Vista, the osx wanna be....?

[wolf_pack]

Ok is it me or what I just got a copy of computer shopper and they had an article on how to install vista, mind you 3 pages worth just to install and the hopes you don't lose anything from the install...lovely.. My thing is vista to me looks like there trying to adapt to the way osx looks? to me it doesn't matter i've spent enough money on microsoft and right now enough is enough and all my money is going to start going to apple because i feel the product they have is worth the price... besides if i upgrade down the road to an imac with a 20 inch screen at least i know i have a machine 10 years plus down the road anyway just thought does anyone feel the same way i do...Bo

[knight885]

MS have been copying Apple for years, a lot longer than Apple were copying Xerox. Then again the original Amiga OS looked very much like a coloured version of Mac OS, they're all at it. As I see it, Microsoft innovate NOTHING, despite what Bill Gates says.

I'm done with Microsoft for home use, I'll keep my XP box for the few games I run, but the iMac and imminent MacBook will become my primary computers.

I just don't like Windows, and I haven't since XP, it's bloated, unreliable, intrusive (those balloons get right on my nerves), and Vista looks like more of the same. And I DO NOT like Aero - it's ugly, cluttered and all that uneccessary glassy transparency nonsense just looks distracting.

I also object to aspects of the license agreement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6319845.stm), whereby MS can, through use of the malware removal functions, remove ANYTHING they don't want on your PC, without telling you, via the term "spyware, adware, and other potentially unwanted software". And the DRM issues piss me off too, requiring a brand new monitor just to play any HD content.

[fryke]

I've tested it for a while now. It's too gimmicky. Doesn't fee like a "pro" operating system. Going back to OS X feels like using a real OS instead of a computer game simulating a shell seen in a movie or something. "Ah, this works now. Phew!"

[stevenyc]

MS have been copying Apple for years

Looks like Apple's copying MS now.

"Apple megapatch plugs 45 security holes"

Apple on Tuesday issued a security update for its Mac OS X to plug 45 security holes, including several zero-day vulnerabilities.

The megapatch is the seventh Apple security patch release in three months.

[fryke]

quite off-topic, stevenyc.

[nixgeek]

The supposed "megapatch" is 10.4.9 I'm assuming. THis is no different than a Service Pack for Windows, which rolls-up all of the patches along with extra bug fixes into one large package. It's pretty much about the same. 10.4.9 includes all of the Security Updates and other fixes that lead up to the 10.4.9 release.

[wolf_pack]

Steven i understand your feelings but if i'm correct ms has been promising vista or some form of it since 2003 and now it came out it still has problems... granted it has alot more support for software because it has to, to fix all the bugs that the system keeps coming out with and to me that is not a fun experience if you have a os system that is down more than it's up? I think xp will be the 98 of ms because many people i have talked to think a system that has to have at least a gig of memory to run isn't worth it, not to mention what you have to have for graphic's... I understand ms has to always push the envelope to go farther and faster than anyone but to me right now vista is going to be the downfall of microsoft...I don't know but to me if i have a system down more than it's up it's not worth it.. being on a budget that i am i have found my g4 that i got for free to be faster than my dell i bought a year ago... we live in america and whatever you want to buy for your computer hobby or business is up to you.....Bo

[Satcomer]

Everyone that I know that have upgraded to Vista (just two people so far) say Vista has really slowed down their machines that were top of the game line just about 10 months ago. They both say Vista is huge memory hog and they both went back to XP Pro for gaming. One thing I have say though, they were both using the last beta version of Vista.

They both wonder how my Dual 1.8 G5 (first Dual 1.8 generation ... see my signature) can run 10.4.x so well.

[fryke]

... and suddenly, Mac OS X is not too graphic-intensive anymore. Maybe Apple was on to something with that "Aqua" thing they introduced with, er, some Mac OS X Developer Preview version in 2000, when everybody thought it was too much for the hardware. :P

[Mikuro]

It was too much for the hardware. 7 years later it's not such a big deal, but then 7 years from now I don't suppose Vista's glitz will be too much, either. It took at least 4-5 years before Apple's consumer machines could run Aqua really well. Even my 2005 model Mac Mini leaves a little to be desired. It doesn't support Core Image, although thankfully Apple has not Core Image that much, so it's no biggie. (I wonder if that will change with Leopard.)

