Windows NT is a decent operating system. I also like using Linux. Windows has better application and gaming support, and multimedia on Windows is generally a smoother and more polished experience. On the other hand, I find that it is typically simpler and easier to configure servers running Linux. But that's just my bias, I haven't worked as extensively with Windows servers.
@Wolverine: There's only one major contention with Windows for me: The fucking malware. If Bill Gates and company had simply put safeguards in the structure of the OS, like Linux and Apple have in theirs, there would be nothing to complain about or worry about. They've greatly improved their imagine in this vital area in the past few years, but with all the bad feelings engendered by Windows 98 and XP getting infested left and right in their heyday, it's a bad taste to fully remove.
Windows OS, in many respects, is quite awesome and impressive in terms of the amount coding and man hours poured into it. Then again, you can say the same thing about Apple and Linux. Especially, Linux simply because it's basically driven and half maintained by penguin worshipping, paranoid tech users and programmers over the past 20 years. Apple and Windows were driven by mass infusion of money and the desire to be greedy in the traditional, soulless American capitalist pig mentality. Then again, just about every company and corporation is like that anyway so let's not berate them too much.
For windows it just does what I want it to do. It plays games and has the software I want. This might be different for different people but I never feel like the OS gets in the way of what I'm trying to do either. Window management is a breeze with 7 compared to the nightmare I experience on my girlfriend's macbook. "oh you want to maximise that window? I think half the screen is enough for you, no need to be greedy!" I am also not a fan off the task bar for an application being at the top of the screen not attached to the window you are interacting with but that is more of a personal preference baked in from years of using windows.
It's all personal preference really but I know which I prefer!
@Wolverine: There's only one major contention with Windows for me: The fucking malware. If Bill Gates and company had simply made it not very popular or successful, like Linux and Apple did early on in theirs, Then when the internet age dawned and security became a real issue there would be nothing to complain about or worry about. Unfortunately they were too popular and were the focus of the majority of any malware or hacking attempts due to the target size giving apple and linux all the time in the world to harden there OS (of course apple really doesn't get to take credit for that seeing as its a unix Kernel OS). They've greatly improved their image in this vital area in the past few years, but with all the bad feelings engendered by Windows 98 and XP getting infested left and right in their heyday, due in large part to human error and laziness, a large majority of home users have lost faith in windows switching to apple.
Windows OS, in many respects, is quite awesome and impressive in terms of the amount of coding, hardware support, backwards compatibility and man hours poured into it. Then again, you can say the same thing about Linux. Especially, Linux simply because it's Granddaddy of stable OS's and still used heavily for server and network infrastructure.
I have corrected you so that its historically accurate, no need to thank me.
@ebritt: Well, given how it took Apple over a month to fix that Java hole, it's probably about half and half.
Even that's pushing it. It's mostly scaremongering. A tiny part of it is true - Microsoft have made enterprise-class security and rapid response a priority ever since the XP fiasco, but the hyperbole (Ten years behind? Really? That's utter bullshit) is astonishing. Apple were already ahead ten years ago and it's not like they've been standing still. If Microsoft is ahead now, it's only a bit.
And the fact is there still aren't anyviral threats for vanilla OS X. The holes are all in Java, Flash and other add-ons. That's why Apple has been systematically stripping third party junk like that out of the OS. Don't install Flash (And, by extension, Chrome) or Java and your computer is borderline bulletproof provided you continue to be wary of Trojans etc.
Of course, you could quite happily run stock Windows 7 without anti-virus if you kept it up to date, avoided using things like Flash (And again, by extension, Chrome) or Java and exercised simple caution.
Fact is, both platforms are pretty damn rock solid. They are at comparable levels of adequate security. We're at the stage now where the OS vendors - whichever one it may be - are rarely to blame when something goes wrong. It's usually either end user incompetence or outdated third-party software.
But that kind of talk doesn't sell bloatware.
And so...You can't move for the FUD emanating from Kaspersky and their ilk these days.
I feel like Windows is pretty good but it's on pretty bad hardware.
Like sure you can get the most gigahertz and gigabytes but it's very difficult to find a Windows laptop with a really best in class trackpad, or battery life, or heat level. It's also very hard to find one that doesn't come loaded with the custom crap the vendor wants to put on it.
@ebritt: Well, given how it took Apple over a month to fix that Java hole, it's probably about half and half.
And the fact is there still aren't anyviral threats for vanilla OS X. The holes are all in Java, Flash and other add-ons. That's why Apple has been systematically stripping third party junk like that out of the OS. Don't install Flash (And, by extension, Chrome) or Java and your computer is borderline bulletproof provided you continue to be wary of Trojans etc.
