Operating Systems
Apple vs. Microsoft; The Continuing (and Flawed) Debate
08/05/09 02:28 PM Filed in: Technology
This is something I’ve
been mulling over for the last couple of months, but
it wasn’t until hearing the continued “Apple or
Microsoft” arguments at camp this week that I was
finally moved to write this. So, in a manner of
speaking, this one’s for you, Jesse and Joe. Oh, and
Erin, I’ll try to make this as witty as possible so,
well, you know.
Ten years ago, after being introduced to someone and learning that they enjoyed using these things called “computers,” it would have been absurd to ask them such a silly question as, “Do you prefer Mac or PC?” What a silly question. Who used Macs?! Those things were lame! But in this modern age, where Apple actually holds claim to a portion of the market share worth nodding your head at, it’s a reasonable and quite common question. For me, a student in college studying computers and programming, this question is frequently asked in conjunction with, “What are you majoring in?”
“Computer Science.”
“And you have a Mac?”
“Yes.”
“Isn’t that a problem?”
“Why would that be a problem?”
“I don’t know. Can’t you, like, not program on Macs or something?”
“Pretty sure Macs still have applications, which means someone obviously must be programming them.”
“But isn’t it, like, easier to program on a PC or something?”
“When was the last time you wrote a program yourself?”
“Well, I haven’t.”
“Stop talking.”
And here lies the biggest error in our existence: we argue things we have no business arguing. You try to convince me that it’s harder to do sophisticated things like program on a Mac when you yourself have no knowledge of programming! This is a high level issue which I don’t really plan on spending much time on, but let me just make it clear that a large percentage of languages these days are interpreted, and nearly all internet languages are interpreted. This means that if an application is written in an interpreted language, it can be run on any platform that has an interpreter for it installed. Languages that aren’t interpreted, C++ for example, can almost always be compiled natively to any desired platform. So no, it’s not harder to program on a Mac, it’s just different, and you’re most frequently taught (in the classroom) to program in the Windows environment.
But let’s flee from such trivial issues as application development and return to the more prevalent flawed arguments that (apparently) plague the average computer user.
People want to compare Apple and Microsoft, but they fail to understand that Apple and Microsoft are two companies competing on two very different playing fields. Microsoft is, for the most part, a software development firm with a few ties in the hardware industry (namely the Zune and the Xbox, two things unrelated to its operating systems). Apple is, for the most part, a computer manufacturer that has developed a proprietary operating system that runs flawlessly on the hardware it manufactures (or at least uses and claims as its own). If we’re arguing the stupidity of Apple as a company, sure, let’s rag on the fact that the MacBook Air doesn’t have an optical drive; to me, that’s a crucial piece of hardware that Apple has left out of the design. However, if we’re ragging on Apple as a company in comparison to what you think is Microsoft’s superiority, you can’t use this argument. Microsoft doesn’t even make a computer, with or without an optical drive, to defend itself, so who cares if the MacBook Air has an optical drive or not ... At least it’s a computer!
People are quick to point out that Apple overcharges their customers. It’s true, an Apple computer costs more than a Windows-based Dell or Samsung, but you’re paying for an entirely different product. Again, Apple is a computer manufacturer. That means you’re paying more for an operating system and the hardware it runs on--the hardware that it’s ensured to run on--the hardware that the company has insured and will repair or replace, if needed. Conversely, a third-party company such as Sony is responsible for ensuring the computers they manufacture will run Microsoft’s operating system. Since this third-party company is not directly affiliated with the software you put on it, they can’t as easily get away with charging more.
Apple absolutely charges more for their products, much more than many would be willing to pay. If you’re unwilling to pay the additional luxury tax for their hardware/software combinations, you’re entitled to purchasing a Windows-based system and living with that. Of course, that’s yet another perk to an Apple computer: you can install Windows on them. This being the case, there is, in fact, absolutely nothing a Windows-based computer designed by Toshiba can do that an Apple manufactured computer cannot do. In fact, Windows-based computers are less compatible for this reason. Yet another reason you’ll pay more for Apple’s.
Additionally, Apple is known as an elite brand. Like Jordan’s, like Porsche. You may not think they’re elite--I think Jordan’s are silly--but your personal opinion doesn’t define the way things are. Because Apple manufactures its own hardware and writes its own software to run on this hardware, it has more of a proprietary right to charge more for its products. Since people like having a more ensured chance of reliability (hardware and software being designed by the same firm), they’re willing to pay more for this assurance. As long as people keep paying, Apple will keep overcharging. I firmly believe Apple charges more than they reasonably should for their computers. That doesn’t mean I won’t pay that price to own one of their products, which I do believe are superior.
Hardware-based comparisons aren’t really part of the Apple and Microsoft operating systems comparison discussions since Microsoft will always lose. It has no hardware that it has designed to defend itself with. If you honestly want to argue hardware, you have to compare Apple to a computer manufacturer such as Dell. Apple still charges more, but Apple also has more hardware/software compatibility and more support since it can run Windows, OS X, or any Linux distro. (This is, of course, assuming legality; obviously you can get an unlocked copy of OS X and install it on your Dell.)
Finally, there’s my favorite argument: the market share. First I would like to say, “Who cares?” Apple certainly doesn’t. Throw out the small, single-digit numbers that are Apple’s market share if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that Apple’s first-quarter revenue in 2009 was something like $10 billion, which is a continually growing figure. They have $25 billion in the bank and no debt. The company is more than financially stable, and I’m sure if you tried to emotionally stab Steve Jobs or any of the execs at Apple with the market share argument, they would laugh in their face as they pulled away in their Porsche.
It’s interesting that computer manufacturing market share is such a hot topic. Has anyone ever cared to look at market shares in, say, the automobile industry? Some of the largest and most reliable companies, Honda for instance, have single-digit percenteges of the market share. The elite companies such as BMW and Porsche obviously have significantly less than that. But do you think Honda is hurting? Coincidently, the companies that are hurting are the ones with the significant holds on the market, such as GM (around 30%) and Ford (around 15%). Windows-based products hold the majority of the market share, but this statistics doesn’t take into account that many Apple users, myself included, raise this share because I run Windows on my MacBook Pro. Seems like that statistic may be a little misleading then, eh?
Since you’ve forced me to talk about market shares, let’s add one more key factor into the mix. Market share only promises accuracy on newly bought units, not units active. Apple computers are said to be more reliable and to last longer (though I don’t have a source that actually confirms a statistic like this, it’s just hearsay), thus they are more frequently passed down and not upgraded. If a $300 Dell only lasts you one year and you buy a new one, you increase Dells market share. My MacBook Pro is over three years old and still running perfectly fine, even on this “old” hardware, so though I would love to purchase a new laptop, I have no need to. Thus I’m not helping increase Apple’s market share. Yet I am helping to increase the Windows market share over market share, because I will soon be purchasing Windows 7 to install on my MacBook Pro.
Some says Apple’s just aren’t as intuitive as the company claims in their commercials. They really do get viruses, and their commercials give their users a false sense of security. They aren’t as reliable as the company promises. Well, it’s advertising; every company make exaggerated claims. Microsoft is guilty of misleading commercials. Their Laptop Hunter ads, for example, show a price tag for an Apple product of over $2,000, but they then zoom in on an old MacBook (which is around $1,000). Technically, Macs can get viruses. I’ve never even run in to so much as a security threat in my experience. Having never used anti-virus software and having owned an Apple computer for over three years, I feel pretty comfortable advising my friends that they don’t need virus protection on their Mac, at least for now. (Coincidently, you have Apple’s small share of the market to thank for this.)
“So why does Apple make such negative ads towards Microsoft, but Microsoft, for the most part, doesn’t defend itself? Does this make Microsoft a more mature company?” Not really. These ad campaigns from Apple and lack of ad campaigns from Microsoft are for two main reasons: firstly, Microsoft is huge. They don’t need to spend as much on their advertising because everybody already knows who they are and uses them. Secondly, if you purchase an Apple product, Microsoft most likely won’t lose anything. I still boot into Windows XP (and soon to be Windows 7), and I still run Microsoft Office (on both the Mac and PC side, so Microsoft has actually made two sales from me). However, if you purchase a Windows-based machine, you will not be unable to install OS X on it, therefore Apple will have lost a sale. This is why Apple is so much more aggressive in the advertising campaigns.
In conclusion, are Apple computers better products? Not necessarily. Are Macs virus free? Not necessarily. Does Windows crash more than OS X? Sort of. Windows XP crashed a whole lot more for me than my OS X has, but OS X crashed on me just yesterday. It was low on battery and should have gone into sleep mode--instead, the screen just turned grey and it froze and I was forced to do a hard shutdown. Are Macs easier to use and more intuitive? Well, that’s entirely a personal decision. I’ll tell you this though, if you don’t like the OS X operating system on your Apple computer, all you need do is install the Windows operating system (or any other operating system) that you’re familiar with on your Apple computer. So Macs are more reliable and will never break? Not necessarily. If you throw your laptop at the ground, it will most likely shatter. Just a few months ago, my optical drive quit working. Two days later, it started working again. I have yet to find reasons for either it’s random breaking and miraculous healing.
The fact of the matter is, a decision to buy a Windows-based machine or an Apple computer is an entirely personal decision. If you’re willing to pay more for a computer that’s proven to be more reliable and satisfactory to according to Consumer Reports, that is more compatible because it will run any operating system, and that is more secure (every top security analysts agrees that you don’t need virus protection, and the Unix kernel is proven to be more secure), I’d say go for a Mac. Otherwise, settle for a Toshiba that, in all likelihood, will last you half as long.
But when I hear such staggeringly ironic reports that the initial benchmarks for Windows Vista scored highest on Apple hardware than they did on any computer that was designed to optimally run it, well, you can be the judge of the companies you think are superior and inferior.
Ten years ago, after being introduced to someone and learning that they enjoyed using these things called “computers,” it would have been absurd to ask them such a silly question as, “Do you prefer Mac or PC?” What a silly question. Who used Macs?! Those things were lame! But in this modern age, where Apple actually holds claim to a portion of the market share worth nodding your head at, it’s a reasonable and quite common question. For me, a student in college studying computers and programming, this question is frequently asked in conjunction with, “What are you majoring in?”
“Computer Science.”
“And you have a Mac?”
“Yes.”
“Isn’t that a problem?”
“Why would that be a problem?”
“I don’t know. Can’t you, like, not program on Macs or something?”
“Pretty sure Macs still have applications, which means someone obviously must be programming them.”
“But isn’t it, like, easier to program on a PC or something?”
“When was the last time you wrote a program yourself?”
“Well, I haven’t.”
“Stop talking.”
And here lies the biggest error in our existence: we argue things we have no business arguing. You try to convince me that it’s harder to do sophisticated things like program on a Mac when you yourself have no knowledge of programming! This is a high level issue which I don’t really plan on spending much time on, but let me just make it clear that a large percentage of languages these days are interpreted, and nearly all internet languages are interpreted. This means that if an application is written in an interpreted language, it can be run on any platform that has an interpreter for it installed. Languages that aren’t interpreted, C++ for example, can almost always be compiled natively to any desired platform. So no, it’s not harder to program on a Mac, it’s just different, and you’re most frequently taught (in the classroom) to program in the Windows environment.
But let’s flee from such trivial issues as application development and return to the more prevalent flawed arguments that (apparently) plague the average computer user.
People want to compare Apple and Microsoft, but they fail to understand that Apple and Microsoft are two companies competing on two very different playing fields. Microsoft is, for the most part, a software development firm with a few ties in the hardware industry (namely the Zune and the Xbox, two things unrelated to its operating systems). Apple is, for the most part, a computer manufacturer that has developed a proprietary operating system that runs flawlessly on the hardware it manufactures (or at least uses and claims as its own). If we’re arguing the stupidity of Apple as a company, sure, let’s rag on the fact that the MacBook Air doesn’t have an optical drive; to me, that’s a crucial piece of hardware that Apple has left out of the design. However, if we’re ragging on Apple as a company in comparison to what you think is Microsoft’s superiority, you can’t use this argument. Microsoft doesn’t even make a computer, with or without an optical drive, to defend itself, so who cares if the MacBook Air has an optical drive or not ... At least it’s a computer!
People are quick to point out that Apple overcharges their customers. It’s true, an Apple computer costs more than a Windows-based Dell or Samsung, but you’re paying for an entirely different product. Again, Apple is a computer manufacturer. That means you’re paying more for an operating system and the hardware it runs on--the hardware that it’s ensured to run on--the hardware that the company has insured and will repair or replace, if needed. Conversely, a third-party company such as Sony is responsible for ensuring the computers they manufacture will run Microsoft’s operating system. Since this third-party company is not directly affiliated with the software you put on it, they can’t as easily get away with charging more.
Apple absolutely charges more for their products, much more than many would be willing to pay. If you’re unwilling to pay the additional luxury tax for their hardware/software combinations, you’re entitled to purchasing a Windows-based system and living with that. Of course, that’s yet another perk to an Apple computer: you can install Windows on them. This being the case, there is, in fact, absolutely nothing a Windows-based computer designed by Toshiba can do that an Apple manufactured computer cannot do. In fact, Windows-based computers are less compatible for this reason. Yet another reason you’ll pay more for Apple’s.
Additionally, Apple is known as an elite brand. Like Jordan’s, like Porsche. You may not think they’re elite--I think Jordan’s are silly--but your personal opinion doesn’t define the way things are. Because Apple manufactures its own hardware and writes its own software to run on this hardware, it has more of a proprietary right to charge more for its products. Since people like having a more ensured chance of reliability (hardware and software being designed by the same firm), they’re willing to pay more for this assurance. As long as people keep paying, Apple will keep overcharging. I firmly believe Apple charges more than they reasonably should for their computers. That doesn’t mean I won’t pay that price to own one of their products, which I do believe are superior.
Hardware-based comparisons aren’t really part of the Apple and Microsoft operating systems comparison discussions since Microsoft will always lose. It has no hardware that it has designed to defend itself with. If you honestly want to argue hardware, you have to compare Apple to a computer manufacturer such as Dell. Apple still charges more, but Apple also has more hardware/software compatibility and more support since it can run Windows, OS X, or any Linux distro. (This is, of course, assuming legality; obviously you can get an unlocked copy of OS X and install it on your Dell.)
Finally, there’s my favorite argument: the market share. First I would like to say, “Who cares?” Apple certainly doesn’t. Throw out the small, single-digit numbers that are Apple’s market share if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that Apple’s first-quarter revenue in 2009 was something like $10 billion, which is a continually growing figure. They have $25 billion in the bank and no debt. The company is more than financially stable, and I’m sure if you tried to emotionally stab Steve Jobs or any of the execs at Apple with the market share argument, they would laugh in their face as they pulled away in their Porsche.
It’s interesting that computer manufacturing market share is such a hot topic. Has anyone ever cared to look at market shares in, say, the automobile industry? Some of the largest and most reliable companies, Honda for instance, have single-digit percenteges of the market share. The elite companies such as BMW and Porsche obviously have significantly less than that. But do you think Honda is hurting? Coincidently, the companies that are hurting are the ones with the significant holds on the market, such as GM (around 30%) and Ford (around 15%). Windows-based products hold the majority of the market share, but this statistics doesn’t take into account that many Apple users, myself included, raise this share because I run Windows on my MacBook Pro. Seems like that statistic may be a little misleading then, eh?
Since you’ve forced me to talk about market shares, let’s add one more key factor into the mix. Market share only promises accuracy on newly bought units, not units active. Apple computers are said to be more reliable and to last longer (though I don’t have a source that actually confirms a statistic like this, it’s just hearsay), thus they are more frequently passed down and not upgraded. If a $300 Dell only lasts you one year and you buy a new one, you increase Dells market share. My MacBook Pro is over three years old and still running perfectly fine, even on this “old” hardware, so though I would love to purchase a new laptop, I have no need to. Thus I’m not helping increase Apple’s market share. Yet I am helping to increase the Windows market share over market share, because I will soon be purchasing Windows 7 to install on my MacBook Pro.