Anyway, to answer the original post, in a word: yes. :p

As with OSes past, Microsoft has made many small changes to Apple's designs, and most of them are for the worse. That's to be expected. I mean, we're talking about a company that didn't consider that when they moved the Apple menu to the bottom of the screen, they had to reverse the order of the items so that "Shut Down" was not the first item. That's pretty dense. (Of course, it's possible they weren't copying. They might have come up with that little gem of interface design all on their own.....but that's even worse.)

That said, I'm impressed with Aero. That said, I've never actually had to use it...

[Timotheos]

I have a friend thats just started his first year at uni and decided to get a laptop.

I thought I might have a little go just to see what it was like in person and I was pretty disgusted. I dont know how to describe it, yes it was all flashy and that but it almost looked as if a disco thru up on it. The colors were intense.

He didnt really have any software of value on it, since he doesnt really use the computer (thank god) so I didnt get to play around much. all I really did was open the trash bin and it seriously took at-least 10 seconds to load it.

Argh, that OS makes me angry and I dont even know why.

[powermac]

I tried Vista out and have to say, it has nothing innovative. Sure the interface is much improved, although when you think about it they just put aero glass around XP windows and added more annoyance and pop-ups.
As much as they try to copy Apple, OSX is still king.:) Day-to-Day use, I still appreciate the feeling of OSX. Windows, whether it is XP or Vista does not know how to get out of its own way.:(

[knight885]

Looks like Apple's copying MS now.

"Apple megapatch plugs 45 security holes"

Apple on Tuesday issued a security update for its Mac OS X to plug 45 security holes, including several zero-day vulnerabilities.

The megapatch is the seventh Apple security patch release in three months.

What, so plugging security holes is a bad thing? I really don't see what you're on about...

Everyone that I know that have upgraded to Vista (just two people so far) say Vista has really slowed down their machines that were top of the game line just about 10 months ago. They both say Vista is huge memory hog and they both went back to XP Pro for gaming. One thing I have say though, they were both using the last beta version of Vista.

I've read that on a 1Gb machine, Vista is substantially slower than XP on the same machine. And a heavily-used XP is bad enough already. Rendering a less-than-one-year-old PC as obsolete isn't exactly progress, is it? :rolleyes:

They both wonder how my Dual 1.8 G5 (first Dual 1.8 generation ... see my signature) can run 10.4.x so well.

It's called efficiency - something MS employees have surgically removed before they start work...

[Lt Major Burns]

It was too much for the hardware. 7 years later it's not such a big deal, but then 7 years from now I don't suppose Vista's glitz will be too much, either. It took at least 4-5 years before Apple's consumer machines could run Aqua really well. Even my 2005 model Mac Mini leaves a little to be desired. It doesn't support Core Image, although thankfully Apple has not Core Image that much, so it's no biggie. (I wonder if that will change with Leopard.)

Anyway, to answer the original post, in a word: yes. :p

As with OSes past, Microsoft has made many small changes to Apple's designs, and most of them are for the worse. That's to be expected. I mean, we're talking about a company that didn't consider that when they moved the Apple menu to the bottom of the screen, they had to reverse the order of the items so that "Shut Down" was not the first item. That's pretty dense. (Of course, it's possible they weren't copying. They might have come up with that little gem of interface design all on their own.....but that's even worse.)

That said, I'm impressed with Aero. That said, I've never actually had to use it...
my 7 year old ibook runs the very latest, edge of the knife-blade Apple OS very very smoothly (10-4-9 went on this morning). the problem was just that 10.0 was just insufficiently optimised.

[Tommo]

The last beta version of Vista would be slow, it still had an awful lot of debug code in it. The release version is running on my 4 year old Compaq with 512MB RAM with no problems or speed difference to how it runs XP. Maybe I got lucky.

The who copies who argument is getting a bit tired, isn't it ? Is OSX better than Vista as an operating system, no. Is Vista better than OSX as an operating system, no. They are both very good at what they do in different ways, which you either prefer or not.

Plus if you want VIsta to really fly, put it on a Macbook Pro.

[fryke]

Well, we're not completely objective here. So: "Is OSX better than Vista as an operating system?" - My answer is a very loud and clear *YES!* here. Plus: As what _else_ would we see it. The question almost implies that Vista is not generally viewed as an operating system. (j/k.)
But if you take _away_ 3rd party applications (plus 1st party apps not shipping as part of the OS), then I'd say that *VERY* clearly OS X is the much better operating system. "Depends on personal preferences?" Really? Who has the personal preference of an OS always getting in the way, using mushy eyecandy to cover the fact that the UI hasn't really been _improved_ any? (That was rhetorical, but I guess answers will appear nonetheless...)

