Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:44 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Paul Thurrot (there he is again) compares Vista Beta 1 to Tiger: "For Windows enthusiasts, Windows Vista Beta 1 is a much-needed demonstration that Microsoft can still churn out valuable Windows releases, after years of doubt. For Mac OS X users, however, Windows Vista Beta 1 engenders a sense of deja vu. Isn't a lot of this stuff already in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger?"
Order by: Score:
innovative company....
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Isn't a lot of this stuff already in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger?"
That's because M$ range of "aquired" innovation not (yet) includes Apple....

Reply Score: 1

v RE: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:45 UTC in reply to "innovative company...."
RE[2]: innovative company....
by rayiner on Wed 31st Aug 2005 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE: innovative company...."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Correction, by 2003, you mean 1995. And in 1995, they were still just following the crowd. An OO database filesystem has been "just around the corner" for a decade or so. It wasn't new, even when Be did it in the early 1990s.

And if Microsoft announced these things in 2003 (presumably already having designed and started work on these things), and Apple beat them to it by more than a year, despite their head start, then what does that make Microsoft? No matter which way you argue, you're arguing that Microsoft is either a copy-cat, or is incompetent!

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: innovative company...."
RE[2]: innovative company....
by skingers6894 on Thu 1st Sep 2005 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE: innovative company...."
skingers6894 Member since:
2005-08-10

What is not disputed is that MS announced system wide searching first.

What IS purely speculation is whether this somehow "caused" Apple, Google and Yahoo to follow suit.

Another quite feasible possibility is that these other companies were already developing these technologies and being (by the looks of it) 12 months behind in the race, Microsoft "announce" that it will be in the next version of Windows. "Announce", big deal.

Take Apple for example, Steve Jobs goes to great lengths to conceal future plans until they are ready to show. The first we heard of Spotlight was when he demoed it, up and running, at WWDC. This is typical of the Apple approach since Jobs return.

When was the first we heard about OSX on Intel? On stage, up and running. How long had they had this? Since OS X 10.0! No pre announcement, here it is!

The conclusion that Apple quickly cobbled together spotlight in reaction to a Microsoft announcement is pure speculation, and to be honest, fanciful.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: innovative company...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I had systemwide searching back in the 1980s. It was a utility that came with Wordstar 4 for DOS.

Reply Score: 0

Hardly fair ..
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hardly fair to compare a beta to a released product is it? We should be comparing Mac OS Leopard to Vista sometime late 2006.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hardly fair ..
by jsumners on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:14 UTC in reply to "Hardly fair .."
jsumners Member since:
2005-07-06

How is it not fair? A beta is meant to test a products final features for bugs before release. So, it stands to reason that what you see in the beta is either the final product or the final product plus some stuff that won't make the cut.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hardly fair ..
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Hardly fair .."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Usually, you would be correct. However, Microsoft has done things different for a LONG time. Anyone who expects a Microsoft Windows beta to be feature complete is kidding themselves and needs a big smack to the back of the head.

It's been clearly explained many times before that betas are not feature complete, but more akin to alphas, and that RCs are more akin to betas. Yes, it's odd, but it's how MS does things. There is nothing wrong with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hardly fair ..
by jsumners on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hardly fair .."
jsumners Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, that is just silly. It should be called what it is.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hardly fair ..
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hardly fair .."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Usually, you would be correct. However, Microsoft has done things different for a LONG time. Anyone who expects a Microsoft Windows beta to be feature complete is kidding themselves and needs a big smack to the back of the head.

In every instance in the past, Microsoft has removed features in the beta when the OS is finally released ... not added more in. (Note: I am not including bundled non-system level parts such as Plus.)

It's been clearly explained many times before that betas are not feature complete, but more akin to alphas, and that RCs are more akin to betas. Yes, it's odd, but it's how MS does things. There is nothing wrong with it.

It doesn't match how they handled things in the past.

Why do you think that this time it will be different?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Hardly fair ..
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hardly fair .."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You have anything to back that up?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hardly fair ..
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hardly fair .."
Anonymous Member since:
---

So that means the shipping product is more akin to a release candidate? You are telling me there is nothing wrong with that?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hardly fair ..
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Hardly fair .."
Anonymous Member since:
---

One is a product you can use now. The won't won't be for sale til sometime in the future.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Hardly fair ..
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hardly fair .."
Anonymous Member since:
---

What is your point? I never said the features might not be buggy. In fact, I said they might not even make it into the final product. I did say that the two products can fairly be compared, though. Vista is Microsoft's next generation operating system and OS X Tiger is Apple's; thus, the two can be compared if consideration is given to the fact that the features in the beta OS will have some bugs adn may not even be in the final product.

Reply Score: 0

Aero In Beta 1?
by Andrew Youll on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:04 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

IIRC Aero Isn't being added till Beta 2... If this is wrong will someone tell me, as I was sure Aero is only set for inclusion in Beta 2

Reply Score: 5

RE: Aero In Beta 1?
by Lumbergh on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:34 UTC in reply to "Aero In Beta 1?"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

IIRC Aero Isn't being added till Beta 2.

That's what I kept on hearing too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Aero In Beta 1?
by Alex Forster on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:35 UTC in reply to "Aero In Beta 1?"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Yeah, to the best of my knowledge that's what the plan has always been. I at least hope the B1 UI isn't a form of Aero.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Neither one strikes me as much or indeed any better than what I'm running right now, which is Gnome and sometimes one of the minimalist environments like Fluxbox or Windowmaker. This whole concept of 'the user experience' every item of which is dictated centrally is looking more and more like an eighties time warp. And the nature of the emphasis on the desktop environment seems odd too, it seems more and more something that gets in the way and tells you how to work, instead of something that gets out of the way and lets you at your files and applications.

But the marketing people have probably got it right for the mass audience - they must have, right? - and it also looks to be true from the article that whether this is the right road or not, Windows and OSX are firmly headed straight down it together. Minor differences, but the same basic idea.

Reply Score: 5

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't try to justify GNOME/Fluxbox/Windowmaker's ugliness as the true paradigm in simple/easy UI design.

Thanks. ;-)

Reply Score: 0

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Ugliness is subjective, and ultimately, rather unimportant. If you do Real Work (TM) on your computer, ou don't want a blinky-blink interface. There is a reason corporate and technical users cling to Windows 2000 --- its got most of the advanced features of XP, but its Win95-esque unnattractive interface is quite livable. GNOME's look might not be attractive in the same way as Aqua's, but like Aqua (and unlike anything Microsoft has put out since Win2k), it's livable. It's something you can stare at all day and not want to kill yourself by the time you finally clock-out at 8pm.

Far more important than look, however, is usability. This is an area in which GNOME excels. It has a minimalist design that takes a lot of cues from MacOS Classic, and that makes it a pleasure to use, even if its not a pleasure to ogle.

Reply Score: 5

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Yea... Actually I just wish metacity would put in middle and left click options on the maximize button already... Like every other wm has it now.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

You actually use that old thing? I hate maximizing windows; I can't stand not being able to see (at least some part of) all the windows on my desktop. Pretty much the only window operations I use on a regular basis are shading, which I find to be much more elegant than minimizing, and closing.

-bytecoder

Reply Score: 0

drLog Member since:
2005-07-11

The way I see it, I like to use all my screen space (or as much of it as possible) on the current task.

I use gnome with workspaces. So I have web stuff in workspace 1 (email and FF), gaim and bmp in workspace 2, eclipse in ws 3, matlab in ws 4, kile (i know...kde...but its the best) in ws 5 and nautilus in ws6.

Of course, any of those apps can have a bunch of windows open at the same time but I generally maximise the window in the current workspace.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a very subjective opinion. I'll offer my own: you know that feeling you'd get as a child when your mom would put you in too big of a winter coat? How you couldn't move properly, and your arms just didn't have the range to reach where you wanted to reach? That's exactly how I feel using Windows. Years of not using it will do that to you.

What isn't subjective is that, from an academic point of view, GNOME does a lot of UI stuff right. UIs are products of engineering, and well-engineered products are either products of inspiration, or the result of following best practices. GNOME does the latter, but does it with good results.

Reply Score: 1

Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Using GNOME feels like using a UI designed by people who have no idea how to design flowing and non-aggravating UIs -- because that's what GNOME is.

KDE is too much like Windows, plus 10x the clutter. GNOME just feels plain retarded.

Reply Score: 0

monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

wow... stop the presses! the guy who's name is 'Linux is Poo' says that a linux desktop is retarded. who woulda guessed?!

i find using a mac very frustrating because i'm very accustomed to windows and linux. but this doesn't make me think that OS X is poorly designed. i just realize that i'm not used to it.

i personally find gnome very productive. it's there when i need it and out of the way when i don't.

Reply Score: 2

skingers6894 Member since:
2005-08-10

Hey! Don't go bringing common-sense into a GUI discussion!

Seriously what you say is exactly right. Many times when people have these arguments about what is "better" in a GUI it actually comes down to familiarity.

Good post.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I'm sorry but I disagree. I use both Windows 2000 and KDE daily, and I find that I'm more efficient with KDE. And I've been a Windows user since the 3.0 days.