Some says Apple’s just aren’t as intuitive as the company claims in their commercials. They really do get viruses, and their commercials give their users a false sense of security. They aren’t as reliable as the company promises. Well, it’s advertising; every company make exaggerated claims. Microsoft is guilty of misleading commercials. Their Laptop Hunter ads, for example, show a price tag for an Apple product of over $2,000, but they then zoom in on an old MacBook (which is around $1,000). Technically, Macs can get viruses. I’ve never even run in to so much as a security threat in my experience. Having never used anti-virus software and having owned an Apple computer for over three years, I feel pretty comfortable advising my friends that they don’t need virus protection on their Mac, at least for now. (Coincidently, you have Apple’s small share of the market to thank for this.)
“So why does Apple make such negative ads towards Microsoft, but Microsoft, for the most part, doesn’t defend itself? Does this make Microsoft a more mature company?” Not really. These ad campaigns from Apple and lack of ad campaigns from Microsoft are for two main reasons: firstly, Microsoft is huge. They don’t need to spend as much on their advertising because everybody already knows who they are and uses them. Secondly, if you purchase an Apple product, Microsoft most likely won’t lose anything. I still boot into Windows XP (and soon to be Windows 7), and I still run Microsoft Office (on both the Mac and PC side, so Microsoft has actually made two sales from me). However, if you purchase a Windows-based machine, you will not be unable to install OS X on it, therefore Apple will have lost a sale. This is why Apple is so much more aggressive in the advertising campaigns.
In conclusion, are Apple computers better products? Not necessarily. Are Macs virus free? Not necessarily. Does Windows crash more than OS X? Sort of. Windows XP crashed a whole lot more for me than my OS X has, but OS X crashed on me just yesterday. It was low on battery and should have gone into sleep mode--instead, the screen just turned grey and it froze and I was forced to do a hard shutdown. Are Macs easier to use and more intuitive? Well, that’s entirely a personal decision. I’ll tell you this though, if you don’t like the OS X operating system on your Apple computer, all you need do is install the Windows operating system (or any other operating system) that you’re familiar with on your Apple computer. So Macs are more reliable and will never break? Not necessarily. If you throw your laptop at the ground, it will most likely shatter. Just a few months ago, my optical drive quit working. Two days later, it started working again. I have yet to find reasons for either it’s random breaking and miraculous healing.
The fact of the matter is, a decision to buy a Windows-based machine or an Apple computer is an entirely personal decision. If you’re willing to pay more for a computer that’s proven to be more reliable and satisfactory to according to Consumer Reports, that is more compatible because it will run any operating system, and that is more secure (every top security analysts agrees that you don’t need virus protection, and the Unix kernel is proven to be more secure), I’d say go for a Mac. Otherwise, settle for a Toshiba that, in all likelihood, will last you half as long.
But when I hear such staggeringly ironic reports that the initial benchmarks for Windows Vista scored highest on Apple hardware than they did on any computer that was designed to optimally run it, well, you can be the judge of the companies you think are superior and inferior.
|
Windows Gets a Face Lift
01/23/09 07:51 AM Filed in: Technology
Microsoft has been
(officially) beta testing their newest operating
system, Windows 7 (previously known under the
codenames Blackcomb and Vienna), for about nearly a
month now, and the results are looking extremely
promising.
According to the "reliable" source of Wikipedia, it's due out in late 2009 with ... *groan* ... numerous editions yet again. With all the notes Microsoft seems to be taking from Apple, why can't they understand one of the most significant notes? And that is, users want simplicity. We don't want seven editions, we want one. One edition that does it all. But really, as far as Windows 7 goes, that's the ugliest monster in the room. No speculations as to the price of the new OS yet, but if it's reasonable, Windows 7 may be promising enough to get me to upgrade from XP on my laptop.
Originally, Microsoft planned for Windows 7 (at the time called 6.1) was supposed to be a minor upgrade from Windows Vista. Sort of like a service pack. Microsoft also decided they were going to pull out all the stops and get the operating system out in less than three years! However, with the horrible publicity and reputation that came upon Microsoft with the release of Windows Vista, they decided to get as far away from the Vista name as possible to regain their name. To do this, they decided to quit with the naming convention and just stick to numbers, and since Windows Vista was technically Windows 6.0, they jumped a whole number altogether to get away from it.
Windows 7 isn't built from the ground up. To do so for a universal operating system like Windows would be grueling and only introduce a tremendous amount of bugs. It is still, in fact, an upgrade to Windows Vista. It's an upgrade to Windows Vista that shows real potential in getting Microsoft back into the game of practicallity and putting them back at the forefront operating systems, a lead they've lost with the growing popularity of user-friendly and eye-candy operating systems like Linux Ubuntu and Mac OS X.
Microsoft decided to take notes. After their advertising campaigns to compete Apple's anti-Windows ads backfired humiliatingly (numerous campaigns, I might add, entailing hundreds of millions of dollars each) and only ended up to increase the popularity of Apple's products, they decided their money might be better suited in actually reparing their horribly broken operating system.
Initial benchmarks show that Windows 7 outperforms both Vista (obviously) and XP in almost every area, including start up time, shutdown time, application launch, the recovery from sleep. It still requires a ridiculous 1GB of memory to run properly and leaves an enormous footprint of nearly 13GB (it requires 16GB to install, though). Users often excuse this, saying it doesn't matter since our computers now come with terabyte hard drives and 4GB of memory straight out of the box. This is not a legitimate excuse. A dual-core 2.4GHz processor can compute some 48,000,000,000 periods per second; do you understand the raw power your computer could harness without an operating system (and perhaps the von Neumann Bottleneck) getting in the way? If Microsoft spent less time bloating their operating system and more time allowing applications to speak directly to the hardware, the supercomputers of the future that we so frequently dream would already be here. Anyway, OS X Leopard only requires 512MB of memory to run and 9GB of hard disk space, numbers that still aren't excusable but are good for comparison.
So how about the interface? Like performance, it's significantly better too, right? Definitely. The new taskbar finally dares to do what Vista was too scared to; it abandons the bulky wordage that Microsoft has kept since Windows 95. All applications are represented only by a larger icon of what they are, a design strikingly similar to that of the Mac operating system. To access your entire list of programs, the start menu is still on the left; it looks nearly identical to the menu in Vista with a few added features for simplicty and an improved search speed. Hovering over any icons on the taskbar will render a preview of the open application.
My Computer seems to have been revamped as well with a new way of organizing thing ... A way that, again, looks strikingly similar to the way Apple has chosen to organize Finder. They now support Libraries (Smart Folders), HomeGroup (Bonjour, anyone?), and a nicely organized tree on the left to sort through all the files on your computer. And thank goodness the device manager has finally been tweaked to be more organized.
Perhaps one of my favorites are the new gestures that Windows 7 employs. Drag a program to the top of the screen to maximize it. Throw it against the left or right side of the screen to maximize it to only that side of the screen for easy cascading. Want to hide all the windows so you can see your desktop? Click on the bottom-right hand corner of the screen. And want to make all those other nasty windows disappear except the one you're working with? Click on the menu bar and shake the window. If you need them all to reappear, shake it again. Shaking windows, Microsoft? Now you have been taking notes from Ubuntu ...
Finally, users can decide what they want and don't want in the system tray. This was allowed, to some extent, in Windows XP (and sort of in Vista), but only through the control of the application itself. Microsoft promised it would be allowed for both XP and Vista, but they have yet to come through on their promise. Until now. In Windows 7, if you don't want that icon in your system tray, or if you want it in a different location, just move it! You decide what and how things go in your taskbar!
After using Windows 7 myself and reading several reviews on the subject, the best quote I've heard yet comes straight from AppleInsider.
"But the company is also focusing attention on new performance and usability improvements over Vista, essentially marketing Windows 7's departures from Vista's originally touted features as a feature in itself. There's much less attention on gloss and a new effort in place to present fewer system interruptions due to warning messages like those associated with User Account Control."
"Actual new consumer-facing features in Windows 7 are slight enough for Microsoft to refer to "screen dimming" as significant new feature related to battery life. The Windows 7 website notes, "Bright idea: With a display that dims automatically, you get longer battery life" (below). This feature has been in Windows for at least fifteen years, so it appears the company is rather desperately scraping the barrel for features it can promote in its new operating system release."
I don't say all this to rag on Microsoft. In fact, I'm quite impressed that they seem to be trying to roll out an operating system in less than six years this time. But whether you like Vista or not, if you understand proper proramming and proper computing, you understand Vista was and is a failure. Windows 7 has huge promise, and I'm not upset one bit that the "promise" it's showing (much like all the promise Windows Vista showed, though it was little) is coming straight out of Mac OS X and popular Linux distros such as Ubuntu. Microsoft is the computing giant in the world, and we all know giants move slowly. The little companies have taken off, and Microsoft is finally getting around to catching up. If the final release even maintains the light shown in this beta release (but I'm hoping it still improves even more), I will gladly purchase a license and finally perform a full upgrade from Windows XP on my ... MacBook Pro.
According to the "reliable" source of Wikipedia, it's due out in late 2009 with ... *groan* ... numerous editions yet again. With all the notes Microsoft seems to be taking from Apple, why can't they understand one of the most significant notes? And that is, users want simplicity. We don't want seven editions, we want one. One edition that does it all. But really, as far as Windows 7 goes, that's the ugliest monster in the room. No speculations as to the price of the new OS yet, but if it's reasonable, Windows 7 may be promising enough to get me to upgrade from XP on my laptop.
Originally, Microsoft planned for Windows 7 (at the time called 6.1) was supposed to be a minor upgrade from Windows Vista. Sort of like a service pack. Microsoft also decided they were going to pull out all the stops and get the operating system out in less than three years! However, with the horrible publicity and reputation that came upon Microsoft with the release of Windows Vista, they decided to get as far away from the Vista name as possible to regain their name. To do this, they decided to quit with the naming convention and just stick to numbers, and since Windows Vista was technically Windows 6.0, they jumped a whole number altogether to get away from it.
Windows 7 isn't built from the ground up. To do so for a universal operating system like Windows would be grueling and only introduce a tremendous amount of bugs. It is still, in fact, an upgrade to Windows Vista. It's an upgrade to Windows Vista that shows real potential in getting Microsoft back into the game of practicallity and putting them back at the forefront operating systems, a lead they've lost with the growing popularity of user-friendly and eye-candy operating systems like Linux Ubuntu and Mac OS X.
Microsoft decided to take notes. After their advertising campaigns to compete Apple's anti-Windows ads backfired humiliatingly (numerous campaigns, I might add, entailing hundreds of millions of dollars each) and only ended up to increase the popularity of Apple's products, they decided their money might be better suited in actually reparing their horribly broken operating system.
Initial benchmarks show that Windows 7 outperforms both Vista (obviously) and XP in almost every area, including start up time, shutdown time, application launch, the recovery from sleep. It still requires a ridiculous 1GB of memory to run properly and leaves an enormous footprint of nearly 13GB (it requires 16GB to install, though). Users often excuse this, saying it doesn't matter since our computers now come with terabyte hard drives and 4GB of memory straight out of the box. This is not a legitimate excuse. A dual-core 2.4GHz processor can compute some 48,000,000,000 periods per second; do you understand the raw power your computer could harness without an operating system (and perhaps the von Neumann Bottleneck) getting in the way? If Microsoft spent less time bloating their operating system and more time allowing applications to speak directly to the hardware, the supercomputers of the future that we so frequently dream would already be here. Anyway, OS X Leopard only requires 512MB of memory to run and 9GB of hard disk space, numbers that still aren't excusable but are good for comparison.
So how about the interface? Like performance, it's significantly better too, right? Definitely. The new taskbar finally dares to do what Vista was too scared to; it abandons the bulky wordage that Microsoft has kept since Windows 95. All applications are represented only by a larger icon of what they are, a design strikingly similar to that of the Mac operating system. To access your entire list of programs, the start menu is still on the left; it looks nearly identical to the menu in Vista with a few added features for simplicty and an improved search speed. Hovering over any icons on the taskbar will render a preview of the open application.
My Computer seems to have been revamped as well with a new way of organizing thing ... A way that, again, looks strikingly similar to the way Apple has chosen to organize Finder. They now support Libraries (Smart Folders), HomeGroup (Bonjour, anyone?), and a nicely organized tree on the left to sort through all the files on your computer. And thank goodness the device manager has finally been tweaked to be more organized.
Perhaps one of my favorites are the new gestures that Windows 7 employs. Drag a program to the top of the screen to maximize it. Throw it against the left or right side of the screen to maximize it to only that side of the screen for easy cascading. Want to hide all the windows so you can see your desktop? Click on the bottom-right hand corner of the screen. And want to make all those other nasty windows disappear except the one you're working with? Click on the menu bar and shake the window. If you need them all to reappear, shake it again. Shaking windows, Microsoft? Now you have been taking notes from Ubuntu ...
Finally, users can decide what they want and don't want in the system tray. This was allowed, to some extent, in Windows XP (and sort of in Vista), but only through the control of the application itself. Microsoft promised it would be allowed for both XP and Vista, but they have yet to come through on their promise. Until now. In Windows 7, if you don't want that icon in your system tray, or if you want it in a different location, just move it! You decide what and how things go in your taskbar!
After using Windows 7 myself and reading several reviews on the subject, the best quote I've heard yet comes straight from AppleInsider.
"But the company is also focusing attention on new performance and usability improvements over Vista, essentially marketing Windows 7's departures from Vista's originally touted features as a feature in itself. There's much less attention on gloss and a new effort in place to present fewer system interruptions due to warning messages like those associated with User Account Control."
"Actual new consumer-facing features in Windows 7 are slight enough for Microsoft to refer to "screen dimming" as significant new feature related to battery life. The Windows 7 website notes, "Bright idea: With a display that dims automatically, you get longer battery life" (below). This feature has been in Windows for at least fifteen years, so it appears the company is rather desperately scraping the barrel for features it can promote in its new operating system release."
I don't say all this to rag on Microsoft. In fact, I'm quite impressed that they seem to be trying to roll out an operating system in less than six years this time. But whether you like Vista or not, if you understand proper proramming and proper computing, you understand Vista was and is a failure. Windows 7 has huge promise, and I'm not upset one bit that the "promise" it's showing (much like all the promise Windows Vista showed, though it was little) is coming straight out of Mac OS X and popular Linux distros such as Ubuntu. Microsoft is the computing giant in the world, and we all know giants move slowly. The little companies have taken off, and Microsoft is finally getting around to catching up. If the final release even maintains the light shown in this beta release (but I'm hoping it still improves even more), I will gladly purchase a license and finally perform a full upgrade from Windows XP on my ... MacBook Pro.
I've Officially Been Cited
11/18/08 09:48 PM Filed in: Technology
Just over two years I
wrote what essentially amounted to be a research
paper on Apple. You can read the entire
article here.
This week, I was officially cited in a paper written by Gabe Pyle as a reliable source on the subject! In fact, he portrays me as quite a scholarly fellow in his paper, if I do say so myself.
Also, I’m planning on writing a second article dealing with the recent rise in internet stupidity, especially relating to failed attempts to converse in a civilized conversation and the continuing debate of Mac vs. PC. I have an exam tomorrow, but once that is over I should start on it.
This week, I was officially cited in a paper written by Gabe Pyle as a reliable source on the subject! In fact, he portrays me as quite a scholarly fellow in his paper, if I do say so myself.
