Why is a Mac any better than Vista?

[Colonel Ingus]

LOL I don't think we want to go there because if we were to start comparing operating system flaws, we'd find that we'd need a new thread/server to list all of windows Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that there are still windows fanatics out there, but it looks like vista will be the straw that breaks the camel back

 

I know many windows die hards that installed vista and then called me to ask about swictching to OS X. Every single one of them has thanked us several times about making the switch. I guess it's true what they say; vista sells Macs

 

Our only concern now is that 10.5 will be as good as 10.4 is. If Apple does to OS X what microsoft has done to windows, then it will be a very sad day. Fingers crossed...

[EFI]

One ot the most basic things in OS X: most programs are packed in one file. Deinstalling --> drag file to wastebin.

No more missing .dll stuff and what have you

 

While thats true, and still easier than uninstalling in Windows...it doesnt apply to 100% of the softwares in OS X. I would say probably 80% you can get away with drag and trash. For some applications (Like firefox, Microsoft Office, etc), there are still .plst files hanging about or other config files in your user directory for the application. I just use AppZapper. Coolest tiny little program for the coolest purpose. Uninstalling can actually be fun using that software, lol.

[Colonel Ingus]

I just use AppZapper.

We've heard of this program but haven't tried it yet. Time to give it a whirl

[atanamir]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm new to this board, but I thought I'd join in on the discussion. I think macs have a huge advantage over windwos also because the government isn't cracking down on everything it does. You can install a mac and get almost everything you need to use the computer; whereas with windows, when they try to integrate their programs today, they get sent a flurry of anti-trust lawsuits. Surely that has restricted the amount of "it just works" capability woth software that ships with windows.

 

Also, personally, I really hate how 'dumbed down' the interface feels in mac. To do anything more advanced, I always have to go into the terminal. With windows, I can configure almost everything in the UI. One time, on Mac OS, I had plugged in an external monitor but set the resolution incorrectly. So, my monitor went into "cannot support this signal" mode. And OS X puts the resolution window on the monitor that it's on, so i couldn't try to find it with my mouse and drag it over, either. To reset the resolution, i had to search online for about an hour and boot with a bunch of switches and do a ton of stuff with the configuration text files. On windows, all the screen resolutions are on one window, and you can edit one just by clicking on the monitor you want to change.

 

That's just one example, in any case. It could be that i'm not just not experienced enough with OS X, but it seems that the UI offers only very basic functions; everything else I have to go into terminal....

[track09]

LOL I don't think we want to go there because if we were to start comparing operating system flaws, we'd find that we'd need a new thread/server to list all of windows Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that there are still windows fanatics out there, but it looks like vista will be the straw that breaks the camel back

 

I know many windows die hards that installed vista and then called me to ask about swictching to OS X. Every single one of them has thanked us several times about making the switch. I guess it's true what they say; vista sells Macs

 

Our only concern now is that 10.5 will be as good as 10.4 is. If Apple does to OS X what microsoft has done to windows, then it will be a very sad day. Fingers crossed...

Oh yes, now that Vista's out, Apple will take over, and giant Microsoft will fall. New Market Share 100% apple, 0% Microsoft. Big Revolution time. People now are all rushing out to buy $1500 comptuers, LOOK OUT! Every single person who ever installed Vista now hates it. uh Oh! /sarcasm

[Colonel Ingus]

Apple will take over, and giant Microsoft will fall.

Glad you've heard about David and Goliath

 

Large companies crumble all the time. Can you say Emron?

 

People now are all rushing out to buy $1500 comptuers

Mac mini = 500.00

 

Every single person who ever installed Vista now hates it.

No, not every single person...

 

Let's not be silly here, I mean we can't rule out the mentally ill

 

sarcasm

...or psychic. Time will tell

[track09]

Glad you've heard about David and Goliath

 

Large companies crumble all the time. Can you say Emron?

First of all, it's eNron. Second, you fail to realize what leads to most large company's downfall. Corruption. Bad product releases of a product that has such a large market span will not kill a company, and you know this, stop being ignorant. There are too many PC OEMs, and Mac's aren't targeted for a wide enough audience. (MM and Monitor $700)

 

Mac mini = 500.00

Mac Mini=$600

Not to mention, full of components conciderably lower powered than those of a PC at that cost, (Which come with KB and mouse)

[Colonel Ingus]

First of all, it's eNron

Oh, well in that case then I guess that I'm the one who hasn't heard much about them

 

you fail to realize what leads to most large company's downfall.

