[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

People that use Windows are "users," while people that use Macs are "fanboys."

And I'm curious as to what makes Windows Live Photo Gallery so much better than iPhoto (besides a way-awesomer name). The only difference I could find was the ability to tag. iPhoto can import, organize, edit, slideshow, and publish very well. Not to mention that it works with iMovie so I can import any of my iPhoto pictures/videos directly into iMovie without opening iPhoto.

I don't at all like the way that iPhoto creates multiple copies of each photo - thumbnail copies, resized copies, etc. Now, it may be that the newest version doesn't do this. However, the version that I used (whatever comes with iLife 06) did this.

I also don't like how iPhoto just automatically organizes your photos by date. Sometimes you might not want to look at your stuff like that. I like how Windows Live Photo Gallery let me see a tree view of my actual My Pictures directory. I don't think iPhoto does this (or at least, it didn't).

I also really, really like how Windows Live Photo Gallery automatically separates out your photos to import by content and date, and you can tweak it from there (instead of importing everything at once).

I prefer Picasa to both for its non-destructive photo editing capabilities, but I've moved to WLPG because of its integrated Flickr import tool.

It could be that iPhoto does everything that WLPG does, with whatever the latest revision is. Even if that's the case, you can't really go so far as to say that iPhoto makes it easier to manage your photos. WLPG is about as easy as it gets.

I think that we are quite quickly getting to the point where Windows and OS X are providing the exact same features and functionality, with the exact same ease of use. I have Vista Enterprise installed on my work laptop. I thought it would be terrible (the few times I've played with it at Best Buy and whatnot, I've not been too impressed), but now I love it. It's not nearly as bad as all the bad publicity says it is, and it's got some pretty rad improvements over XP (which I'm already very happy with).

I'm not really a snobby Windows user (at least, I hope not, given that I own two Macs and currently have four more in my possession) - I just find the Get A Mac ads to be inaccurate and misleading. Nearly every so-called problem they claim with Windows is either nonexistent anymore (e.g. the "digital cameras work better with a Mac" line of crap), or aren't nearly as big problems as they want you to think (you're not actually going to get viruses if you just run AV software and don't click "yes" to every toolbar installer when using IE, not to mention that people WOULD look for exploits in OS X if it had a big enough market share to cause mass damage).

I've used OS X, Linux, Windows XP, and Windows Vista enough to know what works and what doesn't work well in each. I can't really make a generalized statement that one is universally better than the others in all use case scenarios...I don't think anyone can, if they look at it objectively.

[turtle777]

Just wanted to add: those ads are absolutely retarded.

Good job, M$. You fairly represented yourself and Windows.

-t

[paul w]

Silly me for expecting to read a discussion of Microsoft and Apple's marketing.

^^
Nobody cares if you like Windows Live Photo Gallery.

[besson3c]

shif: I think you can make generalizations when it comes to servers. While Windows servers are good for some things, particularly hosting certain applications, they are horrible or non-starters in other areas. The Desktop thing is too subjective... Either you are into the document centric thing or you are into the application centric thing. The user friendliness of OS X is a harder sell to people who are already used to a particular computing environment, and after a certain point the technical benefits become abstract when all a user wants to do is run certain applications. Servers, on the other hand, either they do the job or they don't.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

shif: I think you can make generalizations when it comes to servers. While Windows servers are good for some things, particularly hosting certain applications, they are horrible or non-starters in other areas. The Desktop thing is too subjective... Either you are into the document centric thing or you are into the application centric thing. The user friendliness of OS X is a harder sell to people who are already used to a particular computing environment, and after a certain point the technical benefits become abstract when all a user wants to do is run certain applications. Servers, on the other hand, either they do the job or they don't.

Very true. I've been using Windows Explorer for file management since Windows 95. Trying to use the Finder in the same way is nearly impossible. If you start out with a Mac OS, you can move through them easily, just like moving through various versions of Windows is easy for longtime Windows users.

It may have been that, back in the days of Win95 and Win98, System 7 and OS 8 were much better for certain tasks. These days, though, they're really on par with each other. It's just a matter of personal preference more than anything, which is why I can't really say that OS X is easier than Windows.

WRT servers, I completely agree. Windows Server is good for certain things. It's great, for instance, at running an ASP.NET web server. I hear it does Active Directory stuff pretty well.

But for a different web technology, like PHP or Java, you're going to be better off using Linux or another UNIX OS, like Solaris. I would doubt that OS X Server is a better choice for an enterprise environment than something like Solaris or RHEL - but I bet it's pretty great in an all-Mac environment, like a graphic design firm.

And @ paul w - I was merely answering Laminar's query about my preference of Windows Live Photo Gallery. There's no reason to be snide about it.

[besson3c]

If you want to use a Windows programming language, obviously Windows is where it's at. Active Directory does a lot of handy things, but it's essentially a Microsoft modified LDAP, so you could do many of those things under OpenLDAP. OS X Server is definitely not well suited for big enterprise. For running a non-Exchange IMAP server, DNS, DHCP, mail relay, LDAP/Kerberos, network appliance, heavy database server, etc. it's not like we can even have some of these arguments about platform superiority, there are some areas where one OS or the other doesn't even compete at all... The debate is arguably more clear cut on the server end of things.

[- - e r i k - -]

Shif. I think it's fair to say that you are a nerd, no? You enjoy a one to one relationship with your FILES that are simply not needed in modern computing. I grew up with this as well, but I have learnt to appreciate that micromanaging my files is a task that the computer is much better suited for. If iPhoto wants to generate thumbnail files to speed up browsing a huge dataset, why should I care? If it wants to preserve the original files when I do edits so I can always revert to it, isn't that better than destructive editing*? If iTunes wants to sort my files in a hierarchy that is different from what I used to do, should it really matter when the specialised browser is infinitely better than a tree-structure?

Micromanaging files made sense back in the old days when you had so much fewer of them. With todays huge datasets and rich media, specialised browsing is the way to go.

* I use Aperture which is even better at non-destructive edits using recipes, rather than duplicate files.

[Railroader]

This ad creeps me out a little:

[Laminar]

[osiris]

MS could probably narrow their sentiments into a few simple one liners:

"You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake."

"You really don't have much of a choice if you want to use a REAL computer."

"Everybody's using it - so shut up and get in line to get yours."

"MACS suck. End of story."


and to steal from Laminar,

"In case you hadn't noticed, we've already won."

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

So I emailed [email protected] today, since it shows that as an email address on the ads. Turns out there is no [email protected]. Leave it to M$.

Gates is, famously, billg.

[olePigeon]

The email in the ad is [email protected]

[mdc]

Originally Posted by osiris 

"MACS suck. End of story."

Should be "MAC's suck"

[ghporter]

"And, unlike Apple, the short-tempered megalomaniac who founded Microsoft has retired." They may be onto something there...

[ort888]

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

And just like that... Apple responds and completely bitch-slaps Microsoft.

[analogika]

Ouch.

[turtle777]

They're great.

-t

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by ort888 

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

And just like that... Apple responds and completely bitch-slaps Microsoft.

F'n brilliant.

[iM@k]

JESUS F#@^%ING CHRIST! I never actually thought they'd do it!

I can't believe Apple is retaliating! Good for them!

The way "Ballsner" was being a total douche bag last week before the town hall event was a cry for MS to be bitch slapped!

[Tiresias]

The first one with Seinfeld was not that funny, but it seemed like it was the set up for a funny sequel—like the first 15 minutes of Seinfeld before things get hilarious. Then the next one came out, and it was like, what? Totally unfunny. In fact, it was not just unfunny, it was what A. O. Scott called "anti-funny", a term he coined to describe Mike Myers "Love Guru" in a review for the NY times. Anti-funny: so unfunny you are left wondering if you will ever laugh again.

[mdc]

John Gruber posted the following regarding the V Word advert.

Apple’s new “V Word” commercial is rather interesting. On the surface it’s typical “Get a Mac” comedy. But the message is actually meta-mockery of Microsoft’s recent rebranding push. Apple’s calling Microsoft out for something that is obvious but which I hadn’t really thought about until seeing this spot — that they’re no longer mentioning “Vista” by name but talking only about “Windows” generically. The “Windows 7” moniker fits in with this.

“Vista” has turned into such poison, marketing-wise, that even Microsoft is dropping it.

I have to agree with him.

[sek929]

I used Vista (Home Premium 32-bit) yesterday for a long period of time. Not my first use of Vista, but my first time using it to get stuff done, rather than just clicking around.

First off the computer was configured with 4GBs of RAM, who knows why because Vista 32-bit only sees ~3GB.

Secondly, the new design is terrible, and all the transparent jazz makes XP's 'fischer price' interface look professional.

Thirdly, I got Windows Explorer to quit three times, IE7 brought the machine to it's knees twice, and it lost a wireless connection out of the blue and refused to re-connect for hours. Then once I gave up it started working again.

Maybe it senses my Mac-using hands, either way, I despised every minute using that computer.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Shif. I think it's fair to say that you are a nerd, no? You enjoy a one to one relationship with your FILES that are simply not needed in modern computing. I grew up with this as well, but I have learnt to appreciate that micromanaging my files is a task that the computer is much better suited for. If iPhoto wants to generate thumbnail files to speed up browsing a huge dataset, why should I care? If it wants to preserve the original files when I do edits so I can always revert to it, isn't that better than destructive editing*? If iTunes wants to sort my files in a hierarchy that is different from what I used to do, should it really matter when the specialised browser is infinitely better than a tree-structure?

Micromanaging files made sense back in the old days when you had so much fewer of them. With todays huge datasets and rich media, specialised browsing is the way to go.

* I use Aperture which is even better at non-destructive edits using recipes, rather than duplicate files.

I have loads of files, but I find it much quicker to use a single application to manage all of them. Windows Explorer provides this functionality. And, FWIW Picasa and Windows Live Photo Gallery both do non-destructive editing. Picasa stores edits in a .ini file (thereby not creating duplicate images unless you tell it to export the edited image to a new file); I don't know how WLPG does it, but it's non-destructive.

At any rate, when you allow a specific application to manage the location and organization of your files, it makes it far more difficult when you want to migrate to a new application (or operating system). If I let iTunes manage all my music, and I don't know what the directory structure is, what if I want to use foobar2000 in Windows, or MacAmp Lite in OS X? Suddenly, everything is chaotic because I never had real control over where everything was going, and now I have to try to adapt to whatever file and directory structure the software decided to implement.

It's not that my data isn't a mess - it is, to be certain - but it's a somewhat ORGANIZED mess. I know where to start looking for things, and I don't have to be dependent on a specific application to find what I'm looking for. I just prefer it that way.

One of the absolute biggest ways that Windows trumps OS X (and has since Windows 95, even) is Windows Explorer. It simply runs rings around Finder. I get the feeling that part of why Apple has made their applications do all the file management is because Finder is such a piece of crap. When you have a shitty file management application, of course you're going to want the apps to do it for you. It's too much of a headache otherwise. When you have a good file management app, however, it's painless to maintain control over where your files are going.

Plus, when you start doing other things with your files, it's a lot easier when you already know where they are on the hard drive. For instance, when you want to send something via SFTP or AIM file transfer to someone, or when you want to work with text files in an editor like UltraEdit-32 (which has a file tree browser built in).

The other issue comes when you try to jump into using an application that forces its own directory structure, when you've already been doing it a different way for a long time. I've had a digital camera since 2002. I've only been using Windows Live Photo Gallery since I put Vista on my laptop this past April. I definitely don't want an app going in and moving around files that have been in their current locations for a long time - I know where they are and don't want them to move.

I do think that Microsoft tried to get into the advertising wars far too late, but I also have noticed that people bash Vista without really giving it a fair chance. I'd be lying if I didn't say that every single person I know who has really tried Vista (e.g. used it every day for every activity for at least a week or more) has ended up switching to it. It got a lot of crap at the beginning, but most of the issues have been worked out, and it's actually a pretty rad operating system. No matter how much die-hard Mac users want to deny it, Windows is neck-and-neck with OS X in usability, features, and functionality at this point. It's more about personal preference than objective superiority in many cases (although I'd argue that even objectively, Windows Explorer is a better file manager than Finder).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

One of the absolute biggest ways that Windows trumps OS X (and has since Windows 95, even) is Windows Explorer. It simply runs rings around Finder. . . .

No matter how much die-hard Mac users want to deny it, Windows is neck-and-neck with OS X in usability, features, and functionality at this point. It's more about personal preference than objective superiority in many cases (although I'd argue that even objectively, Windows Explorer is a better file manager than Finder).

I can't even begin to tell you how much I disagree with those sentiments. I can't stand Explorer, and I can barely tolerate running apps on Windows. I'm looking to sell my business Dell for a MBP soon.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I can't even begin to tell you how much I disagree with those sentiments. I can't stand Explorer, and I can barely tolerate running apps on Windows. I'm looking to sell my business Dell for a MBP soon.

What apps do you dislike running in Windows? I mean, stuff that your average user uses - web browsing, chatting, word processing, etc. - is pretty much the same between Windows, OS X, and even Linux.

What do you dislike about Windows Explorer that's different from Finder?

I won't deny that there's a personal preference one has for one UI over another, but as far as built in features, functionality, and stability are concerned, I'd say that OS X and Vista are equal. I'm also trying to look at it objectively, which means I'm not really looking at the subtle nuances of the UI (e.g. transparency, little animations, etc.), because those pander to specific subjective preferences.

[- - e r i k - -]

I won't even begin to argue with someone who thinks UI is simply a matter of taste.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I won't even begin to argue with someone who thinks UI is simply a matter of taste.

Do you know what I mean by this? Vista's UI is actually pretty good. So is XP's. Whether or not you like the bright blue "Luna" look, the shiny blue "Aqua" look, the "Unified" look, or Vista's translucency and light gray-blue look is fairly irrelevant to whether or not an OS is objectively good.

I've used XP, Vista, and OS X fairly extensively. I've found that all three have the same functionality at the same level of usability and ease-of-use, and it really does come down to which one looks better to the user. The dock in OS X and the taskbar (which includes the start menu, taskbar buttons, quicklaunch toolbar, and system tray) do the exact same thing. I personally prefer the taskbar, while some users prefer the aesthetics of the dock. Both allow putting frequently-used applications in a quick access area. Both show running applications. Both provide the ability to show the contents of directories as menus (Leopard does this more fluidly than Tiger, but both can do it). Both can even show some status stuff, although some of the system tray functionality is in the menu bar in OS X.

However, both have the same functionality, and both do it well. So it comes down to a matter of visual/GUI preference.

With many common applications, like web browsing, chatting, and word processing, it is just a UI preference - Firefox is Firefox in Linux, OS X, or Windows. It just looks a little different in each OS. In fact, when it comes to nearly any application - particularly those that provide versions for OS X and Windows - the application's functionality is identical in the two operating systems, and it comes down to a UI preference. For instance, I dislike Adobe apps in OS X because there's no parent window. Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of what OS I'm running, so it comes down to a UI preference.

Even stuff that's specific to the OS, like preference panes/control panels. Both do the same thing, and both do it well, so it's a matter of which looks better to you. I've never found it necessarily harder to configure something in Windows vs. OS X.

You can't really deny that OS X focuses heavily on form over function. If OS X looked like, say, Windows 95, it probably wouldn't be as popular, because it wouldn't be as pretty. I've noticed for a lot of people, the aesthetics are what pulls them into investigating getting a Mac.

ETA:
And, for the record, subtle UI nuances ARE a matter of preference. Some people like pretty animations when they open menus and minimize windows, while others couldn't care less. Such animations, menu transparency, etc, have absolutely nothing to do with the inherent usability of any GUI.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The dock in OS X and the taskbar (which includes the start menu, taskbar buttons, quicklaunch toolbar, and system tray) do the exact same thing. I personally prefer the taskbar, while some users prefer the aesthetics of the dock. Both allow putting frequently-used applications in a quick access area. Both show running applications. Both provide the ability to show the contents of directories as menus (Leopard does this more fluidly than Tiger, but both can do it). Both can even show some status stuff, although some of the system tray functionality is in the menu bar in OS X.

However, both have the same functionality, and both do it well. So it comes down to a matter of visual/GUI preference.

Not even close. Depending on your resolution, once you have five or six windows open, the taskbar gets crowded and it's hard to find stuff. The fact that there's an equal-sized item in the taskbar for EVERYTHING (except when there's not) is very very frustrating at times. The Dock combined with Exposé and command-tab switching is MUCH better than the Windows alternative. I've spent LOTS of time working (like actual work...not just web browsing) in both environments and trying to get around in Windows is irritating at best.

Even stuff that's specific to the OS, like preference panes/control panels. Both do the same thing, and both do it well, so it's a matter of which looks better to you. I've never found it necessarily harder to configure something in Windows vs. OS X.

That's like saying that both OSes use a mouse, therefore they're the same. The way XP tried to group together control panel options and made it more difficult to find what I want was ridiculous, and I remember the first time I tried to set up network settings in Vista. There were at least three different control panel options that could have legitimately been what I was looking for. For a seasoned vet, it's nothing to do something like that, but for a first time user or someone unfamiliar with how to do it, the plethora of control panels makes it too complicated.

You can't really deny that OS X focuses heavily on form over function.

Like how? In what ways does OS X sacrifice functionality just so it can look better? Genie dock minimizing? Exposé effect? I'm really not sure where the computer is HARDER to use because it looks better. If by "form over function" you mean OS X looks nicer, then you're correct.

Or are you talking about hardware now? Because that's entirely different.

If OS X looked like, say, Windows 95, it probably wouldn't be as popular, because it wouldn't be as pretty. I've noticed for a lot of people, the aesthetics are what pulls them into investigating getting a Mac.

And if Vista defaulted to the Classic theme, 99.99% of people would notice zero difference between it and XP (except for those UAC windows that keep popping up).

ETA:
And, for the record, subtle UI nuances ARE a matter of preference. Some people like pretty animations when they open menus and minimize windows, while others couldn't care less. Such animations, menu transparency, etc, have absolutely nothing to do with the inherent usability of any GUI.

I think you meant to say "visual" UI nuances, in which case you'd be right. But subtle UI nuances like mounting a flash drive without giving me 3-5 pop up bubbles, application packages, QuickLook, etc. are all subtle UI features that really set OS X apart.

[Laminar]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention native PDF support. Seasoned vets will know to install Adobe Reader, but if my parents were trying to open a PDF for the first time on a Windows machine, they'd be totally lost.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

And just like that... Apple responds and completely bitch-slaps Microsoft.

It's funny, but also a bit strange. Basically, you're criticizing another company for spending loads of money advertising its product...


...with an advertisement you spent loads of money on, and you're a company that's known for doing lots of advertising. It seems to me that Apple has a far bigger advertising presence than Microsoft, and it's a given they must spend a higher percentage of their revenue on ads, by virtue of the fact that M$ is much bigger and can't possibly spend anywhere near the same percentages or we'd see MS ads everywhere to the tune of billions.

Yeah, yeah, I know- Joe and Jane Blow aren't really up on things enough to get the odd inconsistency of that, but whatever.