Also, I’m planning on writing a second article dealing with the recent rise in internet stupidity, especially relating to failed attempts to converse in a civilized conversation and the continuing debate of Mac vs. PC. I have an exam tomorrow, but once that is over I should start on it.
Browser Reviews
09/25/08 06:28 PM Filed in: Technology
After Al Gore invented
the internet for us, we realized we needed a way to
walk around the thousands upon thousands (and now
billions upon billions) of sites that were out there.
Meet the browser. To the best of my knowledge, Al
Gore has never claimed part in inventing the browser,
but I wouldn’t put it past him.
Just for fun, and before we start to really rip apart the benchmarks of Google Chrome, let's look at some old, failed browsers so we can scoff at them (by order of appearance).
WorldWideWeb (1991-1994) - I actually can't call this pioneer a failure. After all, it was the world's first web browser. By the way, it was only released for NeXTSTEP OS. The operating system created by NeXT Computer, a company that was founded by none other than Steve Jobs. The NeXTSTEP OS was quite literally the parent of Mac OS X, and it was also the very first object-oriented and multi-task-ready operating system. (Boy, it's amazing what that Steve Jobs can do ...) However, in 1993 the developers released the source code, thus making the program freeware and allowing for the development of it's children, ViolaWWW, MidasWWW, MacWWW, and their big brother Mosaic.
Netscape Navigator (1994-2007) - Mosaic/Netscape rose to power and popularity much faster than Internet Explorer did, and since it was owned by Netscape Communications, a succesfull company that was pivotal in getting internet readily accessible in every home, the browser had plenty of funding. However, Microsoft was simply a bigger, more powerful company, and the beneficial wars between Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer were eventually won by Internet Explorer. While Netscape failed miserably by allowing their poorly coded browser to get disgustingly bloated with features, their ultimate failure was in 1999 when they allowed America Online to buy then. Who cares if they offered you ten billion dollars! Immedietly following Netscape's acquisition by AOL, they lost over 30% of their market share in less than one year.
HotJava (1994-1999) - A very customizable, extensible browser that was built around Java in order to easily execute Applets. The ingenuity of HotJava is that it's a browser coded entirely in Java, thus making it extremely portable. The downside to HotJava is that it's coded entirely in Java, thus limiting it to the JRE and leaving it a fairly slow memory hog, and with the presence of Java so readily incorporated into more recent browsers and the growing popularity of Macromedia's Flash, the project was terminated.
Internet Explorer (1995-Present) - It doesn't need much introduction or explanation. But Internet Explorer has always been interested in integrating (not outsourcing to extensions) functionality at the expense of ease-of-use, security, and speed. And, let's be honest, it's Microsoft ... Therefore, a failure.
OmniWeb (1995-Present) - Wouldn't you know it, it's another NeXTSTEP OS browser! That being the case, it graduated, along with it's OS, to Mac OS X, and that is where it resides today. Unfortunately, this is a limit for it. While it was a good browser in the area of speed, and very minimalistic, it lacked key functionality and compatibility with some of the most recent web innovations, so it falls short.
Internet Explorer for Mac (1996-2005) - Wow. It was simply horrible. Probably the worst maintained browser of all time. It went through three updates in one year, went silent for three years, released it's fourth update in 2000, then was untouched until it's termination in 2005. It was incompatible, buggy, crashed more than anything, and incredibly slow!
Opera (1996-Present) - I've always felt that Opera failed when it came to honesty in advertising. They used to claim to be the “fastest browser” ever made. Well, they’ve since revoked that claim ... It claims it’s “faster” on their website now. Faster than what? I’m not sure, because until the most recent release (9.5) I’ve never been pleased with the speed of the browser. Though, even with 9.5, I still think Firefox is faster, and you can’t argue with the speed I get from Safari. Around version 7, Opera bloated the browser beyond belief, thus slowing it to a crawl. They’ve since revamped the interface and it the newest release it’s actually quite efficient. However, compatibility has always been an issue with it.
Gzilla (1997-1999) - The developer was last heard from on August 16, 1999, pleading for help on his very own site. Apparently he could get his browser to compile on anything other than Linux/x86, so he was begging for outside help. It's rumored the browser emerged a few months later as as Dillo, but that's just probably not true. I'm guessing Mozilla felt threatened by the last five letters of his browser's name, so they took him out.
MyIE/Maxthon (2000-Present) - Maxthon’s clincher is that it’s extremely customizable. It advertises itself as an adaptable alternative to Internet Explorer. The negative clincher is it’s only for Windows. On top of that, it crashes too frequently. It’s not slow, but reliability is a big factor when writing a browser, and if your browser crashes on me too often, I’m not going to use it.
Firefox (2002-Present) - The most successful browser to incorporate extensions. Since Netscape completely fell of the face of the planet somewhere around 2003, Firefox has been the most used cross-platform web browser. It boasts speed, elegance, and integrated functionality. Even better, you can add basically any functionality you desire through extensions; this is what has made Firefox so well known. Unfortunately, Firefox loses a lot of security when they allow third-party extensions. More than that, extensions are impossible for the creators of Firefox to maintain, so when the browser is updated, there’s always the risk (and it very frequently happens) of losing compatibility with extensions. Not very convenient for the extension programmers or their users.
AOL Explorer (2005-Present?) - It’s AOL ... We already know why it fails: Overpriced, slow, inefficient, and unstable. Apparently the browser is still around, but it’s now a part of the AIM package.
Flock (2005-Present) - Flock’s biggest asset is that it’s multi-platform. On top of that, much like Maxthon, it boasts customizability! It integrates beautifully with many popular websites, including Facebook, iGoogle, Flickr, Digg, Twitter, etc. On top of that, it does allow extensions. It has a main page that keeps all of your favorites and information organized and easily accessible. Unfortunately, it still is rather buggy, and speed is also a bit of an issue with it. It enjoys freezing on it’s users.
Now, read my review of Google Chrome!
Just for fun, and before we start to really rip apart the benchmarks of Google Chrome, let's look at some old, failed browsers so we can scoff at them (by order of appearance).
WorldWideWeb (1991-1994) - I actually can't call this pioneer a failure. After all, it was the world's first web browser. By the way, it was only released for NeXTSTEP OS. The operating system created by NeXT Computer, a company that was founded by none other than Steve Jobs. The NeXTSTEP OS was quite literally the parent of Mac OS X, and it was also the very first object-oriented and multi-task-ready operating system. (Boy, it's amazing what that Steve Jobs can do ...) However, in 1993 the developers released the source code, thus making the program freeware and allowing for the development of it's children, ViolaWWW, MidasWWW, MacWWW, and their big brother Mosaic.
Netscape Navigator (1994-2007) - Mosaic/Netscape rose to power and popularity much faster than Internet Explorer did, and since it was owned by Netscape Communications, a succesfull company that was pivotal in getting internet readily accessible in every home, the browser had plenty of funding. However, Microsoft was simply a bigger, more powerful company, and the beneficial wars between Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer were eventually won by Internet Explorer. While Netscape failed miserably by allowing their poorly coded browser to get disgustingly bloated with features, their ultimate failure was in 1999 when they allowed America Online to buy then. Who cares if they offered you ten billion dollars! Immedietly following Netscape's acquisition by AOL, they lost over 30% of their market share in less than one year.
HotJava (1994-1999) - A very customizable, extensible browser that was built around Java in order to easily execute Applets. The ingenuity of HotJava is that it's a browser coded entirely in Java, thus making it extremely portable. The downside to HotJava is that it's coded entirely in Java, thus limiting it to the JRE and leaving it a fairly slow memory hog, and with the presence of Java so readily incorporated into more recent browsers and the growing popularity of Macromedia's Flash, the project was terminated.
Internet Explorer (1995-Present) - It doesn't need much introduction or explanation. But Internet Explorer has always been interested in integrating (not outsourcing to extensions) functionality at the expense of ease-of-use, security, and speed. And, let's be honest, it's Microsoft ... Therefore, a failure.
OmniWeb (1995-Present) - Wouldn't you know it, it's another NeXTSTEP OS browser! That being the case, it graduated, along with it's OS, to Mac OS X, and that is where it resides today. Unfortunately, this is a limit for it. While it was a good browser in the area of speed, and very minimalistic, it lacked key functionality and compatibility with some of the most recent web innovations, so it falls short.
Internet Explorer for Mac (1996-2005) - Wow. It was simply horrible. Probably the worst maintained browser of all time. It went through three updates in one year, went silent for three years, released it's fourth update in 2000, then was untouched until it's termination in 2005. It was incompatible, buggy, crashed more than anything, and incredibly slow!
Opera (1996-Present) - I've always felt that Opera failed when it came to honesty in advertising. They used to claim to be the “fastest browser” ever made. Well, they’ve since revoked that claim ... It claims it’s “faster” on their website now. Faster than what? I’m not sure, because until the most recent release (9.5) I’ve never been pleased with the speed of the browser. Though, even with 9.5, I still think Firefox is faster, and you can’t argue with the speed I get from Safari. Around version 7, Opera bloated the browser beyond belief, thus slowing it to a crawl. They’ve since revamped the interface and it the newest release it’s actually quite efficient. However, compatibility has always been an issue with it.
Gzilla (1997-1999) - The developer was last heard from on August 16, 1999, pleading for help on his very own site. Apparently he could get his browser to compile on anything other than Linux/x86, so he was begging for outside help. It's rumored the browser emerged a few months later as as Dillo, but that's just probably not true. I'm guessing Mozilla felt threatened by the last five letters of his browser's name, so they took him out.
MyIE/Maxthon (2000-Present) - Maxthon’s clincher is that it’s extremely customizable. It advertises itself as an adaptable alternative to Internet Explorer. The negative clincher is it’s only for Windows. On top of that, it crashes too frequently. It’s not slow, but reliability is a big factor when writing a browser, and if your browser crashes on me too often, I’m not going to use it.
Firefox (2002-Present) - The most successful browser to incorporate extensions. Since Netscape completely fell of the face of the planet somewhere around 2003, Firefox has been the most used cross-platform web browser. It boasts speed, elegance, and integrated functionality. Even better, you can add basically any functionality you desire through extensions; this is what has made Firefox so well known. Unfortunately, Firefox loses a lot of security when they allow third-party extensions. More than that, extensions are impossible for the creators of Firefox to maintain, so when the browser is updated, there’s always the risk (and it very frequently happens) of losing compatibility with extensions. Not very convenient for the extension programmers or their users.
AOL Explorer (2005-Present?) - It’s AOL ... We already know why it fails: Overpriced, slow, inefficient, and unstable. Apparently the browser is still around, but it’s now a part of the AIM package.
Flock (2005-Present) - Flock’s biggest asset is that it’s multi-platform. On top of that, much like Maxthon, it boasts customizability! It integrates beautifully with many popular websites, including Facebook, iGoogle, Flickr, Digg, Twitter, etc. On top of that, it does allow extensions. It has a main page that keeps all of your favorites and information organized and easily accessible. Unfortunately, it still is rather buggy, and speed is also a bit of an issue with it. It enjoys freezing on it’s users.
Now, read my review of Google Chrome!
Leopard vs. Vista; Weekend Sales
10/30/07 09:46 AM Filed in: Technology
The "Wow" Starts Now. But for How Much?
03/22/07 03:25 PM Filed in: Technology
Just the other day I
went out to eat at the Olive Garden. It happened that
the wait to get in an eat was about 45 minutes, so we
decided to go over to Office Max to buy a few things.
I walked in the store and realized, "Hey, Windows
Vista just came out!" (This was several weeks ago.) I
made my way over to the software isle and found the
section of Microsoft goods. I was quite taken back.
Seriously. I think I fell backwards. I shoved my hand
in pocket and brought out my phone to call Joey.
"Joey, you're not going to believe this! Have you
seen the prices for the 2007 line from Microsoft?"
"No. What are they?" I relayed the following information to him.
Windows Vista Home Basic: $199.99
Windows Vista Home Premium: $239.99
Windows Vista Business: $299.99
Windows Vista Ultimate: $399.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Home and Student: $149.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Standard: $399.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Small Business: $449.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Professional: $499.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Ultimate: $679.99
Microsoft Visio Standard 2007: $259.99
Ironically, Ultimate, which is supposed to be the complete package, doesn't actually include Microsoft Visio. I don't know why.
Now that we have the prices laid out, I would like to point out that I actually used Windows Vista the other day, so I can finally speak from experience! Here's my first impressions of Microsoft's new Operating System.
I sat down at a Vista laptop and was impressed with the new visuals. Pretty icons, shiny new taskbar; everything had a water-like reflective appearance, making it look very appealing. I opened the Recycle Bin and the Help Center, just to see what the windows looked like. I like the new shape of the minimize, maximize, and exit buttons in the upper-right corner of the windows. I liked the animation that was shown when opening, closing, and minimizing programs. It did seem a bit jerky when maximizing a program, but I could live with that.
As you roll over icons, they start to glow, which looks very nice.
The PC I was using had 2GB of RAM, and with that amount everything seemed to open and close fairly quickly.
Microsoft has really improved on the behind-the-scenes matters of their OS. Security is greatly improved, and integration with networks and other devices in your house, such as your cell phone, PDA, Xbox, and TV is nearly seamless. Microsoft still has the hold-your-hand notifications that it's known for to alert you of every little change you make, just in case you didn't mean to make it. I think it would make me feel better if my OS didn't assume I was an idiot. I want it to protect me from things like viruses, spam, worms, and such. But I don't want it to alert me every time I open a pop up, or change a simple setting.
All of your most imoprtant information is immedietly delivered to you with the new Sidebar that is implemented into Windows Vista. It's not annoying. It doesn't jump out at you too much and distract you from the important things you're working on. It's just there if you want to look at it for the weather, news, or whatever you have it configured to show you.
Visually, I was very impressed with my Vista experience. But the interface just still isn't intuitive! Not only that, but why is that someone who has been using a Microsoft Operating System for over, including DOS, for all 18 years of his life is confused and lost in the new Windows Vista? Continuity is your friend, Microsoft.
Why is it that there is no longer the "Start" button? It's now just a circle with the new Windows logo on it. You can figure that out pretty quickly by knowing that the "Start" button has always been in the lower-left corner of Microsoft's Operating Systems, but an OS shouldn't assume things about it's users.
I right-clicked on the desktop and a menu dropped down. I looked to the bottom of the menu, and yet another change had been made to the simple desktop options menu. Where Microsoft used to call the bottom button "Properties," they changed the name to "Preferences." Again, why do we need to change something if it already works and people are already used to it? We can assume it does the same thing as the "Properties" button did in Windows XP, ME, 98, and 95, but our eyes are trained to look for "Properties" not "Preferences."
When I clicked on the Start Menu, I was lost... where were all of my programs? The "All Programs" button did a terrible job of jumping out at me, and it did a fabulous job of blending in all too well with the Start Menu. And since this was a fresh install of Windows Vista, I didn't have any favorite programs yet. When I did click on "All Programs", I glanced right, waiting for the Start Menu to expand and show me a list of all my programs. It didn't. Microsoft condensed the Start Menu, and now when you click "All Programs" it displays all your programs over where your "Favorite Programs" used to be. That was a bit annoying, I thought, because it was just one more step then to get back to my favorite programs. It also was a hassle because instead of spreading everything out for me to see all at once, I had to scroll through everything.
Microsoft has been bragging about Instant Search since they announced that they were making a new OS, oh... six years ago. I wasn't impressed. Instant Search isn't actually "instant." I mean, once you press Enter, it searches. But to me, an "Instant search" should search AS I type for the letters I have typed thus far. When I did press enter, it didn't work! I typed in "Control Panel." I pressed Enter, a blank dialog popped up for less than a second, then disappeared. That was the end of it. I tried again. I typed "Adobe" and pressed enter. Again, blank dialog opened and closed, but no Adobe. I don't know if this was a glitch or if I was doing something wrong, but if I was doing something wrong then I must state my main pointa gain: An OS should be intuitive, user friendly, and painfully obvious.
