[MW Forums]

A long time Mac user finds many superficial similarities between Microsoft's Vista and Mac OS X, but is less impressed with what lies underneath. more

[jmincey]

I've been using Vista RC1 (5600) on a tri-boot AMD-based computer (with Ubuntu and Windows XP) for a few weeks now, and on balance I'm unimpressed with it (that is, with Vista). The kernel may have been rearchitected but if you scratch beneath the Aero surface by even one or two layers, instantlly Windows XP appears. The examples of this are so numerous as to make itemizing them pointless.
So the dialog boxes you so know and love in Windows XP? Never fear -- they are in Vista as well, only just "covered up" by an extra layer or two of Aero coating.
And this after over FIVE years of development?
Also, unlike the author of this article, I have achieved kernel panicks with this version of Vista. It's still a single-digit number, but it's getting close to two digits and in a fortnight or so of experimentation, that's not very auspicious.
The plug-n-play capabilities of Vista dwarf that in Windows XP -- I must say I have been very impressed on that score. But to those who think XP is an obnoxious OS which is wizard-happy and in your face all the time, you will find Vista to be a nightmare -- and the RC1 release is reportedly scaled back significantly in this regard. (I would hate to think what earlier versions must have been like then.)
I don't find that configuring Vista for networks -- whether wireless or not -- or configuring a software firewall to be any easier or intuitive than under XP.
I may chime in with more of my highly coveted reactions to Vista (and further comments on this article) when I shake this sudden sleepiness that has come over me (and which likely comes over anyone who reads my posts here).
Oh, one more thing quickly -- did the author mention whether he tried Vista's new search capability (which is akin to Apple's Spotlight), and, if so, with what result? I'm so weary I may have missed it.

[mdawson]

Nope, the author did not mention the search feature in Vista. Beyond that, based on this article, a few posts from you on the matter and several other reports on Windows Vista it would seem that Microsoft has spent the past five years developing much pizzazz with little substance. Much like Windows 95, another Mac OS knockoff, Vista is just an attempt to make Windows more Mac-like, yet the software engineers in Redmond still do not get the fact that OS X, in fact the Mac OS in general, is about more than aesthetics.
As I have stated several times in the past, Microsoft is a company of nerds that designs products that can only be thoroughly understood by other nerds. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with that, but a company full of Gates-like software engineers will have no vision and cannot relate to the average person. That fact is reflected in the design of Windows. Apple took, and to the best of my knowledge continues to take, a very different approach to the people they hire as software engineers. It is one thing to hire people that are technically brilliant, and Microsofts programmers are, but it is another to hire people that are also creative and that can relate to the average Joe and Jane on the street.
The only reason Windows as attained ubiquity is because of MS-DOS, and later Windows, being on the corporate platform of choice. From the introduction of Windows 95 through the release of Windows XP, Microsoft has made progress in its GUI-based OS although its user friendliness as a whole is questionable. As one professor here once stated, Just because everyone knows how to do something the hard way, does not make it the easy way. While he was not talking about computers, that statement is spot on when it comes to Windows and its dominant position on personal computers. People are conditioned to do things the Microsoft way and automatically bemoan the many more intuitive ways that the Mac OS operates simply because it is different.
As to feature borrowing, the article was correct in that this is a two-way street, but in their description of certain features the author demonstrates that their knowledge of Mac history and terminology is flawed.

Quote:

---

Mac OS X users can now alt-tab their way through open applications just as quickly as Windows users.

---

For one thing it is Command-Tab on a Mac not Alt-Tab, as Macs really do not have an Alt key. (Yes, the Option key has Alt on it, but no Mac user refers to it as such.) Secondly, if I recall correctly the capability was available in Mac OS 9. I could be incorrect on the latter point as 1) I do not switch applications by using the keyboard and 2) this may have been a feature of Action GoMac, which I had installed on my G4 Cube, but I do not recall due to point (1).

Quote:

---

And that dock I mentioned? It offers a lot of the functions of the Windows taskbar.

