|
Thursday, February 08, 2007 Vista vs. OS X?We want to hear from readers. By TR Editors
In early January, we posted a review of Vista, Microsoft's new operating system. Written by senior editor Erika Jonietz, the piece first appeared in the January/February 2007 issue of our magazine. In the piece, Jonietz described her disappointment with the company's new software--and confessed to having crossed that clearest of lines in the cultural sand: she went from being a Windows user to being a Mac user. The piece is the most widely read story we have ever posted on our site; it continues to be viewed by thousands of people every day. Clearly, it struck a chord with a lot of our readers. In response to that reception, we're encouraging readers to share their thoughts with one another about the look and feel of Vista and Mac's OS X. To help get a discussion started, we've asked our former Web editor Brad King to write a pro-Microsoft response to Erika's review (see below). We encourage you to read both pieces, then post your thoughts in this comment section! Microsoft's Imperfect Perfection After five years and $1 billion, Microsoft's Vista operating system is here. Gates and his lieutenants hailed the release of the O/S as a world-changing event, hoping that everyone from the hardened reviewer to members of the general public would fall all over themselves with praise for the feature-rich, aesthetically pleasing, and user-friendly package. That hasn't exactly been the case. Most reviewers have treated Vista with, at best, a shrug; at worst, Microsoft and Gates have been skewered for creating a bulky, resource-hogging Apple knockoff. Even Technology Review's senior editor, Erika Jonietz, a Microsoft user, described Vista as "terribly familiar" to any Mac OS X user and "a prime example of software bloat." Jonietz and the countless reviewers who warned users not to purchase any of the early versions of Vista are absolutely correct. Microsoft's early software iterations are always glitchy. For the general user, upgrading to Vista (sifting through each option, optimizing the computer for one's existing hardware) can be quite maddening. But Gates understands this. We know this because he estimated that only 5 percent of the PC market would upgrade to Vista before those people purchased a new computer. However, the fact that most people won't upgrade to Vista until they buy a new PC isn't an indictment of the company's operating system--or even the company's development process. It's a testament to the Redmond giant's ability to change and turn with an ever-evolving PC market that requires its developers to create tools that can be used by many highly various people. The company's software--and Microsoft is a software company that exists in a hardware-agnostic world--must be developed in such a way that it can conform to the needs of all of its hardware partners. It must power hundreds of millions of computers around the world, some for personal use, some for networking and data security, some for servers, some for gaming, and some for digital entertainment. The only way to create a product that can serve so many purposes is to build it "broken." In that imperfection--or, rather, incompleteness--there is room for customizing, tweaking, cajoling, and hacking, all of which ultimately make for a more personalized computing experience.
|
 |
|
||
| |||
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Comments
dima.berastau on 02/08/2007 at 1:35 AM
4
There's no question that OS X is a better engineered operating system than anything Microsoft ever developed with or without "one hardware" argument. Even Linux, which runs on exactly the same hardware Windows runs on and then some, is a much better engineered product than Windows.
"Build it broken"? I don't know about you but I, as a user, couldn't care less about infinite number of problems than Microsoft is trying to solve. If I am going to *pay* for their software I want that software to solve *my* problems. I want a desktop operating system that is stable, secure and fast, which is why I go with Apple. These features always seem to be coming in the "next release" when it comes to Microsoft products.
Other users may want to play games - they don't have a choice they go with MS because that's what games developers target, which they do because of the dominant MS market position. Once again, this is exactly the vicious cycle that MS is exploiting. Virtually everybody has Windows. Are you going to write games for OS X then? Obviously not, that's not where the market is. Same for corporate software. And now that you have your hundreds of software tools that run on Windows only and are essential to your business/life are you going to switch to OS X or Linux or upgrade to Vista when your support contract expires? Probably upgrade cause it would be less disruptive.
IMHO, everybody else, who is comfortable with picking up a new OS, learning new tools and so on = has a low-switch cost should be considering to switch.
Woodman on 02/11/2007 at 5:28 PM
3
dima.berastau on 02/12/2007 at 12:12 AM
4
The second part is also not entirely valid. You can customize A LOT, even the GUI if you want except it takes a bit more effort. Although I've never felt the urge to customize Apple GUIs. They are certainly at the front of the pack when it comes to that.
Woodman on 02/13/2007 at 3:14 AM
3
dima.berastau on 02/15/2007 at 10:20 PM
4
jessedorland on 07/16/2008 at 11:41 AM
2
Let's stat with finder it should list folder first then files. Such feature was not provided in a new OS 10.5.4 even though over million users asked for -- that's over a million os x user ignored by Mac/Apple & Steve Job. Remember, this feature is part of UNIX/LINUX/BSD, but Mac boys removed/crippled it -- just as cups are crippled by Ubuntu.
Modifying files require a root account, but it's been disable, among other things. It took me three days to setup the system as I would like to use.