Easily my FAVORITE part about Windows Vista: I apologize, but the only thing I know to refer to them as is "Smart Folders." I don't know their official name in Vista, but they're amazing! Finally, Microsoft has done away with "My Pictures", "My Videos", etc. We now simply have "Pictures", "Videos", "Music", etc. Here's where it becomes truly genius. You never have to add any files to these folders! That's why they're smart. The sole purpose of these folders is to keep a list of every type of file that would be associated with that folder. Of course, this is customizable. Pictures scans your hard drive and will present to you every file type found that could be a picture of some kind. Music looks for any audio format. You get the idea. If you think about this for a second, these amazing Smart Folders eliminate third party organization software like Picasa, iPhoto, and Adobe Photoshop Album. Granted, Picasa is still a wonderful tool for enhancing your photos. But now, even with Picasa, you can just point Picasa to your Pictures folder and Windows Vista already has everything organized! You can now enhance your photos all you want in Picasa without worrying about losing them or anything tragic like that.
On that note, this is great for people like my Grandpa. It's perfect for helping avoid the, "Junk, where did I put that file?" feeling. Yes, there is a "Documents" folder as well. It's like having a default search built in to the OS, except every time you want to see every single picture you have on your hard drive, you don't have to run the search again, because it's already run itself. All you have to do is click on the folder where it compiled the list of all these files. It's brilliant, I tell you!
But how much is brilliance worth? Granted, I love a lot of things about Windows Vista. And there are several things that frustrate me about Windows Vista. But, of course, if you know me, I'd have to get the Ultimate edition. I'm not willing to fork out $399.99 for the next OS. And I haven't even begun to talk about the hardware upgrades that are almost always required, and are going to cost you even more money.
I'll let you decide for yourself whether Vista is worth it or not. Microsoft was kind enough to compile a list of 100 reasons to switch to Vista. I'll be sticking with Windows XP, personally.
Click here.
(Grandpa, you CAN'T upgrade!)
"No. What are they?" I relayed the following information to him.
Windows Vista Home Basic: $199.99
Windows Vista Home Premium: $239.99
Windows Vista Business: $299.99
Windows Vista Ultimate: $399.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Home and Student: $149.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Standard: $399.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Small Business: $449.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Professional: $499.99
Microsoft Office 2007 Ultimate: $679.99
Microsoft Visio Standard 2007: $259.99
Ironically, Ultimate, which is supposed to be the complete package, doesn't actually include Microsoft Visio. I don't know why.
Now that we have the prices laid out, I would like to point out that I actually used Windows Vista the other day, so I can finally speak from experience! Here's my first impressions of Microsoft's new Operating System.
I sat down at a Vista laptop and was impressed with the new visuals. Pretty icons, shiny new taskbar; everything had a water-like reflective appearance, making it look very appealing. I opened the Recycle Bin and the Help Center, just to see what the windows looked like. I like the new shape of the minimize, maximize, and exit buttons in the upper-right corner of the windows. I liked the animation that was shown when opening, closing, and minimizing programs. It did seem a bit jerky when maximizing a program, but I could live with that.
As you roll over icons, they start to glow, which looks very nice.
The PC I was using had 2GB of RAM, and with that amount everything seemed to open and close fairly quickly.
Microsoft has really improved on the behind-the-scenes matters of their OS. Security is greatly improved, and integration with networks and other devices in your house, such as your cell phone, PDA, Xbox, and TV is nearly seamless. Microsoft still has the hold-your-hand notifications that it's known for to alert you of every little change you make, just in case you didn't mean to make it. I think it would make me feel better if my OS didn't assume I was an idiot. I want it to protect me from things like viruses, spam, worms, and such. But I don't want it to alert me every time I open a pop up, or change a simple setting.
All of your most imoprtant information is immedietly delivered to you with the new Sidebar that is implemented into Windows Vista. It's not annoying. It doesn't jump out at you too much and distract you from the important things you're working on. It's just there if you want to look at it for the weather, news, or whatever you have it configured to show you.
Visually, I was very impressed with my Vista experience. But the interface just still isn't intuitive! Not only that, but why is that someone who has been using a Microsoft Operating System for over, including DOS, for all 18 years of his life is confused and lost in the new Windows Vista? Continuity is your friend, Microsoft.
Why is it that there is no longer the "Start" button? It's now just a circle with the new Windows logo on it. You can figure that out pretty quickly by knowing that the "Start" button has always been in the lower-left corner of Microsoft's Operating Systems, but an OS shouldn't assume things about it's users.
I right-clicked on the desktop and a menu dropped down. I looked to the bottom of the menu, and yet another change had been made to the simple desktop options menu. Where Microsoft used to call the bottom button "Properties," they changed the name to "Preferences." Again, why do we need to change something if it already works and people are already used to it? We can assume it does the same thing as the "Properties" button did in Windows XP, ME, 98, and 95, but our eyes are trained to look for "Properties" not "Preferences."
When I clicked on the Start Menu, I was lost... where were all of my programs? The "All Programs" button did a terrible job of jumping out at me, and it did a fabulous job of blending in all too well with the Start Menu. And since this was a fresh install of Windows Vista, I didn't have any favorite programs yet. When I did click on "All Programs", I glanced right, waiting for the Start Menu to expand and show me a list of all my programs. It didn't. Microsoft condensed the Start Menu, and now when you click "All Programs" it displays all your programs over where your "Favorite Programs" used to be. That was a bit annoying, I thought, because it was just one more step then to get back to my favorite programs. It also was a hassle because instead of spreading everything out for me to see all at once, I had to scroll through everything.
Microsoft has been bragging about Instant Search since they announced that they were making a new OS, oh... six years ago. I wasn't impressed. Instant Search isn't actually "instant." I mean, once you press Enter, it searches. But to me, an "Instant search" should search AS I type for the letters I have typed thus far. When I did press enter, it didn't work! I typed in "Control Panel." I pressed Enter, a blank dialog popped up for less than a second, then disappeared. That was the end of it. I tried again. I typed "Adobe" and pressed enter. Again, blank dialog opened and closed, but no Adobe. I don't know if this was a glitch or if I was doing something wrong, but if I was doing something wrong then I must state my main pointa gain: An OS should be intuitive, user friendly, and painfully obvious.
Easily my FAVORITE part about Windows Vista: I apologize, but the only thing I know to refer to them as is "Smart Folders." I don't know their official name in Vista, but they're amazing! Finally, Microsoft has done away with "My Pictures", "My Videos", etc. We now simply have "Pictures", "Videos", "Music", etc. Here's where it becomes truly genius. You never have to add any files to these folders! That's why they're smart. The sole purpose of these folders is to keep a list of every type of file that would be associated with that folder. Of course, this is customizable. Pictures scans your hard drive and will present to you every file type found that could be a picture of some kind. Music looks for any audio format. You get the idea. If you think about this for a second, these amazing Smart Folders eliminate third party organization software like Picasa, iPhoto, and Adobe Photoshop Album. Granted, Picasa is still a wonderful tool for enhancing your photos. But now, even with Picasa, you can just point Picasa to your Pictures folder and Windows Vista already has everything organized! You can now enhance your photos all you want in Picasa without worrying about losing them or anything tragic like that.
On that note, this is great for people like my Grandpa. It's perfect for helping avoid the, "Junk, where did I put that file?" feeling. Yes, there is a "Documents" folder as well. It's like having a default search built in to the OS, except every time you want to see every single picture you have on your hard drive, you don't have to run the search again, because it's already run itself. All you have to do is click on the folder where it compiled the list of all these files. It's brilliant, I tell you!
But how much is brilliance worth? Granted, I love a lot of things about Windows Vista. And there are several things that frustrate me about Windows Vista. But, of course, if you know me, I'd have to get the Ultimate edition. I'm not willing to fork out $399.99 for the next OS. And I haven't even begun to talk about the hardware upgrades that are almost always required, and are going to cost you even more money.
I'll let you decide for yourself whether Vista is worth it or not. Microsoft was kind enough to compile a list of 100 reasons to switch to Vista. I'll be sticking with Windows XP, personally.
Click here.
(Grandpa, you CAN'T upgrade!)
It Crashed ...
03/03/07 07:36 PM Filed in: Technology
Wednesday, February
28th, 2007, marks the first day my MacBook Pro has
completely crashed on me. It didn't choose a
convenient time to crash either. No, it couldn't have
chosen a time when I was at home listening to music
or something. It chose the time when it was in the
middle of a sideshow in front of almost 100 people...
TWICE!
The first crash was before Church had started. I was getting the slides ready for the night. All of a sudden, my screen turned dark grey and a message popped up saying, "A fatal error has occurred and Mac OS X needs to restart. At this point, your Mac becomes completely disfunctional. You cannot do ANYTHING, click anything, type anything, or communicate with your computer in any way except to hold down the power button and restart it. Hopefully your documents are saved...
Someone, who will remain anonnymous to save his humility, came over to poke fun at me and my computer. "Ha, did your computer just crash?" He asked. "Yah, it happens." "It's because it's an Apple." He stated blunty. I covered my computers ears. I turned to him and said, "Oh, really? Is that a fact? Do you know why it crashed?" "No." He said. Brian finished my thought for me and said, "He was opening a Microsoft product... PowerPoint to be exact."
Later in the night, in the middle of singing, I pushed the down arrow to switch to the next slide and all of a sudden... BAM! PowerPoint disappears. My computer didn't freeze this time, and it didn't make me restart. PowerPoint just closed for absolutely no reason!!
The fact that "Microsoft products aren't meant to run on a Mac," which he claimed, is absolutely no excuse. So if I take my P.O.D. CD and put it in your car, it should still play the music I love, right? It's the same concept. You can't just take a Microsoft Office CD and put it into your Mac and install it. No, Microsoft had to specially design the suite to run on Mac OS X which, you guessed it, it WAS meant to run on a Mac. If it crashes, that is asbolutely, without a doubt, a sign of poor programming. Sure, you can claim that it wasn't supposed to run on a Mac anyway, but that doesn't excuse your bad programming. So, Microsoft can't make a product that runs well on a Mac. How about Apple? QuickTime runs on Windows and, for the record, Microsoft used QuickTime as the default player of .mov and .mpg files for a while... I think until XP came out. Also, iTunes is made for Windows. I've never had either one of those programs crash on me using Windows, and QuickTime has been around on Windows since Windows 95. iTunes hasn't been around nearly that long, but still, at least Apple can make a product that will work wherever their users want it. (Disregard the latest issues with iTunes and Windows Vista... they're working on that one.)
But don't you try to blame a programming crashing on my Operating System when I've never had that happen until Wednesday. It was due to the fact that I'm running a Mac. But it was Microsoft's error.
Funny how that works, huh? Nice try though, Tyler.
The first crash was before Church had started. I was getting the slides ready for the night. All of a sudden, my screen turned dark grey and a message popped up saying, "A fatal error has occurred and Mac OS X needs to restart. At this point, your Mac becomes completely disfunctional. You cannot do ANYTHING, click anything, type anything, or communicate with your computer in any way except to hold down the power button and restart it. Hopefully your documents are saved...
Someone, who will remain anonnymous to save his humility, came over to poke fun at me and my computer. "Ha, did your computer just crash?" He asked. "Yah, it happens." "It's because it's an Apple." He stated blunty. I covered my computers ears. I turned to him and said, "Oh, really? Is that a fact? Do you know why it crashed?" "No." He said. Brian finished my thought for me and said, "He was opening a Microsoft product... PowerPoint to be exact."
Later in the night, in the middle of singing, I pushed the down arrow to switch to the next slide and all of a sudden... BAM! PowerPoint disappears. My computer didn't freeze this time, and it didn't make me restart. PowerPoint just closed for absolutely no reason!!
The fact that "Microsoft products aren't meant to run on a Mac," which he claimed, is absolutely no excuse. So if I take my P.O.D. CD and put it in your car, it should still play the music I love, right? It's the same concept. You can't just take a Microsoft Office CD and put it into your Mac and install it. No, Microsoft had to specially design the suite to run on Mac OS X which, you guessed it, it WAS meant to run on a Mac. If it crashes, that is asbolutely, without a doubt, a sign of poor programming. Sure, you can claim that it wasn't supposed to run on a Mac anyway, but that doesn't excuse your bad programming. So, Microsoft can't make a product that runs well on a Mac. How about Apple? QuickTime runs on Windows and, for the record, Microsoft used QuickTime as the default player of .mov and .mpg files for a while... I think until XP came out. Also, iTunes is made for Windows. I've never had either one of those programs crash on me using Windows, and QuickTime has been around on Windows since Windows 95. iTunes hasn't been around nearly that long, but still, at least Apple can make a product that will work wherever their users want it. (Disregard the latest issues with iTunes and Windows Vista... they're working on that one.)
But don't you try to blame a programming crashing on my Operating System when I've never had that happen until Wednesday. It was due to the fact that I'm running a Mac. But it was Microsoft's error.
Funny how that works, huh? Nice try though, Tyler.
Java: The Language of the Future
02/28/07 09:13 AM Filed in: Technology
// Yes,
this will run if you compile it
import javax.swing.JOptionPane;
class LanguageOfTheFuture
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "If Java is truly the " +
“\"Language of the future\" like it's worshippers claim, we'll” +
all be speaking in code soon enough.”, "Java", JOptionPane.INFORMATION_MESSAGE);
System.exit(0);
}
}
Of course, I still prefer civilized conversation with my friends.
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, Java has nothing to do with coffee. It's a programming language created in 1991 by James Gosling (yes, he is Canadian) of Sun Microsystems. The original project name was Oak, but the release name was Java.
So what's so beautiful about this language that leads programmers to believe it's the "Language to end all languages"? Let's start with a crash course on the fundamentals of the Java language.
Sun Microsystems implemented the first public release of Java in 1995. The Java language is derived (to an extent) from the C/C++ language. The common goal of the Java language was to provide a more simplified language than C++ that was object-orientied, would allow one file to be viewed on multiple operating systems, and would have easy-to-use built-in server-side functionality. One of Java's biggest advantages is the ability for cross-platform support. That is to say, I could create a file in the Eclipse Software Development Kit (SDK), compile the program to an executable Java Archive (JAR) file, send that JAR file to another computer with another Operating System (OS) on it, and run the program without any errors. This cannot be done with a .exe from Windows, .app from Mac, or a Linux executable (which doesn't have an extension). These executable formats are native to their OS. A JAR file can be run on any OS (Windows, Mac, Linux, or Solaris) that the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) is present on. Unlike an executable JAR file, the JRE is native to the OS you're running. You must download and install the JRE for your OS before you can execute a JAR file.
Java has three different "types." Java Standard Edition (SE), Java Enterprise Edition (EE), and Java Mobile Edition (ME).
Another huge advantage to Java is server-side functionality and simplicity. Java SE supports server functionality, but Java EE enhances this functionality a great deal. I could take that same application I just compiled and, instead of making it an executable JAR file, I could compile it to an Applet and upload it to a web server. You could then create a web page that would implement that Java Applet and, there you have it, you've just put your application on the internet for viewing anywhere in the world using any browser that supports Java.
Java was also designed to be highly portable. What you may not realize is how often you use Java applications. Your cell phone, your PDA, your MP3 player, your cars MP3/CD player, and yes, the new iPhone. Most of the applications running on your mobile devices are probably programmed with Java ME.
Another big advantage to the Java language is... it's FREE! Everybody loves free, right? The JRE is free, the Java SDK is free, and you can always find a free compiler. The Java language was designed to be Open Source; the code shared freely for learning purposes and better development.