---

Well quite a few people seem to be of this mindset, even longtime Mac users, but to the best of my knowledge the Windows Taskbar is a feature that Microsoft borrowed from NextStep. As Nexts engineers played a major role in the development of OS X, it stands to reason that they would take some features from the Next OS in incorporate them into OS X; both operating systems are GUIs built upon UNIX cores.
As the article points out, Vista is just another me too product from Microsoft haphazardly adding features that other products have long since incorporated and improved. Of course, as usual, most people will stay on the Windows bandwagon and Microsoft will tout their new OS as a success despite any glaring flaws. If Windows is a quality product because of its ubiquity then Wal-Mart is a boutique shop. Both serve a purpose, but the previous hardly ever lives up to its hype.

[OM_user]

To sum up the original article, "Microsoft makes badly implemented copy of OS X 10.0 with a few Tiger features copied for good measure."
Honestly, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Well, at least the copy part. But, as you say, with Vista being in development for so long, Microsoft should be ashamed of themselves for not putting out something better. One has to wonder what the heck those MS developers have been doing all this time.
One thing to remember though is that OS X represented a completely new OS for the Mac OS. The number went from 9 to 10, but the two really weren't related at all. Apple had some real leeway to start over and do some stuff they'd been wanting to do for years.
With Vista, Microsoft was really building on top of XP. In other words, OS X was revolutionary and Vista is evolutionary. (or perhaps devolutionary?) At least that's how I see it.

Quote:

---

Note to Microsoft GUI gurus: Take a look at the latest version of Apples iTunes software, the recently-released Version 7. Gloss and shine are out, the 3-D sandblasted look is in.

---

This sums up an important point I think. Apple has pretty much moved on from Aqua, and MS is JUST now copying it. As usual they're about 5 years too late to the party, wearing the wrong attire.
Thankfully Apple has slowly moved to a more polished professional appearance in OS X. Though, I'll say that I often criticize Apple for the fact that OS X now has so many different looks. I hope with Leopard that they settle on one, or at most two looks for the OS. Right now Tiger and the various apps (Finder, Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc) looks like a hodgepodge of different GUIs.

[OM_user]

Quote:

---

Secondly, if I recall correctly the capability was available in Mac OS 9.

---

Yes, it was in OS 9, or perhaps even in OS 8, but I don't recall. OS 8/9 is almost a distant memory for me now, but if I recall correctly, It only worked when you tore away the application menu into its own floating palette.
Concerning the Dock being like the Windows taskbar, the big difference is that the taskbar only shows you active tasks and windows. Except for the little tray in the right, it's not really for storing icons to your most used apps and documents the way OS X's Dock can do, though perhaps this has changed in Vista- I wouldn't know.
Though I can't say I absolutely love the Dock, I think it's way better than the Windows taskbar.

[jpmhughes]

Quote:

---

The examples of this are so numerous as to make itemizing them pointless.

---

Actually, I would like to read some examples, what are some of the more salient points?

Quote:

---

did the author mention whether he tried Vista's new search capability (which is akin to Apple's Spotlight), and, if so, with what result?

---

You are using the beta version as well, what do you think of Vista's new search capability?

Quote:

---

when I shake this sudden sleepiness that has come over me (and which likely comes over anyone who reads my posts here).

---

I always imputed this to the fact I was reading these posts at such a late hour, of course now I know better . :-)
Jim

[klaasloopt]

About Aero and Aqua from an interface-designers point of view.
Aqua, water, is rather appropriate for conveying a sense of fluidness to the GUI. For example, water filling a tube has a very clear link to an application progressing through its task.
Aero, on the other hand, is air. You cannot see it. Manipulating the transparency of air is rather silly. When you actually want to see your Aero-windows, you have to summon a mist. Like in text with a photo pasted underneath, it leads to two conclusions: one, the text is so unimportant and unworthy of reading that it needs a photograph under it, and two, the photograph is so unimportant that it needs a text on top of it. In Vista's case: aero is transparent, but transparency reduces the legibility of the interface, and gives you a clear view of your desktop landscape, which, interfacially speaking, is nonsense. As a counter-blooper there is a control that allows you to make aero less airy and more legible. This control proves to me that 'Aero' is an ill thought alternative to Aqua, with al the disadvantages air has in comparison to water, and the interface designers at Microsoft know it.
Klaas

[TommyRock]

Quote:

---

...widgets in Mac OS X, except that widgets are called up with a key combo and float onto the screen in front a users other windows. They dont run in the OS X dock, and you cant move them to the desktop without some third-party intervention...

