Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Dec 2008 21:13 UTC, submitted by shaneco
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Is Windows 7 leaning too much towards the Mac side of life? Many Microsoft bloggers are saying that it does, that Windows 7 is too much "form over function", something they accuse Apple of. While superficially they may have a point, the differences between Windows and Mac OS X are still glaringly obvious. Are a few changes to the taskbar enough to make Windows OS X-like? Bloggers like Mary-Jo Foley, Paul Thurrot, and others seem to think so.
Order by: Score:
v more polite next time
by lcube on Fri 5th Dec 2008 21:28 UTC
Come on now...
by cmost on Fri 5th Dec 2008 21:39 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I've installed the Windows 7 Beta and played around with it for several weeks and I can't see where anyone thinks it's "too much like Macintosh." It boggles my mind how some people equate look & feel (e.g., themes) with core functions. There is oh so much more to Mac's OS-X than a translucent dock and fluid graphics. Its entire core is as different from Windows as night and day. Sure, I can put Corvette's badging, interior leather and even some of its options on my old Cavalier but at the end of the day...I'm still driving a Cavalier (and a pretty damn goofy looking one at that.) Try as Microsoft might, it will still be stuck with a heavily band-aided buggy kernel with a lot of (mostly useless) OSX-like eye candy painted on the surface. Make no mistake, Windows will always be Windows (unless they take the radical step Apple took and invent an entirely new OS from scratch.) Like Obama recently said...you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Come on now...
by DCMonkey on Fri 5th Dec 2008 21:52 UTC in reply to "Come on now..."
DCMonkey Member since:
2005-07-06

In what alternate reality did Apple invent Mac OS X from scratch?

Anyways, I think MS has borrowed the right amount of inpiration from Mac OS X's dock. In a world of Email clients, IM clients, Music Players, LOB apps, MDI apps, Programming IDEs and tabbed web browsers, much of what we do on a computer is organized by application. It makes sense for that to be the primary focus of the dock or taskbar. And for those other cases where you would often have multiple top level windows of a single app open (ie: Word or Excel), I think Windows 7's solution is an improvement over Mac OS X's.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Come on now...
by cmost on Fri 5th Dec 2008 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on now..."
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

In what alternate reality did Apple invent Mac OS X from scratch?


You're right, they didn't invent OSX from scratch, however, they did completely scrap their previous OS (which had gone all the way to version 9) for an entirely new and different one (which is what I should have wrote in the first place.) While some users and developers did gripe, they ultimately embraced the new OS and now enjoy its benefits fully.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Come on now...
by Macrat on Sat 6th Dec 2008 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Come on now..."
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27


You're right, they didn't invent OSX from scratch, however, they did completely scrap their previous OS (which had gone all the way to version 9) for an entirely new and different one (which is what I should have wrote in the first place.) While some users and developers did gripe, they ultimately embraced the new OS and now enjoy its benefits fully.


Not entirely correct. Apple (Jobs?) did eventually back down on many UI features missing from OS 9 and put them into OS X. By the time Panther (10.3) was released, many UI elements from OS 9 had been put into OS X.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Come on now...
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 5th Dec 2008 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on now..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe he's talking about Copland ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Come on now...
by OSGuy on Sat 6th Dec 2008 03:23 UTC in reply to "Come on now..."
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

I don't know why you were moded down -5 but I think you have valid points. Windows will always be Windows unless radical changes are made and make it look and even work a bit like Mac OS X for example, create a global menu bar (something that really sucks). It's like everything lives within a window and in order to see what menu options one application offers you, you will have to activate the window. With Windows, you can see them all at once. However, I believe Mac OS X looks heaps better and has better looking fonts and better memory management etc.

Edited 2008-12-06 03:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Come on now...
by joen on Sat 6th Dec 2008 17:07 UTC in reply to "Come on now..."
joen Member since:
2006-03-31

Please enlighten me on what exactly is so seriously wrong with the kernel.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Come on now...
by sofakingcool on Sun 7th Dec 2008 14:24 UTC in reply to "Come on now..."
sofakingcool Member since:
2008-06-04

You Mac fellows. You seem to always turn attention to how every other operating system is inferior. What a bunch of baloney. Apple loves you ..... reaching into your pocket every time. It's so closed and proprietary. Come on ...Mac is alot of eye candy ..... and a decent OS. But it's not the best!!!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Come on now...
by darknexus on Sun 7th Dec 2008 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on now..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

To those who said that an anti-fanboy is the same as a fanboy just on the opposite side of a debate... this is actually what I meant. This one's not advocating anything, (s)he's just dissing the fanboys.

Reply Score: 2

Uncanny Valley?
by Moredhas on Fri 5th Dec 2008 21:46 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

It seems to me like Microsoft are making their taskbar more dock-like without making it identical to try and push OS X's dock into "uncanny valley". Uncanny Valley is a term usually applied to robotics or AI to describe a point at which the robot or AI is so close to human, but not quite right, thus causing an irrational repulsion in humans. People who later move from Windows 7 (or subsequent versions) to OS X will see the dock as familiar, but it won't behave as their Windows 7 experience makes them expect. This will create the illusion of it not working "correctly". It will be so close to their Windows experience, but not quite the same, and this will irk the users enough to radically change their opinion of OS X.

That, or I'm just paranoid and reading into things too much...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Uncanny Valley?
by OSGuy on Sat 6th Dec 2008 03:30 UTC in reply to "Uncanny Valley?"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Hmmm, perhaps that's what MS is trying to achieve so when someone buys a Mac, they get disappointed and go back to Windows?