[wolf_pack]

vista to me has come out loud and clear you have to have a pc that really has alot of memory a big harddrive and a video card that has the latest and greatest? which I can run the latest and greatest osx stuff on my g4 with half of what you put into a pc... I think from the get go ms knew that and the great monoply of ms begins once again letting us as consumer just accept it!! well i get tired of getting half of the product and paying full price and waiting to pay even more money for the ugrades? I don't know about anyone else on this board but i have 6 kids and when i put money into something it has to last a long time without the worries of upgrading everytime which is a cost I can't afford... at least with osx I'm going to wait for tiger or leopard depending on the price of leopard but i know my g4 computer which i got for free and had some memory laying around got it up to a gig and it's a heck of a system.. I mean it's whatever you want? its america but to me you should get what you pay for not just half....that's why i switched to apple and don't plan on going back to windows anytime soon maybe if ms go bankrupt then i can buy there product for what it's worth...."HALF"......lol......Bo

[powermac]

Tommo is right, at the end of the day it comes down to what someone prefers. After having used XP and Vista for awhile in the last six months, whether it is just because all I ever used is Mac, I prefer the way Apple designs a operating system.

In my view:
Windows has the system alert you when events take place, which is fine, except where is the line drawn between useful and just plain annoying?
Vista takes this to a new level, with the screen going black, and you have to acknowledge by clicking. Again, not all together a bad idea, except when using the computer for several hours.

On the other hand, I like the way Windows gives you a preview of video files, and preview of pictures on the folder icon. Makes finding things much better. Another thing in vista is adding your own keywords to files for indexing. Although Spotlight is significantly better then Vista search tool.

Lastly, To come out with several versions of a OS I am not impressed. In order to get shadow copy, you have to purchase the ultimate version of Vista. In other words, to be able to easily recover your files you have to have the most expensive version. That is just plain Crap!!!!!!:eek:

[Tommo]

Mushy eye candy.... you can rule out both if that is an issue. Get a copy of any linux distro with a basic Gnome or KDE GUI and that should suit. I t will be interesting to see what extra functionality Leopard has when it arrives later this year.

Wolf_Pack, lots of memory, like I said before 1GB is plenty, hard drive space 40GB is plenty. To get the full bells and whistles Aero display you need a fairly modern graphics card, but you do not really need them. The newest PC I have at home is over 5 years old and apart from upping the RAM to 1GB (which I did when I went to XP) it has not had an upgrade and is running Vista quite happily and speedily.

I have just installed 10.4 on a Powerbook with 512MB of Ram and that is not exactly running as fast as the user would like it to.

[fryke]

Yes, Tiger wants 640 MB RAM or more. That's true.

[knight885]

Who has the personal preference of an OS always getting in the way, using mushy eyecandy to cover the fact that the UI hasn't really been _improved_ any? (That was rhetorical, but I guess answers will appear nonetheless...)

Here's one - I completely agree with this. Windows is intrusive, counter-intuitive and slows the user down. Everything from unzipping a file to plugging in a USB device is slowed down excessively for no real purpose or benefit. A Wizard to unzip a file? Whoever does MS's user interaction studies needs a new job.

Mine has just popped up another balloon in my face (and I mean in my face - I'm HSP, and stuff like that might as well be the size of the screen) to tell me that Outlook is having trouble reaching the Exchange Server. So f*cking what? Next time I have to switch to Outlook, why not tell me then, instead of interrupting me when I'm busy? Seconds later, ANOTHER ONE appears to tell me, never mind, it's working again. Gee, thanks. Now p*ss off!

I just find OSX completely the opposite, it's there if I need it, and it keeps out of the way if I don't. Imagine if you had an assistant in the office who kept interrupting you to tell you the sun had come out, that's what Windows is like to me.

[powermac]

The two operating system are driven from different perspectives. Windows to me is "dumbed down", while Mac is intuitive to use. Having just recently starting to really use XP, I find the experience intrusive. I never feel like I am working with the computer but against it. I plug my USB flash drive in and it takes several minutes to get to my files. Using the Mac, pop it in, shows up on desktop and bam.
Although there are things that Windows is better at than the Mac, but getting to those features is cumbersome. I never seem able to just develop a habit when using XP or Vista. Dragging and dropping on Windows still seems weird. When you get use to spring loaded folder, and having icons in the side bar in a finder window, trying similar task on Windows, I get lost and start all over. I am not sure why sometimes the file I am dragging actually copies or a short-cut is placed?

