[production_coordinator]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...&ncid=1729

1. Security, security, security:
2. Internet Explorer 7
3. Righteous eye candy
4. Desktop search
5. Better updates
6. More media
7. Parental controls
8. Better backups
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration
10. Quick setup

Of those things, I see the bidirectional firewall, desktop search [I'm assuming it's MUCH faster than the snail slow search in XP] and better backups as the real selling points... to the end user, I don't feel they are going to have a good reason to upgrade. I realize some of the features are more advanced than OS X 10.4, but desktop search, IE7, more media, parental controls, quick setup, etc. etc. seem like catch-up to OS X.

[Kevin]

What features are more advanced? I'd love to see them.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I realize some of the features are more advanced than OS X 10.4, but desktop search, IE7, more media, parental controls, quick setup, etc. etc. seem like catch-up to OS X.

More advanced? Like?

1. Security, security, security: - OS X really doesn't have any security threat (ignor the last two 'virus' things this week)

2. Internet Explorer 7 - Ill stick with Safari thanks

3. Righteous eye candy - OS X has some really cool eye candy - and works so smoothly. Windows will never be as good, its just not possible unless they virtually re-write the whole OS

4. Desktop search - Spotlight is AWESOME

5. Better updates - You can't get much better than Software Update, which searches your HD for installed Apple apps and finds updates.

6. More media - Like?

7. Parental controls - OK, I dont know if they een exist on OSX (guessin they do), but I dont use them

8. Better backups - .Mac anyone?

9. Peer-to-peer collaboration - huh?

10. Quick setup - yeh, sure......

[SirCastor]

Yeah, I read the article...

10 Reasons Microsoft is doing things that other people have already done.

[jasonsRX7]

Better late than never, I suppose.

[Eriamjh]

1. Security, security, security: OK, 3 points
2. Internet Explorer 7 Unless it counts as security, 0 points
3. Righteous eye candy Better have a machine that can support it (speed & hdwr) 1/2 a point
4. Desktop search No points
5. Better updatesShouldn't need it. No points
6. More media No points
7. Parental controls 1/2 a point (only if you need this)
8. Better backups Wish OSX had this. 1 point
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration IS this file sharing? No points
10. Quick setup It's not faster than not updating. No points

Overall, only 5 points out of a possible 10 (or 12). I was generous on security because Windows needs it. The rest does not warrant spending what will probably be $100 to $200.

The hardware support is the biggest. What will it take to run Vista, anyway?

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

What will it take to run Vista, anyway?

A..

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

5. Better updates - You can't get much better than Software Update, which searches your HD for installed Apple apps and finds updates.

Software Update just searches the Applications folder. I would really like a system-wide software update that would update third-party applications/Shareware/Freeware/Open Source too.

If Vista will do this (and, more importantly, get developers to play along), kudos.

8. Better backups - .Mac anyone?

I think .Mac is a complete waste of money. I resent paying that kind of bread for using a server that really has no special setup you couldn't install yourself or find elsewhere, and basically locking you into this service with their apps.

There are a ton of different network backup solutions, OS X specific and Unix tools. I wish that there was a run-away favorite solution that was accessible to all.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If Vista will do this (and, more importantly, get developers to play along), kudos.

Ha ha! In Windows, you can't even move an app from its default location in Program Files without breaking the shortcuts in the Start menu, and in many cases a bunch of other stuff in the Registry as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Ha ha! In Windows, you can't even move an app from its default location in Program Files without breaking the shortcuts in the Start menu, and in many cases a bunch of other stuff in the Registry as well.

My wish was more in wanting to update all of my software via the same mechanism, not just Apple software, although being able to move apps around in Windows would probably be nice too.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

3. Righteous eye candy - OS X has some really cool eye candy - and works so smoothly. Windows will never be as good, its just not possible unless they virtually re-write the whole OS

.

you obviously havent seen any demos of recent vista eye candy, and have no idea how the desktop works.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think .Mac is a complete waste of money. I resent paying that kind of bread for using a server that really has no special setup you couldn't install yourself or find elsewhere, and basically locking you into this service with their apps.

There are a ton of different network backup solutions, OS X specific and Unix tools. I wish that there was a run-away favorite solution that was accessible to all.

You've just justified .Mac for a lot of people. Backing up with .Mac is easy. THere is no run-away favourite solution for everyone.

In my opinion, psync and an external drive is the best backup solution, but I won't exactly recommend that to my Mom, nor do I think it's the best solution for an office of 50 people.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I find spotlight slow as all hell even on a Dual G5.

[Kevin]

I have heard all these slow spotlight stories, and I just don't get it.