Edited 2008-12-06 03:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Uncanny Valley?
by Michael on Sun 7th Dec 2008 15:52 UTC in reply to "Uncanny Valley?"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

That, or I'm just paranoid and reading into things too much...

Bingo. If that's what they think they're doing, they've left it way too long.

Reply Score: 2

v Every release
by computrius on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:00 UTC
RE: Every release
by darknexus on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:12 UTC in reply to "Every release"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Is it just me, or are there more Apple fanboy haters than Apple fanboys?

Edited 2008-12-05 22:13 UTC

Reply Score: 14

RE[2]: Every release
by WorknMan on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Every release"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Is it just me, or are there more Apple fanboy haters than Apple fanboys?


No, it's not just you.. I think so too. Assuming that is the case, it just goes to show you that the Mac fanboys end up doing more harm than good, which I would say is a pretty good reason why they should shut the f**k up already. The more they run their mouths, the more inclined I am NOT to own a Mac.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Every release
by darknexus on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Every release"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I don't quite follow that logic. There are very few fanboys, and an army of fanboy haters, and somehow that reflects badly on the product the fanboys like? I guess to me that reflects more on the fanboy haters, but to each their own.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Every release
by sbergman27 on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Every release"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I don't quite follow that logic. There are very few fanboys, and an army of fanboy haters

I agree with you that there are more haters than fanboys. I would generalize that to the topics of Linux, *BSD, and likely others.

I also very much agree with WorknMan, though. In fact, that is a topic which is very important to me. It's far easier to make enemies than friends. One person practicing "Bad Advocacy" can undo the work of 10 good advocates. And the bad advocates absolutely fail to see, or refuse to see that they are doing it. Invariably, they seem to think that they are doing good.

I speak from a Linux perspective, but I suspect that this applies more broadly.

Edited 2008-12-05 22:50 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Every release
by darknexus on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Every release"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'd say your suspicians are spot on, it most certainly applies more broadly... to every product/zealot combination, in fact. I'll be honest, on most tech sights I see more Linux fanboys than any other type at the moment, but no doubt that will change in time to some other set of zealots. I guess the anti-fanboys annoy me more than the actual fanboys do. At least the fanboys are advocating something, no matter how annoying they get, the others are usually just dissing the fanboys and adding nothing productive at all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Every release
by essdeekay on Sat 6th Dec 2008 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Every release"
essdeekay Member since:
2006-01-31

I guess the anti-fanboys annoy me more than the actual fanboys do.


For the most part they are one and the same though. Fanboys of Apple are Anti-Fanboys of Microsoft and vice-versa etc.

So they're both as infuriating as each other, just tackling the same subject from opposing sides generally without taking any interest in what the other party has to say.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Every release
by computrius on Sat 6th Dec 2008 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Every release"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

uggg.. dont get me started on the Linux fan boys... They make the mac fan boys look intelligent.

I dont necessarily have anything against fan boys promoting the product they like. Im a beos/haiku fan boy ;) . The problem is when they are blatantly spreading misinformation and complete crap about why the product is good. To listen to most mac fan boys, you would get the impression that every computer related product in the world is a rip off of some apple product (completely indistinguishable!), yet somehow insanely inferior at the same time.

The linux fan boys are just convinced that they are smart, and anyone who doesnt use linux is stupid and that they have some holy calling to brag about this to every living thing they come in contact with.

And then there are the windows fan boys.... It makes my head hurt just to think about them..

Edited 2008-12-06 00:21 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Every release
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Dec 2008 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Every release"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

uggg.. dont get me started on the Linux fan boys... They make the mac fan boys...
...
And then there are the windows fan boys....

The important thing, in my opinion, to remember about all those groups is that for every fanboy there are at least 10 other users sitting and quietly shaking their heads, while the fanboys talk enough for everyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Every release
by sofakingcool on Sun 7th Dec 2008 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Every release"
sofakingcool Member since:
2008-06-04

I'm a Linux user ...specifically "Ubuntu". I embrace the concept that users should use the OS that suits them. What's important to most Linux users is that we have choices.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Every release
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 6th Dec 2008 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Every release"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Is it just me, or are there more Apple fanboy haters than Apple fanboys?


Yeahhhhhh, no. Ever heard the term "persecution complex"?

Unless you mean "haters" in the Maclot sense, that is - AKA, anyone who doesn't spend every waking second figuratively tossing Steve Jobs' salad.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Every release
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Dec 2008 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Every release"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I'm haven't owned an Apple since my Apple ][+. But I'm doing an informal tally (because this is an interesting question), to see if I can put some actual numbers to it.

Glancing over your posting history, I'm marking you squarely in the "haters" category.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Every release
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 6th Dec 2008 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Every release"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Glancing over your posting history, I'm marking you squarely in the "haters" category.


If I were an 8 year old, I'm sure I would be crushed right now.

What are you going to do for an encore, call me a "big meanie poopie-head"?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Every release
by nathbeadle on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:13 UTC in reply to "Every release"
nathbeadle Member since:
2006-08-08

It's the same deal with cloning... you find a good specimen and clone it. In the case of Vista unfortunately the clone ended up dying early and now people step around it or try to put it behind them and talk about the next big thing coming up.