[symphonix]

Imagine if you had an assistant in the office who kept interrupting you to tell you the sun had come out, that's what Windows is like to me.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

On Mac, ejecting a USB memory key:
1. Pick the memory key on the desktop. It will have the icon and name you have selected for it.
2. Choose File -> Eject.

On PC:
1. Right click on the ridiculously tiny grey thing with an arrow icon in the lower right edge of the screen.
2. Click "Safely Remove Hardware". Wait 3-5 seconds while Windows polls every connected USB device.
3. A new window pops up. Identify the device you want to eject by its manufacturer's ID code. Click it, and click Stop.
4. Another new window pops up. Identify the sub-domain of the device you're interested in stopping. Click Stop.
5. A balloon pops up in the lower-right telling you it is safe to remove the device. Click X on the balloon to close it, then...
6. Close the subdomain window.
7. Close the device window.

[powermac]

I was in Best Buy last night, and over heard a guy buying his first Mac. After choosing his Macbook and printer he asked the sell person which anti-virsus program he should get. When he replied you don't need one, the customer said, "I am liking the Mac all ready!" With a big smile.:D

[Tommo]

Symphonix, just left click and select safely remove and it ejects it with no extra prompts. Not much different to the Mac really just a smaller icon.

[fryke]

Left click what, tommo? The "devices" taskbar item? Does that remove _all_ USB hardware, then? Either way: The user interface is "disconnected" here. On the Mac, the device pops up on the Desktop. And it's _there_ that you choose to remove it, not some generic list somewhere entirely different. Those are the little things that matter in interface design.

[Tommo]

The little icon in the system tray that Symphonix refered to. You can also eject it from within the Explorer window, by right click>eject. It is just a case of getting used to the interface.

I have as many problems with users going from PC to Mac as the other way round. Maybe as I am lucky enough to alternate between operating systems all the time I find both easy to use.

[fryke]

I've found the explorer's "eject" function _not_ to work with most USB memory sticks, that's why I didn't even mention it. ;)

[Tommo]

I have not had a problem with the brand we use, but have come across it with others. Ironically the only problem I have with mine is that it has two partitions and on initial plugging into the Mac it only mounts the first one. If I eject it and reinsert it both partitions mount.

On either platform I don't think the are the most reliable technology. Maybe I should just stick to CDs :-)

[knight885]

Symphonix, just left click and select safely remove and it ejects it with no extra prompts. Not much different to the Mac really just a smaller icon.

Not strictly true. Whenever I do this, the drive is almost always still being accessed by Windows, so I get a message to click up in the middle of the screen reporting that fact. So I go all the way up there to click OK just to start again.

Anyone with half a brain who actually USED the O/S for any length of time would put a Retry button on the message. But then that would be intuitive...

The little icon in the system tray that Symphonix refered to. You can also eject it from within the Explorer window, by right click>eject. It is just a case of getting used to the interface.

USB sticks might have that, USB hard disks definitely don't. In fact the fiddly thing in the taskbar is the only way to eject hard disks without using Device Manager.

[contoursvt]

Its not brain surgery. The little icon shows shows removable storage (USB or Firewire). You click on it and it shows you your one device or multiple devices that are there. You can then put the mouse over the device you want disconnected and click on it.

If the drive was very recently accessed, it may still be writing cached content to it. Might have to wait a few seconds. If its a USB 1.1 device, this part might take a bit longer. If you have a document open from that device, then obviously it will also report that its in use and try later.

...We have numerous XP and a few Vista machines and people here have USB keys and many that have an add on USB 2.0 HD on their desk. No issues with disconnection so I dont know what all the fuss is about.

[fryke]

Not a big fuss. Only that it's kind of exactly *not* what a clean and straight-forward user interface that long-time Mac users have had the priviledge (one that can be bought, not one by birth or anything) of enjoying all these years since 1984 would expect.

[symphonix]

I was really only using that as a day-to-day example of just how fiddly Windows is. Sure, its a no-brainer, but multiply out 1000 stupid GUI design decisions over a whole day's work and Windows can become quite annoying.

[contoursvt]

No offence but dragging an icon of something that holds my data into the trash to eject or dismount it doesnt seem straight forward to me :) Infact that action is about as far away from what you really want done as can possibly be. No really... LOL Sure its more clean around the edges but it suffers from its fare share of things that make NO sense.

-dragging valuable data partition to the trash to dismount the device (you know what I mean)

-resizing a window from the lower right corner and nowhere else

-no maximize window option. I mean data within a window can actually change so maximizing to the data size in the window means I gotta do it multiple times because the content in the window is now different? Sometimes I dont wanna multitask at all...but want to use every last drop and pixel of my expensive screen for what I want to do and I dont want to spend time dragging windows around and resizing from one corner.