I have a 1.25ghz G4 and it flies. I love it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hayesk

You've just justified .Mac for a lot of people. Backing up with .Mac is easy. THere is no run-away favourite solution for everyone.

In my opinion, psync and an external drive is the best backup solution, but I won't exactly recommend that to my Mom, nor do I think it's the best solution for an office of 50 people.

I don't agree. Backing up to any network volume is incredibly slow with large files and upload bandwidth capped like it is for many ISPs. In many cases, it makes sense to backup to a local HD. In many cases, people only want or need documents backed up which they can easily do to a flash drive or something. Many people are still on dial-up connections.

What we need is a backup solution that will serve all of these needs in an intelligent manner. Because .Mac Backup only does network backups, AFAIK, it is not user friendly to all users. It is a viable network backup solution, that is it. I wouldn't even say it fulfills Apple's target audience, as many of their .Mac subscribers do have extensive mp3, photo, and home-made video collections.

Honestly, I think the best solution here would be a little backup appliance that could be added to your LAN to work over a wireless connection, the form factor of the Mac Mini, no more than $100 or so.

[greenamp]

Man, how much did M$ pay that guy to write that article? It read just like an advertisement.

[jasonsRX7]

If nothing else, the fact that XP is like 6 years old should be a good enough reason.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by meelk

you obviously havent seen any demos of recent vista eye candy, and have no idea how the desktop works.

From the screen movies I have seen they're still polishing the same old turd. And it appears to me the interface has taken a number of steps back from XP as well (who knew such a thing was possible?), including the gigantic, worthless sidebar. They're even copying some of the biggest interface mistakes of OS X's past, like 10.0's fully translucent inactive window title bars.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

From the screen movies I have seen they're still polishing the same old turd. And it appears to me the interface has taken a number of steps back from XP as well (who knew such a thing was possible?), including the gigantic, worthless sidebar. They're even copying some of the biggest interface mistakes of OS X's past, like 10.0's fully translucent inactive window title bars.

the "gigantic worthless sidebar" can be disabled if you want. You can run live sessions of anything you like on it tho, including live video, slide shows, etc. You can also pin these apps to the desktop itself without the sidebar. The translucent windows are also a feature you can fully control the opacity of, and actually they look *really* nice in vista, and with the rendering done by the gpu the effect is fully real time, it looks damn good.

Vista has more, and nicer effects than OSX. Get over it.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...&ncid=1729

1. Security, security, security:
2. Internet Explorer 7
3. Righteous eye candy
4. Desktop search
5. Better updates
6. More media
7. Parental controls
8. Better backups
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration
10. Quick setup

Of those things, I see the bidirectional firewall, desktop search [I'm assuming it's MUCH faster than the snail slow search in XP] and better backups as the real selling points... to the end user, I don't feel they are going to have a good reason to upgrade. I realize some of the features are more advanced than OS X 10.4, but desktop search, IE7, more media, parental controls, quick setup, etc. etc. seem like catch-up to OS X.

Those are good reasons to upgrade to Windows Vista if you currently run Windows XP or older. But those are not reasons for some one to switch from OS X to Vista or to keep some one who is not currently running OS X to switch to OS X.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by meelk

Vista has more, and nicer effects than OSX. Get over it.

There's obviously no accounting for taste. If I had to use such a repulsive interface regularly I'd get myself a nice eletronic typewriter. But since you obviously adore Vista, why in the world do you bother posting here? Are you just a troll?

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I have heard all these slow spotlight stories, and I just don't get it.

I have a 1.25ghz G4 and it flies. I love it.

Same (good) experience here. MDD G4 1.25 GHz.

[greenamp]

The thing about eye candy in an OS is that it needs to be applied very carefully. Does anyone honestly think Apple couldn't make one big glowy flippy peppermint candy OS if they wanted to?

You have to apply the eye candy so that it looks like a finishing touch. A half-second "it was my pleasure to do this task for you!" effect is pure elegance.

Microsofts version of UI elegance can be summed up in 3 words: Annimated Paper Clip. And it really doesn't look like they have strayed much past that concept in Vista. It's eye candy for the sake of being eye candy, so they can write a witty one liner about it on an advert, and show spinny things on a commercial spot.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

There's obviously no accounting for taste. If I had to use such a repulsive interface regularly I'd get myself a nice eletronic typewriter. But since you obviously adore Vista, why in the world do you bother posting here? Are you just a troll?

you'll notice I only post in the lounge. I've posted once or twice in another thread elsewhere for a photoshop benchmark, but thats it.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by greenamp

The thing about eye candy in an OS is that it needs to be applied very carefully. Does anyone honestly think Apple couldn't make one big glowy flippy peppermint candy OS if they wanted to?