But then again, why do I expect someone whose nickname is "Linux is poo" to be objective? Looking at your comment history, at least I take comfort in the fact that reasonable people see you for the troll you are and are modding you down accordingly.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Thanks for unbiased input Linux is Poo.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

perhaps it is because i have not had the opportunity (or taken, depending on your view) to use GNOME or the other desktop environments available for linux much, but it seems to me that they tend to borrow from Windows and force you to work the way it dictates.

for me, os x allows me to work and does not force me to follow any type of defined manner of using my computer. i can set up the dock to show the apps & windows i want and lets me get to my files and applications in the way that i prefer; windows does not. (i use windows 8+ hours a day at work and my mac at home and find myself much more productive at home and able to get access to my files and apps much easier than my PC at work).

i would propose that there are more than "minor" differences in the 3 OS's and their windowing environments--though from my experience, windows and GNOME are close to each other than windows & os x or os x and GNOME.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Windowmaker is pretty good. Ironically, it's based on a reimplementation of the same GUI Mac OS X is based on. It's a shame that more of the free software developers don't target GNUStep instead of Gnome or KDE. It's smaller, faster, and it brings with it a lof of the stuff that makes the Mac work so well.

Let's look at what's involved in installing Firefox on my home free UNIX box, my Windows box, and my Mac.

Linux: Download an installer package, debian package, or RPM, plus in some cases additional libraries. SU/SUDO to root and run the installer. In some cases, you need to back out a previous version. Wherever you install it, it's gotta stay there.

Windows: Download an installer package, run the installer. In some cases, you need to back out a previous version. Wherever you install it, it's gotta stay there.

Mac: Download the application, put it in any directory, and run it from there. To move it to a different location or disk, just move it. It will continue to work...

Appdirs/bundles... mmm-mmm, they're mighty tasty and expeditious.

Reply Score: 0

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's look at what's involved in installing Firefox on my home free UNIX box, my Windows box, and my Mac.

Linux: Download an installer package, debian package, or RPM, plus in some cases additional libraries. SU/SUDO to root and run the installer. In some cases, you need to back out a previous version. Wherever you install it, it's gotta stay there.


Funny, all I do is open my package manager, click on the latest version of Firefox in the list of available packages, then click on apply. The package manager will remove the old version, download any other packages that Firefox needs, then installs the new Firefox. Even keeps all my old prefs and extensions.

If I need to go back a version, or uninstall it completely, the package manager will do that to. People who whine about how hard linux apps are to install are either trolling, or never bothered to look at the MANY different package managers available. Personally, I use the Smart Package Manager. It's really good.

Reply Score: 2

Re: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So, because another OS has a certain feature, Windows shouldn't implement it? Do you really believe OSX didn't imitate other systems?

Also, stop this "M$" sillyness, makes you sound like you are 14. A company needs to make money in order to survive. It gives people jobs. Apple also charges money for they OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Re: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:49 UTC in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

I agree entirely about the "M$" thing that is prevalent in the "wannabe h4x0r" community.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Re: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:08 UTC in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

M$ is i quite valid considering there business pracices and there love of $ over security has been very obvious, although not so much lately. Is it not childish to tell others how to speak and act?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re: innovative company....
by protagonist on Wed 31st Aug 2005 04:25 UTC in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't recall anywhere in the article where he said that because OS X had certain features in it MS could not implement them. By the same token I didn't read any M$ sillyness into it. To me it looked to be a pretty straightforward attempt to make a few comparrisons. Methinks we sometimes tend to read to much between the lines.

As for innovation, big companies tend towards the status quo while real innovation tneds to come from small companies. I know that is a generalization, but it is a reasonable accurate one.

Bill

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:40 UTC in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes companies need to make money but some seem to be a bit more greedy than others.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Re: innovative company....
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: innovative company...."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Exactly my experience. Exactly why I sweared to me I'd never buy an apple product anymore ;)

Reply Score: 0

Beta 1 vs. Shipped OS X????
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why the fart is he comparing a Beta product to a refined, installed, basically finished OS X?

Kind of like comparing a sophomore-college linebacker's abilities with those of Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens.

Let's give the kid (Vista) a few more years ...

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Beta 1 vs. Shipped OS X????
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:14 UTC in reply to "Beta 1 vs. Shipped OS X????"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What? The OSX for Intel has been in development along with OSX for PPC for years, and they are identical except for the processor they run on.

Reply Score: 0

Legit
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"I'm not claiming that Microsoft "invented" anything. What I am claiming, however, is that Microsoft legitimatized certain technologies at PDC 2003 by announcing that they will be included in Windows, and that Apple seized on the opportunity to add those features--whether they were previously planned or not--in Tiger, which it knew would ship well before Windows Vista."

So, if MS doesn't put the features into a product, then they are not legit? Hmmmm, I guess MS is the supreme software ruler of the Universe.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Legit
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 22:02 UTC in reply to "Legit"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't think he was implying that at all. I can't entirely vouch for what he meant. However, I do believe you took what he said out of context.

What "I think" he was trying to say was that Microsoft isn't the coroporation that many make it out be: one that lacks innovation and is ultimately some "evil empire." In essence, several companies will scope out the competition, and in some cases reap the benefits of a company's publicly announced plans by implementing [it] before [they] do.