-I install something...I dont want to go looking for its application to make a shortcut into the Dock. IMO start menu is more logical. The application resides in there. If I want to make an even easier way to get to it, I can go into the start menu where it all is accessible and make a shortcut onto the desktop and leave it there or drag the shortcut to the quicklaunch. Just seems more logical especially if someone has a lot of programs. I mean at work we have some people that have literally 40-50 applications they need to use every day or two so they cant put those in the dock unless they want a row of icons all on the bottom.

-The taskbar at a glance shows whats open. No actions needed to switch to any other than just clicking on it. Just seems easier. The dock takes up the bottom of the screen anyway unless you auto hide it so its not like it takes up less room than the task bar which can be auto hidden....just seems like the taskbar and start menu are more flexible.

...anyway dont get me wrong. I think OSX overall looks cleaner and in some respects are more elegant, but those things I mentioned above are some of the things I like in windows more than OSX.


Not a big fuss. Only that it's kind of exactly *not* what a clean and straight-forward user interface that long-time Mac users have had the priviledge (one that can be bought, not one by birth or anything) of enjoying all these years since 1984 would expect.

[fryke]

You're right about the dragging to trash thing. I never understood that either. But then again: I've been simply using Cmd-Y (in early versions of OS X) and later Cmd-E for ejecting (putting away for Cmd-Y) stuff. I love keyboard shortcuts.

But even _if_ Mac OS has some flaws by itself, don't just hack on OS X here now. Your question was what the big fuss was about. I told you. No big fuss. It's just neither elegant or good to have to search for a device in an entirely different place than the device is already logically represented. On the Mac, you put a flash drive in, it appears right before your eyes on the desktop. And _that's_ where you handle it, its contents - and also where you can put it away again. Imagine this: A friend comes to your house. You let him in, but when you want him to go, you have to go to the cellar and, in a list of your friends, have to select it and hit "deactivate". :P (Okay, that was maybe a poor metaphor, but just goes to show that you have to go a strange and non-intuitive way...)

[bbloke]

I agree that dragging a volume to the Trash to unmount it seems odd. To be honest, I immediately thought that was a Classic thing, and then remembered OS X does it too. That shows how often I use that approach, then! ;)

Like fryke, I tend to use keyboard shortcuts, or else I right click on the volume and eject it from the contextual menu. While I still agree that it is a counter-intuitive way of doing things, doesn't the Trash icon at least change to an eject icon when you drag the volume over it? (Better than nothing, I guess.)

Also, I have to agree that the Windows way of handling removable volumes, such as USB flash drives, is rather cumbersome compared to the OS X way of doing things. Under OS X, I plug it in, it mounts, I use the drive, and then I use Command-E/Command-Y or right click to eject the device, and then I physically unplug it. Under Windows, I plug it in, Windows often searches/scans the device, then asks me how to handle it (eg. Explorer window, etc.), and I get access to the data. When I'm done with it, I go to a small icon, left click on it, then click on the device to remove, and then unplug it. It's not rocket science, no, but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome, when the comparison is made.

As for resizing a window only from one corner, yes, sometimes it would be nice to resize from other edges. On the other hand, there are times in a Windows environment when I think the opposite way round and think it would be nice to be able to drag windows from edges other than the title bar.

I have to disagree about the Dock vs. the Windows taskbar, though. I think the Start menu is counter-intuitive (for instance, one goes to "Start" to "Shut Down!"), and the taskbar seems cluttered, to me. The taskbar contains the Start menu, the "Quick Launch" icons, and the "notification area" (on the right). So it contains a range of items, some of which are relatively fiddly icons, rather than having a clean theme to it. It also annoys me that I cannot, to my knowledge, easily rearrange items in the taskbar, as sometimes the order is not very convenient for me.

Also, I find it much, much easier to recognize different applications and documents in the Dock than in the taskbar. If I had, I don't know, ten applications open in the Dock, I could easily see them and switch between them. If I tried the same under Windows, the taskbar would become very compressed and the items impossible to read, plus items might move to another level of the taskbar, effectively being "hidden." I also like the way OS X displays a preview of documents in the Dock, it makes it quicker to recognize what one is after. I also prefer the way one can keep applications to hand in the Dock, as a quick method of launching them, when compared to the Quick Launch icons in Windows.

