Jump to content
robotskip

I need something explained: How does Vista look like OSX ?

88 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Advertisement
More vague rubbish. I asked for freaking specific things, is it that hard ?

No, many ideas are not stolen and I already addressed the stupid, regularly quoted ones like search and gadgets. You don't deserve to like monkeys.

Calendar has a similar structure to Outlook2003 and previous versions of mail apps from Microsoft. Hell, Evolution, Thunderbird and a ton of other apps have the same freaking structure. IE7 has the most different GUI to any other browser but I assume you were attempting to mention how RSS looks similar, well, it's similar in FF and a ton of other apps. Also, the simple mail app is simple to Outlook and any other mail app - only in terms of structure and even than it's different enough.

 

Also, it is not identical, for example, in the calendar app MS has a horizontal bar at the top with buttons, etc among other differences.

NONE HAVE YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FULFILL A SIMPLE REQUEST. Hell, from your posts I'd say about 2 of you actually read my post, for example, I ask for no 'vague rubbish' and I ask for specific things yet I get useless metaphors and silly things like 'following Apple's lead in sharpness.' :unsure:

 

So, 2 concclusions:

 

It doesn't look Mac like. :)

People can not read. :(

 

Feel free to close this thread, I'm done. People have said nothing specific besides stupid things like gadgets and the structure of a calendar app.

 

The fact is your nothing opening your eyes, this is the power of Microsoft, able to convince you that there new shinny OS is pure innovation. I suggest you get out your hole and open your eyes. Hell Vista's file dialog is nothing like GNOME's file dialog is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand it either and Vista looks much better in my opinion.

 

PS, I like monkeys :P

 

In my opinion, they are incredibly different, and I can't say one looks better than the other. I do see where Vista took on some features of OS X like the drop-down folders, widgets gadgets (I would consider those appearance too), how they implemented their search.

 

I guess I would have to say Vista looks almost childish to me. Very vibrant shiny colors. I do still think it looks very very nice, but OS X is a bit "more professional" looking if you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter or Sylar

mine is claire and zach... being a teenager, I can really understand wat it's like to have such a good friend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to say Vista looks almost childish to me.

 

I know what you mean, but I like all that {censored} :)

 

I want an OS that works like OS X, looks like Vista and has all the features of Linux. So I run them all :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, but i dont like it, it is definately not original. osx just has a better feel to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, but i dont like it, it is definately not original. osx just has a better feel to it

 

A lot of the features that Vista has now (such as "Gadgets" and the Spotlight-like function) was said to be included in Longhorn (what was supposed to be what is now Vista) well before they were included in OSX. Though many of the features appear to be

"copied" over, they were mostly already slated to be in the next version of Windows well before they were introduced in OSX. So it would be a little unfair to say Vista completely copied OSX.

Edited by Guest:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for my 2 cents vista and osx are absolutly nothing like each other in any way what so ever full stop.

You could therefore say apple copies linux , linux copies apple windows copies linux everbody copies everbody who in gods lovely green earth really gives a {censored} they all look great and perform great nuff said

Edited by curlyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista didnt "steal" anything from OS X, they just attempted to replicate the same user interface that mac users have been enjoying already for almost 7 years. Some of the 3D effects and transparency effects are nice, but IMO, Microsoft used it a little too much (having an opaque task bar, and little popup previews, WTF?). Aero glass is such a nice change from the luna look, its not the greatest thing ever (Beryl is).

 

When i used Vista (w/ aero) and Tiger side by side, i noticed something. The aero effect is really cool, and kinda 3D-ish, like it sticks out of the screen, but the brushed metal in tiger seems to have more "depth", and looks and feels more grabbable.

 

Off the record...

 

And robotskip, If you want the answers you are asking for, go ask a windows forum where youll get the biased, "macs suck, windows is the only real OS" answers you keep looking for. And I keep having a feeling you like to ask questions, then start wars because you like dealing with the controversy. I see it all the time in the forums from you. Im guessing youre either 14 Years old, or a really immature guy.

Edited by ResXhacker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you care about 3D HW accelerated GUI? Is that the real copy thing?

I must said the 3D Fx in Vista is useless in everyday using. It's just for demo party. If M$ do not open up API for 3rd party apps (sorry programs) to make more usable way for ppl (such as something like Exposé with HW accelerated) then it still crappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few posts here have flirted with the correct answer, but I'll just lay it down here, plain and simple:

 

You are asking the wrong question: "How does Vista look like OS X?"

What your actual question is, is "Why do people say 'it looks like OS X'?"

 

The answer is, it DOESN'T look like OS X. It feels like it to them. And here is (in my humble opinion), the primary reason:

 

It feels like OS X in certain ways, most primarily in the fact that it uses 3D acceleration for window management (or to sate people who actually know what the hell I mean and would like me to say it accurately using jargon, "they use composite managers"). This primary difference in the way things "feel" is because the primary way people "use a computer" is by looking at the screen (which is why the less computer-savvy yell at the monitor while geeks yell at the box... or kick, or punch, or exorcise, you get the idea). People can tell the difference when windows DON'T leave {censored} on all the windows under them. Any jack@$$ can tell how much smoother it is! However, unless you're really tech-savvy and understand exactly what voodoo is taking place, you probably only understand something like this: "it's smooth -> I've seen this before in OS X -> since I 'saw' it there, it 'looks' the same". Since you notice this difference like 90% of the time if you're not used to it, it's an impression that sticks. It kind of helps that Apple's been doing this for years and years now, of course. Obviously there are other reasons, but psychologically this is a big one, because I've heard people sort of make the comparison to OS X without being provoked, and seeing NONE of the 3D effects, both with Vista and using the (pretty much just 2D) kompmgr under X11.