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck... but it's not moving... you've got a dead duck!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Every release
by MamiyaOtaru on Sat 6th Dec 2008 00:11 UTC in reply to "Every release"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

For example, everyone remembers how much of a rip off Vista was of OS X according to the fan boys at the time. Now these same ones say Vista is horrible. (other versions claimed to be ripoffs of the mac os of the time, but now of course sucked horribly compared to the same mac os of the time: XP, 95, 3.1, etc, etc, etc..)

You seem to think it's a contradiction for someone to say "X is good. Y is a ripoff of X. Y sucks." With your belief that is an inherent contradiction, your conclusion is "Y is a ripoff of X. If Y sucks, obviously X sucks".

What I don't get is why you are so certain it's a contradiction. You really think that something that rips off something good is always also good? It's possible to copy something poorly.

This leads to my final question. If vista is so horrible, but also a complete rip off of OS X, what does that say about the quality of your beloved OS X?

Nothing at all. In the minds of people who might say such a thing, Vista was a poor copy of OSX. I don't happen to agree with them that it was a ripoff, but your whole line of reasoning is flawed when you assume that a ripoff is by definition of the same quality as the original.

Edited 2008-12-06 00:12 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Every release
by grabberslasher on Sat 6th Dec 2008 10:36 UTC in reply to "Every release"
grabberslasher Member since:
2006-02-09

Erm, the article is about *Windows pundits* saying it's too much like OS X. Thanks for reading =P

Reply Score: 2

RE: Every release
by steviant on Sat 6th Dec 2008 20:55 UTC in reply to "Every release"
steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

Ahem, it was WINDOWS fanboys whining about Microsoft copying OS X, not Mac ones... I hate all these bloody fanboys spreading shit about OSes,

Windows fanboys whining about how mac users are all gay turtleneck wearing wannabe fashionista, Mac fanboys whinging about Microsoft "copying" them, and Linux fanboys denigrating every other operating system for not being "open" or "free" enough. They all suck, because they all spread FUD.

I'm a regular user of the three major platforms and I can't recall having to reach for another OS because I couldn't accomplish what I needed to on the platform at hand.

All contemporary computing environments are essentially equivalent in the sense that it's about equally complicated to accomplish a given task in any of them once you've learned enough about operating in a given environment to satisfy the assumptions made by the application authors. (Like knowing where to find menu bars, switch between running applications or how to use a mouse)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Every release
by gtada on Sat 6th Dec 2008 23:25 UTC in reply to "Every release"
gtada Member since:
2005-10-12

I own both a Mac and a PC, and I personally prefer my Mac for day to day tasks. But, I prefer my PC for sketching (it's a tablet). That being said, my point is that it's all preference. I don't get why fanboys on both sides spend so much energy trying to convince other people that they're right.

All I care about is working on getting the platforms to play together better. For example: I wish there was a platform-neutral filesystem that works equally well on Win/Mac/Linux that can handle large partition sizes (>32 gigs). Currently I'm using NTFS on my external hard drive, but the write performance sucks on my Mac. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I think those are the things that matter, not what platform you personally prefer.

Computris: I think if you really think about your final question you'll realize how stupid it is. Whether or not Vista is a "rip-off" has nothing to do with how well it was executed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Every release
by h3rman on Sun 7th Dec 2008 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Every release"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

... That being said, my point is that it's all preference. I don't get why fanboys on both sides spend so much energy trying to convince other people that they're right.


Because it gets to be a part of their "identity", I guess.

All I care about is working on getting the platforms to play together better. For example: I wish there was a platform-neutral filesystem that works equally well on Win/Mac/Linux that can handle large partition sizes (>32 gigs). Currently I'm using NTFS on my external hard drive, but the write performance sucks on my Mac.


There are platform-neutral file systems like that, actually most modern open source *n*x filesystems are like that; what it comes down to is the question whether MS or Apple are willing to nicely implement the drivers into their operating system. There are Windows and OS X drivers for the Ext filesystem for instance. Not that MS or Apple bother to cater to that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Every release
by darknexus on Sun 7th Dec 2008 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Every release"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The open source filesystems *could* be like that. At present, though, compatibility doesn't seem to be that strong even across various open source UNIX flavors. Linux favors the ext series of filesystems, *BSD favors ffs or ufs2, Opensolaris favors their own implementation of ufs or zfs. Linux doesn't like ufs or ffs all that much, although it can be made to work with a bit of effort. Opensolaris and *BSD don't really get along with the ext series all that well, same as ufs really. Linux's fuse version of zfs can be useful, but performance is pretty shoddy and seems to be prone to odd errors. Reiserfs is out, as only Linux fully supports it and it's probably gone anyway (shame about that). I'm probably missing a few, but we're still missing a truly platform neutral filesystem. Whether Apple or MS put the effort into supporting it is irrelevant if the filesystem is open source or an open standard, you don't need the source of either of those platforms to implement a filesystem driver.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Every release
by h3rman on Mon 8th Dec 2008 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Every release"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

... I'm probably missing a few, but we're still missing a truly platform neutral filesystem. Whether Apple or MS put the effort into supporting it is irrelevant if the filesystem is open source or an open standard, you don't need the source of either of those platforms to implement a filesystem driver.