It may just be we are used to different approaches, and so our opinions differ as a result. I think there are some inconsistencies and quirks in OS X, but that it is much, much better thought out overall than Windows, and I feel I am much more efficient using a Mac to do the same tasks.

[contoursvt]

IMO mounting drive on the desktop is not elegant at all. Ever try to search for a mounted pen drive on someones cluttered desktop where they might have a ton of icons. To make matters worse, the mounted drives can appear anywhere there is free space. This means that if someone had arranged their icons where the drives may normally be (say on the right side) but there is no room, it may appear anywhere there is space...so it may appear in the middle of a pile of icons so then you have to hunt for it. While true that you can ask the finder not to mount to the desktop which is IMO a cleaner option, wouldnt that kind of be similar to the way "My computer" is in windows? At least for a power user this makes sense.

My server has many disks and network shares:

-FTP share (my ftp upload and download folder)
-HTTP share (folder for me have easy access to the website to make changes)
-Music & Video
-Application installers
-Home folder

So I have five network shares. My local machine has 4 physical hard drives as well. HD1 being OS and apps, HD2 being swap, HD3 being games and fun stuff, HD4 being temporary work space. Oh I also have an optical drive and sometimes a pen drive.

So between 4 physical drives and 5 network drives, optical drive and pen drive, in OSX I'd have 11 drives mounted on the desktop. Toss those on a desktop that already have icons scattered on it and it becomes a nightmare.

Anyway maybe its because I was a DOS user going to OS/2 then to Windows and finally to OSX. Also I'm not as proficient in OSX as the others so maybe its just familiarity talking...


You're right about the dragging to trash thing. I never understood that either. But then again: I've been simply using Cmd-Y (in early versions of OS X) and later Cmd-E for ejecting (putting away for Cmd-Y) stuff. I love keyboard shortcuts.

But even _if_ Mac OS has some flaws by itself, don't just hack on OS X here now. Your question was what the big fuss was about. I told you. No big fuss. It's just neither elegant or good to have to search for a device in an entirely different place than the device is already logically represented. On the Mac, you put a flash drive in, it appears right before your eyes on the desktop. And _that's_ where you handle it, its contents - and also where you can put it away again. Imagine this: A friend comes to your house. You let him in, but when you want him to go, you have to go to the cellar and, in a list of your friends, have to select it and hit "deactivate". :P (Okay, that was maybe a poor metaphor, but just goes to show that you have to go a strange and non-intuitive way...)

[Mikuro]

IMO mounting drive on the desktop is not elegant at all. Ever try to search for a mounted pen drive on someones cluttered desktop where they might have a ton of icons. To make matters worse, the mounted drives can appear anywhere there is free space. This means that if someone had arranged their icons where the drives may normally be (say on the right side) but there is no room, it may appear anywhere there is space...so it may appear in the middle of a pile of icons so then you have to hunt for it. While true that you can ask the finder not to mount to the desktop which is IMO a cleaner option, wouldnt that kind of be similar to the way "My computer" is in windows? At least for a power user this makes sense.

Volumes will always appear in "Computer", regardless of whether they're set to appear on the desktop as well.

[contoursvt]

Hi Mikuro, yes I know that part, I just meant that if you disable it from mounting on the desktop, then its just going to be appearing in the finder which means it will behave more similar to the way "my computer" behaves in windows. Its not alternating mounting between desktop or finder but will always mount in the finder and if selected, mount on the desktop as well.

Just that by default it mounts on the desktop as well and for someone with lots of mounted drives, that will be very cluttered so if I was to use OSX as my main box, I'd select not to mount on the desktop.

Volumes will always appear in "Computer", regardless of whether they're set to appear on the desktop as well.

[symphonix]

I think this rather drawn out conversation only proves something we already knew: both interfaces still have a way to go. I won't argue that the Mac way is right and the Windows way is wrong, only that I personally find the Windows method to be more fiddly.

[salival]

I agree that dragging a volume to the Trash to unmount it seems odd.

Yeah, that one is just like going to "Start" to shut down your computer :)


sal

[contoursvt]

Yeah, that one is just like going to "Start" to shut down your computer :)


sal


Sorta :) ... but I always thought it meant the button was a starting point to stuff you want to do so if I want to start shutting down, I'll click on start and then see what tasks are there. Ok fine I'm making stuff up a bit now. LOL

[ApeintheShell]

Here is an explanation for the eject to trash debate:

"The Macintosh, from the Mac 128k up until the Quadra 605, included floppy drives that featured auto-inject and auto-eject. Auto-inject sucks the disk out of your hand into the drive if you push the disk in most of the way. Auto-eject ejects the disk from the drive when the user drags the disk icon to the trash in the Finder. IBM PC-compatibles, in contrast, have never offered either of these features, forcing users to push the disks all the way into the drive and press a button on the drive to manually eject the disk.
The origin of auto-eject can be attributed to Steve Jobs conception of the Macintosh as a "crankless Volkswagen" that runs "a system which is generally intuitive to users." In the Finder of the Macintosh operating system, the icon of a floppy disk appears when a disk is inserted. When the user is finished working with the disk, she drags the floppy icon to the trash, and the disk is ejected. Auto-eject completes the metaphor of the desktop, providing the user with a consistent experience.