Of course, you could quite happily run stock Windows 7 without anti-virus if you kept it up to date, avoided using things like Flash (And again, by extension, Chrome) or Java and exercised simple caution.
except that "vanilla OSX" includes Java. In fact, Apple's Java updates are pushed through the OS updater, which is annoying. Saying "don't install flash" is not good advice, because any piece of software could have an undiscovered 0-day. How many times has this happened to Adobe reader? I'd argue Chrome is the safest, since it sandboxes everything. I do not run AV, and I use chrome, flash, and all of the other good stuff. It comes down to what you download, and what sites you visit.
Now, on to the main course.
I still love Windows more than any other Operating System. I've used Linux off and on in the past few years, and while it is free and ultimately customizable, I simply don't like the UX enough. Also, I like to be able to run the majority of programs natively.
OSX is ok. My biggest beef is that it has AWFUL window management. Losing windows, not having adequate resizing (e.g. window's maximize/snap-to-sides) etc. OSX is a fine operating system, and the gestures work well... but in the end, I think W7 is an amazing operating system, and totally happy with Microsoft's current offerings.
OSX is ok. My biggest beef is that it has AWFUL window management. Losing windows, not having adequate resizing (e.g. window's maximize/snap-to-sides) etc. OSX is a fine operating system, and the gestures work well... but in the end, I think W7 is an amazing operating system, and totally happy with Microsoft's current offerings.
Is there anything in Windows that works like what Apple used to call Expose where you four-finger swipe and you can see all your running applications in a single view?
I find myself really missing that functionality in Windows. Don't say alt-tab. For one thing the alt-tab popup is too small to see much of anything, I find it really a lot more awkward. Especially that you have to hold down the keypress to keep it up there while you're looking for something.
Actually MAGZine, Java is NOT a component of a standard install of the current version of OS X. As I said previously, Apple have been systematically removing third party environments from the standard OS X install to improve security. As a part of that, Macs stopped shipping with Flash. Similarly, OS X Lion does not come with an Apple Java Runtime or SDK. Vanilla OS X is a Java & Flash free zone. Incidentally, installing Adobe Reader on a Mac is a laughably pointless waste of time, aside from any security concerns, since PDF support is baked into the OS. The Finder itself is a capable PDF reader, even ignoring Preview & Safari being compatible with the format too. As for OS X having "awful" window management, I'd beg to differ. It merely adopts a different philosophy for window & task management from Windows. Neither philosophy is perfect. Apologies for the lack of paragraphing and formatting (And thus, CAPITALS for emphasis), but I'm on iOS right now and Parchment isn't compatible so I've been dumped to the simple textarea
This topic can go so many different ways and perspectives taken on the OS debates. If you look at it from a mainstream day to day use, Windows is the clear winner and I don't see that changing. I think trying to swap to a Linux or a OSx environment for day to day usage would be a huge change for the normal 8-5 office worker. (And the amount of support for applications would need to be updated a changed).
But for me I am a Window's user. It does what I need it to do and I know how to work with it. I am gamer is another thing for me - Windows doesn't have the huge issue of game support like Linux and game dependent for Max users as well. I am not a fan boy to Windows either it's just what I have used as I grew up... And use from a day to day basis as well being an IT guy.
This is a really good topic to discuss as long as fan boy rage doesn't take over.
OSX is ok. My biggest beef is that it has AWFUL window management. Losing windows, not having adequate resizing (e.g. window's maximize/snap-to-sides) etc. OSX is a fine operating system, and the gestures work well... but in the end, I think W7 is an amazing operating system, and totally happy with Microsoft's current offerings.
Is there anything in Windows that works like what Apple used to call Expose where you four-finger swipe and you can see all your running applications in a single view?
I find myself really missing that functionality in Windows. Don't say alt-tab. For one thing the alt-tab popup is too small to see much of anything, I find it really a lot more awkward. Especially that you have to hold down the keypress to keep it up there while you're looking for something.
Windows Vista and Windows 7 had something called Aero Flip 3D. This has been removed in Windows 8, and you now get a bar on the left side that can be brought up with Win+tab (Win+ctrl+tab to make it stay) or mousing over to the top left and bringing the mouse down. However, with this being a WinRT feature, it only appears if you have Start screen apps running. If you have just the desktop running, it will not appear.
This topic can go so many different ways and perspectives taken on the OS debates. If you look at it from a mainstream day to day use, Windows is the clear winner and I don't see that changing. I think trying to swap to a Linux or a OSx environment for day to day usage would be a huge change for the normal 8-5 office worker. (And the amount of support for applications would need to be updated a changed).
What is it about office work that requires Windows? The jobs and internships I've had have all been either in media or education and a lot of Google services and Adobe stuff was used. Both of which are cross platform. Wouldn't they just go from using Excel all day to using GDodcs spreadsheet or the one in iWork or whatever.