You have to apply the eye candy so that it looks like a finishing touch. A half-second "it was my pleasure to do this task for you!" effect is pure elegance.

Microsofts version of UI elegance can be summed up in 3 words: Annimated Paper Clip. And it really doesn't look like they have strayed much past that concept in Vista. It's eye candy for the sake of being eye candy, so they can write a witty one liner about it on an advert, and show spinny things on a commercial spot.

you're missing the importance of MS's new desktop. The user who knows what he is doing is going to have more configuration options regarding every part of the interface than have ever existed before, with the fully programable nature of the desktop. Its going to be like OSX on steroids. You can also dumb it down if you dont want that, the options are there. You can crap on it all you like but in reality it is very widely configurable.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by meelk

you're missing the importance of MS's new desktop. The user who knows what he is doing is going to have more configuration options regarding every part of the interface than have ever existed before, with the fully programable nature of the desktop. Its going to be like OSX on steroids. You can also dumb it down if you dont want that, the options are there. You can crap on it all you like but in reality it is very widely configurable.

If you ask me, MS's sidebar looks like a candied up version of the NeXT shelf.

But seriously, in what way are these configuration options going to be like "OS X on steroids?" Some actual examples, please, because that just sounds like a silly Paul Thurrott statement.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by hayesk

If you ask me, MS's sidebar looks like a candied up version of the NeXT shelf.

But seriously, in what way are these configuration options going to be like "OS X on steroids?" Some actual examples, please, because that just sounds like a silly Paul Thurrott statement.

Direct x desktop, thats vector based. Its going to take about 10 mins from the launch of the final version for anything useful that appears on osx that MS cannot directly copy to be replicated by the aftermarket crowd on vista, quite honestly. This situation will only get worse as steve will present new features at trade shows, for upcoming versions of OSX, and the vista community will jump on them and fully replicate them before the new OSX version even ships.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by meelk

Direct x desktop, thats vector based. Its going to take about 10 mins from the launch of the final version for anything useful that appears on osx that MS cannot directly copy to be replicated by the aftermarket crowd on vista, quite honestly. This situation will only get worse as steve will present new features at trade shows, for upcoming versions of OSX, and the vista community will jump on them and fully replicate them before the new OSX version even ships.

You really do not understand, or perhaps only fail to appreciate, the difference between the poorly crafted, ugly, ad hoc "features" of which you speak and truly elegant design. But hey, M$ needs its fanboys too.

[ghporter]

Given the choice between upgrading to Vista and doing something else, I'll do something else. I am very tired of Microsoft deciding what hardware I need, or that the hardware I already have that works just fine thanks is obsolete simply because they can make this new stuff do cool tricks. Nope, ain't happening here, and I've been a Windows user since (yes I'm old) Windows version 1. I do not 'need' a supercharged video card, nor a platform that supports more than 4GB of physical memory. What I NEED is a platform that does not require frequent updates, is easy for me to manage (I should point out that my BS is in Computer Science-this stuff should NOT be hard for me, but even XP is a pain more often than not), and does not cost eleventy billion dollars for the new software.

When I can no longer make use of Windows XP for whatever reason, then "Hello Fedora!"

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You really do not understand, or perhaps only fail to appreciate, the difference between the poorly crafted, ugly, ad hoc "features" of which you speak and truly elegant design. But hey, M$ needs its fanboys too.

you apparently didnt even read what I wrote. Perhaps youd care to read that part about features again. And dont drop "fanboy" like its a meaningful insult on the internet.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Given the choice between upgrading to Vista and doing something else, I'll do something else. I am very tired of Microsoft deciding what hardware I need, or that the hardware I already have that works just fine thanks is obsolete simply because they can make this new stuff do cool tricks. Nope, ain't happening here, and I've been a Windows user since (yes I'm old) Windows version 1. I do not 'need' a supercharged video card, nor a platform that supports more than 4GB of physical memory. What I NEED is a platform that does not require frequent updates, is easy for me to manage (I should point out that my BS is in Computer Science-this stuff should NOT be hard for me, but even XP is a pain more often than not), and does not cost eleventy billion dollars for the new software.

When I can no longer make use of Windows XP for whatever reason, then "Hello Fedora!"

well, those are all personal opinions. Quite honestly the cost thing is rather balanced. MS doesnt update as often as apple does, but the OS costs more. Apple brings out a new version of OSX every what, year? fourteen months?

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by meelk

you apparently didnt even read what I wrote. Perhaps youd care to read that part about features again. And dont drop "fanboy" like its a meaningful insult on the internet.