I'm know company's (i.e. Apple, Yahoo, Google) gambled on the fact that Longhorn wouldn't be released for a substancial period of time, and thus took it as a market opportunity. Those are my thoughts.

Reply Score: 0

Nothing like....
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Nothing like a little OS debate to bring out the children in some intelligent adults, right boys?

Reply Score: 1

The problem is...
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:45 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Vista won't be competing with Tiger. Apple will have another revision to OSX out by the time Vista hits the ground.

Reply Score: 3

the clowns begin to dance
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Just wait until Mac OS X is available for x86, then M$ could really turn a profit with all that M$ software sold on OSX x86!

And there are those who buy xboxes and sit happily playing them while typing anti-w1nd0ws comments online. Sadly, they're just feeding the same philosophies they pretend to hate.

Sheep

Reply Score: 0

OSX VS Vista
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hmm,suprisingly not a Linux VS Vista but a OSX VS Vista.

Reply Score: 0

Re: Legit
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Im curious as to what Paul is referring to on that. Spotlight, Tiger's search tech, is based off iTunes search.....which came out in 2001. Just because MS mentioned stuff at PDC 2003, then later removed half of it from the Longhorn feature list, doesn't mean Apple seized on anything.

Reply Score: 2

Spotlight based on iTunes search?
by BlackJack75 on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:20 UTC in reply to "Re: Legit"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Come on, this is what jobs said because he felt like he had to justify the idea of having this technology.

Search existed long before iTunes you know. Ever tried BeOS live queries?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, and so did Dominic Giampaolo...

Reply Score: 1

Wrong comparison
by Lumbergh on Tue 30th Aug 2005 18:57 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

First of all, the comparison is silly. Vista is beta 1. A Vista RC might be more appropriate.

The comparison should be Linux vs. OSX. These are the two anklebiters that are trying to put a dent in Microsoft's massively domimant desktop share. Which one of these can get to say 10% of the desktop marketshare one of these days.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wrong comparison
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:35 UTC in reply to "Wrong comparison"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And what pray tell, is the "Linux Desktop" to compare OSX to? Gnome? KDE? XFCE? FVWM? *box with GTK, *box with GTK+, *box with QT, ....

You get my point, I hope.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wrong comparison
by Lumbergh on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong comparison"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Hehe, I get your point all too well. And that's part of the problem for "linux on the desktop".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wrong comparison
by monkeyhead on Wed 31st Aug 2005 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong comparison"
monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

it's a problem? some people like myself think strength lies in diversity.

sure it doesn't do much to appeal to the homogenized consumer culture of modern day america, but study any biological model, and you'll find that diversity is a strengthening characteristic in an evolutionary system. computers have definately followed an evolutionary style of developement.

for example, pretend kde bites the dust some day because they take the wrong path, but say the XFCE developers hit it on the head with something they're working on... then you've still got a viable linux alternative.

linux on the desktop is gonna be pretty hard to destroy in that sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong comparison
by Lumbergh on Wed 31st Aug 2005 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong comparison"
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

it's a problem? some people like myself think strength lies in diversity.

It's not a problem, except for the linux newbs that have an obscene obsession with Linux becoming relevant on the desktop.

Fanboys can scream about choice all they want, but Linux will never be relevant until there is at least a standard toolkit, and that's just the start of linux's problems.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Wrong comparison
by wakeupneo on Wed 31st Aug 2005 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong comparison"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

"Fanboys can scream about choice all they want, but Linux will never be relevant until there is at least a standard toolkit, and that's just the start of linux's problems."

Uhh...ok. And Windows apps all use the same toolkit right? There's just as much, if not more diversity on the Windows side. The number of toolkits used will have nothing to do with the adoption rate of Linux on the desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wrong comparison
by archiesteel on Wed 31st Aug 2005 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong comparison"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

How about putting it this way:

"Windows will never be relevant until there is a standard toolkit."

Funny, Linux has the same market share as Mac OSX and yet OSX has a standard toolkit? How could that be? I guess OSX isn't ready for the desktop...

It's so easy to demolish the anti-Linux FUD, and yet the trolls keep posting it. I guess they're a) gluttons for punishment or b) paid to do it...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wrong comparison
by sappyvcv on Wed 31st Aug 2005 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong comparison"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

1) Windows does have a standard toolkit
2) OSX is tied to it's own expensive hardware. It has nothing to do with its toolkit.
3) Valid criticism is not FUD
4) You honestly think there are people here paid to defend Microsoft? HAHAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, but some of you guys are so paranoid and delusional. Why can't you simply accept that some people actually use and like MS products? Get over yourself. Freedom of choice, right? Yeah, right, freedom as long as it's nix.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wrong comparison
by archiesteel on Wed 31st Aug 2005 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wrong comparison"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

1) Then why aren't Windows applications visually consistent? Why are file open/save dialogs all differents? Why are widgets (such as menus) different from one app to the next? Which one is the standard toolkit? MFC? Windows Forms?