 

Naturally, though, once you use a modern composite managing system, it's relatively trivial to put in things like true transparency, which is very important for making things look really really really good on lower-than-print-resolution computer displays (but it's kind of complicated to dumb down why this is so, so I won't).

 

To use a metaphor: if you're a musician working on a game project at say, EA (just to pick on them), you can't expect that a manager is going to ask for something out of you using musical terms, but he's not just any ol' idiot. He asks you for more "tone". Now I don't know if you know much about music, so I'll just put it this way: once you get to pro level, asking for more "tone" is like asking a painter to put more "art" in. Basically, in that situation you'd probably have to just try to figure out what he means. He probably means "crank the volume."

 

Just be understanding, that's all I really mean to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James says:

  • No Dock
  • No Finder
  • No...?

Gah!

 

It doesn't. The spotlight feature is just a search funtion, not something that is being copied.

Maybe the widget and gadgets are slightly copied.

 

But bleh.

 

James

 

:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 pages of {censored} and not one coherent statement to answer the question posed by the original topic.

 

The answer is: It doesn't. Simple.

 

bb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they looked the same wouldn't Apple's lawyer talking to M$ by now?

 

Now ignoring my smart ass comment, no they don't look the same thank god.

 

I know it might be getting old by I too like monkeys! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here is a good one,

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/macos...ard_preview.asp

 

read that, and yes, it is windows biased, but it addresses it all.

 

That guy has a answer for everything, coming out with the answer "Windows had this but got dropped" is useless. Adding features and calling them Innovations like Microsoft does is wrong, at least Apple brings there innovations to the customers unlike MS who scraps them.

 

This guy should be employed by Microsoft because even Bill Gates didn't have much to answer when interviewed about Vista and it's identical features with OS X.

Edited by Forceman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:P robotskip have a go again!

*If you are not going to read this, I hope this at least clear things up a bit for the rest of the us.*

I agree with you BRP, although I do think the general Vista GUI look like OS X's to some extend, at least much more than XP or Windows Classic GUI do. As most people will have experience with XP, I think it is fair to compare it here.

 

Of course there is no Dock, no Menubar at the top, OS X doesn't have a start menu or taskbar, but we are talking about details that create the overall impression.

 

There are many small factors contributing to this, but the overall effect would be what people usually say, that Vista is pretty, like OS X. There are a few more things besides the smooth rendering of windows using 3D acceleration:

 

Animations: we already enjoy plenty of animations in OS X (expose, minimize...), Windows haven't all these things until Vista, all XP have are some chunky minimize window animation, and menu slide in and out. Now Vista have windows expand and fade in when opened, and flip3D, there are considerably more animation to show feedback to user inputs like OS X does.

 

Drop-Shadow: this may seem a small detail, but this subtle effect on windows gives depth of field, makes it easier to work with multiple windows. OS X always had drop-shadows, so many apps can work fine without a border, not on XP or before. Now Vista does put shadows on but they still keep those thick borders for resizing. (Desktop text have better looking drop-shadow as well)

 

Shininess: As stated all over the place, Vista is just shiny, some say too much. The signature look of OS X Aqua are those shiny candy-like buttons and scroll bars, now although not all buttons in Vista are shiny, many GUI elements are (Start menu/taskbar, WMP's UI), and they took it to the extreme and apply it on all the basic aero windows and menu bars. (OS X also have tons of shine in Dashboard.)

 

Font Rendering: Most people may not care about or realize this, but OS X's antialiased fonts just look so much better than XP's (cleartype does help a bit), it seems that Vista finally have font rendering as good as OS X. (although my personal opinion is that fonts rendered on Vista looks too thin)

 

Feedback: This might not be purely visual, but it is an important part of user experience. Back in XP, all changes are to be confirmed by "Apply" or "OK", in Vista AFAIK at least some of the preferences does not need to go through these step and changes are reflected on-the-fly, like in OS X.

 

/Edit: how can I forget about this:

Icons: XP's default 32x32 (up to 48x48) icons looks miserable and "fisher-price" compare to OS X's 128x128 photorealistic icons. Vista finally have detailed high-res icons (256x256), but not yet completely without their cartoonish look in XP.

 

These are just some points I can think of off the top of my head, you may even argue that Vista is rounding windows corners like OS X. And this is not to mention bundled applications like some of the UI changes in Explorer that mimic the Finder. Again, largely Vista look very different from OS X, but these are some of the things that makes people go, "mmm, this looks/feels like OS X".

Edited by Timyang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest IanP

I think the main reasons are:

 

A lot more gloss was used in the windows, buttons, icons, etc.

 

Sidebar is essentially the Dashboard in smaller dock-like form

 

Spotlight is search, and search in windows is search, so it is not similar in that factor (if it were, then every other operating system out since OS X has had a copy of spotlight)

 

And I agree with the first poster on this page, it feels like OS X. But keep it mind, if Vista had come out first, OS X would feel like Vista, and everything from Vista would have been copied in OS X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But keep it mind, if Vista had come out first, OS X would feel like Vista, and everything from Vista would have been copied in OS X.

Come out first? You mean like in 2000? Window XP? How much of Windows 98/XP is copied in OS X?

Assuming Vista in its exact current form somehow came out before OS X, I'd say OS X would be a lot different from what it is now... This is just pointless speculation, if you are comparing XP and OS X then it might make more sense.

Edited by Timyang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×