It's fanbois...thought you would know that...

[ink]

*yawn*

[Kerrigan]

Which of the 8 Vista versions is the original post in reference to?

[awaspaas]

To be honest, Vista does look like fun, and I won't protest if it gets installed on my work computer. But are any of those reasons up there compelling enough to get somebody to switch to the Windows platform? I seriously doubt it. And plus, I'm sure their upgrade numbers will be nowhere near where XP's were, because of the ridiculous hardware requirements - how many grandmas and families with an integrated-graphics PC are really gonna go out and get a video card so their windows can be transparent and fly around and stuff?

[11011001]

I have to agree with meelk. Compared to the OS X Window Manager (Quartz etc), the Window Manager in Windows is superior. Before you flame me, I suggest you guys actually read some technical specifications, learn some API, and look at some reviews/articles targeted at developers.

I don't however see why Apple cannot catch up. They have been moving towards things like resolution independence. I can also see Quartz Extreme 2D being fixed. Finally, it only seems logical that Quartz Composer, and the Core Image/Video APIs are going to be even more beefed out in future versions. The future certainly isn't bleak for OS X on this front.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by meelk

well, those are all personal opinions. Quite honestly the cost thing is rather balanced. MS doesnt update as often as apple does, but the OS costs more. Apple brings out a new version of OSX every what, year? fourteen months?

Eighteen months for the last interval. But who cares - you don't have to upgrade every 18 months. 10.3 is a perfectly good OS today.

[besson3c]

Meelk:

The point of the "eye-candy" is to convey meaning and provide visual cues, not provide a sexy laundry list of junk to appease geeks like us.

If you want to get into the merits of the OS X eye candy vs. Vista, you'd have to get into the human computer interaction/interface design aspects of it.

Transparent title bars do *nothing* to convey any sort of meaning. In fact, they probably make the text printed on them less legible, thus providing *less* functionality (this was my impressions based on the last screen shots I saw).

For the most part, the OS X eye candy exists to provide a sense of fluency and feedback - it is good interface design and enhances the user experience, which a few possible exceptions.

What exactly does Vista contribute as far as providing useful feedback with this junk? I've yet to see anything on Vista that didn't appear to be flashy fluff for geeks.

[11011001]

Besides the purely technical aspects of Vista's eye candy, I agree with besson3c.

Looking at a lot of the windows programs out there, with their custom skins and whatnot, I am almost afraid these Vista technologies will become the PowerPoint of presentations (pointless animations, transitions and effects).

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by meelk

Direct x desktop, thats vector based. Its going to take about 10 mins from the launch of the final version for anything useful that appears on osx that MS cannot directly copy to be replicated by the aftermarket crowd on vista, quite honestly. This situation will only get worse as steve will present new features at trade shows, for upcoming versions of OSX, and the vista community will jump on them and fully replicate them before the new OSX version even ships.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Why does being vector based facilitate magical instant copying of features? Have you ever developed software, because I'm dying to hear an explanation for this one.

Honestly, how does a vector-based desktop make me more productive? It won't make apps launch faster, it won't make file organization easier. It won't make working between apps easier.

Not only that, a vector based file browser is not "more advanced" as you claim. Vector-based desktop interfaces have been experimented with for years. It's not new, nor is it "advanced." It's just another way to implement graphics. The only advantages it offers is resolution independence and storage efficiency which is of dubious importance for graphics that will primarily be used on a screen and rarely printed or resized.

When Apple introduced Exposé, it made us more productive because it brought a better way to deal with Windows. Dashboard is productive because users can quickly hide and show information without getting in the way of the running applications, and without using up screen space.

What's a vector-based desktop going to do for us that will change the way we work with computers?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hayesk

Ha! Ha! Ha! Why does being vector based facilitate magical instant copying of features? Have you ever developed software, because I'm dying to hear an explanation for this one.

Honestly, how does a vector-based desktop make me more productive? It won't make apps launch faster, it won't make file organization easier. It won't make working between apps easier.

Not only that, a vector based file browser is not "more advanced" as you claim. Vector-based desktop interfaces have been experimented with for years. It's not new, nor is it "advanced." It's just another way to implement graphics. The only advantages it offers is resolution independence and storage efficiency which is of dubious importance for graphics that will primarily be used on a screen and rarely printed or resized.

When Apple introduced Exposé, it made us more productive because it brought a better way to deal with Windows. Dashboard is productive because users can quickly hide and show information without getting in the way of the running applications, and without using up screen space.

What's a vector-based desktop going to do for us that will change the way we work with computers?