2) Apple newest PCs are price competitively with "brand-name" Windows PCs. Anyway, if price was a factor it should play in Linux's favor, so your argument counters Lumbergh's original one.

3) Criticism is FUD when it's based on false premises, such as "multiple toolkits hamper Linux on the desktop" when there's absolutely no indication that there is a cause/effect correlation between the two.

4) Prove to me there aren't. Oh, and not only do I accept that some people actually use and like MS products, since I'm one of them. I use MS products everyday, and I even use MS Office on my Linux PCs. However, that doesn't mean that I have to turn into a MS fanboy everytime someone posts something critical of MS.

Freedom of choice, whether it's Unix, Linux, Mac OSX or Windows. I respect it - it's the anti-Linux camp that doesn't, resorting to lies to spread their FUD.

Perhaps there are no astroturfers here - in that case, it's even more sad to see people voluntarily provide free PR for the abusive monopoly...

Reply Score: 1

inconsistent review
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This review is meant to be a comparison between Vista beta one and Mac Os X Tiger. Why then does the reviewer then make constant appeals to what the final windows version will be 'like? We might as well appeal to what Leopard may be 'like' as well since they will release at the same time.?

Sticking to the OS's in their present state would have made for a more precise review and somewhat more objective.

Reply Score: 2

RE: inconsistent review
by Jody on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:12 UTC in reply to "inconsistent review"
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

I agree with you on that point. Vista will be a more mature product at the time of release, but it will not be competing with the same OSX we are looking at today either.

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Must conclude that the Vista GUI looks like a Gnome/KDE klone with the featureset of MacOS X, spiced up with some Looking glass features. I prefer the real stuff

Reply Score: 1

"Valuable" ?
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 19:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've tried the Vista beta release. Valuable is not a word I'd use to describe it.
Try "confusing" and "inconsistent". Seriously, I was utterly dissapointed in how little obvios all "features" were, and also the new theme ang GUI layouts added more to making interfacing with the confusing troublesome.

Reply Score: 0

come again?
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"What I am claiming, however, is that Microsoft legitimatized certain technologies at PDC 2003 by announcing that they will be included in Windows, and that Apple seized on the opportunity to add those features--whether they were previously planned or not--in Tiger, which it knew would ship well before Windows Vista."

I am sure I have seen worse logic somewhere on the internet, but nothing comes to mind. Exactly how do you "seize an oppurtunity to add features" if they are already planned? And if they are not planned, Thurrot seems to imagine that Apple can somehow learn about features that some other compnay is already working on, and then implement them years before the company that already has a headstart. What is going on in this man's brain?

Reply Score: 0

v RE: come again?
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:28 UTC in reply to "come again?"
RE: come again?
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 02:52 UTC in reply to "come again?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Though I think that Mr Thurrot is just rabble-rousing when it comes to his comments about Apple copying Microsoft, I have to admit that I found it a little too much of a coincidence that Apple hired the creator of BeOS's database-like filesystem at about the same time as Microsoft announced they'd be trying to integrate some database features into the windows filesystem in Longhorn.

Check this register article where it mentions that Dominic Giampaolo was hired by Apple about a week after it came out that Microsoft would be trying to integrate a database with the filesystem.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/29/windows_on_a_database_slice...

Reply Score: 0

Microsoft needs to fire its art team
by rayiner on Tue 30th Aug 2005 20:37 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

This reaction is not overly critical. Indeed, I'd say its pretty lenient, since there is no Chinese finger torture involved. After Luna, WMP, and the god-aweful Keramik rip-off that is Office XP, they don't deserve another chance.

It's the subtlety stupid! The more glitzy the feature, the more important it is to use that feature with care. That is something that the art people at Microsoft do not seem to understand. The examples with transparency are perfect. Note how slight the transparent effect is in OS X's menus compared to Vista's titlebar. It is obvious that the former was designed by thinking "a hint of transparency here would add a little something to the overall look), while the latter was designed by thinking "look how cool this transparency is!"

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Apple went through the same "overdone transparent" stages as well. Windows in pre 10.2 had a transparent title bar that made them really hard to use. The transparencies for things like dropdowns was also higher in regular versions.

Good thing that some one at apple woke up and realized transparencies just make things hard to read and look cluttered. I am really disappointed in the vista ui shown so far. You would think that microsoft would have learned from apple's mistakes.

Reply Score: 2

Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

The examples with transparency are perfect. Note how slight the transparent effect is in OS X's menus compared to Vista's titlebar. It is obvious that the former was designed by thinking "a hint of transparency here would add a little something to the overall look), while the latter was designed by thinking "look how cool this transparency is!"

Well as mentioned OSX did go through it's own "look how cool this transparency is!" stage, but that by no means changes anything. I'm not looking forward to explaining to my grandmother that she can see the window but can't click it because there's "glass" in front of it.