I dunno, the "I'm a Mac" ads are getting a bit tired. They were funny and fresh the first 10,000,000 times you saw one maybe, but now it's getting to the point that I wonder if "don't really focus on what your product is, but how the other guy's product is worse" is such a great way to advertise forever. How about getting back to just showing and talking about how great OS X is?

[- - e r i k - -]

The ads go up and down. The latest one's are crackers.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Not even close. Depending on your resolution, once you have five or six windows open, the taskbar gets crowded and it's hard to find stuff. The fact that there's an equal-sized item in the taskbar for EVERYTHING (except when there's not) is very very frustrating at times. The Dock combined with Exposé and command-tab switching is MUCH better than the Windows alternative. I've spent LOTS of time working (like actual work...not just web browsing) in both environments and trying to get around in Windows is irritating at best.

See, I find Expose and Cmd+Tab to be much more annoying than Alt+Tab in Windows. I prefer to have one command for application switching, rather than two or three (since Cmd+W can also be lumped in there). In fact, I ended up installing Witch so that OS X would behave the way I wanted it to.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an equal-sized item in the taskbar for everything" - Dock icons are exactly the same way; how is that better than taskbar buttons? Not only that, but taskbar button grouping is super handy.

It's still a UI thing, if you ask me. It's not really all that more difficult to use the taskbar and Alt+Tab to switch applications. I've never met anyone who has trouble doing that.

When I talk about objective usability, I'm talking about things that the average user would have difficulty doing. The taskbar is quite simple and easy. Whether or not it looks pretty is subjective.

That's like saying that both OSes use a mouse, therefore they're the same. The way XP tried to group together control panel options and made it more difficult to find what I want was ridiculous, and I remember the first time I tried to set up network settings in Vista. There were at least three different control panel options that could have legitimately been what I was looking for. For a seasoned vet, it's nothing to do something like that, but for a first time user or someone unfamiliar with how to do it, the plethora of control panels makes it too complicated.

I won't deny that the new control panel grouping is a little annoying, which is why I can turn it off with a single click. I've never found the control panel difficult to use, however. Without any software installed, there really aren't that many more control panels over OS X, and they're still intelligently named. If I want to add a new user account, I click "User Accounts". If I want to setup text-to-speech or whatever else, I click "Accessibility Options".

I know that when you're used to it being one way or the other, the way you're used to seems a lot easier. Driving on the left side of the road would be pretty disconcerting for me at first, and probably scare the beejebus out of me - but it's perfectly normal and easy for people in the United Kingdom.

Like how? In what ways does OS X sacrifice functionality just so it can look better? Genie dock minimizing? Exposé effect? I'm really not sure where the computer is HARDER to use because it looks better. If by "form over function" you mean OS X looks nicer, then you're correct.

Or are you talking about hardware now? Because that's entirely different.

I don't know that OS X is any harder to use because it's pretty. I will stand by my statement that pretty != usable. Minimizing with a genie effect does not make minimizing easier than without an animation.

And if Vista defaulted to the Classic theme, 99.99% of people would notice zero difference between it and XP (except for those UAC windows that keep popping up).

Except that the Start Menu is better, Autoplay is better, Windows Explorer is better, the default open/save dialogs are better, more software is included, Alt+Tab is better, the taskbar with its live previews is better...

No, there are quite a few positive changes in Vista that have nothing to do with the Aero theme.

I think you meant to say "visual" UI nuances, in which case you'd be right. But subtle UI nuances like mounting a flash drive without giving me 3-5 pop up bubbles, application packages, QuickLook, etc. are all subtle UI features that really set OS X apart.

I guess that's just a matter of preference. I find OS X's method of mounting drives to be utterly obnoxious, with its mounting and checking and verifying and whatnot before I can get to my files. In Windows, you pop in a drive, and the Autoplay window opens up (if you have it set to do so). I personally find that a lot easier.

When I first saw OS X, I was totally floored by it. I thought it was so pretty. So I got a copy of PearPC and started playing with it. I reconfigured the appearance of Windows XP to look like it. I even used stuff like Y'z Dock and Ave Desk to really complete the picture. People who used my computer didn't realize it was Windows.

When I actually started using OS X more frequently, however, I realized that the prettiness didn't actually make it better than Windows. Now, I know that people here are generally die-hard Mac fans and can see little to no good in anything that Microsoft produces. I'm a little more in the middle. I use my Macs and I like them for basic tasks, but I find a lot of merit in Windows and other MS products. In using both OSes regularly, I can pretty easily say that OS X isn't really better than Windows. In fact, I don't personally think it does any specific task better than Windows. What I've noticed is that most of what makes it different are little UI effects, and that's just not enough for me to say that it's as useful to me as Windows. It really is a matter of preference, more than anything. Both have come so far in the last five or six years that you can't really say that one is objectively better than the other.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention native PDF support. Seasoned vets will know to install Adobe Reader, but if my parents were trying to open a PDF for the first time on a Windows machine, they'd be totally lost.

Yeah, I will say that in the short list of things I like in OS X better than Windows, native PDF creation and support is pretty rad.