In DOS on PC-compatible systems, inserting a floppy disk results in no immediate visual feedback. (Even in Windows 9x/NT, the floppy drive icon remains visible whether or not a disk is inserted.) The user must type the highly intuitive "cd A:" in order to even access the contents of the floppy disk. PC users often argue that the manual eject offers them the freedom to remove their disk whenever they please; however, this freedom can be quite dangerous when new users try to eject a floppy while it is being written to or read from. Auto-eject, therefore, is not only a means of consistency, but also of preventing potentially catastrophic user error".

source: http://home.socal.rr.com/fuweb/floppysite/eject.html

[bbloke]

Thanks, ApeintheShell. That was quite interesting to read. :)

[fryke]

Hm. Yes. But it kinda _still_ doesn't explain why ejecting a disk (even if automatically) would be represented by dragging it to a trashcan. To a user, this *obviously* looks like "deleting". I guess they just didn't find a metaphor for it that worked.

[nixgeek]

Hm. Yes. But it kinda _still_ doesn't explain why ejecting a disk (even if automatically) would be represented by dragging it to a trashcan. To a user, this *obviously* looks like "deleting". I guess they just didn't find a metaphor for it that worked.

I always thought of it as trashing it from your "virtual" desktop since you didn't need it anymore, and that way the disk would remove itself from the computer and be put somewhere in the "real-world" desktop or anywhere else in the real world. That's how it made sense to me.

[Mikuro]

For a little more discussion, check out the bug hall of fame at asktog.com (http://www.asktog.com/Bughouse/BugHallOfFame.html). It's #2.

[fryke]

I always thought of it as trashing it from your "virtual" desktop since you didn't need it anymore, and that way the disk would remove itself from the computer and be put somewhere in the "real-world" desktop or anywhere else in the real world. That's how it made sense to me.
But that's clearly a "workaround" for a user interface bug. When you "open a folder", you "open a folder". When you "label a file" you "label a file". But when you put a disk to the trashcan... ;)
It's also not only about explaining what the metaphor should mean. Think of it the other way 'round. You're in front of a Mac Plus the first time in your life. Inserting the disk: Easy. You put it in. The Mac even helps you by sucking it in the last inch. But now: How to eject it? I'm *QUITE* certain that a user who doesn't know about it wouldn't try to move it to the trash. Not with important files on it.

[ApeintheShell]

If you search in the Mac Help on your computer under 'eject disks' this shortcut is listed as the third step. So most people are probably going to use the menu bar or sidebar in the Finder first. If they do decide to use it for ejecting their disks the Dock lets them know they are ejecting the disk by replacing the trash icon with an eject icon.

[fryke]

Wasn't the case 'til OS X, ApeintheShell. I'm talking about the beginning of this metaphor...

[CincyJim]

quite off-topic, stevenyc.

Not "off-topic" at all! The topic is " Vista, the osx wanna be....?" and stevenyc pointed out how Apple was copying MS with its number of OS fixes, thus on-topic as Vista is a MS product.

Further there is no relationship between the two as MS does not make computers.

[fryke]

you realise that my "off-topic" message was from March, and that he was talking about how "Apple copied MS" by releasing a large security patch. Hardly what the thread was talking about... But hey: Welcome. :)

[Rhisiart]

I use XP at work (our PCs are frequently serviced). Drives me absolutely insane. Difficulty removing devices, poor quality graphics and frequent freezes and involuntary shut downs. The only thing I like is Windows Explorer.

My father recently upgraded to Vista (well he did and has now changed back). It was the same mess, but with more eye candy.

I tried it. Everything ran too slow (OK maybe he needs to upgrade his hardware) and the incessant pop-ups were enough to drive the poor man to throw himself out to of his cyber-shed window.

There are aspects of MacOS X I don't like (an unlockable dock!!!). Inconsistent interface designs (thank heavens for UNO). I don't know why the trash can is in the dock and I think we are all agreed that the Finder needs improving (hail Leopard?).

