model. The majority of the apps I use (Firefox, Word, Pidgin, Utorrent--like I outlined) don't respect the HIG which again proves the point of my post--there's no standardization among Windows developers.

Now I'm not saying that all Mac developers respect the HIG (Adobe was my example--they refuse to use CMD+H for hide because they think older users will get confused), but that the majority of them do.

^

I wasn't criticizing the concept of the MDI, but the fact that there was no standardization in basic tasks, such as quit application, among the different apps.

This is not merely about following interface guidelines stringently (no one is perfect, not even the people who wrote the guidelines), but at least attempting a shot at it.

The problem with you is what most switchers have: You are trying to take OS X's paradigms and trying to find their equivalents in Windows. Read up that Ars's comparison (someone linked it earlier).

I can ask you something similar, how can I switch different windows using Doc without using context menu in OS X? Assume Finder and iTunes have multiple Windows open. Finder Windows are hidden. Now switch.

Here is one more. I want to maximize a Window with a single click without resizing manually in OS X. I don't want to read any crap about "oh you don't need to maximize because that works against 'multi-tasking' crap" (whoever says that is just plain dumb).

Sounds stupid? There is no universal quit keyboard shortcut in Windows because it works differently than OS X.

<<snipped>>

Are you done copying Chris Pirilio (or whatever his name)? I have seen you copy/paste this post a multiple times but never credit him with it.

[DanielZ]

I installed 7 through Parallels on my MacBook Pro. It wasn't that exciting. Windows 7 is just Vista with more problems and gloss. The only thing Windows 7 did was remind me how much I love Mac OS X.

I wrote about it in my blog a while ago.

[Quillz]

I installed 7 through Parallels on my MacBook Pro. It wasn't that exciting. Windows 7 is just Vista with more problems and gloss. The only thing Windows 7 did was remind me how much I love Mac OS X.

I wrote about it in my blog a while ago.

You're clearly in the minority here, as most of the press surrounding Windows 7 has been very positive so far. Most reviews note that it performs better than both XP and Vista on the same hardware.

Also, it's a beta. You should wait for the final release before making any final judgments. And if it doesn't work out, then at least you tried. Not all operating systems are right for everyone.

However, you're right about Windows 7 being more or less Vista. It's an evolutionary release. Windows 98 was more or less just Windows 95, as well.

[Eric Veteran]

MS' standards are almost nonexistent. I'll leave Windows 7 out because it is unreleased and MS can still find a way to mess up a good thing.

<snipped>

Are you just blindly clicking reply without reading responses?