And, in reference to Laminar's post, I am also a fan of application packages in most regards. Portable Apps accomplishes the same thing in Windows, fortunately...and I still find the registry useful for some stuff.

[besson3c]

It seems somewhat pointless to debate this UI is easier and more productive when it comes down to a fundamental difference in design: OS X is application centric, Windows is document centric. Windows users tend to have a very flimsy, if not non-existent understanding of what application drives their document - this can be problematic, especially to switchers (e.g. learning how to quit apps). Because everything is keyed off the document in Windows, if you are like most users that has more documents open than they do applications, the task bar is going to be less efficient and more cluttered.

I cannot bring myself to be interested in Vista do to my extreme bias in MS from having to support IE 6, their nonsensical approach to security in WinXP and apparent over-compensation in Vista, and because I literally have no reason to use Vista being deeply entrenched in Unix and an application centric workflow. Windows XP does me fine for when I need to test something in IE.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

See, I find Expose and Cmd+Tab to be much more annoying than Alt+Tab in Windows. I prefer to have one command for application switching, rather than two or three (since Cmd+W can also be lumped in there). In fact, I ended up installing Witch so that OS X would behave the way I wanted it to.

Except that Alt+Tab and Cmd+Tab are identical, Exposé just adds features that Windows doesn't have. And Cmd+w has nothing to do with application switching. Apple's Cmd+tab is so much more functional, too, with the ability to hide and quit applications, not just switch.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an equal-sized item in the taskbar for everything" - Dock icons are exactly the same way; how is that better than taskbar buttons? Not only that, but taskbar button grouping is super handy.

I mean that every single window you have open creates a new, relatively wide item in the task bar. Even on a 19" screen you can only have 6 windows open before the icons have to start shrinking. Also, I hate having different instances of an application open - it's super annoying trying to work in multiple workbooks in Excel when there are several instances of Excel open each containing several documents. It's just a poor way of handling things.

It's still a UI thing, if you ask me. It's not really all that more difficult to use the taskbar and Alt+Tab to switch applications. I've never met anyone who has trouble doing that.

"I've never met" or "I have a friend" arguments are worthless - their accuracy relies solely on you having a statistically sound sample size of people in your life, which can't be accurately assumed. And the idea that it's okay that it's not that much harder to do something is poor - why not have it as easy as possible?

Without any software installed, there really aren't that many more control panels over OS X, and they're still intelligently named. If I want to add a new user account, I click "User Accounts". If I want to setup text-to-speech or whatever else, I click "Accessibility Options".

Once again, why not have it as simple as possible. Here, I'm counting forty-nine different control panels. FORTY NINE! OS X does it in...what 30 or so? XP only has 37 or so...why are 49 necessary?

I know that when you're used to it being one way or the other, the way you're used to seems a lot easier. Driving on the left side of the road would be pretty disconcerting for me at first, and probably scare the beejebus out of me - but it's perfectly normal and easy for people in the United Kingdom.

This analogy assumes that each OS is equally simple, but you've already established that OS X is simpler, even if it's just by a little bit here and there. So I'm sure some people out there can drive with their feet, but that doesn't mean everyone should.

I don't know that OS X is any harder to use because it's pretty. I will stand by my statement that pretty != usable. Minimizing with a genie effect does not make minimizing easier than without an animation.

Then I don't see any amount of the form-over-function in OS X you claimed existed. You could argue, though, that Exposé's animations make it easier to keep track of where the windows are going, and Spaces' animations make the multiple desktop concept easier to understand, so in this case form augments function.

Except that the Start Menu is better, Autoplay is better, Windows Explorer is better, the default open/save dialogs are better, more software is included, Alt+Tab is better, the taskbar with its live previews is better...

And would my parents notice any of that? Very unlikely. They'd only notice that it's "different," therefore harder to use.

I guess that's just a matter of preference. I find OS X's method of mounting drives to be utterly obnoxious, with its mounting and checking and verifying and whatnot before I can get to my files. In Windows, you pop in a drive, and the Autoplay window opens up (if you have it set to do so). I personally find that a lot easier.

Oh, you mean mounting disk images, not drives. Putting in a flash drive, CD, etc. requires no checking or verifying. And the fact that a drive shows up even if there's nothing in it is a bad idea. Just for fun, I put a flash drive into this Dell I'm using. It was more than happy pop up 5 different bubbles letting me know the status of mounting the flash drive. In OS X, I put it in and it pops up. Much cleaner and simpler.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Except that Alt+Tab and Cmd+Tab are identical, Exposé just adds features that Windows doesn't have. And Cmd+w has nothing to do with application switching. Apple's Cmd+tab is so much more functional, too, with the ability to hide and quit applications, not just switch.

Cmd+Tab only shows applications. Alt+Tab shows all instances of all applications. If I have five finder windows open, it's a PITA to hit Cmd+Tab and then Cmd+W (or use Expose) to switch between windows. Alt+Tab to switch back and forth between two open windows is much faster.