No, so some of those drivers are out there. What the poster I replied to implied (I think) is that it would be nice to be able to use an (I guess external) hard drive that would work nicely with any of the major platforms *and* support multi-GB files. Most people who would want that wouldn't like to mess with installing Ext or whatever drivers on Windows or OS X, if any exist. Of course that's just wishful thinking since the last thing Apple and MS (in spite of the rhetoric) are going to do is to do nice things for Linux users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Every release
by darknexus on Mon 8th Dec 2008 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Every release"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Well, the driver installation could be made very simple on both platforms, but I take your point (minus the "no one does anything for Linux users" attitude of course). It's far more than just Linux users who would want this, hell, even just Windows and OS X users would want this. There's no filesystem even to go across from those two platforms, let alone other *NIX systems. OS X will read NTFS, but not write to it. Windows will not read OS X filesystems at all, or any other filesystem for that matter without external drivers. About the closest you can really get is to install MacFuse and NTFS-3g on OS X and use that, but it's a bit buggy with certain filesystem issues, in particular if the filesystem wasn't cleanly unmounted you need to go into OS X's command line to get it to mount.
My point was even across the open source world there's not much filesystem compatibility. The situation is actually pretty similar across the board in this case, unfortunately, regardless of whether you're using OS X, Linux, *BSD, Solaris, Windows... or whatever. Finding that universal filesystem is still darn near impossible.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Every release
by Darkmage on Sun 7th Dec 2008 03:39 UTC in reply to "Every release"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

The point is Microsoft is ripping off Apple and doing it badly. Not that Windows is exactly like osx and still sucks. There is a difference. Also OSX updates quite quickly several times each year while microsoft rarely releases a service pack and a few patches. So OSX is developing faster than Windows is. That's why OSX continues to look new and fresh while Windows continues to look old and broken.

Similarly Linux updates rapidly each year but they still haven't nailed down usability issues like guis for all OS functions hence why Linux looks like it's "catching up" still when Ubuntu makes stuff like guis for video configuration etc. But Linux remains looking far behind because so much stuff that still needs to be guified even though core functionality is there in the OS.

The reality is all 3 OSes are capable of pretty much the same thing the main considerations are ease of use and cost. Linux has cheapest cost, mac has ease of use and Microsoft has the best balance of ease of use/cost. It makes Microsoft pretty attractive unless you want to buy a brand new in box computer like a lot of families want. In which case a $1500 mac vs a $1200-$1500 pc isn't that bad a buy especially when people hear that macs haven't got viruses/spyware . (I am aware that macs can get malware but the reality is almost noone ever talks about it except on places like here whereas you hear almost every week about a windows reinstall due to virii)

Reply Score: 1

Why is this bad?
by darknexus on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:09 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Why must a certain look and feel be exclusive to one os? Ideas circulate, are borrowed, and are often improved upon as a result, to the benefit of everyone. This is one way in which progress happens. Yes, the Windows 7 taskbar has some dock-like features. So what? Why must the rabid fanboys of one operating system believe that concepts from another os are horrible and are tainting their pet system? Utterly ridiculous. It's one thing to say that you don't like the new feature and give good reasons, even one as simple as not liking the way it looks. Saying that it shares some similarities with OS X and therefore is automatically a horrible idea is just fundamentally ignorant and stupid.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Why is this bad?
by jason_ff on Sat 6th Dec 2008 01:06 UTC in reply to "Why is this bad?"
jason_ff Member since:
2006-06-29

I couldn't agree more. Personally, as a Leopard user, I don't think Win7 seems too much like it. Though I haven't used Win7.

Something like the taskbar finally allowing you to re-arrange items I think is a real blessing. While yes it is a *feature* of the Dock, I'd hardly consider it to be an *innovation*. Re-arranging Dock/taskbar items seems like a no-brainer, and should be in every OS.

Reply Score: 1

Imitation...
by Ressev on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:14 UTC
Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

...is the sincerest form of flatery.

And cheaper too.

Course, I would much prefere functionality over prettiness when it comes to windows. As long as Windows remains functional and the prettiness limitable, then I would be pretty satisfied.

Reply Score: 1

jeez
by google_ninja on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:25 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

The only way someone could think that is they have never really used osx before.

Another example of the blinkers that the Microsoft dev community has.

Reply Score: 8

people don't have what to write!
by haim96 on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:36 UTC
haim96
Member since:
2007-12-25

so they came up with bunch of cr@p...
yhee.. it's look like OS X, so what!?
if MS think that apple doing things right so let it be!
i don't care if windows look like OS X as long it will
do the job!

Reply Score: 1

Of ducks...
by umccullough on Fri 5th Dec 2008 22:38 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

yes - but this one only looks like a duck; it doesn't walk or talk like one.


But, does it also weigh as much as a duck?

This is what I'll be contemplating ;)

Reply Score: 3

OS X is not form over function.
by theTSF on Fri 5th Dec 2008 23:29 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

Compare Vista, to OS X vista is much more visually appealing. However OS X still looks nice but does it in more subtile and useful ways. Vista has animation for sake of looking cool (eg. the cascaded windows when you switch windows) While OS X will sacrifice looking nice for better functionality like in expose. While it animates and resized the windows they are all visible on the screen thus more useful in trying to choose which app to pick. Almost every visual effect that OS X does has a point to it to convey information to the user. Microsoft and Linux doesn't quite get that and think it is just eye candy. Thus make better looking bad UI's That may look much prettier then OS X.

Reply Score: 9

christianhgross Member since:
2005-11-15

Wow this is hitting the nail on the head.

I use the iPhone, and I compared it to the latest Windows Mobile, namely the Sony Ericsson Xperia. WTF...

That Sony Ericsson is the biggest piece of garbage I have seen in a long time. I thought I was doing things incorrectly so off I went to their site and let the videos do the talking. OMG were they complicated.

