[selkirk]

I am biased and uninformed, but I have been curious about windows XP.

Here is an informed review which I found useful:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp.asp

As well, as a followup that specifically compares Windows XP and OS X and refutes claims of bias:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_osx.asp

Here are my impressions: (I haven't used XP at all)

The start menu has been improved, but I think the dock is a bit better for the same reason that having the menus at the top of the screen is better than having them at the top of the window. Applications are more quickly accessible in the dock than they are under a programs sub-menu. (or under an apple menu for that matter)
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_013.gif

"In the past, numerous running windows would clog the Taskbar with buttons so small that it was impossible to tell them apart." So it appears that their solution is that when space gets crowded, they switch from a one window per taskbar button model to a one application per taskbar button model. I'll have to see it in action, but I wonder if the switch might be disconcerting. If you close the window that caused the switch, will it "unstack" and switch back to the one window per button model? I am skeptical about this.
Again, I like the way Apple handles this problem with the Dock by using only an icon. (I do think they should watermark minimized windows with the application Icon to further distinguish between them.)
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_014.gif

A dog? Didn't they learn with the paperclip? The zombie of MS Bob rises again.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_012.gif

Its also unfortunate that the media player only creates their proprietary format and not MP3s. "In short, Windows XP is a digital media powerhouse, offering true end-to-end solutions for all common digital media tasks" What if I have a CD I want to transfer to my MP3 player?

I do like that they support capturing images from scanners in the OS. I wish OS X would do the same. The software that came with my scanner sucked and I don't ever expect an OS X version to be done.

I like the task panes:
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_009.gif

The task panels use some screen user interface, but I think that this may be the most important UI "innovation" in XP. Since beginning users have trouble with contextual menus, they have essentially moved contextual menus to a spot where they are always visible and accessible.

So, it seems that both operating systems are stable, backward compatible, and support essentially the same feature set with only minor variations. It seems that both OSes have never been more similar than they are in the 10.1 and XP versions.

So MS has completed their multi-year merging of the 95 and NT, while Apple has completed their multi-year merging of OS 9 and NeXT.

I think it will be interesting to see how they will compete and differentiate themselves in their next versions.

Apple has talked about being a "digital hub," and seems to have some advantages in that area, but Windows XP also has digital media features and MS is spending a billion dollars to market them.

Microsoft has talked about their ".NET" strategy, but I don't think anyone, including most of MS, actually knows what that means.

Anyone else have any comments on these articles?

[KidRed]

Yea, it's about XP and I doubt many Mac users care for it.

Do we need all these X vs XP comparison topics? If you like XP, then buy it, otherwise let's stick to discussing X please

[Workers Comp Wampa]

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_osx.asp

Wow, this guy is a real idiot. He thinks that XP is easier to use because it is simpler to find a way to change the screen resolution. he also thinks that Windows 95 was ahead with the system prefs as you can easily change the desktop picture.

That is all the examples he gives.

[michaelb]

Originally posted by Workers Comp Wampa:
<STRONG>http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_osx.asp

Wow, this guy is a real idiot. He thinks that XP is easier to use because it is simpler to find a way to change the screen resolution.</STRONG>

I agree. Sadly, however, under the guise of "unbiased reporting," people like this do indeed influence the novice in making a purchasing decision when buying a new computer.

In this case, he is not even factually correct, and to prove it I've made the following comparison of steps required to change the screen resolution on each of the OSes.

Windows XP on the left take 4 steps and requires the user to visually scan many items in the process.

Mac OS X takes 3 steps and has a less visually cluttered approach.






(BTW, I prepared this comparison in Mac OS X while running Windows XP using Virtual PC Test Drive. 10 points if you can tell whether XP can emulate OS X...!)

[J�rg Meyer-Zajontz]

And under 10.1 you just have to pull down the monitors menu and thats it.
But who changes the resolution of the monitor. I set it once and only changes it when a game doesnt set it back properly.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by J�rg Meyer-Zajontz:
<STRONG>And under 10.1 you just have to pull down the monitors menu and thats it.
But who changes the resolution of the monitor. I set it once and only changes it when a game doesnt set it back properly.</STRONG>

Seriously! I hate it when Winzombies use the 'right click' to change resolution argument. When do you ever use it?

But one thing to point out is if the use doesn't have the monitor in the menu bar or the dock then both XP and X.1 have a 4 click route to res change. But X.1 still has ALOT more going for it.

[selkirk]

Step 1: Click on the Displays Icon in the dock
Step 2: Select your resolution
Step 3: (soft chuckle) There is no step 3!