Let's walk through the creation of a simple Java stand-alone application. I go to www.Eclipse.org and download the editor/compiler for my system: Mac OS X. After installing, I run Eclipse and create a new project. Let's just use the simple program I wrote above. I plop that into a .java file that I've created in my project and save it. I compile my program and run it. It seems to work fine, so now I want to send the program to one of my buddies for them to check out. Can I send the file I just created when I compiled the program? No! In Java, when you compile you do not make an executable. You make a .class file, which can only be viewed by people with the Java SDK. The SDK is a fairly large download, and unless you're developing Java applications, there's no use for it, so the average person won't have it. When I compiled the application, all I created was some byte code. Byte code is interpretted by JRE and converted into machine code to run the application on the OS you're currently running on... that's why they have platform specific JREs. But still, my .class is byte code, but the JRE can't run it without the SDK to help it. If I want to make an executable I have do one more step. I must "Export" my project from Eclipse. Using Eclipse, this process is far more difficult than it should be, but it works out in the end. Eclipse will then build a JAR file which can be executed on any computer, any operating system, that is running the JRE.
Still... the end user must have the JRE.
Sure, Java makes pretty GUIs. And the language, in most cases, is a heck of a lot more clean and pretty than C++ (minus formatting). But that's a hassle... it takes me longer to compile, and I can't guarantee you will be able to view the file immedietly after you recieve it. And the JRE is no small file! It's not a "quick download."
C++ may be an older language, but it is NOT a dead language, so quit saying that! C++ has features that Java decided to drop because they were too confusing, or Java just didn't want to handle them. (Pointers CAN be useful, people. They're not always a headache once you figure them out.) C++ still communicates with hardware better than Java. C++ does formatting of output WAY better than Java. I don't know why Java made formatting such a headache when they were stealing the language from C++. They simplified so many things, but formatting they unsimplified! It was simple in C++...
I like the idea of passing one file around to four different OSs. I also like the idea of sending an executable JAR file through email so Gmail doesn't gripe about me sending an "executable file" (refering to a .exe). C may be dead, but C++ is still alive and well. Java has a lot of nice things, don't get me wrong. In general, I like Java better than C++. But C++ is still a more powerful language. The code and final application of Java are far prettier than C++.
Still... in the words of Joel Whitehouse, "Yah, Java has a better syntactical design. But gosh darn it. I like that I can compile a 3k executable in C++!"
Still... as my Java teacher says frequently, "No, it's not magic... it's just Java."
import javax.swing.JOptionPane;
class LanguageOfTheFuture
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "If Java is truly the " +
“\"Language of the future\" like it's worshippers claim, we'll” +
all be speaking in code soon enough.”, "Java", JOptionPane.INFORMATION_MESSAGE);
System.exit(0);
}
}
Of course, I still prefer civilized conversation with my friends.
For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, Java has nothing to do with coffee. It's a programming language created in 1991 by James Gosling (yes, he is Canadian) of Sun Microsystems. The original project name was Oak, but the release name was Java.
So what's so beautiful about this language that leads programmers to believe it's the "Language to end all languages"? Let's start with a crash course on the fundamentals of the Java language.
Sun Microsystems implemented the first public release of Java in 1995. The Java language is derived (to an extent) from the C/C++ language. The common goal of the Java language was to provide a more simplified language than C++ that was object-orientied, would allow one file to be viewed on multiple operating systems, and would have easy-to-use built-in server-side functionality. One of Java's biggest advantages is the ability for cross-platform support. That is to say, I could create a file in the Eclipse Software Development Kit (SDK), compile the program to an executable Java Archive (JAR) file, send that JAR file to another computer with another Operating System (OS) on it, and run the program without any errors. This cannot be done with a .exe from Windows, .app from Mac, or a Linux executable (which doesn't have an extension). These executable formats are native to their OS. A JAR file can be run on any OS (Windows, Mac, Linux, or Solaris) that the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) is present on. Unlike an executable JAR file, the JRE is native to the OS you're running. You must download and install the JRE for your OS before you can execute a JAR file.
Java has three different "types." Java Standard Edition (SE), Java Enterprise Edition (EE), and Java Mobile Edition (ME).
Another huge advantage to Java is server-side functionality and simplicity. Java SE supports server functionality, but Java EE enhances this functionality a great deal. I could take that same application I just compiled and, instead of making it an executable JAR file, I could compile it to an Applet and upload it to a web server. You could then create a web page that would implement that Java Applet and, there you have it, you've just put your application on the internet for viewing anywhere in the world using any browser that supports Java.
Java was also designed to be highly portable. What you may not realize is how often you use Java applications. Your cell phone, your PDA, your MP3 player, your cars MP3/CD player, and yes, the new iPhone. Most of the applications running on your mobile devices are probably programmed with Java ME.
Another big advantage to the Java language is... it's FREE! Everybody loves free, right? The JRE is free, the Java SDK is free, and you can always find a free compiler. The Java language was designed to be Open Source; the code shared freely for learning purposes and better development.
Let's walk through the creation of a simple Java stand-alone application. I go to www.Eclipse.org and download the editor/compiler for my system: Mac OS X. After installing, I run Eclipse and create a new project. Let's just use the simple program I wrote above. I plop that into a .java file that I've created in my project and save it. I compile my program and run it. It seems to work fine, so now I want to send the program to one of my buddies for them to check out. Can I send the file I just created when I compiled the program? No! In Java, when you compile you do not make an executable. You make a .class file, which can only be viewed by people with the Java SDK. The SDK is a fairly large download, and unless you're developing Java applications, there's no use for it, so the average person won't have it. When I compiled the application, all I created was some byte code. Byte code is interpretted by JRE and converted into machine code to run the application on the OS you're currently running on... that's why they have platform specific JREs. But still, my .class is byte code, but the JRE can't run it without the SDK to help it. If I want to make an executable I have do one more step. I must "Export" my project from Eclipse. Using Eclipse, this process is far more difficult than it should be, but it works out in the end. Eclipse will then build a JAR file which can be executed on any computer, any operating system, that is running the JRE.
Still... the end user must have the JRE.
Sure, Java makes pretty GUIs. And the language, in most cases, is a heck of a lot more clean and pretty than C++ (minus formatting). But that's a hassle... it takes me longer to compile, and I can't guarantee you will be able to view the file immedietly after you recieve it. And the JRE is no small file! It's not a "quick download."
C++ may be an older language, but it is NOT a dead language, so quit saying that! C++ has features that Java decided to drop because they were too confusing, or Java just didn't want to handle them. (Pointers CAN be useful, people. They're not always a headache once you figure them out.) C++ still communicates with hardware better than Java. C++ does formatting of output WAY better than Java. I don't know why Java made formatting such a headache when they were stealing the language from C++. They simplified so many things, but formatting they unsimplified! It was simple in C++...
I like the idea of passing one file around to four different OSs. I also like the idea of sending an executable JAR file through email so Gmail doesn't gripe about me sending an "executable file" (refering to a .exe). C may be dead, but C++ is still alive and well. Java has a lot of nice things, don't get me wrong. In general, I like Java better than C++. But C++ is still a more powerful language. The code and final application of Java are far prettier than C++.
Still... in the words of Joel Whitehouse, "Yah, Java has a better syntactical design. But gosh darn it. I like that I can compile a 3k executable in C++!"
Still... as my Java teacher says frequently, "No, it's not magic... it's just Java."
I Beg to Differ - A Response for Apple
10/18/06 12:02 PM Filed in: Technology
2009
UPDATE: Some of
you insist on believing (or so it seems) that this
post was written yesterday. It wasn’t. It was written
three years ago, though it still gets more hits than
most other pages on my site. Understand that some of
my opinions have changed, some of the facts have
changed, and my writing style has improved immensely
since I wrote this. There’s no need to post harsh
comments or email me to inform me of how I wrong I
am. I am well aware of the recent changes and
improvements in technology.
2007 UPDATE: Some have express that they feel all of my so called "facts" are Mac biased. First of all, facts are facts; if they have a bias, whatever they're biased towards is superior because they're facts, and therefore indisputable. Yes, a few of my facts are Mac biased, and a few of my facts are Microsoft biased, but you wouldn’t go to an Apple news sites to get information on when the new Microsoft Zune is coming out, you'd go to a site that covers Microsoft technology information for that. Finally, what source of information doesn't have a bias? Give me one. Even the supposedly unbiased National Public Radio, paid for with your tax dollars, has a severely liberal bias.
DISCLAIMER: Before reading this post, please lighten up and relax. This is meant to be satirical and light, as any opinionated discussion on technology should be. A member of the Facebook group “I don’t hate Macs - I hate arrogant mac users” decided to post a rebuttal to Apple’s fourteen promotional points in order to show them all false. Since a lot of his "facts" were merely opinions stated as facts, I felt compelled to shed some more light on the situation from the point of view of someone who has used and owned numerous operating systems and computers and is open to all options. I use a Mac and PC at home and a PC at work, and the rest of my family also uses PC. I understand there are pros and cons to both platforms, but my personal preference depends on the job I’m performing. I boot Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux through Boot Camp for programming purposes. Before you fall out of your chair and shake your fist in furry at anything I’ve said below, remember that most of this is my opinion. You don't need to scream and swear at me back in a comment. There's no need for harsh words or name calling ...
Now sit back, open your mind, and smile, because this is meant for fun, not to start a nuclear (or verbal) war.
Alright, that's all for the disclaimer. Below I have listed the fourteen taglines Mac gives for its computers. Below those are Creston’s responses to those taglines. Below that is my opinion from my experience using both a Mac and a PC. Below that are links to some sites that will provide facts to prove my opinions (if possible). Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------
#1—It just works
Hmm … Just about every PC in the world works fine out of the box too. This may have been a point back 26 years ago when PCs were kits, but now, it’s standard. As it turns out, the Windows kernel is very reliable, all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software. The same thing will happen to a Mac, for the record.
Opinions:
Well, that actually depends on what you plan on doing with your system. Personally, when I used Windows previous, as soon as I ever bought a brand new machine, straight out of the box I always did a fresh format. Especially if you ordered your PC from Dell or some such company. It's just sick how much extra crap comes loaded on the machine. A few extra programs come with a Mac too, however, unlike a Windows PC, all of the programs that come pre-installed on any Mac OS are made by Apple. On top of that, the software that comes on a Mac is actually the full version of the program, not an annoying 30 day trial. You know that if you don't do a fresh format of you're PC as soon as you get it, you probably never will. That 30 day trial will run out and the program will just stay on your PC. Obviously, you can't use it without pay the $150 to get a license, but taking the 5 minutes out of your day to uninstall it is just too much work! Thanks to Apple's integrated apps, however, if you don't want that program on there (GarageBand for instance), all you have to do is drag and drop it into the recycling bin. It's gone in less than 5 seconds. If you think there's still fragments of that program left somewhere on your hard drive, you can install AppZapper and confidently uninstall all yours apps... but you really don't need to.
You're way out in left field in stating that "all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." If there was one thing I learned in Economics class, it's that if event A precedes even B and C, even A may or may not have caused events B and C. Not enough information is provided. You can't drop a statement like that and blame every single crash on the Windows OS from this point forward on the user. Granted, I think a great deal of crashes and errors and lock-ups on a computer are user related, but I'm not taking all of the blame off of the OS. You have no idea how many times my Windows programs would crash in the middle of my work, for no apparent reason. All I was doing was typing! Or maybe you do have an idea... I'm sure it's happened to you too! A friend said to me the other day after hearing I had switched to Mac, "Is it true that Safari is really unreliable and crashes all the time? I've heard that about Macs." I said, "Safari has crashed on me once since I got my Mac. It was mostly my fault too. Mac apps crash on occasion, true enough, but I wouldn't say that they crash 'all the time,' or that they crash anymore than Windows programs. How many times do you see 'The program has closed unexpectedly. Would you like to send Microsoft and error report?' in a day? Too many for me, that's why I switched to Mac." So, to state it properly, you should probably say "most Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." But what would a world be like if that bad software didn't exist in the first place for us to accidently (or intentionally) download? Welcome to Mac OS! False advertising is against the law; Apple speaks the truth!
Facts:
InfoWorld.com - It Just Works
MacNN.com - Consumer Reports for Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#2—You can make amazing stuff
This advertises iLife ’06, Apple’s suite of software. Most venders will include similar software, if not more powerful applications. Many new PCs include Nero, Pinnacle, photo editing apps, and various other applications that do much of the same tasks as iLife ’06. Windows Vista has all of the functionality of iLife ’06 included in the Premium versions.
Opinions:
You can do amazing stuff! iLife '06 is a beautiful package that comes standard with any current version of Mac OS. Most vendors will include similar software, if not more powerful. Unfortunately, they only include a 30 day trial. It's also 3rd party software. iLife is made by Apple, so you know it's good. It's all a full version for FREE! I can't speak for Windows Vista, I haven't seen it yet because... oh, right, it's not out yet. So it's really not fair to compare an unreleased OSs features to the features of an OS from last year, is it?
Facts:
I don't need facts on this one. Go onto your Windows machine and open any of the software that came with your OS. It will say "you have 0 out of 30 days remaining on this trial period." Point and fact.
------------------------------------------------------
#3—Design that turns heads
Apple computers have interesting designs. However, these designs have major shortcomings. Apple notebooks use soldered processors, preventing upgrades. Socket based CPUs have been the norm since the P4 came out in late 2000. Also, Apple hardware like the iMac have limited space for upgrades and integrated components are more likely to fail compared to independent subsystems. Apple’s design can be compared to some car designs—such as the DeLorean DMC-1 (the famous car from the Back to the Future Trilogy). This car had an amazing exterior design, but the car was an ultimate failure due to it’s lackluster performance and high performance to price ratio. Anyone without unlimited funds would chose something more utilitarian than a Mac.
Opinions:
Are we even talking about the internals right now? I was aware this statement was talking about the beauty of the externals on the machines. Even someone who hates the Mac OS and hardware that comes inside the machine will admit that they look beautiful. Anyone who appreciates computers can appreciate the beauty of the sleek, rounded design of the apple laptops and desktops. The perfect white, black, or even silver now.
If you wish to talk about internals, OK, I can do that too. It's true, Mac's aren't as customizable as PCs. Choose your arguments though. Some people claim they just want a computer that will do simple school-related tasks for them and get on the internet. Then they say they don't want a Mac because it's not possible to upgrade the hardware. Well, that's simply not true in the first place. It is more difficult to upgrade a Mac, but it is hardly impossible--especially on the Mac Pro's. I like to put it this way: "A PC is like a Yugo you can soup-up with lots of extra add-on parts. A Mac is like a Porsche that comes loaded from the factory." Who doesn't want a Porsche? If you want to know more about the design of any Apple machine, the bullet proof material they're made out of, the genius thought put into the exterior and interior design of them, click on the link to the Apple site below. I would like to point out that a downfall to all laptops, Apple or not, is that they are highly integrated. The Mac Pro is quite a different story. As luck would have it, PCs have limited space as well--5 PCI slots...
Integrated components aren't actually more likely to fail, they're just harder to replace if they do fail. So I guess that's where Murphy's Law's could come in, right? "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." I haven't had anything go wrong with my Mac yet though...
Facts:
MacOSXHints.com - Quote
Apple.com - Design that Turns Heads
Murphys-Laws.com
------------------------------------------------------
#4—114,000 viruses? Not on a Mac
This argument is flawed. The reason there are few viruses on Macs has to do with issues of user share. Less than 2% of people use mac compared to over 90% for Windows. This is a matter of logistics rather than security. Systematic, a leading computer security provider, states that OS X is less secure than Windows XP. Apple gives its users a false sense of security. Apple users often neglect basic security practices, such as running a firewall, using caution when opening emails, and running antivirus software. Apple computers ship with the built-in firewall disabled, while Windows XP ships with it on by default. Windows also advises users to run security software. As the Apple user share grows, there will be more and more threats and Mac users will not be prepared.
Opinions:
The statistic has actually risen to 5% of the world using the Mac OS, and predicted to rise more in the near future due to the release of the Mac Pro. In fact, according to Steve Jobs in his Keynote Address at WWDC in 2006, Apple laptop sales have had a 50% increase this year! I did a search but couldn't find that statement by Systematic anywhere. To be perfectly honest, there are viruses for Mac just as there are for PC. They're different viruses, but they still exist. I've never actually run into any, and most people using a Mac probably never will, but they're out there! So to say "there aren't viruses for a Mac" would be a lie. But the ad clearly states "Mac's don't get viruses." So, obviously, while they are there, you just don't get them unless you do something completely ridiculous... which I can't think of anything right now. As the Apple user share grows, there will be more and more threats to Mac users. Thank goodness they do make Norton for Mac. I don't use it, but maybe someday I'll actually need to! Right now I'm free to run my OS without an antivirus programming hogging all my memory running in the background!
Facts:
TheRegister.co.uk - 90% Windows, 5% Mac, 5% Other
MacNewsWorld.com - Allure of Mac Pro May Move Windows Fans to Convert
Apple.com - Apple WWDC 2006
TheAppleBlog.com - Hardly Any Viruses on a Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#5—Next year’s OS today
I cannot help but laugh at Apple’s argument here. First off, their widgets are stolen from an application known as Konfabulator, which is available for both Windows and Mac. An RSS reader? IE7 has this as does Mozilla Firefox. Apple did not invent RSS either. Tabbed browsing? IE7. Video conferencing? AIM or Windows Messenger. Parental Controls? I don’t support that kind of software but there are plenty of applications around and Windows Vista will have it included. Easy DIY scripting with Automator? Windows Scripting Host is much more powerful and has been included since Windows ’98. Mail with built-in spam blocking? Outlook Express has this as well. So all of Apple’s “innovations” are just rip-offs of other applications.
Opinions:
Konfabulator (now called Yahoo! Widgets) was a program invented in 2000 by Arlo Rose. Ironically, it was originally invented for Macintosh (hmm... ). Later, a Windows version was created. First off, I don't even know why you brought this up. Mac did not claim to be the original creator of this idea. As a fact, Mac simply popularized it. More importantly, Mac actually integrated it into the OS, that way it wouldn't be a memory hog running in the background constantly. (It does run in the background constantly, but it's not a memory hog. So I guess that's a contradiction... ) If you want to play that game though, what are these Gadgets I hear about that are apparently coming with Windows Vista?
You're correct in stating IE7 supports RSS, just like Apple's Safari. But let's go back to the original statement. "Next year's OS today." Right. Well, IE7 was released on... oh wait, it actually hasn't been released yet. Just a Release Candidate. That was released on January 31st, 2006. Safari 2.0, the first version to include the RSS feature, was released on April 29th, 2005. Well, not quite a year, but close. The final release of IE7 is expected by the end of 2007. Mozilla Firefox? Well, Mozilla isn't owned by Windows or Apple, so it's really not fair to compare 3rd party software when we're talking about the OS right now. Firefox is made for both Apple and Windows. Nice try though. So if Apple had it first... who's ripping who off?
(Fun fact: People can argue about whether it was Mozilla or Opera who had the first tabbed browsing system, but it was neither. It was a no-name browser (Netscaptor) who first put the idea onto the web in 1997. Mozilla supported the capabilities in 2000, I believe, and Opera didn't get around to it until 2001. Safari released their tabbed browser in early 2003, and IE7, finally released in late 2006, has tabbing capabilities. Interesting that, once again, Apple released theirs 3 years prior to Microsoft. So, yes, even though Apple and Microsoft have the same features NOW, Apple released it first (but they in no way claim to be the original creators). That's another reason Reason #5 makes sense.)
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
If you do a little bit of research you'll learn that Apple Mail evolved from a program called NeXTMail. This program ran on the NEXTSTEP OS. NeXT Computers, Inc. was owned by Steve Jobs at the time. Sound familiar? In 1992, Steve Jobs announced the release of NeXTMail. Microsoft release Outlook Express with the release of Windows 95. You do the math, that's 3 years after NeXTMail. NeXTMail became Apple Mail in 1997 when Apple purchased NeXT Computers, Inc. and also won Steve Jobs as their CEO in the deal.
As you may have noticed, Windows is trying to imitate Apple's slick design of Tiger OS with Windows Vista. They're doing a pretty decent job too. It only took them 5 years to release it.
Facts:
Yahoo.com - Yahoo! Widgets
Apple.com - Dashboard (Widgets)
Wikipedia.org - IE7
Wikipedia.org - Safari
WordPress.com - Steve Jobs Shows off NeXTMail
Wikipedia.org - NEXTSTEP
Wikipedia.org - Outlook Express
------------------------------------------------------
#6—The latest Intel chips
WHAT? Core Duo is hardly Apple only. Every major vender carries it. Nice try, Apple.
Opinions:
True, but Apple didn't claim to be the only company with Intel chips, did it? No, it claimed to be the company with the latest Intel chips. You must recall back to 2005 when Apple was the first company in history to release a Intel Core Duo processor. Apple had a deal with Intel. Windows machines didn't come out with the Intel Core Duo chipset until after Apple had released theirs. Of course, now Core Duo's come standard with almost any machine. The point is, Apple started the trend. That's where that little word latest comes in. But I see where you were coming from.
Facts:
Wikipedia.org - Intel Core
Wikipedia.org - Processor Architecture
Wikipedia.org - Apple Intel Transition
Intel.com - Intel Duo Core Processors
------------------------------------------------------
#7—Instant Video Chats
iChat AV isn’t the only application that allows video conferencing. It’s not the first either. Windows has had NetMeeting, a
video conferencing app since Windows 98SE (1999) and Windows Messenger has this functionality as well. Many notebooks have built in webcams. Apple forces people to buy a webcam though, even if one is not desired. Users should have the choice if they would like to have one.
Opinions:
I already said this, but I'll just say it again.
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
Many notebooks do have webcams... ALL Mac laptops have webcams built it! I do agree about the choice, however. It'd be nice to have that customizable. You might save $50 or something. But I wanted one, so I don't mind.
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
#8—More fun with Photos
iPhoto is the application being advertised in this point. Again, many venders chose to include this type of software, so Apple is hardly alone in this. One can also download Adobe Photoshop Album for free. Also, a cross platform program is available called the GIMP, which is many times more powerful than iPhoto or Adobe Photoshop. Again, much of the functionality of iPhoto is included in Windows Vista.
Opinions:
iPhoto is far superior to Adobe Photoshop Album, but it is far inferior to Picasa (unfortunately only made for Windows currently). I don't use iPhoto, I just open up my Pictures folder when I want to browse my pictures, but it is a decent program. Considering it's free and if you don't want it you just drag it to the recycling bin, it's not that big of a deal. It's worth nothing that Adobe Photoshop Album retails at $89.99.
Again, many vendors include this type of free software as a 30 day trial version. After those 30 days all the software does is hog your disk space--not that big of a deal with today's hard drives, but it clutters the start menu.
Facts:
Adobe.com - Adobe Photoshop Album
Apple.com - iPhoto
Google.com - Picasa
------------------------------------------------------
#9—One Click Websites
Computers running Microsoft Office, which nearly every Windows user owns a copy of, include both Microsoft Word and Microsoft Frontpage. These powerful WYSIWYG applications are vastly superior to the included Apple apps. Popular blogging sites such as blog.com and livejournal.com have web-based tools to accomplish the same tasks. All webcams come with easy to use software that records the video to a standard file which can be uploaded. Sorry, Apple. If you need additional functionality over the online blogging tools, then you are an advanced user and likely do your own coding and wouldn’t desire an HTML generator.
Opinions:
Actually, this is talking about iWeb, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't use a Mac, and I presume you don't and haven't. Microsoft Frontpage is evil and hardly powerful. Go with Macromedia Dreamweaver, a cross-platform WYSIWYG editor. iWeb is alright, but you have to have a .Mac account to use it and I didn't want to pay for that. I did a drag and drop and uninstalled it from my machine... that was easy! iWeb's source code is rather hideous, much like Microsoft Frontpage, so I don't recommend it.
I'm not sure why you decided to compare a blog to a website, but there is a difference. This is a blog. A website is like Microsoft.com... content, not opinions and journals. If you're using Microsoft Frontpage to create a blog you might want to ask for you money back :). It was also a bad choice to compare iWeb to Microsoft Fontpage, but that's ok, you didn't know. Check your facts before you report :).
Facts:
Apple.com - iWeb
Microsoft.com - Microsoft Frontpage
BusinessLogs.com - iWeb Generated Source Code is Awful
------------------------------------------------------
#10—Amazing Podcasts
Apple is flaunting their GarageBand program, which is cool, but utterly pointless to the average user. This is a classic case of “Bloatware”—pre-installed software which only slows down your computer. Windows comes with a much smaller application, Sound Recorder, which allows for simple recording. A free alternative is Audacity, again available to many platforms.
Opinions:
I don't use GarageBand ... I went into my apps and moved it to the Recycle Bin. It took me a grand total of 5 seconds to erase it from my hard drive. If you forget to erase it, it's only 100mb, it's not that big of a deal with today's hard drives. All that crappy trial software that comes with Windows should be something to worry you if you're worried about GarageBand. At least GarageBand is a full version of the software that comes with the OS. You want to talk about "bloatware"? Go turn on an eMachine or a Dell and open up the start menu. There's your bloatware. How much of that pre-installed software are you actually going to use? How much of it do you uninstall as soon as you get the PC in the mail? Most of it.
Audacity is a beautiful program. It's open source and cross-platform. I use it on my Mac. Sound Recorder is one of the crappiest programs of all time. It has no functionality what-so-ever! You should get on that, Microsoft. If we're categorizing, GarageBand and Sound Recorder are not even close to being in the same category ... No comparison, buddy. But here's something Windows has one-upped Mac on: Mac doesn't even come with a sound editor built in to the OS! As terrible as Sound Recorder is, Microsoft would have saved a little face if they didn’t include it at all.
Facts:
Apple.com - GarageBand
SourceForget.net - Audacity
------------------------------------------------------
#11—Rock star tunemaking
Is tunemaking a word? Again, this is about the GarageBand program, which also allows mixing of various loops. A much more powerful (and easier) application is Cakewalk Kinetic, which retails for approx $20. Again, this application would not be used by most people, so including it serves very few.
Opinions:
Apparently you couldn't find much wrong with this one since you had to go after the grammatical aspect. Sometimes we as Americans do that. As you may have noticed, Toys R Us does not use the word "are," but instead puts the letter R on the sign, backwards! It makes things a little bit more fun :).
Again, I don't really use GarageBand too often, so I don't relate to this reason for wanting a Mac. Once again though, GarageBand comes with the OS and is a full functional version. Cakewalk's Kinetic 2 retails at $79.00. I can tell you which one I'd rather have.
Facts:
Cakewalk.com - Cakewalk Kinetic
------------------------------------------------------
#12—Hollywood style movies
iMovie is the application being discussed in this area. A very similar application, Windows Movie Maker, has been included in Windows XP since 2001. Free upgrades have been released over the years, making WMM into a very useful application for the novice. With the Apple solution, as one moves up in skill and desires more features, they are forced to buy Final Cut Express, a powerful, but difficult to use application for the hefty sum of $299. Software venders developed many video editing applications for Windows ranging in price from $20 to upwards of $10^5! Many applications in the $50-$100 range are very powerful and much more intuitive than FCE.
Opinions:
Actually, they're probably referring to Final Cut Studio, which costs $1,299 for the fully functional, fully licensed version. iMovie is great for home movies, but it doesn't even start to compare to Final Cut Studio. iMovie is far superior to Windows MovieMaker! As one moves in skill and desires more features, I promise you, Windows MovieMaker won't provide! There are no programs that compare to Final Cut Studio for Windows. It is the supreme software for video editing. There are several programs for Windows that compare to iMovie, and they range from $30-$150. (Final Cut Express HD can be purchased for $299.)
Facts:
Apple.com - Final Cut Studio
Apple.com - Final Cut Express
------------------------------------------------------
#13—No hunting for drivers
Both Windows and Mac come with a large driver database, but there are far more drivers available for Windows. Both platforms use PnP technology, allowing for automatic installation and configuration of the drivers. What Apple fails to state is that many devices simply do not work with Mac. A large number of printers, scanners, and modems will not be recognized by Mac, and Mac needs to have Apple firmware on a disc burner in order for it to function. Only the Airport Extreme card works with Macs, other PCI cards will not, so if one needs 802.11a, they would need to buy a (very) costly Ethernet adapter. The process of manually installing drivers can be rather tedious for the average user, but most manufactures will include an installer program to simplify the process. Yes, there is no hunting for drivers on a Mac, simply because there are no drivers for a Mac! Which is the bigger trade off?
Opinions:
What you fail to state is that most devices do work with a Mac. What devices don't? Most things these days are Plug 'N' Play! Most things that you plug into a Mac will be recognized, just as they are on a PC. The "No hunting for drivers" comes in as soon as you plug it in! When you plug anything into a PC, a little dialogue pops up and tells you a new device has been found, it tells you it's looking for the device, looking for a driver, installing the driver, then finally the device is ready for use. This usually takes 30 to 60 seconds. When you plug anything into a Mac, you never even realize it searches. A new device appears on your desktop and is all ready for use! The process of manually installing drivers is rarely tedious because I have yet to confront it. I've never had to install a driver on my Mac. If a driver somehow cannot be found it will use a generic drive for the device so the device is still at least functional. These are the facts of life. It's no more difficult on a Mac than on a PC. In fact, it's easier.
Sadly, you are correct about the Airport Extreme card. However, 802.11a, b, and g cards are expensive for Windows AND Mac--they just come with (most) Windows machines. Furthermore, I've never needed an 802.11 card... I'm happy with my Airport Extreme.
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
#14—Awesome out of the box
Read the previous 13 points. Any newly purchased system works perfectly out of the box.
Opinions:
I agree. Check out my previous 13 rebuttals and I'm pretty sure you'll be sold on Mac! I am!! After using a PC for 17 years of my life, I haven't regretted adding Mac to the OS list one bit!
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
In closing, I hope there are no hard feelings. This was all just fun and games anyways, right? I had a lot of fun compiling this list.
I did find it interesting to note that even Microsoft uses a few Mac's. Check it out!
I'll leave you with a few more sources of interesting information about Mac vs PC, or just general information on Apple.
An article from back in 2000 by Eric DeStefano comparing Mac machines to Windows based PCs. Written with a bias towards Mac, but from the viewpoint of a previous PC user, much like myself. (LowEndMac.com)
A very interesting site chuck-full of comparison charts and tables. No bias, just raw facts. (SystemShoutOuts.org)
An interview-type article that takes several key areas of computer use and compares Windows efficiency with Mac efficiency. The interview seems to switch back and forth between favoring Mac or PC. (TechBuilder.org)
A very useful article that disproves the myth that Macs are more expensive. Overall, yes, they are. But when you consider the efficiency of software and hardware products you're getting with your money, you'll very easily realize you're getting a better deal. (TechNewsWorld.com)
An article written in 2006 to persuade that everyone should use a Mac. (KenRockwell.com)
A site filled with information on the Intel chipset in all Mac computers now. (MacOnIntel.com)
Finally, a quote I liked a lot from a forum on MacOSXHints.com.
"People usually work on PCs because they have to. People work on Macs because they want to."
I’d tend to agree with that. In all honesty, anyone willing to limit themselves to one operating system is clearly just a fanboy and guilty of the same arrogant fanaticism they berate Mac users for. Prefer what you will, but be versatile and don’t be ignorant.