What Apple does so well is make things simple. I love my iPhone to bits. Not because it is a great telephone (its not), but because of the apps that come with the telephone. Those apps are indispensable and they are easy to use.

I don't get how come nobody gets this as well as Apple. The iPhone, and OSX, and iPod are not rocket science. Anybody could have done it. Though why does Apple get this and others, well just can't seem to fight themselves out of a wet paper bag.

Reply Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Well, this is just my take, but I think it's because Apple tries to be most things to most users, instead of all things to all users. They don't try to bundle everything under the sun, rather they try to focus on what the average user will use the device and/or software package for and implement that well. The other side of the equation, and equally important, is that they don't assume their users are idiots--the interface is simple, but you don't have a ridiculous amount of help balloons or wizards coming up every step of the process and annoying the living hell out of you. You also don't have tons of options buried behind twenty layers of task-based buttons like in Vista for example. They design their software like a well-crafted tool--to help you get the job done, but not to do it for you or to get in your way. Likewise with devices such as the iPod and Apple TV. Just my take on it, anyway.

Reply Score: 2

v Makes no sense!
by Hussein on Fri 5th Dec 2008 23:42 UTC
RE: Makes no sense!
by DavidSan on Sat 6th Dec 2008 00:16 UTC in reply to "Makes no sense!"
DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

Well... Microsoft has done the same thing over and over since the beginning.

Even though Microsoft is very successful, it is not because of its technology. It is because its business model... No one can argue that.

Microsoft is very good selling its stuff.

However, if you are looking into technology, Microsoft has always been a me-too, cheap wanna-be.

Windows, Office, XBox, Zune, Explorer, MSN .... All of their products were thought, developed or invented by some one else.

They have a natural, when it comes to see future business, but inventing them it is not in its nature. And it make sense, since innovation is a very big risk. Business do not like risks, they like profit.

Apple has made terrible decisions in the past (Managers and CEOs) and they are still paying for them. However, its technology is another thing. Certainly, good to admire and copy.

To each his own!

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Makes no sense!
by BluenoseJake on Sat 6th Dec 2008 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes no sense!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

MSN? Chat has been around since unix was invented, every bodies chat client works the same, so MSN is out.

Office? Excel was one of the first killer apps for the Mac back in the early 80s, and all spreadsheets owe their existents to Visicalc, so that is also out. WordPerfect, MS Word, Openoffice, they all were preceded by wordstar and others.

Zune? Apple wasn't the first one to come up with a portable flashed based music player, they've been aroun d for about 15 years.

Explorer? Come on, all filemanagers have to work in similar ways, and I'll say that explorer works a hell of a lot better than Finder or Nautilus, IMHO.

The GUI desktop hasn't had much innovation really in about 15-20 years, even apple didn't invent the dock, or spatial browsing, or music players, or smart phones. OS X was acquired when they engulfed NeXT.

MS practically invented the RAD development model with Visual Basic 1.0, so I guess they didn't copy that either, and that shows they can innovate.

There isn't too much new under the sun these days, and in the software world, everybody copies everybody.

Edited 2008-12-06 01:29 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Makes no sense!
by hollovoid on Sat 6th Dec 2008 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Makes no sense!"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

Well said..

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Makes no sense!
by tyrione on Sat 6th Dec 2008 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Makes no sense!"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

MSN? Chat has been around since unix was invented, every bodies chat client works the same, so MSN is out.

Office? Excel was one of the first killer apps for the Mac back in the early 80s, and all spreadsheets owe their existents to Visicalc, so that is also out. WordPerfect, MS Word, Openoffice, they all were preceded by wordstar and others.

Zune? Apple wasn't the first one to come up with a portable flashed based music player, they've been aroun d for about 15 years.

Explorer? Come on, all filemanagers have to work in similar ways, and I'll say that explorer works a hell of a lot better than Finder or Nautilus, IMHO.

The GUI desktop hasn't had much innovation really in about 15-20 years, even apple didn't invent the dock, or spatial browsing, or music players, or smart phones. OS X was acquired when they engulfed NeXT.

MS practically invented the RAD development model with Visual Basic 1.0, so I guess they didn't copy that either, and that shows they can innovate.

There isn't too much new under the sun these days, and in the software world, everybody copies everybody.


Visual Basic was produced after Bill saw NeXT Developer Tools and Interface Builder/ProjectBuilder applications.

Get it through your head and everyone else's heads: NeXT wasn't engulfed--I was there--we were asked to save Apple.

Apple Engineering is NeXT Engineering with addons.

Edited 2008-12-06 22:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Makes no sense!
by BluenoseJake on Sun 7th Dec 2008 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Makes no sense!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I don't have to get anything through my head.

Apple didn't ask you to save them, Next was bought by Apple and you recieved an inspiration speech or maybe an email.

Buying Next did save apple, but do not kid yourself, you were just a pawn in Steve's game of corporate chess.

Visual Basic was produced after Bill saw NeXT Developer Tools and Interface Builder/ProjectBuilder applications.


Sources please. I'm fairly certain that even if you are right, Interface builder was only known to a handful of Next developers. Visual Basic brought that model to the masses, and did it better. Just like the ipod.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Makes no sense!
by javiercero1 on Mon 8th Dec 2008 04:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Makes no sense!"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Actually, there were plenty of RAD tools available well before Visual Basic.