Reply Score: 1

v wow!
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:10 UTC
RE: wow!
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:18 UTC in reply to "wow!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If that's the case, then NeXTSTEP/Openstep should have won the UI War long ago. That OS allowed the user/developer to get more work done hands down. Even if it were released into the Open Source World, it would still not win.

Reply Score: 0

RE: wow!
by altair on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:18 UTC in reply to "wow!"
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

You may think of OSX as cheesy and full of useless effects but many people that have to look at their computers for 8 hours a day would much rather look at a pretty desktop rather than an ugly gray/blue and square desktop that windows of old had. If I had to look at windows 2k for 8 hours a day I would get a headache.

Main point of this post is that a lot of people care about the aesthetics of the things they use. (And no OSX isn't all about the aesthetics)

Reply Score: 1

Wow never hurts
by BlackJack75 on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE: wow!"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

I pretty much agree with altair. While functionality is the key to efficient work some elegance really never hurts. It makes me feel more confortable to use my mac laptop. Somehow I don't want to install extra eye-candy software when I run my PC -- because of the additional load -- but I still do feel a bit down when looking at the aspect of XP's interface. It really looks like a cheap theme. I have seen dozens of ugly themes in KDE (especially in the early days) but many of them today are far more elegant than the default one in WinXP.

Oh, and I don't mention the default background in XP, come on, what are they afraid of.. that we may not be able to see colors if they are not 200% saturated? The first thing I do upon installing XP is changing that vulgar background. I simply can't stand it. It's an agression. The default OSX background is simple, but elegant. I used it for like one year before I changed for some black and white picture.

There is a snow-ball effect with style on OSX. If you release an app that looks even semi-ugly people will throw rocks at you (think of the comments about Apple's Mail in Tiger and the lousy icon-set). Many mac users will not be glad to try your app is the icon looks ugly in their dock. Is that bad? No. It just forces developers to get the best they can instead of just accepting the default.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: wow!
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 07:10 UTC in reply to "RE: wow!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Something is going really wrong if you are looking at the OS all day. There should be application windows open to look at....

Reply Score: 0

I like "wasting CPU cycles"
by Tobbe on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:17 UTC
Tobbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Man, why does it always sound like the minimalistic way is the best way? Most people don't have 486sx50's anymore. Every CPU cycle and byte of RAM doesn't need to be spent wisely. Sure, if you like it - that's great. But please - stop sounding like everything Apple and Microsoft does for the desktop environment is bad and "all you need is a vim-edited right-click menu and a blue-steel theme".

It's 2005 goddamnit.

Just because something is spartan and minimalistic doesn't mean it's automatically the most efficient and best way to spend your desktop days. Take Exposť for instance, at a first glance it looks like nothing but eye candy. Something to show off with. But try working with it for a while and you'll see that that old alt-tab of yours is way too '92 and you won't let go of it. And no, the open source Exposť ripoffs for KDE I've tried doesn't quite cut it (sad to say). Thanks Apple, can't live without that one.

Reply Score: 4

stupid transition effects
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Personally, I always turn off the stupid transition effects in any version of Windows. Go ahead, try it. And take note how snappier it feels.

Reply Score: 0

The department of redundancy department.
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Is it just me, or does Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger seem REALLY redundant?

I mean, are there any OTHER versions of the OS named Tiger?

Are there any other versions of the OS at 10.4?

Would someone REALLY think you were talking about Mac's Classic OS if you dropped the 'X'?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

That line alone... about the redundancy department... LOL... never thought of that one!

I feel that Vista will be a headage to many...
You will need to learn the new ways at doing things, like those small chages they make for no reason... like plasing the hardware manayer in diferent plases... that one been a realy small change (same window in 2000 and XP but exchagig the position of said button)... to the extreme ones... were they make you dig your system for a simple setup that once you knew... not that it might be better on other OSs.

Microsoft don't mantain an standard from one OS to the next... moving thing for no aparent reason, breaking your knowlege of the system, the reason why many don't jump to the best thing, that and the hardware requirements... Mny still use The_Hell-98 or worst... MELENIUM ...

Eider way... I mess to much with linux to even care about those OSs... the only thing been, I am an A+ technician... meaning I need to know of all the diferent ways of doing the same thing on those windows... A headdage I tell you!

-iMoron

Reply Score: 0

Critical sense
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If you go back and look at the WWDC 2004 keynote video, you'll see Steve Jobs demo virtually every single major new feature in Tiger. A year later, when the product actually shipped, little had changed and nothing major was added. This isn't how Microsoft works.

True. Instead, Microsoft prefers to unveil a lot of technologies in conferences and then drop them one by one while the product is actually being developed.

Seriously, how can one trust not only Microsoft, but _any company_ that much ? It's not about MS not being innovative or so, just that they said they were going to do lots of things and that Windows users may end up with something totally different of what it should have been. I believe this article seriously lacks the required minimum critical sense.