2007 UPDATE: Some have express that they feel all of my so called "facts" are Mac biased. First of all, facts are facts; if they have a bias, whatever they're biased towards is superior because they're facts, and therefore indisputable. Yes, a few of my facts are Mac biased, and a few of my facts are Microsoft biased, but you wouldn’t go to an Apple news sites to get information on when the new Microsoft Zune is coming out, you'd go to a site that covers Microsoft technology information for that. Finally, what source of information doesn't have a bias? Give me one. Even the supposedly unbiased National Public Radio, paid for with your tax dollars, has a severely liberal bias.
DISCLAIMER: Before reading this post, please lighten up and relax. This is meant to be satirical and light, as any opinionated discussion on technology should be. A member of the Facebook group “I don’t hate Macs - I hate arrogant mac users” decided to post a rebuttal to Apple’s fourteen promotional points in order to show them all false. Since a lot of his "facts" were merely opinions stated as facts, I felt compelled to shed some more light on the situation from the point of view of someone who has used and owned numerous operating systems and computers and is open to all options. I use a Mac and PC at home and a PC at work, and the rest of my family also uses PC. I understand there are pros and cons to both platforms, but my personal preference depends on the job I’m performing. I boot Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux through Boot Camp for programming purposes. Before you fall out of your chair and shake your fist in furry at anything I’ve said below, remember that most of this is my opinion. You don't need to scream and swear at me back in a comment. There's no need for harsh words or name calling ...
Now sit back, open your mind, and smile, because this is meant for fun, not to start a nuclear (or verbal) war.
Alright, that's all for the disclaimer. Below I have listed the fourteen taglines Mac gives for its computers. Below those are Creston’s responses to those taglines. Below that is my opinion from my experience using both a Mac and a PC. Below that are links to some sites that will provide facts to prove my opinions (if possible). Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------
#1—It just works
Hmm … Just about every PC in the world works fine out of the box too. This may have been a point back 26 years ago when PCs were kits, but now, it’s standard. As it turns out, the Windows kernel is very reliable, all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software. The same thing will happen to a Mac, for the record.
Opinions:
Well, that actually depends on what you plan on doing with your system. Personally, when I used Windows previous, as soon as I ever bought a brand new machine, straight out of the box I always did a fresh format. Especially if you ordered your PC from Dell or some such company. It's just sick how much extra crap comes loaded on the machine. A few extra programs come with a Mac too, however, unlike a Windows PC, all of the programs that come pre-installed on any Mac OS are made by Apple. On top of that, the software that comes on a Mac is actually the full version of the program, not an annoying 30 day trial. You know that if you don't do a fresh format of you're PC as soon as you get it, you probably never will. That 30 day trial will run out and the program will just stay on your PC. Obviously, you can't use it without pay the $150 to get a license, but taking the 5 minutes out of your day to uninstall it is just too much work! Thanks to Apple's integrated apps, however, if you don't want that program on there (GarageBand for instance), all you have to do is drag and drop it into the recycling bin. It's gone in less than 5 seconds. If you think there's still fragments of that program left somewhere on your hard drive, you can install AppZapper and confidently uninstall all yours apps... but you really don't need to.
You're way out in left field in stating that "all Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." If there was one thing I learned in Economics class, it's that if event A precedes even B and C, even A may or may not have caused events B and C. Not enough information is provided. You can't drop a statement like that and blame every single crash on the Windows OS from this point forward on the user. Granted, I think a great deal of crashes and errors and lock-ups on a computer are user related, but I'm not taking all of the blame off of the OS. You have no idea how many times my Windows programs would crash in the middle of my work, for no apparent reason. All I was doing was typing! Or maybe you do have an idea... I'm sure it's happened to you too! A friend said to me the other day after hearing I had switched to Mac, "Is it true that Safari is really unreliable and crashes all the time? I've heard that about Macs." I said, "Safari has crashed on me once since I got my Mac. It was mostly my fault too. Mac apps crash on occasion, true enough, but I wouldn't say that they crash 'all the time,' or that they crash anymore than Windows programs. How many times do you see 'The program has closed unexpectedly. Would you like to send Microsoft and error report?' in a day? Too many for me, that's why I switched to Mac." So, to state it properly, you should probably say "most Windows crashes are caused by people installing bad software." But what would a world be like if that bad software didn't exist in the first place for us to accidently (or intentionally) download? Welcome to Mac OS! False advertising is against the law; Apple speaks the truth!
Facts:
InfoWorld.com - It Just Works
MacNN.com - Consumer Reports for Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#2—You can make amazing stuff
This advertises iLife ’06, Apple’s suite of software. Most venders will include similar software, if not more powerful applications. Many new PCs include Nero, Pinnacle, photo editing apps, and various other applications that do much of the same tasks as iLife ’06. Windows Vista has all of the functionality of iLife ’06 included in the Premium versions.
Opinions:
You can do amazing stuff! iLife '06 is a beautiful package that comes standard with any current version of Mac OS. Most vendors will include similar software, if not more powerful. Unfortunately, they only include a 30 day trial. It's also 3rd party software. iLife is made by Apple, so you know it's good. It's all a full version for FREE! I can't speak for Windows Vista, I haven't seen it yet because... oh, right, it's not out yet. So it's really not fair to compare an unreleased OSs features to the features of an OS from last year, is it?
Facts:
I don't need facts on this one. Go onto your Windows machine and open any of the software that came with your OS. It will say "you have 0 out of 30 days remaining on this trial period." Point and fact.
------------------------------------------------------
#3—Design that turns heads
Apple computers have interesting designs. However, these designs have major shortcomings. Apple notebooks use soldered processors, preventing upgrades. Socket based CPUs have been the norm since the P4 came out in late 2000. Also, Apple hardware like the iMac have limited space for upgrades and integrated components are more likely to fail compared to independent subsystems. Apple’s design can be compared to some car designs—such as the DeLorean DMC-1 (the famous car from the Back to the Future Trilogy). This car had an amazing exterior design, but the car was an ultimate failure due to it’s lackluster performance and high performance to price ratio. Anyone without unlimited funds would chose something more utilitarian than a Mac.
Opinions:
Are we even talking about the internals right now? I was aware this statement was talking about the beauty of the externals on the machines. Even someone who hates the Mac OS and hardware that comes inside the machine will admit that they look beautiful. Anyone who appreciates computers can appreciate the beauty of the sleek, rounded design of the apple laptops and desktops. The perfect white, black, or even silver now.
If you wish to talk about internals, OK, I can do that too. It's true, Mac's aren't as customizable as PCs. Choose your arguments though. Some people claim they just want a computer that will do simple school-related tasks for them and get on the internet. Then they say they don't want a Mac because it's not possible to upgrade the hardware. Well, that's simply not true in the first place. It is more difficult to upgrade a Mac, but it is hardly impossible--especially on the Mac Pro's. I like to put it this way: "A PC is like a Yugo you can soup-up with lots of extra add-on parts. A Mac is like a Porsche that comes loaded from the factory." Who doesn't want a Porsche? If you want to know more about the design of any Apple machine, the bullet proof material they're made out of, the genius thought put into the exterior and interior design of them, click on the link to the Apple site below. I would like to point out that a downfall to all laptops, Apple or not, is that they are highly integrated. The Mac Pro is quite a different story. As luck would have it, PCs have limited space as well--5 PCI slots...
Integrated components aren't actually more likely to fail, they're just harder to replace if they do fail. So I guess that's where Murphy's Law's could come in, right? "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." I haven't had anything go wrong with my Mac yet though...
Facts:
MacOSXHints.com - Quote
Apple.com - Design that Turns Heads
Murphys-Laws.com
------------------------------------------------------
#4—114,000 viruses? Not on a Mac
This argument is flawed. The reason there are few viruses on Macs has to do with issues of user share. Less than 2% of people use mac compared to over 90% for Windows. This is a matter of logistics rather than security. Systematic, a leading computer security provider, states that OS X is less secure than Windows XP. Apple gives its users a false sense of security. Apple users often neglect basic security practices, such as running a firewall, using caution when opening emails, and running antivirus software. Apple computers ship with the built-in firewall disabled, while Windows XP ships with it on by default. Windows also advises users to run security software. As the Apple user share grows, there will be more and more threats and Mac users will not be prepared.
Opinions:
The statistic has actually risen to 5% of the world using the Mac OS, and predicted to rise more in the near future due to the release of the Mac Pro. In fact, according to Steve Jobs in his Keynote Address at WWDC in 2006, Apple laptop sales have had a 50% increase this year! I did a search but couldn't find that statement by Systematic anywhere. To be perfectly honest, there are viruses for Mac just as there are for PC. They're different viruses, but they still exist. I've never actually run into any, and most people using a Mac probably never will, but they're out there! So to say "there aren't viruses for a Mac" would be a lie. But the ad clearly states "Mac's don't get viruses." So, obviously, while they are there, you just don't get them unless you do something completely ridiculous... which I can't think of anything right now. As the Apple user share grows, there will be more and more threats to Mac users. Thank goodness they do make Norton for Mac. I don't use it, but maybe someday I'll actually need to! Right now I'm free to run my OS without an antivirus programming hogging all my memory running in the background!
Facts:
TheRegister.co.uk - 90% Windows, 5% Mac, 5% Other
MacNewsWorld.com - Allure of Mac Pro May Move Windows Fans to Convert
Apple.com - Apple WWDC 2006
TheAppleBlog.com - Hardly Any Viruses on a Mac
------------------------------------------------------
#5—Next year’s OS today
I cannot help but laugh at Apple’s argument here. First off, their widgets are stolen from an application known as Konfabulator, which is available for both Windows and Mac. An RSS reader? IE7 has this as does Mozilla Firefox. Apple did not invent RSS either. Tabbed browsing? IE7. Video conferencing? AIM or Windows Messenger. Parental Controls? I don’t support that kind of software but there are plenty of applications around and Windows Vista will have it included. Easy DIY scripting with Automator? Windows Scripting Host is much more powerful and has been included since Windows ’98. Mail with built-in spam blocking? Outlook Express has this as well. So all of Apple’s “innovations” are just rip-offs of other applications.
Opinions:
Konfabulator (now called Yahoo! Widgets) was a program invented in 2000 by Arlo Rose. Ironically, it was originally invented for Macintosh (hmm... ). Later, a Windows version was created. First off, I don't even know why you brought this up. Mac did not claim to be the original creator of this idea. As a fact, Mac simply popularized it. More importantly, Mac actually integrated it into the OS, that way it wouldn't be a memory hog running in the background constantly. (It does run in the background constantly, but it's not a memory hog. So I guess that's a contradiction... ) If you want to play that game though, what are these Gadgets I hear about that are apparently coming with Windows Vista?
You're correct in stating IE7 supports RSS, just like Apple's Safari. But let's go back to the original statement. "Next year's OS today." Right. Well, IE7 was released on... oh wait, it actually hasn't been released yet. Just a Release Candidate. That was released on January 31st, 2006. Safari 2.0, the first version to include the RSS feature, was released on April 29th, 2005. Well, not quite a year, but close. The final release of IE7 is expected by the end of 2007. Mozilla Firefox? Well, Mozilla isn't owned by Windows or Apple, so it's really not fair to compare 3rd party software when we're talking about the OS right now. Firefox is made for both Apple and Windows. Nice try though. So if Apple had it first... who's ripping who off?
(Fun fact: People can argue about whether it was Mozilla or Opera who had the first tabbed browsing system, but it was neither. It was a no-name browser (Netscaptor) who first put the idea onto the web in 1997. Mozilla supported the capabilities in 2000, I believe, and Opera didn't get around to it until 2001. Safari released their tabbed browser in early 2003, and IE7, finally released in late 2006, has tabbing capabilities. Interesting that, once again, Apple released theirs 3 years prior to Microsoft. So, yes, even though Apple and Microsoft have the same features NOW, Apple released it first (but they in no way claim to be the original creators). That's another reason Reason #5 makes sense.)
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
If you do a little bit of research you'll learn that Apple Mail evolved from a program called NeXTMail. This program ran on the NEXTSTEP OS. NeXT Computers, Inc. was owned by Steve Jobs at the time. Sound familiar? In 1992, Steve Jobs announced the release of NeXTMail. Microsoft release Outlook Express with the release of Windows 95. You do the math, that's 3 years after NeXTMail. NeXTMail became Apple Mail in 1997 when Apple purchased NeXT Computers, Inc. and also won Steve Jobs as their CEO in the deal.
As you may have noticed, Windows is trying to imitate Apple's slick design of Tiger OS with Windows Vista. They're doing a pretty decent job too. It only took them 5 years to release it.
Facts:
Yahoo.com - Yahoo! Widgets
Apple.com - Dashboard (Widgets)
Wikipedia.org - IE7
Wikipedia.org - Safari
WordPress.com - Steve Jobs Shows off NeXTMail
Wikipedia.org - NEXTSTEP
Wikipedia.org - Outlook Express
------------------------------------------------------
#6—The latest Intel chips
WHAT? Core Duo is hardly Apple only. Every major vender carries it. Nice try, Apple.
Opinions:
True, but Apple didn't claim to be the only company with Intel chips, did it? No, it claimed to be the company with the latest Intel chips. You must recall back to 2005 when Apple was the first company in history to release a Intel Core Duo processor. Apple had a deal with Intel. Windows machines didn't come out with the Intel Core Duo chipset until after Apple had released theirs. Of course, now Core Duo's come standard with almost any machine. The point is, Apple started the trend. That's where that little word latest comes in. But I see where you were coming from.
Facts:
Wikipedia.org - Intel Core
Wikipedia.org - Processor Architecture
Wikipedia.org - Apple Intel Transition
Intel.com - Intel Duo Core Processors
------------------------------------------------------
#7—Instant Video Chats
iChat AV isn’t the only application that allows video conferencing. It’s not the first either. Windows has had NetMeeting, a
video conferencing app since Windows 98SE (1999) and Windows Messenger has this functionality as well. Many notebooks have built in webcams. Apple forces people to buy a webcam though, even if one is not desired. Users should have the choice if they would like to have one.
Opinions:
I already said this, but I'll just say it again.
Funny that you should bring up NetMeeting. That program is so frustrating! It's hideous and lacking in features. Not only that, it's a video client... that's all! It isn't meant to be a chat client, so don't compare it to one. iChat includes the features of an audio/video/chat client. It's very reliable and user friendly. You're right, Windows Messenger also includes these features. I can run both Windows Messenger and Microsoft Messenger on my Mac though, so I'm at no disadvantage there. AIM is made for Mac too, but I despise AIM, and it's even crappier on Mac than it is on PC.
Many notebooks do have webcams... ALL Mac laptops have webcams built it! I do agree about the choice, however. It'd be nice to have that customizable. You might save $50 or something. But I wanted one, so I don't mind.
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
#8—More fun with Photos
iPhoto is the application being advertised in this point. Again, many venders chose to include this type of software, so Apple is hardly alone in this. One can also download Adobe Photoshop Album for free. Also, a cross platform program is available called the GIMP, which is many times more powerful than iPhoto or Adobe Photoshop. Again, much of the functionality of iPhoto is included in Windows Vista.
Opinions:
iPhoto is far superior to Adobe Photoshop Album, but it is far inferior to Picasa (unfortunately only made for Windows currently). I don't use iPhoto, I just open up my Pictures folder when I want to browse my pictures, but it is a decent program. Considering it's free and if you don't want it you just drag it to the recycling bin, it's not that big of a deal. It's worth nothing that Adobe Photoshop Album retails at $89.99.
Again, many vendors include this type of free software as a 30 day trial version. After those 30 days all the software does is hog your disk space--not that big of a deal with today's hard drives, but it clutters the start menu.
Facts:
Adobe.com - Adobe Photoshop Album
Apple.com - iPhoto
Google.com - Picasa
------------------------------------------------------
#9—One Click Websites
Computers running Microsoft Office, which nearly every Windows user owns a copy of, include both Microsoft Word and Microsoft Frontpage. These powerful WYSIWYG applications are vastly superior to the included Apple apps. Popular blogging sites such as blog.com and livejournal.com have web-based tools to accomplish the same tasks. All webcams come with easy to use software that records the video to a standard file which can be uploaded. Sorry, Apple. If you need additional functionality over the online blogging tools, then you are an advanced user and likely do your own coding and wouldn’t desire an HTML generator.
Opinions:
Actually, this is talking about iWeb, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't use a Mac, and I presume you don't and haven't. Microsoft Frontpage is evil and hardly powerful. Go with Macromedia Dreamweaver, a cross-platform WYSIWYG editor. iWeb is alright, but you have to have a .Mac account to use it and I didn't want to pay for that. I did a drag and drop and uninstalled it from my machine... that was easy! iWeb's source code is rather hideous, much like Microsoft Frontpage, so I don't recommend it.
I'm not sure why you decided to compare a blog to a website, but there is a difference. This is a blog. A website is like Microsoft.com... content, not opinions and journals. If you're using Microsoft Frontpage to create a blog you might want to ask for you money back :). It was also a bad choice to compare iWeb to Microsoft Fontpage, but that's ok, you didn't know. Check your facts before you report :).
Facts:
Apple.com - iWeb
Microsoft.com - Microsoft Frontpage
BusinessLogs.com - iWeb Generated Source Code is Awful
------------------------------------------------------
#10—Amazing Podcasts
Apple is flaunting their GarageBand program, which is cool, but utterly pointless to the average user. This is a classic case of “Bloatware”—pre-installed software which only slows down your computer. Windows comes with a much smaller application, Sound Recorder, which allows for simple recording. A free alternative is Audacity, again available to many platforms.
Opinions:
I don't use GarageBand ... I went into my apps and moved it to the Recycle Bin. It took me a grand total of 5 seconds to erase it from my hard drive. If you forget to erase it, it's only 100mb, it's not that big of a deal with today's hard drives. All that crappy trial software that comes with Windows should be something to worry you if you're worried about GarageBand. At least GarageBand is a full version of the software that comes with the OS. You want to talk about "bloatware"? Go turn on an eMachine or a Dell and open up the start menu. There's your bloatware. How much of that pre-installed software are you actually going to use? How much of it do you uninstall as soon as you get the PC in the mail? Most of it.
Audacity is a beautiful program. It's open source and cross-platform. I use it on my Mac. Sound Recorder is one of the crappiest programs of all time. It has no functionality what-so-ever! You should get on that, Microsoft. If we're categorizing, GarageBand and Sound Recorder are not even close to being in the same category ... No comparison, buddy. But here's something Windows has one-upped Mac on: Mac doesn't even come with a sound editor built in to the OS! As terrible as Sound Recorder is, Microsoft would have saved a little face if they didn’t include it at all.
Facts:
Apple.com - GarageBand
SourceForget.net - Audacity
------------------------------------------------------
#11—Rock star tunemaking
Is tunemaking a word? Again, this is about the GarageBand program, which also allows mixing of various loops. A much more powerful (and easier) application is Cakewalk Kinetic, which retails for approx $20. Again, this application would not be used by most people, so including it serves very few.
Opinions:
Apparently you couldn't find much wrong with this one since you had to go after the grammatical aspect. Sometimes we as Americans do that. As you may have noticed, Toys R Us does not use the word "are," but instead puts the letter R on the sign, backwards! It makes things a little bit more fun :).
Again, I don't really use GarageBand too often, so I don't relate to this reason for wanting a Mac. Once again though, GarageBand comes with the OS and is a full functional version. Cakewalk's Kinetic 2 retails at $79.00. I can tell you which one I'd rather have.
Facts:
Cakewalk.com - Cakewalk Kinetic
------------------------------------------------------
#12—Hollywood style movies
iMovie is the application being discussed in this area. A very similar application, Windows Movie Maker, has been included in Windows XP since 2001. Free upgrades have been released over the years, making WMM into a very useful application for the novice. With the Apple solution, as one moves up in skill and desires more features, they are forced to buy Final Cut Express, a powerful, but difficult to use application for the hefty sum of $299. Software venders developed many video editing applications for Windows ranging in price from $20 to upwards of $10^5! Many applications in the $50-$100 range are very powerful and much more intuitive than FCE.
Opinions:
Actually, they're probably referring to Final Cut Studio, which costs $1,299 for the fully functional, fully licensed version. iMovie is great for home movies, but it doesn't even start to compare to Final Cut Studio. iMovie is far superior to Windows MovieMaker! As one moves in skill and desires more features, I promise you, Windows MovieMaker won't provide! There are no programs that compare to Final Cut Studio for Windows. It is the supreme software for video editing. There are several programs for Windows that compare to iMovie, and they range from $30-$150. (Final Cut Express HD can be purchased for $299.)
Facts:
Apple.com - Final Cut Studio
Apple.com - Final Cut Express
------------------------------------------------------
#13—No hunting for drivers
Both Windows and Mac come with a large driver database, but there are far more drivers available for Windows. Both platforms use PnP technology, allowing for automatic installation and configuration of the drivers. What Apple fails to state is that many devices simply do not work with Mac. A large number of printers, scanners, and modems will not be recognized by Mac, and Mac needs to have Apple firmware on a disc burner in order for it to function. Only the Airport Extreme card works with Macs, other PCI cards will not, so if one needs 802.11a, they would need to buy a (very) costly Ethernet adapter. The process of manually installing drivers can be rather tedious for the average user, but most manufactures will include an installer program to simplify the process. Yes, there is no hunting for drivers on a Mac, simply because there are no drivers for a Mac! Which is the bigger trade off?
Opinions:
What you fail to state is that most devices do work with a Mac. What devices don't? Most things these days are Plug 'N' Play! Most things that you plug into a Mac will be recognized, just as they are on a PC. The "No hunting for drivers" comes in as soon as you plug it in! When you plug anything into a PC, a little dialogue pops up and tells you a new device has been found, it tells you it's looking for the device, looking for a driver, installing the driver, then finally the device is ready for use. This usually takes 30 to 60 seconds. When you plug anything into a Mac, you never even realize it searches. A new device appears on your desktop and is all ready for use! The process of manually installing drivers is rarely tedious because I have yet to confront it. I've never had to install a driver on my Mac. If a driver somehow cannot be found it will use a generic drive for the device so the device is still at least functional. These are the facts of life. It's no more difficult on a Mac than on a PC. In fact, it's easier.
Sadly, you are correct about the Airport Extreme card. However, 802.11a, b, and g cards are expensive for Windows AND Mac--they just come with (most) Windows machines. Furthermore, I've never needed an 802.11 card... I'm happy with my Airport Extreme.
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
#14—Awesome out of the box
Read the previous 13 points. Any newly purchased system works perfectly out of the box.
Opinions:
I agree. Check out my previous 13 rebuttals and I'm pretty sure you'll be sold on Mac! I am!! After using a PC for 17 years of my life, I haven't regretted adding Mac to the OS list one bit!
Facts:
None needed for this one.
------------------------------------------------------
In closing, I hope there are no hard feelings. This was all just fun and games anyways, right? I had a lot of fun compiling this list.
I did find it interesting to note that even Microsoft uses a few Mac's. Check it out!
I'll leave you with a few more sources of interesting information about Mac vs PC, or just general information on Apple.
An article from back in 2000 by Eric DeStefano comparing Mac machines to Windows based PCs. Written with a bias towards Mac, but from the viewpoint of a previous PC user, much like myself. (LowEndMac.com)
A very interesting site chuck-full of comparison charts and tables. No bias, just raw facts. (SystemShoutOuts.org)
An interview-type article that takes several key areas of computer use and compares Windows efficiency with Mac efficiency. The interview seems to switch back and forth between favoring Mac or PC. (TechBuilder.org)
A very useful article that disproves the myth that Macs are more expensive. Overall, yes, they are. But when you consider the efficiency of software and hardware products you're getting with your money, you'll very easily realize you're getting a better deal. (TechNewsWorld.com)
An article written in 2006 to persuade that everyone should use a Mac. (KenRockwell.com)
A site filled with information on the Intel chipset in all Mac computers now. (MacOnIntel.com)
Finally, a quote I liked a lot from a forum on MacOSXHints.com.
"People usually work on PCs because they have to. People work on Macs because they want to."
I’d tend to agree with that. In all honesty, anyone willing to limit themselves to one operating system is clearly just a fanboy and guilty of the same arrogant fanaticism they berate Mac users for. Prefer what you will, but be versatile and don’t be ignorant.
Windows Vista on the Horizon?
08/26/06 08:12 AM Filed in: Technology
It appears as though it
is. Recently, there has been talk of a September
release. Unfortunately, this release is yet another
test version for developers--still no final for the
general public. So what has Microsoft been doing in
the six years it's been developing Windows Vista? I
decided to take a little look at the progression of
Windows Vista, starting at the 2004 WWDC in San
Francisco.
"Two years ago at WWDC we thought we'd poke a little bit of fun at the folks in Redmond. So, we hung in the hallways of the conference some big banners that said 'Redmond, start your photocopiers.' It was only a joke, but they actually took it seriously." - Bertrand Serlet, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering, Apple
After watching Steve Jobs' Keynote speech just a few weeks ago, I picked up on a lot of the similarities between Mac OS X and Windows Vista. Microsoft apparently was feeling a little left out after Apple's release of Spotlight, an extremely powerful and useful tool implemented in the Tiger OS. It's basically a search of all documents, folder, emails, IMs, applications, and even servers and other computers. Not only does spotlight search your computer for a file named what you type in, it also searched within the file for results. Vista took a little different approach...instead of Spotlight, they call it Instant Search. And instead of it being in the upper right corner, it has moved to the lower left. It seems to replace the Programs Menu as far as I can tell. That's an improvement, because the Programs Menu was extremely unorganized and very unappealing in all of Windows Operating Systems. Search is much more efficient.
Vista is kicking some serious butt in the eye-candy field. Honestly, Windows has never looked better. Microsoft is finally taking advantage of your video card, and this is good! Unfortunately, base requirements for Vista are at least 512mb of RAM. That's ridiculous. Tiger, on the other hand, requires only 256mb of RAM, and it runs just perfectly. That's a whole lot more reasonable.
A very impressive feature of Vista is the thumbnail view of your open programs. All programs open in your task-bar can be viewed in a thumbnail without actually opening them. All you have to do is roll over them! Tiger has a similar, although admittedly not quite as good, version of this, where your open programs, when minused down, are shown in the lower right hand corner, live. So if your iTunes is minused down and the song changes, you can see it change in the dock. It's too small to make anything clearly out, however.
Vista is kicking some tail in the 3-dimensional realm. Changing apps has never been more beautiful. A viewing window of a nearly full sized preview of all of your open applications appears, laying them out one in front of another. You can then select which one you wish to go to.
Vista is really trying to impress with their glassy effect, and they're succeeding. Windows and menus look beautiful with their reflective and see through appearance. The task-bar and Start Menu have these looks as well.
Good work on the Gadgets. It seems like a serious take off of Apple's Widgets, but at least Microsoft is catching up.
In the visual department, Windows Vista is coming along beautifully. I'm very impressed with that. The biggest draw backs are the RAM issue as I mentioned, and with that the registry and DLL files. Windows will not be able to advance further in the efficiency and overall speed of their operating system until it rids itself of the registry. DLL files are just terrible to keep track of and mess with! The beauty of Mac is the self-contained applications it runs. Few, if any, external files. Most applications are entirely self contained in a .app file. I believe it's probably also understood by most of you that 90-95% of all viruses write themselves TO the registry in Windows. Funny...Mac doesn't have any viruses, does it?
A recent news release has stated that Vista is the "last of its kind." Microsoft has admitted that Vista, after being in development for the past 6 years, has become too complicated. The OS is so confusing (programming) and complicated that 3rd party developers are having a difficult time writing software for it. Microsoft has also stated that it's having a hard time finding a way to create updates to release for the OS because the programming is so closed. That's a big issue.
Good work on the visuals, Microsoft. Next OS, ditch the registry and DLL files--go for simple! Next OS, get your nose out of the air; their are other Operating Systems out there besides Windows. Recognize them. Be compatible. They are.
"Two years ago at WWDC we thought we'd poke a little bit of fun at the folks in Redmond. So, we hung in the hallways of the conference some big banners that said 'Redmond, start your photocopiers.' It was only a joke, but they actually took it seriously." - Bertrand Serlet, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering, Apple
After watching Steve Jobs' Keynote speech just a few weeks ago, I picked up on a lot of the similarities between Mac OS X and Windows Vista. Microsoft apparently was feeling a little left out after Apple's release of Spotlight, an extremely powerful and useful tool implemented in the Tiger OS. It's basically a search of all documents, folder, emails, IMs, applications, and even servers and other computers. Not only does spotlight search your computer for a file named what you type in, it also searched within the file for results. Vista took a little different approach...instead of Spotlight, they call it Instant Search. And instead of it being in the upper right corner, it has moved to the lower left. It seems to replace the Programs Menu as far as I can tell. That's an improvement, because the Programs Menu was extremely unorganized and very unappealing in all of Windows Operating Systems. Search is much more efficient.
Vista is kicking some serious butt in the eye-candy field. Honestly, Windows has never looked better. Microsoft is finally taking advantage of your video card, and this is good! Unfortunately, base requirements for Vista are at least 512mb of RAM. That's ridiculous. Tiger, on the other hand, requires only 256mb of RAM, and it runs just perfectly. That's a whole lot more reasonable.
A very impressive feature of Vista is the thumbnail view of your open programs. All programs open in your task-bar can be viewed in a thumbnail without actually opening them. All you have to do is roll over them! Tiger has a similar, although admittedly not quite as good, version of this, where your open programs, when minused down, are shown in the lower right hand corner, live. So if your iTunes is minused down and the song changes, you can see it change in the dock. It's too small to make anything clearly out, however.
Vista is kicking some tail in the 3-dimensional realm. Changing apps has never been more beautiful. A viewing window of a nearly full sized preview of all of your open applications appears, laying them out one in front of another. You can then select which one you wish to go to.
Vista is really trying to impress with their glassy effect, and they're succeeding. Windows and menus look beautiful with their reflective and see through appearance. The task-bar and Start Menu have these looks as well.
Good work on the Gadgets. It seems like a serious take off of Apple's Widgets, but at least Microsoft is catching up.
In the visual department, Windows Vista is coming along beautifully. I'm very impressed with that. The biggest draw backs are the RAM issue as I mentioned, and with that the registry and DLL files. Windows will not be able to advance further in the efficiency and overall speed of their operating system until it rids itself of the registry. DLL files are just terrible to keep track of and mess with! The beauty of Mac is the self-contained applications it runs. Few, if any, external files. Most applications are entirely self contained in a .app file. I believe it's probably also understood by most of you that 90-95% of all viruses write themselves TO the registry in Windows. Funny...Mac doesn't have any viruses, does it?
A recent news release has stated that Vista is the "last of its kind." Microsoft has admitted that Vista, after being in development for the past 6 years, has become too complicated. The OS is so confusing (programming) and complicated that 3rd party developers are having a difficult time writing software for it. Microsoft has also stated that it's having a hard time finding a way to create updates to release for the OS because the programming is so closed. That's a big issue.
Good work on the visuals, Microsoft. Next OS, ditch the registry and DLL files--go for simple! Next OS, get your nose out of the air; their are other Operating Systems out there besides Windows. Recognize them. Be compatible. They are.