Saying that Microsoft "practically invented RAD" is a monumentally silly and uninformed thing to do. There is a whole field of CS research dedicated to software engineering. In fact, VisualBasic borrowed plenty from places like smalltalk and a milliard of other IDE/RAD environments that were coming of age during the 80s.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Makes no sense!
by BluenoseJake on Mon 8th Dec 2008 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Makes no sense!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It's no sillier than saying MS copies Apple with the Zune, or the new taskbar.

I don't think any of those IDEs can be called RAD. There is all sorts of research about fusion too, but the person or people who build the first fusion reactor will be the inventors.

I think that VB, with it's mix of vbx controls, intellisense, and the way procedures and functions connected with their visual counterparts. I don't think that having an IDE qualifies you as RAD. I've played with smalltalk back in 1990, and it isn't near as RAD as you seem to think it is.

Most inventors don't invent things out of whole cloth, they take various older technologies, and use them in a new way, or combine them in new ways. Just because VB uses some ideas from older technologies, does not make anyless innovative.

Oh, and "practically invented" and "invented" do not mean the same thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Makes no sense!
by Bit_Rapist on Mon 8th Dec 2008 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Makes no sense!"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Why not read about the "father of Visual Basic" and find out how it really happened.

http://www.cooper.com/alan/father_of_vb.html

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Makes no sense!
by tomcat on Tue 9th Dec 2008 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Makes no sense!"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Get it through your head and everyone else's heads: NeXT wasn't engulfed--I was there--we were asked to save Apple.


No doubt on the wild "success" of the NeXT machines...

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Makes no sense!
by Matt24 on Sat 6th Dec 2008 02:47 UTC in reply to "Makes no sense!"
RE: Makes no sense!
by Soulbender on Mon 8th Dec 2008 17:44 UTC in reply to "Makes no sense!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Why would Microsoft inventor of the most successful OS in history, copy from Apple with its useless OS that has little market share and no applications


Because that's how it works, in every industry? Inventions are made by small, more or less independent companies that usually lack the resources to take their stuff mainstream. Invention gets noticed by big company X who then either "steals" it or just acquire the company.

Reply Score: 2

Too Much Form?
by Phloptical on Fri 5th Dec 2008 23:53 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Are you kidding me? They are actually trying to get us to believe that Microsoft is more committed to form over function with this release? Good, I say. Let it come. Let Windows finally have a look a flair all it's own, after all these years. In the looks dept. I'd say OS X has trounced Windows (2000, XP, and most definitely Vista) since it was released.

And besides, Windows 7 is about enhancing the "function" that was sorely missed in Windows Vista.

Reply Score: 2

Getting expensive
by centos_user on Sat 6th Dec 2008 00:40 UTC
centos_user
Member since:
2008-11-16

I would find that Microsoft is going to have a hard time selling $400-$500 for a Operating System when companies are laying off people like popcorn.

Also, what did they improve over XP & Vista and will it be worth it and lets not forget applications and if older software the end user has will work?

I find this amazing how just because ZDNet says it is better everyone should run out and purchase it.

No thanks, I will stay with my Linux distro of choice CentOS and not have the constant problems with security or lack there of with Windows.


Lastly, Mac users do not seem to have the issues with upgrading to the latest release because the last one was a dud.

Edited 2008-12-06 00:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Getting expensive
by DCMonkey on Sat 6th Dec 2008 01:09 UTC in reply to "Getting expensive"
DCMonkey Member since:
2005-07-06

Vista is a little over $300 USD for the full retail Ultimate version. Ultimate turned out to be a ripoff. A much more reasonable purchase for anyone that didn't get Vista OEM on thier PC would be the upgrade version of Home Premium. It retails for $129.99 USD, the same as a Mac OS X upgrade. I imagine there will be similar prices for Windows 7, hopefully with fewer versions as well.

So where do you get $400-500? I assume it's outside the US. I've heard some countries get shafted on commercial software prices.

Edited 2008-12-06 01:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Getting expensive
by Hussein on Sat 6th Dec 2008 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting expensive"
Hussein Member since:
2008-11-22
RE[2]: Getting expensive
by HagerR15 on Sat 6th Dec 2008 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting expensive"
HagerR15 Member since:
2005-07-25

A little addition to your retail pricing according to the Microsoft Website.
Vista Home Basic - $199.95 Full, $99.95 Upgrade
Vista Home Premium - $259.95 Full, $129.95 Upgrade
Vista Home Business - $299.95 Full, $199.95 Upgrade
Vista Home Ultimate - $319.95 Full, $219.95 Upgrade

From the Apple Website
Mac OS X Leopard- $129.00 Only Version, Full Install or Upgrade

Windows upgrades requires a previous license of XP
Windows XP OEM - $0 Pre-Installed (okay, not really $0 as there is the Windows Tax).
Windows XP Home - $199.95 Full, $99.95 Upgrade
Windows XP Pro - $299.95 Full, $199.95 Upgrade

So... The cost for Mac OS X Leopard is $129, and the cost for Windows Vista Home Premium can range anywhere from $129.95 (XP OEM --> Vista Home Premium Upgrade) to $429.90 (XP Pro Full --> Vista Home Premium Upgrade).

Add $90 to go to Vista Ultimate. Putting the most expensive combination at $519.90.