[electroJerm]

Originally posted by michaelb:
<STRONG>
(BTW, I prepared this comparison in Mac OS X while running Windows XP using Virtual PC Test Drive. 10 points if you can tell whether XP can emulate OS X...!)</STRONG>

Off topic, but just curious: How well does Windows XP run under VPC test drive? I'd imagine it would take forever to start up. What about VPC for OS 9?

I've read a lot of this guys stuff. For a while I was debating between buying a Gateway with win ME (and upgrading to XP) vs OS X (and uping to 10.1). His Windows reviews are nice, but I disagree with his neutrality. The fact that he favors windows is evident in that he operates a windows fan/review site. He comments that the system preferences looks like a version of windows from two years ago. Funny how he didn't mention that whatever version of windows he was talking about took the MacOS Control Panels, chopped off the "s", got rid of the customizability, and had suddenly invented the amazing "Control Panel." He also champions the fact that XP is task based and OS X is desktop based. What has made him the expert on this? I have nothing but a temp folder on my desktop. All of the important "tasks" I need are neatly stored in the dock. He also brags about the Start menu. How MS has done research with users to find what makes the most sense. I'm sorry, but Start menu is nothing more than an over hyped, over emphasized MacOS 9.x (or 8.x or 7.x or 6.x) Apple menu. Sorry MS, but Apple has been there, done that, and they have moved on, and think different about one size fits all menus now. You could go on and on with this, suffice it to say, I'm not satisfied with his excuses. He shoulda just changed his original review and left it at that.

[xi_hyperon]

I don't mind the discussions going on about OS X and XP here; actually I think they are pretty interesting. And no, I don't want to start using XP. If people want to debate about the two platforms, it *is* in the context of OS X. There's nothing wrong with ongoing threads like this.

Having said that, most of the original Windows UI blunders are still in XP, even the basic ones which are universally agreed to be big no-no's. I don't disbelieve that MS has done user testing, but I'm not convinced that they followed input which contradicted their fundamental but misguided design philosophy. XP is little more than classic windows UI shrinkwrapped in garish colors.

os x is better. try the move of a window or a resize in XP, and see, the graphics engine still the same.
select more than 6 items on a window or try clicking a listbox item, the cursor gets very slow.
you see the inconsistency with of interface with old 9x applications?
8 sec... to change the theme.
the batery icon don't appears on my friend toshiba portable... even after checked the option on power managment...
use XP more than 30 minutes, and see the change - there's no change. you feel the same when used os x? no!

long live to OS X!

[v0id7]

i hate these threads! quit starting em!

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by v0id7:
<STRONG>i hate these threads! quit starting em!</STRONG>

Hey mr. newbie, if you don't like the thread, you are always welcome to go to another one of your choice.

He is pretty famous for his totally impartial, jaded, and factually incorrect view, see also wininfo.org (I think)

He is the Ryan Meader of the PC world.. Just much... Much... Much... MUCH worse.

[theolein]

I actually get pissed off with both sides acting like five year olds(Yes I know, I do too often) saying "mine is better than yours". WinXP defintely looks a lot beter than Win2K and might very well be easier to use. The integrated ultimedia features(scanning,grabbing still and video) will be liked by users. On the other hand I think that their remote login feature will be a standard for hackers to get in- and this because it isn't an opensource tool like ssh(which has also been hacked, but was patched quickly and effectively and there was no spin control attempts, unlike MS's IIS patches and the code-red thing). The icons and the interface look very good actually, and seem like they will appeal to users.

I think Apple has it's work cut out for them because OSX's interface has produced a lot of wierd side effects in programmes whose GUI has'nt been properly redesigned to fit inside the AQUA metaphor. Some examples of this are Painter 7 ,Illustrator, and Canvas8. I like all of these programmes, but they definitely do run into the problem that Moki was talking about, that Most developers port not only the internals of their software, but also as much of the GUI as possible. I Love OSX and think it will have a marvelous future, bbut Apple could help out by introducing/allowing themes which people could use to better fit in legacy GUI designs as well as making better use of OSX services and the media capabilities of OSX.

[xMetal]

Can you imagine that backlash from designers about that default XP color scheme? Just think how much they all freaked out about the 10 square mm of color present in Aqua.

"I can't concentrate on my work with all that blue!"

Oh, wait, graphic designers don't use windows do they?

And I love how the trash can (sorry, Recycle Bin) is now in the lower right corner of the screen. Funny.

Loks pretty good for windows, and I'll probably install it on one of my machines eventually, but I won't give up my mac for it.