Being vector based has nothing to do with increasing productivity, but with conveying meaning and providing contextual visual feedback. It is simply a tool, and can be used to help reduce the learning curve among less advanced users if the communication is effective. It can also be overused and abused.

Generally speaking, advanced users like us do not benefit as much from this sort of feedback, because we 'get it". However, we are the minority.

[hayesk]

besson3c, I think we sort of agree. Vector graphics are a tool.

However, I strongly disagree with with meelk, that the adoption of vector graphics will make a UI easier to use or make users more productive, or that it allows instant copying of features.

Will there be a desktop UI feature down the road that will be better implemented with vector graphics? Probably, as I can think of one that would be slightly better. But I don't see any in Vista.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hayesk

besson3c, I think we sort of agree. Vector graphics are a tool.

However, I strongly disagree with with meelk, that the adoption of vector graphics will make a UI easier to use or make users more productive, or that it allows instant copying of features.

Will there be a desktop UI feature down the road that will be better implemented with vector graphics? Probably, as I can think of one that would be slightly better. But I don't see any in Vista.

So, are you saying that the Vector support in Quartz hasn't been useful in enhancing OS X?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by meelk

well, those are all personal opinions. Quite honestly the cost thing is rather balanced. MS doesnt update as often as apple does, but the OS costs more. Apple brings out a new version of OSX every what, year? fourteen months?

I couldn't help but laugh when you wrote this one meelk.

FYI, OS X updates

10.1 - September 25, 2001
<11 months>
10.2 - August 24, 2002
<14 months>
10.3 - October 24, 2003
<18 months>
10.4 - April 29, 2005

See a trend here? They are slowing down... also, Microsoft has said that they are going to start developing software in a similar way to apple.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a57e987a-25...00e2511c8.html

[meelk]

Originally Posted by hayesk

Ha! Ha! Ha! Why does being vector based facilitate magical instant copying of features? Have you ever developed software, because I'm dying to hear an explanation for this one.

Honestly, how does a vector-based desktop make me more productive? It won't make apps launch faster, it won't make file organization easier. It won't make working between apps easier.

Not only that, a vector based file browser is not "more advanced" as you claim. Vector-based desktop interfaces have been experimented with for years. It's not new, nor is it "advanced." It's just another way to implement graphics. The only advantages it offers is resolution independence and storage efficiency which is of dubious importance for graphics that will primarily be used on a screen and rarely printed or resized.

When Apple introduced Exposé, it made us more productive because it brought a better way to deal with Windows. Dashboard is productive because users can quickly hide and show information without getting in the way of the running applications, and without using up screen space.

What's a vector-based desktop going to do for us that will change the way we work with computers?

its not the vector based part that matters, its the direct x part. jesus, you people are incredibly dense. Expose in its present form is something that will be adapted in no time by someone in the community for vista, and freely. I dont know why this is hard to grasp. The entire gui, being direct x is going open up a world of user interface enhancements, and the ability to copy anything *anyone*, Apple or any other company included comes up with to revolutionize productivity as well as eye candy.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I couldn't help but laugh when you wrote this one meelk.

FYI, OS X updates

10.1 - September 25, 2001
<11 months>
10.2 - August 24, 2002
<14 months>
10.3 - October 24, 2003
<18 months>
10.4 - April 29, 2005

See a trend here? They are slowing down... also, Microsoft has said that they are going to start developing software in a similar way to apple.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a57e987a-25...00e2511c8.html

so you laughed because I was more right than wrong?

[Kevin]

I remember when XP was supposed to be a OS X killer

[volcano]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Microsofts version of UI elegance can be summed up in 3 words: Animated Paper Clip. And it really doesn't look like they have strayed much past that concept in Vista. It's eye candy for the sake of being eye candy, so they can write a witty one liner about it on an advert, and show spinny things on a commercial spot.

I completely forgot about the infamous Microsoft Office paperclip! Oh, lordy. I hope I never see that devious creature ever again.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by angelmb

Same (good) experience here. MDD G4 1.25 GHz.

800Mhz G4, 256MB of Ram, runs fine until I start having a bunch of programs open at once then its slow. Just like Windows, OS X likes being a fresh copy, not a upgrade. Sure its not weekly like Windows but I bet a majority of the people that are having problems did upgrades and have not done a clean wipe and install in over a year or longer.

[JoshuaZ]

Man, I hear that VISTA will have a feature where it allows you to sell your soul via a 'One Click' interface, much like shopping on Amazon.com. Gates recently said "We felt that our users really want quick and easy access to soul selling, and we see VISTA as the next logical step in this time honored business."