Since I do mostly development work, I rarely use my mouse. Keyboard shortcuts are much faster for me - having to use the mouse to click the window I want in Expose sometimes slows me down. Fortunately, Witch does what I want.

I mean that every single window you have open creates a new, relatively wide item in the task bar. Even on a 19" screen you can only have 6 windows open before the icons have to start shrinking. Also, I hate having different instances of an application open - it's super annoying trying to work in multiple workbooks in Excel when there are several instances of Excel open each containing several documents. It's just a poor way of handling things.

I guess that just depends. I LIKE having multiple instances of an application, although it's not necessary - Excel typically runs in one instance unless you force it to do otherwise. Personally, I find it a lot easier to click a taskbar button for the document I want, rather than clicking the app's Dock icon and then going to the Window menu to pick which open document I want to bring to the front.

WRT taskbar buttons, I'm not sure that it's less usable. If anything, it's more usable - if I only have a few windows open, the title of the window in its taskbar button makes it pretty easy to identify which button I want to click. At the moment, I have 22 taskbar buttons across two monitors (I use UltraMon to add a second taskbar to my secondary monitor). If all those were shrunk down to little thumbnails in Expose (and they'd be pretty small on an SXGA display), I'd have to hover over each thumbnail to find the application I wanted. It gets a lot messier with multiple windows of the same application open, like with Outlook messages or Windows Explorer windows.

"I've never met" or "I have a friend" arguments are worthless - their accuracy relies solely on you having a statistically sound sample size of people in your life, which can't be accurately assumed. And the idea that it's okay that it's not that much harder to do something is poor - why not have it as easy as possible?

That's just it - ease-of-use is subjective. Now, if you want to make an OS that caters to the absolute lowest common denominator - a severely mentally retarded quadriplegic or something - then, yeah. OS X can't even meet that requirement. I just haven't seen anything in OS X that is actually easier than in Windows, although perhaps I'm biased.

Once again, why not have it as simple as possible. Here, I'm counting forty-nine different control panels. FORTY NINE! OS X does it in...what 30 or so? XP only has 37 or so...why are 49 necessary?

My only argument would be that Windows gives the user more control over their OS and their environment than OS X does. OS X errs on the side of caution in order to simplify things, but the end result is that there are fewer options and customizations at the user's disposal.

There are also some control panels that OS X condenses into one Preference Pane with multiple views, and some control panels that exist as other applications in OS X (such as the Airport application, which is part of the wireless networking control panel in XP, and the Network & Sharing Center in Vista).

Plus, that image is misleading - several of those control panels won't even be installed in a standard Vista installation, including BitLocker, SideShow, iSCSI, and TabletPC (just sayin').

This analogy assumes that each OS is equally simple, but you've already established that OS X is simpler, even if it's just by a little bit here and there. So I'm sure some people out there can drive with their feet, but that doesn't mean everyone should.

I'd say that OS X is dumbed down. I do think that each OS is equally easy to use. I don't have a more difficult time doing something in Windows, or an easier time doing something in OS X. Windows gives me more options for how to do whatever it is I want to do, and in that regard OS X is indeed simpler...but it ends up being a bad thing, at least for me.

And would my parents notice any of that? Very unlikely. They'd only notice that it's "different," therefore harder to use.

Dude, old people are like that. My mom resisted getting a digital camera for a long time because it was different from her 35mm. Was it harder to use? Maybe for forty-five seconds, but then she figured out how great it was. Same goes for trying to finally get her, at 55 years old, to have a freaking cell phone in case she were stranded in her car or something. It was too different from what she was used to, but once I got her to actually try using one, she realized how handy it actually was.

So I don't really put much weight in an older person's attitude that different = hard.

Oh, you mean mounting disk images, not drives. Putting in a flash drive, CD, etc. requires no checking or verifying. And the fact that a drive shows up even if there's nothing in it is a bad idea. Just for fun, I put a flash drive into this Dell I'm using. It was more than happy pop up 5 different bubbles letting me know the status of mounting the flash drive. In OS X, I put it in and it pops up. Much cleaner and simpler.

Sorry, yeah - that's what I meant. All things considered, I prefer the "do-do-do" sound and the bubble notification when I stick in a thumb drive. It lets me know that it connected correctly (even if I'm not currently looking at the desktop or a Finder/Explorer window) and that there's nothing wrong with the drive or my USB port. If it's any consolation, it's much less obtrusive in Vista - a popup shows up when you attach a new device for the first time, but it fades away quickly so that it doesn't get in the way. Plus, in Windows, those little bubbles can be disabled - and that pretty well sums up why I can't bring myself to start using a Mac as my primary machine at home. Windows gives me far more options than OS X, and I like that. If I'm a stupid user, those options can be ignored. If I'm a power user, however, they're ready and waiting for me.