I'm now waiting for something like "That thing ? Well, it sure is part of (OS X/Linux/Any other OS in the world), but Microsoft planned to intoduce it in about two years from now, so it doesn't count, okay ?"

Reply Score: 2

Whats worng with?
by Anonymous on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I read this in every article comparing OSs " Copied this or Copied that "

Whats worng with bringing a good feature found in an OS to another, when only the idea and the code is copied?

Lets say something like Apples spotlight, when Microsoft tries integrating a similar idea in their OS, people would say its already in OS X, so do I have to switch to Mac to use a feature or better have it on my platform.

Work will never be done if I have to switch between machines and systems to do different tasks.

That doesnt mean I'm aganist innovation, but you dont always have to have your own methodology of doing things.

Its good to share ideas as long as its conistent with your OS.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Whats wrong with?
by DigitalAxis on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:51 UTC in reply to "Whats worng with?"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Well, if you copy it and then claim you invented it or revolutionized it or that "since you included it in your plans it's now a legitimate idea"

Reply Score: 1

correction
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 00:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

when only the idea and the code is copied?

I meant

when only the idea NOT the code is copied

Reply Score: 0

What is a "beta"
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 01:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

My understanding is that "beta" software is software that is feature complete, and is sent out for bug testing. "Alpha" is software that is feature incomplete.

So presumably by MS putting out a "beta" it is feature complete, which should justify a comparison with a feature complete Mac OSX. If they didn't mean "beta", then why call it that? Perhaps, so that people think that they're further along than they really are?

Reply Score: 0

macheads ...
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 02:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Isn't a lot of this stuff already in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger?"

now, that's an original one.

man, if i get a dime everytime a 3rd rated reviewer say this, i would buy over apple and donate it to microsoft, just for spite.

Reply Score: 1

He's trying really hard...
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 07:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

to make Vista look better than OSX. I'm not convinced that the presentation of search features is better, it's just not _exactly_ the same.

The list of results in OSX looks more compact than the icon (stacks) view.

Reply Score: 0

view os x in a different light
by camo r on Wed 31st Aug 2005 08:01 UTC
camo r
Member since:
2005-08-26

A new version of os x is released every year, which i view as an ongoing beta release of an os. If it is as great as it's claimed to be then a release shouldn't be required every year, with a butt load of updates through out the year.

if viewed this way than a comparo between vista and tiger is valid. two betas that are going to change in a year.

Simple.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Using GNOME feels like using a UI designed by people who have no idea how to design flowing and non-aggravating UIs -- because that's what GNOME is.


In what way ? I find gnome nice and easy to use. There are plenty of flaws, granted.

KDE is too much like Windows, plus 10x the clutter. GNOME just feels plain retarded.

Then you will not like Vista. I find KDE cluttered and bloated. However, it is nothing in comparison to what my experience with Vista showd me.

Perhaps you want the Plan 9 approach to computer interfacing. It is different, and text based (yes there are windows - but it's still text based)
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/8%bd/8%bd.html
http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/2003-September/027652.html
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/acme/acme.pdf and
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/88/1-07.ps.gz

Now, I take it that's not what /you/ want either. So, please describe what you want...

Reply Score: 0

Microseft 2 years behind
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 09:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

OS X is a reality, Vista will be ready in what, 2007? The proprietary Microseft late as usual. And God knows how many security problems this new release will have. Can't wait for the first WinFS targetting worms to show up. It's gonna be fun.

Reply Score: 0

transparency and other issues
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 11:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I wonder how some of the new effects will change the way new users experience their pc.
I know some people who are already confused because of XP's eye candy.
Glass windows should make this even worse.
After all a folder should *hide* complexity and not change in a dynamic way so that people get completely crazy.
Furthermore I just can't hear the word 'desktop search' any longer!
I don't know what those people do with their files but I never had a problem finding them.

Reply Score: 0

Vista effects
by pcustance on Wed 31st Aug 2005 12:32 UTC
pcustance
Member since:
2005-07-12

Just one question! How does transparent windows help the user become more efficient? I've used the Beta 1 and this feature just seems to make the interface look even more cluttered and confusing. Shadow effects like the ones used by KDE X11 extensions are fine but transparency is a complete overkill that most users will very quickly get tired of.

Reply Score: 1

Press Conference
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So, M$ announces 200 new "features" that will be in their next OS. Then, they only deliver 5 of those features. Their rivals integrate all 200. So, why is M$ getting the credit here? Because they had a press release! Whoo hoo.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Press Conference
by DigitalAxis on Wed 31st Aug 2005 14:06 UTC in reply to "Press Conference"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

I wondered about that myself. I don't think it would look very good if you promise all these features, and then remove a couple because you can't impliment them in the time given... yet your competitors read your press release and manage to?