Key word = "most".

 

Bad product releases of a product that has such a large market span will not kill a company

Yes I do know that, but it was the only way that I could get you to admit that vista is a 'bad product'

 

Mac Mini=$600

My bad. Still not 1500.00 as you suggested above

[Sevrilis]

I am a technology consultant at Staples, we sell both mac and pcs there, and I am often asked this very question from customers.. "Why pay this much for the mac when the pc has better hardware specs". The nice design of mac computers is a plus of course but the real reason supposedly comes down to the software, mainly the OS.

 

So the question becomes, is OS X actually any better then windows vista for all that extra cost? Im not so sure to be honest. I find that everything Mac can do, a PC can do aswell. The comercials for mac on tv are misleading the public and really misrepresenting the power of a PC. A PC can be creative aswell and do quite a good job with production suites like Adobe Production Premium etc..

 

Mac may run these graphics designing programs more efficently, but for the average user, a PC can run programs that can make things just aswell and run it just aswell too. However Mac cannot run a lot of games that are hitting the shelves without running windows emulation software (which kills resources further), or using bootcamp to run windows (in which case, why not just get a pc for less money and get better hardware specs).

 

The end fact is this, both PC and Mac can run common business applications. both PC and Mac can run graphics, movie, and music software packages to a comparable level. Only PC however has the vast advantage in the gaming world, sure Mac always gets the big games like World of Warcraft, however the array of selection just is not there.

 

So not only does a mac not give you as good hardware specs for the price, but it also does not give you as many options if you are a gamer, and that is entertainment.. the creative side, which mac preaches to have above PC. A mac that costs around $1300 can be out done from a hardware spec point of view by a PC thats around $900.. so what does this $400 actually get me?

[one_7]

I am a technology consultant at Staples, we sell both mac and pcs there, and I am often asked this very question from customers.. "Why pay this much for the mac when the pc has better hardware specs". The nice design of mac computers is a plus of course but the real reason supposedly comes down to the software, mainly the OS.

 

So the question becomes, is OS X actually any better then windows vista for all that extra cost? Im not so sure to be honest. I find that everything Mac can do, a PC can do aswell. The comercials for mac on tv are misleading the public and really misrepresenting the power of a PC. A PC can be creative aswell and do quite a good job with production suites like Adobe Production Premium etc..

 

Mac may run these graphics designing programs more efficently, but for the average user, a PC can run programs that can make things just aswell and run it just aswell too. However Mac cannot run a lot of games that are hitting the shelves without running windows emulation software (which kills resources further), or using bootcamp to run windows (in which case, why not just get a pc for less money and get better hardware specs).

 

The end fact is this, both PC and Mac can run common business applications. both PC and Mac can run graphics, movie, and music software packages to a comparable level. Only PC however has the vast advantage in the gaming world, sure Mac always gets the big games like World of Warcraft, however the array of selection just is not there.

 

So not only does a mac not give you as good hardware specs for the price, but it also does not give you as many options if you are a gamer, and that is entertainment.. the creative side, which mac preaches to have above PC. A mac that costs around $1300 can be out done from a hardware spec point of view by a PC thats around $900.. so what does this $400 actually get me?

 

 

nice post...not bias..i like this kind of opinion...

 

pc or mac has their own advantages..it's up to the user to decide..

 

gamers=pc

style, just work or whatsoever=mac

or pc=xp+osx+linux+bsd=fair

[track09]

Yes I do know that, but it was the only way that I could get you to admit that vista is a 'bad product'

No, but according to your logic it is, So i'd point out your fault there.

[Soliber]

While thats true, and still easier than uninstalling in Windows...it doesnt apply to 100% of the softwares in OS X. I would say probably 80% you can get away with drag and trash. For some applications (Like firefox, Microsoft Office, etc), there are still .plst files hanging about or other config files in your user directory for the application. I just use AppZapper. Coolest tiny little program for the coolest purpose. Uninstalling can actually be fun using that software, lol.