---

When dragging a widget into dashboard keep the mouse button pressed and hit F12. You drop out of dashboard and the widget comes with you. Release the mouse button to place a widget on your desktop. You have to reverse the process and take it back into dashboard to get rid of it.

[billin]

Klaas, Klaas, Klaas - don't you see? Your thoughtful elemental comparisons are meaningless; "Aero" is well-named. After all - and I think we can all agree - Aero is all hot air. *:)
Seriously, though, I thought your comparison was quite fascinating. I never thought deeper about the names except to smirkingly note that "Aero" as a collection of letters bears a vague similarity to "Aqua" (i.e. both start with an A, are 4 letters, and end with a vowel).

[whitedog]

But Im really hoping that one of the tricks Apple CEO Steve Jobs has up his sleeve is a plan to make the entire OS look like the interface used in iTunes 7.
Perhaps just because it's different I like the iTunes 7 interface, with a few exceptions - like the white-on-black highlight for selections (too stark and out of sync with the rest of the subtle interface). But as a pattern for the entire OS I'm not so sure. It's a bit bleak.
The point OM_user made about the difference between OS 9 and OS X is well taken. As I understand it, Vista is still built on DOS. For all the time they spent on Vista, Microsoft didn't have either the notion or the nerve to really reinvent Windows from the ground up, as Apple did with OS X. The one revolutionary feature they had - a new filing system - was dropped because it was holding the project back. They essentially just rearranged the deck chairs - and bolted a few of them down for added security. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can give Microsoft credit for brilliant programmers when their implementation of new features is apparently so mediocre. Beauty is as beauty does, as the saying goes.

[jmincey]

"Vista is still built on DOS."
This is not correct. Windows NT was not even built on DOS but instead had its own kernel architecture coded from the ground up (with a little help from the Mica OS which Microsoft effectively stole from DEC).
A command window option remains in Windows, but it represents a higher-level of the OS -- essentially it is an application running on top of the kernel, not unlike the Terminal and UNIX shells run on top of the Xnu kernel of OS X. Still, I agree with the spirit behind your words about Microsoft and Windows.
To my knowledge, the last Microsoft OS which still relied on DOS to a great degree was Windows ME.

[bgplpshep]

Ken notes in his article that the battery life is reduced and the MacBook runs hotter. I've noticed that while running Vista RC1 under Parallels, one of the four cores in my Mac Pro is running at 100% all of the time . The system shifts the load between cores so that no one processor gets too hot but one core always rides at 100% with no other apps installed except the OS. That was the part that disturbed me the most. The OS itself seems to require huge amounts of processor time.
As for the GUI, I'm not that impressed. The sidebar annoys me. They tried a sort of a sidebar in Windows 98 and it annoyed me then as well. The revised Start Menu has it's plus's and minus's but overall, I seem to like it. The rest of the OS however I have to agree with the others... 5 years of development for something that is barely an upgrade for XP? I just can't recommend anyone to spend money on Vista. The cons just far outweigh the pros.

[rmc]

But isn't the kernel revision a major deal? I thought a lot of the security issues intrinsic to Windoze were due to kernel issues. If that is true, then a revision on that level may address security problems more effectively than was possible with XP (and previous versions). Also, if plug-and-play is substantially improved, then perhaps Windoze users will find better interoperability and therefore fewer problems.
The fact that M$ hasn't changed the interface substantially doesn't mean that the other changes aren't very significant.

[Luke_Macwalker]

Quote:

---

Beauty is as beauty does, as the saying goes.

---

Isn't the saying something like "Beauty is only screen deep"? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif