Submitted by 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.
There certainly are a number of changes in Windows 7 that vaguely bring the Mac OS X dock to mind – jump lists, for instance, resemble the right-click menu on dock items, and the removal of text labels and increase in icon size make the taskbar look like the dock (you can change to small icons and text labels if you so desire). However, that doesn’t mean it also behaves like a dock. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck, yes – but this one only looks like a duck; it doesn’t walk or talk like one.
The taskbar in Windows 7 is still the taskbar that you know from Windows 95, 98, 200, XP, and Vista. Each window (except some dialogs – sadly) gets its entry into the Windows 7 taskbar, just like in previous releases. This is different from the dock paradigm in Mac OS X, where each application gets an entry in the dock. This may seem like a minor difference, but in fact, it’s one of the defining differences between the approach to documents and applications between Windows and Mac OS X. Consequently, it’s also one of the most common initial problems Windows users face when switching to Mac OS X. Close all Word taskbar entries in Windows, and the application Word is no longer running. Close all Word windows in Mac OS X, and Word will still be running.
One area where the taskbar really makes a step towards the dock is when it comes to allowing applications to ‘live’ in the taskbar, effectively integrating the quick launch area into the taskbar. The result is dock-like behaviour: the taskbar now not only shows open windows, but also application launchers. Icons on the taskbar become “representations” of applications, central points where you can manage the application’s windows, its functions, and its state.
I think it makes sense. Most Windows applications adhere to the single document interface concept these days, meaning that each window of an application appears to be a separate instance of said application. In that context, it doesn’t really make sense to differentiate between an application “launcher” and its taskbar entries.
After having used the new taskbar myself, I hardly call it form over function. The changes made make a lot of sense when you use them, and it took me little to no time to adapt to them. The various changes are all based on solid data and research, and this shows when you first use it. These changes aren’t “form”, they are strictly “function”. It reminds me a lot of Expose, one of the most brilliant interface concepts of recent times. It looked like pointless eye-candy at first, but five minutes after using Expose, it just makes so much sense, and you realise that while Expose looked like mere “form”, it was actually strictly “function”.
If the new taskbar brings Windows closer to Mac OS X – who cares? If it happens to work better, why shun it; just because it resembles what your competitor has to offer? In Dutch, we have a saying: “beter goed gejat, dan slecht bedacht”. This translates roughly into “it’s better to steal something good, than to come up with something bad”. The computer industry consists of a huge group of people who continuously steal each other’s ideas – in fact, every industry is made up of thieves. It’s just the way mankind works: we come up with ideas, and they spread. Deal with it.
“The others” have a name: Shane ONeill.
Edited 2008-12-05 21:28 UTC
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!
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.
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.
Maybe he’s talking about Copland
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
Please enlighten me on what exactly is so seriously wrong with the kernel.
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!!!!!
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.
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…
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
Bingo. If that’s what they think they’re doing, they’ve left it way too long.
Why does it seem like with every release of windows that the mac fan boys come out of the wood work, choose some random feature that looks and behaves NOTHING like OS X (other than maybe some minor meaningless similarity) and swear that windows <version> is a rip off of OS X?
The funny thing is, one version of windows later they are talking about how much that last version sucked compared to OS X. 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..)
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?
Edited 2008-12-05 22:02 UTC
Is it just me, or are there more Apple fanboy haters than Apple fanboys?
Edited 2008-12-05 22:13 UTC
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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!
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
Erm, the article is about *Windows pundits* saying it’s too much like OS X. Thanks for reading =P
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)
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.
Because it gets to be a part of their “identity”, I guess.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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!
But, does it also weigh as much as a duck?
This is what I’ll be contemplating
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.
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.
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.
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?
The new Taskbar in Windows 7, copies from Windows 1, 2, 3, 9x and XP. It doesn’t copy from Apple. The new taskbar is more useful, and functional than Apple’s silly dock.
Plus Microsoft allows you to instal the OS wherever you want, unlike Apple, I do believe Apple has the right to restrict the use of its OS.
Microsoft 1 – Apple 0
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!
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
Well said..
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
No doubt on the wild “success” of the NeXT machines…
You make it look like Windows user are by definition stupid and ignorant, well maybe they are!
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.
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.
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
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
Are you sure of the prices?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/def…
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.
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.
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.
I live in the United States and you forgot to mention the anti-virus, mal-ware software, a real firewall, along with everything else you need because the OS is insecure by design and after you add up all of the extra software licenses it is at the price range.
And by the way the Office software is around $500 for Professional and it is a conglomeration of other software apps MS bought out over the years. Upgrading Office is a kludge fiasco as is with updating Windows XP to Vista….
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???
Upgrades are a rip-off and worthless because of the inherit problems it brings in when it is performed. Say what you will, Windows is paid for when the machine is purchased then you purchase another license to get an update, then you have to deal with all of the issues that arise after Windows deteriorates with daily use. When you add up a full version of Vista Ultimate with Office Premium it is close to a $1000 which in reality is a WASTE of money.
Edited 2008-12-06 03:15 UTC
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s where the peek feature comes in. It was shown off at PDC ’08.
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.
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.
“”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.
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
You do realize that CDE was based on Motif, which itself was supposed (by design) to be a windows/presentation manager ripoff…
🙂
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.
no.
These arguments are idiotic. The people spouting them are morons.
And I’m really late to this thread
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.