Yeah I'm still kinda new to OS X and all that, but .plst files aside, it's a far cry from all those .dat and .dll files and what have you

AppZapper eey, I'll give it a whirl

 

No, but according to your logic it is, So i'd point out your fault there.

Hohoho, not just according to his logic, believe you me. I like Win XP allright, it's been very good to me all these years, but I'm a fervent proponent for throwing large chunks of molten steel at Vista for all the misery it's caused my father, my friends, my clients, and therefor me.

[Colonel Ingus]

So the question becomes, is OS X actually any better then windows vista for all that extra cost? Im not so sure to be honest.

Then you need to do more research! XP is better than vista, and OS X is better than XP, so common sense would dictate that OS X is MUCH better than vista. Vista sells Macs.

 

I find that everything Mac can do, a PC can do aswell.

Now if you were really honest with your customers you would tell them what PC's can do that that Macs can't, you know, like get infested with viruses on a daily basis, constantly get bombarded with spyware, and of course don't forget how you've got to consistently defrag PC's or any performance that they might have will go right out the 'window' (yes, that's a pun ).

 

in which case, why not just get a pc

See above.

 

so what does this $400 actually get me?

A computer that actually works. So much for the 'specs' rhetoric.

 

...not bias

Well that's one theory. Thank God smart people don't buy their computers from a stationary supply store. Would you like some paper clips with that PC? LOL

 

gamers=pc

Try again. A dedicated or serious gamer would be using an XBox or PS3, not a PC

[track09]

Then you need to do more research! XP is better than vista, and OS X is better than XP, so common sense would dictate that OS X is MUCH better than vista. Vista sells Macs.

 

 

Got actual facts, not opinions on that?

 

A computer that actually works. So much for the 'specs' rhetoric.

My PC works, and specs matter, because it gets the work done faster.

 

Try again. A dedicated or serious gamer would be using an XBox or PS3, not a PC

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

wait

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

Are you serious? You really know nothing about this. ALL serious gamers NEVER use consoles, true gamers play their FPS games with the precision mouse and keyboard, at rates and speed that would make gamer's thumbs cry.

 

I can't believe you said true gamers would use a console. (I own a 360 and Wii, BTW)

[Evoken]

Then you need to do more research! XP is better than vista, and OS X is better than XP, so common sense would dictate that OS X is MUCH better than vista. Vista sells Macs.

 

Have you actually used Vista? I doubt you have, Vista is clearly superior to XP. The fact that the OS is hardware accelerated now, is reason enough to upgrade (no more messy window redrawing as in XP). The OS is not only better looking but much more user friendly as well.

 

 

Evo

[EFI]

The fact that the OS is hardware accelerated now...

 

Just a minor facfoid here...you do know that OS X was hardware accelerated way back from version 10.1 (2001) right? (even though it was crappy in 10.1, and 10.2, but still it was accelerated)

 

Just asking thats all.

[Evoken]

Just a minor facfoid here...you do know that OS X was hardware accelerated way back from version 10.1 (2001) right? (even though it was crappy in 10.1, and 10.2, but still it was accelerated)

 

Just asking thats all.

 

Yes I am aware of that.

[track09]

Actually, GDI+ (Graphics Device Interface Plus) was partly acclerated back at the release of Xp. OS X wasn't accelerated until 10.2. QE was added in 10.2. Of course, up until Vista, OS X had far superior acceleration, and still is at least on par with Vista.

[EFI]

QE was added in 10.2.

 

Ah my mistake, yep it was indeed 10.2.

[mnit]

I'd like to throw my 2 pennies in from an entirely visual perspective, as I'm a design-studenty-type.. (to all you techy types this might seem horribly fussy, but thats what your arguments about various kernel instabilities and whatnot seem like to me..)

 

Vista is the first iteration of windows I have found tollerable, even if it does still irk me that BSODs occur..

 

From a design perspective, vista just don't look anywhere near as good as mac does.

 

Aero, while glitzy at first, makes windows blend too much into one another, the constant shifting off blurred writing and images behind the window you are working on if you move it for instance, and the stacking of layers and layers of windows upon one another showing through really annoys me. Yes, I suppose a lot of windows users are the full-screen types, to whom this does not matter - but I'm not, I go for the patches of windows all over the place, I like the way applications interoperate, I want to be able to drag and drop - so for me, Aero is an annoyance.