I am using Linux & Mac. I find it very frustrating, like "home, end keyboard keys' crisis! Let's not forget that it's a locked operating system design by a company that doesn't want to us to replace a battery even on a phone! I find the company highly dictatorial. Still, I am happy with my first mini mac computer. It's not a perfect system, nor it is design for professional computer technican. Well, I buy another apple PC?
It all depends on how long this one last.
don4lfonso on 02/08/2007 at 7:08 AM
4
"Microsoft's operating systems leave room for improvements by individuals, by companies, by governments, and by countries. The system is set up to allow you to better optimize your computing experience to give you the results that you want."
A statement like that reminds me actually much more about Linux than any Windows system. It reminds me much more about the Unix philosophy "mechanism, not policy". To me this statement sounds more like a euphemism for "Microsoft ships broken software and lets the user clean up the mess".
Secondly,
"Computer code is meant to be broken because from that unjoined code comes personalization that no company can give me."
Well, no. This is like saying: "I sell you a broken chair for much money and that's a great thing because being broken it offers much space for improvements." A system shouldn't be broken in order to be customizable, a system should be customizable in order to be customizable. Again, see the Unix family of operating systems, which by the way comprehends also MacOSX.
I actually don't think the author really tried to write a pro-Microsoft article, after all.
frankieherrero on 02/08/2007 at 7:38 AM
3
"Computer code is meant to be broken because from that unjoined code comes personalization that no company can give me."
For me, it means:
"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
I truly agree that a system/application should be customizable to be customizable. Ask the guys at Mozilla Foundation.
mbluett on 03/25/2007 at 1:42 PM
2
But that is life with software: It rarely is ever bug free! So, why would anyone expect Microsoft's to be any different?
As for OSX and Linux, they too have bugs. All you have to do is pay attention to the developer community lists and you will see discussion of such.
I am a programmer and know how easy it is to inadvertently create a bug. Most of them you don't even realize you have created.
The only thing software vendors can do is pre-release test their code with the public.
The only concern I have of Microsoft is whether they do adequate pre-release testing.
Woodman on 02/11/2007 at 5:33 PM
3
jessedorland on 07/16/2008 at 11:54 AM
2
I should mention that I have been using Linux for over six year -- by no means as expert. But I have never gotten into any major trouble with it.
Microsoft Vista is very unstable, slow, and the most hated operating system in the market. Users have been downgrading to XP Pro, and in some case buying mac -- myself included. I just buy my first Mac computer. And I have installed Linux & Windows XP in my laptop.
asdar on 02/08/2007 at 7:23 AM
62
Both systems are mostly unobtrusive. I've had both and going back and forth I don't have any problems. That's all most people want is a clean seamless way to get to their specific app.
The fairly recent introduction of Spyware and widespread viruses is the only reason it seems important again. I wouldn't buy Vista for what it does and I wouldn't buy the mac for the operating system.
It worries me that people place so much importance on something that I want to be able to ignore.
I like windows because they're not proprietary. I'm not sure if it was an ethical decision to allow people the freedom or a business one, but I don't want to go from the semi-monopoly of MS to the stranglehold monopoly I think Mac would have.
don4lfonso on 02/08/2007 at 10:09 AM
4
What does that mean?
asdar on 02/08/2007 at 10:51 AM
62
I like PC's because you can grab components from anywhere and put them together. It's open structure leads to competition. You can run Linux or another OS from the PC, but for the most part PC=Microsoft for the OS.
If you open up a PC you don't see any one brand. If you open up a mac they have mac components.
That's changing a bit now, but I think Mac's philosophy is to control the whole thing. Purely my opinion.
I think if you do control the whole computer it's easier, but it denies competition. If Mac were to "win," or even gain a substantial market share, I think you'd see them trying to lock down everything once again.
When I mentioned Mac as Proprietary, I meant that they owned all of the hardware that is in an apple computer.
wiredbeat2000 on 02/08/2007 at 12:45 PM
16
I'm updating my PowerMac PC from 9.2 to Tiger. I called the Apple store and asked about updating my processor. The response: "I can't talk to you about that, but I can help you buy a new computer."
I was floored.
I don't need a new processor, I just wondered if I could upgrade. I can (there are two solutions I know of), but Apple was only interested in selling me a new computer.
machelpdesk on 02/08/2007 at 7:16 PM
2
You said: "I like PC's because you can grab components from anywhere and put them together."
Like the Sony, Seagate, Western Digital HDs in Macs. The ATI and nVida video cards. PC3200 RAM. The intel processors. Seems like pretty standard off-the-shelf components to me
"It's open structure leads to competition. You can run Linux or another OS from the PC, but for the most part PC=Microsoft for the OS."
I can run Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux on my Mac.
"If you open up a PC you don't see any one brand. If you open up a mac they have mac components."
Like the aforementioned hard drives, video cards, RAM memory, optical drives, etc.