I don't entirely hate OS X. If I did, I wouldn't own two Macs. If I knew someone who had never used a computer and wanted to just jump in and not try to do anything fancy, I might recommend OS X on a used machine.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Cmd+Tab only shows applications. Alt+Tab shows all instances of all applications. If I have five finder windows open, it's a PITA to hit Cmd+Tab and then Cmd+W (or use Expose) to switch between windows. Alt+Tab to switch back and forth between two open windows is much faster.

Since I do mostly development work, I rarely use my mouse. Keyboard shortcuts are much faster for me - having to use the mouse to click the window I want in Expose sometimes slows me down. Fortunately, Witch does what I want.

Do you know about the Command + ~ shortcut?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Cmd+Tab only shows applications. Alt+Tab shows all instances of all applications. If I have five finder windows open, it's a PITA to hit Cmd+Tab and then Cmd+W (or use Expose) to switch between windows. Alt+Tab to switch back and forth between two open windows is much faster.

Exposé can show you all of the windows in the current application, or all of the windows in all applications by pushing a single key.

I guess that just depends. I LIKE having multiple instances of an application, although it's not necessary - Excel typically runs in one instance unless you force it to do otherwise.

Except when it doesn't, which happens to me all of the time when exporting files from Access or Oracle.

That's just it - ease-of-use is subjective. Now, if you want to make an OS that caters to the absolute lowest common denominator - a severely mentally retarded quadriplegic or something - then, yeah. OS X can't even meet that requirement. I just haven't seen anything in OS X that is actually easier than in Windows, although perhaps I'm biased.

Not lowest common denominator, but average computer user. None of us here are average. You want easier? How about pdf support, application un/installation, and security. There are three areas where OS X is much easier, for whatever reason.

There are also some control panels that OS X condenses into one Preference Pane with multiple views, and some control panels that exist as other applications in OS X (such as the Airport application, which is part of the wireless networking control panel in XP, and the Network & Sharing Center in Vista).

Airport application? Maybe in Jaguar. The Networking system pref controls all of the wireless functions.

Plus, that image is misleading - several of those control panels won't even be installed in a standard Vista installation, including BitLocker, SideShow, iSCSI, and TabletPC (just sayin').

And even then, you're still above 40.

I'd say that OS X is dumbed down.

How is it "dumbed down?" Because it's easier to use?

I don't have a more difficult time doing something in Windows, or an easier time doing something in OS X.

This means very little, because you are far from a typical user.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Do you know about the Command + ~ shortcut?

Doesn't sound like it.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Exposé can show you all of the windows in the current application, or all of the windows in all applications by pushing a single key.

Or mouse button, if you prefer.

[- - e r i k - -]

Really Laminar. It's as much use as arguing with a religious zealot.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Really Laminar. It's as much use as arguing with a religious zealot.

You don't have to be rude about it. I enjoy having rational discussions about this stuff, which I think that Laminar and Dakar both have accomplished.

I'm far from a "zealot" about what OS I use. In fact, it's a lot more accurate to label Mac fanboys the "zealots". However, I haven't pulled that card because the aforementioned members have not shown fanboyism in their responses, so it would be inaccurate.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm far from a "zealot" about what OS I use.

Seriosuly?!?! Are you serious?!?!

You come to a Apple based forums discussing how Windows is better, and you are not a "zealot"?!?!

I'll bet you call yourself an "enthusiast".

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Really Laminar. It's as much use as arguing with a religious zealot.

Indeed. Atheists are about the most close-minded religious zealots you'll meet. Arguing with one is an effort in pointlessness.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Indeed. Atheists are about the most close-minded religious zealots you'll meet. Arguing with one is an effort in pointlessness.

WTF? Non sequitur.

[CharlesS]

Come on, shifuimam may disagree with a lot of us, but she's being perfectly calm, civil, and reasonable. Why can't you?

Also: wouldn't a "zealot" be arguing that Windows were better or something, instead of basically just saying she likes both about the same?

Is there something wrong with that?

[OreoCookie]

People, please keep this civil.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Seriosuly?!?! Are you serious?!?!

You come to a Apple based forums discussing how Windows is better, and you are not a "zealot"?!?!

I'll bet you call yourself an "enthusiast".

I haven't really said that Windows is universally better. If I were a Windows zealot, I'd be unable to see any merit in OS X, which you should be able to see by now is not true. I don't dislike OS X. I don't mind using it for general computing. I prefer to use Windows when I need to get some real work done (e.g. my job), and I think that some elements of Windows are better than OS X, but I also think that some elements of OS X are better than Windows.

So, no. I'm not a zealot. I'm not an "enthusiast". I'm a computer geek, plain and simple.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You don't have to be rude about it. I enjoy having rational discussions about this stuff, which I think that Laminar and Dakar both have accomplished.

So... did you know about command + ~ ?

[ThinkInsane]

Settle your differences the old fashioned way, with song, dance, and graphic violence.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Settle your differences the old fashioned way, with song, dance, and graphic violence.

Ridiculous.