 

One nice thing about Aero is the rich colours. I really enjoy this. I've been looking for ages for a 'skin' for mac which lets you have an Aperture-esque feel, but the only ones I can find are far too heavy and badly finished... (this is another issue). I really like the colours in Aero, but its their richness that puts me off them in the long term. Mac is cleaner, smoother, lighter and.. well, plainer. It is a canvas on which I can work. It isn't overpowering as I find Aero.

 

Of course, we can get rid of Aero.. but frankly the none-Aero vista is hideous. The borders added to windows without aero are badly designed, childish, plasticky and mishapen. The radius of the rounded corners is much too large and the frigid 2-Dness of the thing leads to quite ugly pixelised edges. Yuck..

 

The 'windows' icon that has replaced the start bar used to be one of my favourite visual aspects of Vista, but now I find I can only enjoy it when I make the taskbar two rows 'deep'. This is because.. for some ungodly reason.. its cut off by the screen when it is a single row. A broken circle assails the eye - I can't stand it.

 

The side bar, arguably an implementation of gadgets that beats out the dashboard (which i NEVER use on my macs, as I can't be arsed switching between screens for the use of at the most two mini-apps.) is ruined by the fact that the dark black gradient it applies to the desktop cannot be removed. The only way for me to have a single gadget, for instance, an RSS feed, floating away from the edge of the desktop without me being driven mad by that hideous black smudge is to apply a dark background image to hide the effect - and this just adds to the overpowering colour argument of before.

 

Icons on windows desktops (not just vista..) are spaced very, very badly. The trashcan icon skirts the top of the screen - and when you hover over these icons we see a hint that someone at microsoft understood the idea of white space, a neatly spaced frame appears around the icon. But for some reason, these frames aren't flush with one another, we get a seemingly random gap between icons - its just ugly. A good icon will be designed in a balanced way; Vista's icon spacing ruins any balance that has been designed in. The same goes for the quickstart bar. Look to the dock or the menu bar in Mac for correctly spaced icons.

 

Using legacy applications under Vista leads to some really quite hideous clashes of style. The aero 'frame' that is placed around windows (I am not referring to the band across the top, which I like), makes it look like someone has tried to force an old application's once-dignified frame into a shiney new leotard, only accentuating the age and ugliness. Legacy apps can (should be allowed to) float on by, and keep their aged dignity - Aero won't let them.

 

Vista's built in tray icons (say, for the network connection or volume) go entirely against the aesthetic of the whole operating system. Taking a cue from Apple's highly simplified one-colour menu bar icons they have gone for a series of simple white shapes with black outlines, that clash horribly against the full-colour, glassy, 3D affect of the new vista taskbar. I liked the old icons, why did they tone them down so much? THis is made even worse by the fact that they seem to have been quite reluctant to go the whole nine yards with this effect. For instance, the network connect icon retains a full colour 3D-ish globe when connected to the internet, making the clash so much more accute.

 

Animations, such as the one used when deleting a file, in Vista are much much more distracting than they were in XP, and indeed ever should be. I found the delete one very charming at first (a white rectangle being distintegrated into dots by a white line), but after deleting files numbering in the gigabytes, the constant throbbing green and blue movement becomes infuriating.

 

The bulging-square motif now used exclusively for user account pictures (at login or on the start menu) are so incongrous with the rest of the design that they seem tacked on. I realise full well that this motif was a very prominent one in earlier demos of longhorn, (it was used for instance to frame a music icon when opening the My Music folder, it span on in a nice 3D effect), but now they are lost and on their own.. why keep them? They cut a whole in an otherwise very pleasent formative aesthetic, and distract.

 

When you hover over the buttons on the top right of a window, the flow comes gradually (quickly, but gradually) leading too a much more natural and inspiring effect. Why doesn't it do the same when hovering over taskbar items, which just flick on in a single frame instead?

 

Why is the colour change of the taskbar so miniscule (in fact.. does it change colour at all?) compared to that of the windows themselves in Aero?

 

The Vista system icons, while very shiney and nice, are often very badly drawn, and I mean simple stuff like incorrect perspective. They also highlight another iconsistency - MS has obviously sought to create a very consistent icon set for vista, and for the most part I enjoy it, but it is let down by a few small things. Some elements of vista use entirely different icon styles, but ones designed in such a way that you would get the impression they were part of a larger, similarly styled set.