I own a 20" G5 iMac with 1GB RAM running OS X Leopard and an AMD64 x2 6000+ Media Center PC with 3 GB RAM, 512 MB NVIDIA 8500GT video card running Vista Home Premium. The iMac boots faster, runs smoother and loads and runs programs faster than the Vista machine. Both are equally functional for work and projects, but the clunkiness of Vista on the PC has me spending most of my time on the iMac, which I got for $900 on Gainsaver two years ago. Tack on $129 for Leopard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Getting expensive
by essdeekay on Sat 6th Dec 2008 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Getting expensive"
essdeekay Member since:
2006-01-31

Vista Home Premium - $259.95 Full, $129.95 Upgrade
Vista Home Ultimate - $319.95 Full, $219.95 Upgrade
Windows XP Pro - $299.95 Full, $199.95 Upgrade

So... the cost for Windows Vista Home Premium can range anywhere from $129.95 (XP OEM --> Vista Home Premium Upgrade) to $429.90 (XP Pro Full --> Vista Home Premium Upgrade).

Add $90 to go to Vista Ultimate. Putting the most expensive combination at $519.90.


What flawed logic. If you need an upgrade version, you buy the discounted upgrade version. If you need the full version, you buy the full version. No-one in their right mind would pay for a full copy of XP only to immediately upgrade to Vista.

Vista is expensive as it is already, so why you feel the need to spend time conjuring up ways in which it becomes even more expensive I don't know.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Getting expensive
by HagerR15 on Sat 6th Dec 2008 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Getting expensive"
HagerR15 Member since:
2005-07-25


What flawed logic. If you need an upgrade version, you buy the discounted upgrade version. If you need the full version, you buy the full version. No-one in their right mind would pay for a full copy of XP only to immediately upgrade to Vista.

Vista is expensive as it is already, so why you feel the need to spend time conjuring up ways in which it becomes even more expensive I don't know.


You didn't consider the white-box PC builder. In 2002 he may have opted for the Windows XP Pro Full version for his new machine, $299.95. Six years later, he builds a new white box and decides to move to Windows Vista Premium Upgrade, add $129.95 to make a total of $429.90 for his Windows OS.

I never said anything about immediately upgrading.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Getting expensive
by essdeekay on Sat 6th Dec 2008 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Getting expensive"
essdeekay Member since:
2006-01-31


You didn't consider the white-box PC builder. In 2002 he may have opted for the Windows XP Pro Full version for his new machine, $299.95. Six years later, he builds a new white box and decides to move to Windows Vista Premium Upgrade, add $129.95 to make a total of $429.90 for his Windows OS.

I never said anything about immediately upgrading.


In which case he got 6yrs use of XP so you can not include it's full original cost as it is marked down over time.

Otherwise, you could go further back and upgrade several versions of Windows to reach an even higher 'price' for Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Getting expensive
by HagerR15 on Sun 7th Dec 2008 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Getting expensive"
HagerR15 Member since:
2005-07-25


In which case he got 6yrs use of XP so you can not include it's full original cost as it is marked down over time.

Otherwise, you could go further back and upgrade several versions of Windows to reach an even higher 'price' for Vista.


Oh Good Lord, kid! You need to step back away from the computer and go get laid. This was meant as a hypothetical, worst case scenario.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Getting expensive
by centos_user on Sat 6th Dec 2008 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting expensive"
RE[3]: Getting expensive
by DrillSgt on Sat 6th Dec 2008 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Getting expensive"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"WHEN Vista gets infected with a Virus if it has to be reloaded (most likely) you have to install Windows XP then upgrade the Operating System???"

You can do a full install from an upgrade disc by providing the old disk when asked for it. Why would you install XP first?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Getting expensive
by aesiamun on Sat 6th Dec 2008 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Getting expensive"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Because vista requires that XP be installed first before it is upgraded unlike XP that only required proof of disc.

Or at least it did when it first came out. I admit to trying the upgrade on a wiped machine, it needed XP installed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Getting expensive
by HagerR15 on Sat 6th Dec 2008 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Getting expensive"
HagerR15 Member since:
2005-07-25


You can do a full install from an upgrade disc by providing the old disk when asked for it. Why would you install XP first?


Not with Vista Upgrade. Unlike XP, you cannot install directly from the DVD. You MUST have an installed version of XP prior to upgrading to Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Getting expensive
by tomcat on Tue 9th Dec 2008 00:43 UTC in reply to "Getting expensive"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I would find that Microsoft is going to have a hard time selling $400-$500 for a Operating System when companies are laying off people like popcorn.


What alternate reality do you live in? Check with any OEM, and you're going to find that the cost of Windows is anywhere from $50-200, depending on the SKU that you choose.

Reply Score: 2

hm?
by SK8T on Sat 6th Dec 2008 00:59 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

Just one question,
in the video of the first link, he demonstrates how do switch between windows through the taskbar. (he shows this with word).

But - ehm - would it be just easier to click on the other word window instead of putting the mouse over the icon, waiting for the previews and so an?

And hey, think about it, do you REALLY think you can make out which window you want in word? The text is much too small as you could read it, the rest of the window looks exactly the same. So how do you recognize which window you want?

It's just a mix of Dock/Exposé copy - but bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by Archipel on Sat 6th Dec 2008 11:38 UTC in reply to "hm?"
Archipel Member since:
2008-12-06

Well, microsoft does provide an api to make it possible to change the miniature view of the window. So, it's true that you currently can't easily see the difference between two texts you've opened, but this will probably change in the future. Besides, the same goes up for expose. It's just not so handy for text.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hm?
by PlatformAgnostic on Sun 7th Dec 2008 09:53 UTC in reply to "hm?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

That's where the peek feature comes in. It was shown off at PDC '08.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by MysterMask
by MysterMask on Sat 6th Dec 2008 01:28 UTC
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

The fact that MS has to sell new OS versions as being better than its predecessor (admitting therefore that the predecessor was actually good marketed crap) is telling everything..