"That's changing a bit now, but I think Mac's philosophy is to control the whole thing. Purely my opinion."
Apple has always controled the entire widget. The entire end-to-end user experience.
"When I mentioned Mac as Proprietary, I meant that they owned all of the hardware that is in an apple computer."
Just plain wrong.
asdar on 02/09/2007 at 10:46 AM
62
They allowed some free architecture because they couldn't compete without it.
I'd rather have the company that started with total freedom than the one that begrudgingly allows one component at a time.
Both companies want monopolies, that's the way business is. I'll stick with the one I can make on my own from the motherboard on up. I'm not a huge fan of MS, but I actively dislike Mac's business plan as a consumer.
Like I said in my original post, my only concern with the OS is how invisible it is. I just want to get to my applications and use them. MS does that better because there's more applications that are compatible.
wiredbeat2000 on 02/09/2007 at 5:19 PM
16
When I asked about upgrading the processor (400 Mhz), he said: I can't help you with that. We don't make those products. I can tell you about our new computers.
When I want to upgrade my PC, I can go to a host of stores (or take it apart myself) and get help.
That is a big difference between the two hardware systems, it seems.
spam on 02/10/2007 at 4:57 PM
1
wiredbeat2000 on 02/12/2007 at 10:51 AM
16
My point: Apple said, we can't help you unless you want a new computer. And if you have a third-party vendor help upgrade, Apple won't stand behind the work, even if it's Mac certified. (This is what the salesman said to me.)
I can only report my experience.
salo on 02/14/2007 at 2:15 AM
3
And as far as making your computer up to date, as G4 is a full three processor generations old now (though admittedly this happened a bit fast, but mac users wanted faster computers and they got them), you're pretty much in the buy-a-new-computer market.
And yes, if you had a P3 and wanted state of the art, unless you're picking up a new motherboard, powersupply, hard drive, video card, processor,optical drive, cables and memory, you'd be in the buy-a-new-computer market as well.
In fact, this is more the case with what we were called on to discuss, not Apple's ideology, not Microsoft's business plan, but Windows Vista and OS X. The counter article, the for... or at least in someway a defense for Vista, actually sums up the complicity of upgrading an old PC to run Vista, and concedes that most users will simply have to buy new PC's. That is, somehow the glory of Vista... but I can't explain that because I didn't quite understand that part myself. I mean, if I bought a new car, be it a scion or a BMW, and it didn't run, it would be hate mail and demands for a refund and not constructive criticism I would be dealing.
But above all, the proof that you are a troll and I am wasting my time, your G4 400 is NOT two years old. Apple is NOT forcing you upgrade every two years... assuming you have a desktop (if you had a laptop you generally wouldn't be able to upgrade the processor no matter what OS you run) your G4 is - count them - SIX to EIGHT YEARS OLD. It will still run Apple's most recent operating system with no hiccups whatsoever, speed being the only disadvantage.
Try running Vista on a computer from 1999, and then tell me how it is really Microsoft that is forcing you to buy a new computer.
SJDukeNJ on 03/25/2007 at 2:05 PM
1
don4lfonso on 02/09/2007 at 2:48 AM
4
ikshields on 04/03/2007 at 7:27 AM
4
The car some guys down the street built out of borrowed parts from other cars ("We're pretty sure it works!"),...
...or the Porsche, engineered exclusively by Porsche, for 10 percent more?
Boy, that's a tough one.
MITBeta on 02/08/2007 at 8:32 AM
21
This is the best of both worlds: the ability to run your hardware of choice and the security and non-bloat of OSX.
Now that almost every major distribution of linux has a LiveCD component there's almost no excuse not to try out one or two or a dozen of them before committing to them.
Vista's EULA is a nightmare, and the security "upgrades" are questionable. MS should have thrown out all of their own code and started from scratch to come up with an OS that really works. But then I guess that's what linux is...
mikeykinz on 02/08/2007 at 11:43 AM
1
I think that both Microsoft and Apple have made good products - I liken them to Chevy and Ford. But see what I want is a Mazda Miata. And using Linux, you can "build your own."
wiredbeat2000 on 02/08/2007 at 12:51 PM
16
However, in terms of flexibility, nobody is going to beat Linux.
kleinerfreak on 02/08/2007 at 7:01 PM
2
It is possible to run Linux on well over 50 entirely different platforms, Microsoft has to deal with 2 if you consider x86_32 and x86_64 as different platforms. And, let's face it: There are standards for hardware, usually the manufacturers deliver the needed software with their product and nobody asks for more than a working framework for drivers. The Linux developers manage to support the platforms and hardware out-of-the-box, so nobody can say it is impossible to do it.
I know very well that there is still a lot of hardware that doesn't work as supposed to with Linux, but most mainstream products are supported completely by now.
wiredbeat2000 on 02/09/2007 at 5:22 PM
16
kleinerfreak on 02/10/2007 at 8:17 PM
2