[selkirk]

Originally posted by xMetal:
<STRONG>Can you imagine that backlash from designers about that default XP color scheme? Just think how much they all freaked out about the 10 square mm of color present in Aqua.

"I can't concentrate on my work with all that blue!"
</STRONG>

Imagine if they had adopted this color scheme: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_006.gif
Instead of Aqua, they could call it Seasick.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by selkirk:
<STRONG>
Imagine if they had adopted this color scheme: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_006.gif
Instead of Aqua, they could call it Seasick. </STRONG>

actually that looks better then the "Luna" color scheme. At least there isn't the stark contrast with that big ugly start button to distract you with.

[Workers Comp Wampa]

Originally posted by selkirk:
<STRONG>
Imagine if they had adopted this color scheme: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_006.gif
Instead of Aqua, they could call it Seasick. </STRONG>

More like Gangrene.

[BuonRotto]

That green was an "in" color this past year. The problem with that scheme as a default at least is that it's too low contrast and washed out, whereas Luna as is is oversaturated, therefor loud to some. As much as I like Aqua more, I don't think Luna's looks are as bad as some have said. I've never ever enjoyed the dark gray of 95/NT. It makes work look like that drab scenery in 1984.

[Workers Comp Wampa]

I think the silver one is kinda nice: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/r...m_home_007.gif

[Macintosh]

XP is an uninspired pirated OS. It i made by people that have no incentive to do great things. How many years will pass until MS hangs it up. Its been great the competition but nobody competes anymore. It is all about the money to MS and therefore they make a product that makes them more money. Apple has a fight on its hands and its software is inspired and REAL.

"Come writers and critics who prophesies with your pens and keep your eyes wide the chance wont come again and don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin and there is no tellin who that its namin for the loser now will be later to win times they a-changin."

[michaelb]

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
<STRONG>But one thing to point out is if the use doesn't have the monitor in the menu bar or the dock then both XP and X.1 have a 4 click route to res change.</STRONG>

No, that was the point of my comparison table! (fourth post)

For the *novice* user who doesn't yet have the docklet or menu addon installed, Mac OS X *still* has fewer steps, despite the so-called novice-friendly "Wizard approach" of the XP interface.

As you can see in the screenshots, Mac OS X takes the novice exactly 3 mouse clicks and a minimum of visual scanning to change the screen resolution.

Windows XP takes the novice 5 mouse clicks and a slider movement, plus much more reading of the screen to achieve their goal.

Who cares? The Windows XP juggernaut is going to try to roll over OS X with this sort of stuff - claims that XP makes a Windows/PC just as friendly as a Mac. It doesn't.

In this area and many others, the OS X interface is fundamentally more suited to a novice who just wants to get going with the minimum of stuffing around.

(electroJerm: VirtualPC for X running XP on a G4/450 is usable, although more sluggish than using 98 - about half as fast I'd say).

[TNproud2b]

You can change resolution in XP (98,98se,ME, too) by right clicking anywhere on the desktop, then clicking 'properties', and finally 'settings'. Moving the slider could be considered the 4th step.

Depending on your video card, there will probably be an icon in the system tray that allows 'one click' resolution change...mine does. A 2-second mouse-over will launch a list of resoltions to choose from - I simply click the desired resolution.

A newbie would easily figure it out, and it will aleady be in the system tray on first launch of the OS.

[one]

Originally posted by michaelb:
<STRONG>Windows XP take 4 steps and requires the user to visually scan many items in the process.</STRONG>

Not to quibble, but I'd call it 6 steps:

- step two has two steps (click control panels THEN click appearances)
- you don't mention the final step: dismissing the panel.

Hell, having to move a slider to change resolution ought to earn somebody a bitch-slap, on general principles. What innovation! (what innovation?)

And, of course (as selkirk pointed out), a resolution switch its TWO clicks away (and yes, there is no third thing ).

[one]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>You can change resolution in XP (98,98se,ME, too) by right clicking anywhere on the desktop, then clicking 'properties', and finally 'settings'. Moving the slider could be considered the 4th step.</STRONG>

*Could* be the 4th step? Why bother to get here if you're not gonna DO anything, eh? It's still 4 clicks, not 3.

<STRONG>America
We don't burn cows here</STRONG>

Sure we do. It's called meat.

Look into it....

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by michaelb:
<STRONG>
No, that was the point of my comparison table! (fourth post)
</STRONG>

But this is one flaw I wish I didn't' have to point out. This is only true if you leave the system prefs in the dock. I don't. I consider it too easy to access and not worth the space in my dock.

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: juanvaldes ]

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: juanvaldes ]