My last car got me from A to B - sometimes. My current car, whilst not perfect, gets me from A to B just about every time. The same applies to Vista vs MacOS. I just want an OS that is reliable and enables me to get my jobs done. MacOS X does this so much better.

[CincyJim]

The main difference is that Apple builds computers whereas MS does not. Therefore Apple has a significant lead in providing a more stable platform since Apple decides on the hardware AND software specs.

Gates lucked out and stuck to selling just the OS forcing others to try and make their hardwares software work with his POS.

[Lt Major Burns]

on Monday i will be installing home Premium vista on a 6 year old Dell Dimension 1.8GHz P4, also adding in 1GB ram and a GeForce 6200 256MB to hopefully offset the vista bloat. My Dad decided to buy a copy of vista and asked me to help get it to work... minimum reccomended reqs are 1Ghz, and i presume that takes into account Celerons... a processor twice as fast should be ok, right? ha ha ha i've told him the next time the computer is too slow, it'll be an iMac as an upgrade...

[Rhisiart]

The main difference is that Apple builds computers whereas MS does not. Therefore Apple has a significant lead in providing a more stable platform since Apple decides on the hardware AND software specs.
I take your point.

Gates lucked out and stuck to selling just the OS forcing others to try and make their hardwares software work with his POS.

I'm not sure that Gates really made a mistake when he stuck to selling only his OS.

IBM were very dominant at that time. They just hadn't put much thought into developing an OS themselves. They thought the hardware would be more important.

Gates had the vision to see that if would be the other way round and that trying to compete with IBM on the hardware front as well would be a folly.

[fryke]

Ah, we're mixing up history again once more. ;) ... (IBM wasn't dominant in personal computers back then. Dominant, but not in the PC world. Apple was with the Apple II, if anyone was.)
But let's look at things as they are _today_. And while it's true that designing the hardware for their OS is a good reason for Mac OS X' stability, that shouldn't matter for the user –*unless if you mean that they should actually _buy_ Macs. ;)

"Macs are only better because Mac OS X has only got to support a specific range of machines." – "So you agree they are better, then." That's how these discussions should go.

[CincyJim]

... ... I'm not sure that Gates really made a mistake when he stuck to selling only his OS.


I did not mean that "Gates ... made a mistake" but that his decision was luck leading him to be the world's richest man.

[Rhisiart]

You can say that again.:)

[hawki18]

I did not mean that "Gates ... made a mistake" but that his decision was luck leading him to be the world's richest man.


Why is everything with Bill is always luck or screwed up. He bought dos for 50k and sold to IBM and was smart enough not to give them total rights to the os. That is what got him started on being the Wold Richest man. He a very sharp business man, I don't get why mac users always got to find issues with him. I guess the old book The Cult Mac expalins it better than anything.

[fryke]

... when it says that...?

[Mikuro]

I think it is simply a backlash against the all-too-common sentiment that wealth = virtue/merit/intelligence/whatever.

Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs get far too much credit. That's not to say they're not sharp businessmen, but they are not computer geniuses. Or, dare I say it, any kind of geniuses.

[bbloke]

My perception is that Bill Gates did the best he could with what he had at the time, and was shrewd enough to make some wise decisions back then. I don't think he could have foreseen how well it would turn out and how rich it would make him, but I don't think it was a complete accident either. Perhaps a case of making smart moves at the time and then seeing how the future pans out. If you keep playing your cards right, you can build and build.

It's also like scientific progress. It would be extremely rare (if ever) that one person, out of the blue, comes up with a world changing discovery out of thin air. Each person's own work is based on the background of research done before them, and they will rely on input from those around them. Isaac Newton once said "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." For significant progress, it tends to require background from work that has taken place prior, the right kind of people working around you, and vision.

I think Steve Jobs is a person with vision and who seems to be able to spot good ideas. He doesn't necessarily come up with them himself, but he seems good at noticing the right things. He may not be the sole brains behind Apple, but this ability is very useful and he seems to work with good people (eg. Jonathan Ive). Similarly, looking back at the origins of Apple, I think Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs formed a good team, with complementary traits.

I think Bill Gates probably saw the enormous possibilities by licensing an OS. Things really took off, he has played the business very well for years, he's been able to build an empire. It certainly wasn't a complete fluke but, like with all things, a certain amount of good fortune was required too. This applies to any company or CEO, though. We can make educated judgements, but we can't foresee the future and so are not able plan too far ahead. Life's never linear like that!