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by MysterMask
by tomcat on Tue 9th Dec 2008 00:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by MysterMask"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The fact that MS has to sell new OS versions as being better than its predecessor (admitting therefore that the predecessor was actually good marketed crap) is telling everything..


WTF. Why does selling newer, improved versions of any product (eg. car, boat, plane, operating system, pencil sharpener, etc) necessarily say that the previous version was "good marketed crap"? Every product has to offer SOME advantage of its predecessor. That doesn't make the previous product a piece of crap.

Reply Score: 2

GroupBar
by debUgo on Sat 6th Dec 2008 02:35 UTC
debUgo
Member since:
2006-11-08

What ever happened to GroupBar (http://research.microsoft.com/vibe/groupbar.aspx).
It's the only task oriented task-bar (how ironic, huh?) I've ever seen.

Reply Score: 1

Windows Quick Launch
by OSGuy on Sat 6th Dec 2008 03:17 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

""it's better to steal something good, than to come up with something bad"

Looking it literally, I have to disagree with it. Stealing is bad - "steal" should be replaced with "copy" and to associate this with the article:
"copy and give credit" rather than "copy" and claim it as your own.

Reply Score: 2

Hypocrisy
by Gone fishing on Sat 6th Dec 2008 06:11 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Changing the Vista interface is a must – as it is its almost unusable saved only by the search function. A couple of my favorites, are finding activation which I defy anyone to find if they don’t know where it is hidden and why anyone thought that it was intuitive to hide the changing IP address function under several layers where finally you have to click status just boggles the mind.

MS needs help it needs to borrow the ideas of others, and always has done didn’t the original taskbar come from RISCOS? So if MS can borrow some ideas from OSX and make Windows 7 usable so much the better, however, this does reek of hypocrisy from a company the continually trolls about the sanctity of its IP.

Reply Score: 3

Vista already was too much like OSX...
by Almafeta on Sat 6th Dec 2008 10:41 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

... at least in the silly amounts of eye candy. My first reaction on seeing the Vista Sidebar "gadgets" was wondering when the lawsuit from Apple would come down.

And it's not like anyone particularly finds that part useful (if the minimal usage of Microsofts' own site for Sidebar gadgets is any indication)... needless, resource-draining, kipped from Apple... yeah, not exactly their best move ever.

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm
by flywheel on Sat 6th Dec 2008 16:42 UTC
flywheel
Member since:
2005-12-28

Featurevise Redmond might have ripped off MacOS X - and it seems they've been planning some functionality but have been unable to replicate - like the heavy discussed database add-on to NTFS (WinFS, second edition).

But lookwise it rather look like a KDE2/3 rippoff.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmmm
by joen on Sat 6th Dec 2008 17:12 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
joen Member since:
2006-03-31

That's funny as KDE is pretty much a Windows ripoff in terms of GUI.
Then again, in most people's eyes MS will always be the copycat even though it's the other way around.
KDE 4 looks a lot like Vista in certain aspects, hardly anyone notices. Screenshots of Windows 7 emerge and people call it a KDE4 ripoff because the new taskbar has bigger icons by default (even though you can set it to the same size icons for ages).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmmm
by DeadFishMan on Sat 6th Dec 2008 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

That's funny as KDE is pretty much a Windows ripoff in terms of GUI.
Then again, in most people's eyes MS will always be the copycat even though it's the other way around.
KDE 4 looks a lot like Vista in certain aspects, hardly anyone notices. Screenshots of Windows 7 emerge and people call it a KDE4 ripoff because the new taskbar has bigger icons by default (even though you can set it to the same size icons for ages).


You realize that initially KDE was more of a CDE ripoff than a Windows one and that CDE has been around for ages before Windows 95 showed up, right? If anything, Windows 95 copied many things from other OSes and DEs, such as RISCOS, CDE and others.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Hmmm
by javiercero1 on Mon 8th Dec 2008 04:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

You do realize that CDE was based on Motif, which itself was supposed (by design) to be a windows/presentation manager ripoff...

:-)

Reply Score: 2

Thurrott is such a troll.
by steviant on Sat 6th Dec 2008 20:38 UTC
steviant
Member since:
2006-01-11

In his article he basically makes a case for one button mice (apparently he thinks the average Windows user never presses the right button), and says that the iPod and iPhone are hard to use.

I asked my computer illiterate neighbour whether she found her iPod hard to use... she looked at me as though I must be stupid if I can't use an iPod.

As for the Windows 7 taskbar, I'd never used it or seen it in action until about 5 mins ago when I tested my guesses by watching a video of it. It turns out I was easily able to correctly guess what the meaning of the different tiles was.

Considering what a low opinion this guy has of average Windows users I'm surprised he has such an ardent following among the Windows fan community.

Reply Score: 1

In a word...
by helf on Sat 6th Dec 2008 23:28 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

no.

These arguments are idiotic. The people spouting them are morons.

And I'm really late to this thread ;)

Reply Score: 2

who cares?
by pixel8r on Wed 10th Dec 2008 03:42 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

so what if MS copied stuff for windows 7?

if its good, buy it. if not, dont.

i'm hoping its a good release.
just the same as I also hope linux distros arrive beforehand with KDE 4.2. The best thing about competition amongst OS's is that it always ends up benefiting the consumer. ;)

Reply Score: 1