 

For instance the Media Centre icon, a simple windows logo in a green circle - the Vista icon but in a different colour - what does this represent? Why doesn't Media Centre use the icon used in the booklet that comes with a copy of Windows Vista?

 

The Windows Media Player icon (a very attractive one by the way) is simplistic, and adheres to an entirely different style to anything else in vista, it appears iconic, as part of a collection.. but is entirely unique in the whole systems work of icons.

 

The green glassy folder icons used for the 'special' folders; Music, Pictures, Movies, etc, are much much more attractive than the gaudy, old fashioned, yellow icons used for all the other folders. Why are the other folders not the same as the 'special' ones, but without the added overlaid icons of musical notes or photographs?

 

The list of icon problems in Vista could go on...

 

Mac on the other refuses a style. Each icon is tied together purely by the quality of its execution, and there are no group of icons that could be gathered strongly into a clear stylistic subset. There is perhaps a distinct tendency towards circular forms.. but this is hardly binding, and lets face it, circular forms are pretty bloody popular for icons anyhow.

 

Vista's design smacks of too many cooks - and not enough chefs among them. Mac OS X is of course far from perfect stylistically (lose the bloody stripes!!) but it is obviously hugely more professional in its undertaking, and more clean and clear in finality.

 

Wow. I wrote a lot.

 

PS. I didn't mention Media Centre itself in this post (apart from its icon..). Media Centre is a design traversty, in order to even be able to stomach looking at it I have to put it into white-on-black high contrast mode, and that loses me the nice sweeping effects. It is grossly overcomplicated and textual, and the whole bright blue glassy nonsense thing is.. well.. its beyond words for a designer.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Without getting into much a debate about Vista vs OSX I'll simply state that; I've been a Windows user for as long as I can remember and I even remember Windows 95. Vista only copies OSX's GUI in same respects and certain functionality. Windows will never accomplish OSX's strength

 

I love OSX, and all that it stands for. User-friendly, easy, virus free.

[one_7]

can we ever make this vista vs osx topic free of fanboyism???

 

hoho..

[track09]

Without getting into much a debate about Vista vs OSX I'll simply state that; I've been a Windows user for as long as I can remember and I even remember Windows 95. Vista only copies OSX's GUI in same respects and certain functionality. Windows will never accomplish OSX's strength

 

I love OSX, and all that it stands for. User-friendly, easy, virus free.

 

These are the dumb childish posts that ruin the reputation of Apple users, and detract from the debate.

 

mnit, you really hit the nail on the head. A great post, pointing out both strengths and weaknesses in the OS. You sum up a lot of my feelings. I prefer OS X, but I do think Windows is a great OS, and I use it primarily because of my hardware situation. OS X needs Apple hardware, and I have some older hardware, but not current. I got a great deal on my new Gateway when I needed a new PC, and it came with Vista. The reason I chose to go with this was the price per performance factor that was associated with this purchasing decistion. I could not get a mac near the performance factor, the Mac mini is simply antiquated, and could not match the power of the GT5408. (Sure, it does have bluetooth, and wireless, but I don't need them, but I do need power). So, it's the freedom that kept me in Windows. Vista is fine enough, or I wouldn't have choosen it after I used the betas. I can always use Ubuntu if I want. Apple is too expensive. Sure, I can afford it, but some people have priorities in life, and families, and that's really why I chose a PC, and I defend it's strong points, because it's NOT as bad as you say. READ: I DO prefer Macs, and I DO think they're vastly superior to OS X, including Vista in most, but not all respects.

[Colonel Ingus]

Have you actually used Vista?

Used yes, purchased, of course not. Looks like you're wrong. Again

 

Vista is clearly superior to XP.

At being unstable and causing people grief, yes, vista is "superior" than XP at those things.

 

Vista only copies OSX's GUI in same respects and certain functionality. Windows will never accomplish OSX's strength

Well said Slip Kid! Have you noticed how all those so-called 'improvements' from XP to vista were to make vista less windows like, and more OS X like. Weird.

 

virus free.

For all the weaseling and whining that the windows fanboys do, this is one area that OS X will always be better than windows

[Quelkin]

Beautiful elegance. Like the difference between breasts and rubber-nippled little bottles.