It sounds kinda like something I read in history class where the Soviet Union kept announcing and parading powerful new space rockets and planes around, which prompted the US to research and build competitive new designs to keep up...
Except Russia couldn't actually BUILD some of the rockets and space planes; occasionally the rocket paraded through Red Square was made of wood.

Doesn't look very good for the Soviet Union if their fake progress can be outmatched by our real progress... well, their PR people come out looking good for managing to fool the US into thinking plywood was real.

Reply Score: 1

Tiger is retarded
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Really, I wonder if Mac fanboys actually use this (P)OS... Wow, it has a search functionality and a widget engine!! Hooray! But yet, it still can't resize windows without lagging, scroll websites eficiently, etc... So much for a desktop experience... Even worth... We're at 10.4, and the Terminal still chokes on accented characters... Pathetic.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Tiger is retarded
by junior on Wed 31st Aug 2005 16:21 UTC in reply to "Tiger is retarded"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

Yea, I'll take the dos prompt over the terminal any day

Reply Score: 1

RE: Tiger is retarded
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 17:57 UTC in reply to "Tiger is retarded"
Anonymous Member since:
---

yup, we use Tiger. i find it much more efficient than XP. i have no problem with scrolling, resizing windows, etc. my desktop experience is smoother and more effective with os x. i am guessing you are thinking that the desktop search coming with vista is the same POS and not worth it? however, there is much more to Tiger than just spotlight and dashboard. i prefer the way Tiger works and that it actually does work.

how does terminal choke on accented characters?

Reply Score: 0

Let's be honest...
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 16:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

All software is bad. You just choose the bugs and annoyances you're most comfortable with.

Reply Score: 0

Multiple toolkits for all OSes
by archiesteel on Wed 31st Aug 2005 17:28 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget_toolkit

Toolkits exclusive to Windows: 4
Toolkits exclusive to Mac: 4
Toolkits exclusive to X Window System: 3
Cross-Platform Toolkits: 10

All in all, there are more toolkits for Windows than for Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Multiple toolkits for all OSes
by sappyvcv on Wed 31st Aug 2005 20:27 UTC in reply to "Multiple toolkits for all OSes"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Those are not really toolkits [for windows]. They are wrappers for the win32api. They all use the same toolkit in the end, and the same widgets.

Windows Forms could be argued as it's own toolkit. It mostly extends the win32api, but still uses the windows themeing engine if you tell it to.

Reply Score: 1

Tiger
by Anonymous on Wed 31st Aug 2005 18:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Mac-OSX is the most constistant UI around, gnome is a close second, Windows is simply inconsistant right across the board. It not because i'm a Linux user it's simply the truth, and it's only resently that photoshop has a XP style UI.

Look at i.e Nautilus, Gimp, Gaim, gedit and see what I mean, even the Mac-OSX is consistant just like gnome.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

I forgot about a type of software that every Windows PC should have, but that is notorious for the inconsistency of its interfaces (I've done enough Windows installs to know!): security software.

You have to have an Anti-Virus on your Windows PC...and yet all the AV software I know are quite inconsistent in their interfaces and widget style. (Compare McAffee to Avast Anti-Virus, for example).

Firewall programs are another category that varies widely in its interfaces (hey, is it me or is ZoneAlarm now very confusing to use?)

Bad design is a bigger problem than slightly inconsistent widgets - and has it happens KDE programs (I use little Gtk+ programs, so I wouldn't know) are usually very well designed, in addition to being consistent.

I think what we have to do is to start to speak in "Windows vs. KDE" or "Windows vs. Gnome" instead of the usual "Windows vs. Linux" paradigm. After all, both KDE and Gnome and their associated apps run on other architectures than Linux - BSDs and "real" Unices. Indeded, we shouldn't ask if Linux is ready for the desktop. We should ask if KDE is ready, or if Gnome is ready - heck, even Enlightenment.

So if you ask me to choose between KDE and Windows, I'll gladly say KDE (which, like Windows, can run Gtk+ programs if the right libraries are installed...).

I think that, from now on I'll stop referring to my laptop as a Linux laptop...I'll just say it's a KDE laptop - that way talk about widget inconsistency will be even more irrelevant to me. :-)

Reply Score: 1

True resolution-independ icons?
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 07:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

First of all: 256*256 icons... which means you can display 4 icons on a 640*480 resolution screen? Even on higher resolution screens they must look gigantic.

Secondly: "...the final Vista version are true resolution-independent vector graphics ". What does "resolution-independent" icons mean? While as a longtime CAD user i do know what vector-based graphics are, i cant see how they are resolution-independent. In the end, all graphics are displayed as pixels (unless you have a true vector-based screen).

Reply Score: 0

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow, you're stupid. I hate to be mean, but if you can't understand how vector graphics are resolution independent, that is pathetic.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Uh, weren't you the one complaining how rude I was earlier? You could learn some manners yourself...You could have simply said: "it means that the icons will always have the same relative size on-screen, independent of the screen's resolution."

Reply Score: 0