It varies by need but in general Excel is much more powerful than alternatives when it comes to spreadsheet applications. You also have to consider the considerable amount of custom application software that has been built around Office at this point that would be extremely costly to redevelop. It should be noted that for the average user the full power and capabilities of Office are never seen or used but there is a lot more going on under the hood for people and organizations that need those capabilities and Office applications are built to pass quite a bit of data between them as well as for use in other products and services. Now all of that could certainly change in the years to come but as it stands right now MS is king of that space and the alternatives aren't quite there yet in the enterprise space in terms of fulfilling needs. Sure there are cost benefits to some of the alternatives and a smart IT head will think about those needs and make a decision that balances things out.
Also never underestimate training and retraining costs. Switching systems can be extremely money and time consuming for an organization.
Compared to the 98 and XP days Windows is a pretty robust platform at this point without the headaches it used to have. We'll see how that goes with Win8 and the transition to Metro.
OSX feels like a sloppy OS. Full screen is something that is actually very important to me, and they don't do it right. Also, the fact that programs don't close when you hit the x button surprises me. That's actually second to the Apple fanboys that tell me how amazing OSX is. I really think it's okay, but second to Windows 7.
Speaking of Windows 7, I think it is a fantastic operating system. The killer feature to me is Windows snap, where it is incredible easy to make an application half the screen. Makes multitasking a breeze.
In my opinion the big problem is the computers that vendors make. Heat issues, weight, battery life, shitty screens make Windows look bad. Ultrabooks make it a lot closer of a race, but still if you walk in to Best Buy and look at the laptops, almost all of them look like crap. Only exceptions are the Ultrabooks (which Best Buy doesn't carry in store anymore).
HP, Asus, Lenovo, and Dell have pretty solid Ultrabooks. They should use those to compete.
Is there anything in Windows that works like what Apple used to call Expose where you four-finger swipe and you can see all your running applications in a single view?
No, but I find this only necessary in a notebook environment. I never find myself saying "where the hell is that window". As someone said, windows-key Tab will bring up the aero flip, but I never use this easier.
Exposé/mission control is fine, but I don't find it necessary. My biggest issue with window management in OSX is that you can actually 'lose' windows. Example: I use Steam on my Mac. If I I'm chatting, and I close the main window, that window is GONE. I have two options: close the chat window, or dig through menus to get it back. This is not a steam problem, but a Mac problem. And while you can sometimes recover your window through the top bar, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to pop up the window.
And don't even get me started on full-screen apps.
Actually MAGZine, Java is NOT a component of a standard install of the current version of OS X. As I said previously, Apple have been systematically removing third party environments from the standard OS X install to improve security. As a part of that, Macs stopped shipping with Flash. Similarly, OS X Lion does not come with an Apple Java Runtime or SDK. Vanilla OS X is a Java & Flash free zone. Incidentally, installing Adobe Reader on a Mac is a laughably pointless waste of time, aside from any security concerns, since PDF support is baked into the OS. The Finder itself is a capable PDF reader, even ignoring Preview & Safari being compatible with the format too. As for OS X having "awful" window management, I'd beg to differ. It merely adopts a different philosophy for window & task management from Windows. Neither philosophy is perfect.
Funny. I do believe my MBA came stock with Java. At any rate, Apple is controlling the publishing of updates, so regardless of their 'vanilla OSX' approach, I'm not entirely sure it's fair to remove all responsibility. The argument against Reader is invalid. 0-day exploits can be found in Safari, Preview, etc. ALL of the stock OSX apps are vulnerable to an 0-day exploit. That is to say, your original argument claiming that OS X is bulletproof, and that all holes lie inside of 3rd party software is woefully invalid. Just look at the pwn-2-own contents hosted every year. Safari has traditionally gotten demolished, and those would be classified as 0-day exploits. For windows management, see my comments above. Losing host windows is not cool, or good practice. I like OSX, but I find its window management to be subpar.
I think on a 11 and 13 inch display it's really nice. Safari looks great in Full screen on my 13 inch screen.
I find that the best way to experience Windows is in a desktop or docked laptop kind of environemnt. Like if I'm sitting there with a big display and a great mechanical keyboard and a high quality gaming mouse that's a great experience.
It's when you get to laptops being used as laptops that I start to hate it.
I've been a Windows user since 3.1. When Microsoft went to 95, to me the most fundamental change was it went to being a file-oriented workflow. Instead of opening an application, you could also create a file first, and then simply run it to open the app. I never open a file by clicking File / Open from within the application. It's the perception that you could do the same thing twelve different ways in Windows that always appealed to me. Apple os's always seemed very limiting and controlling to me. I couldn't even figure out once how to rearrange icons that were scattered all over a window.
I've also always been a gamer - which is huge. Every job I've ever had has been a Windows shop also.
Nowadays, they're essentially so similar it's basically what you're just used to. XP suffered through the dark days of bad security. Although it seems as though it's now Apple's turn, they may get lucky because mobile is now a tempting target too.
Basically, they're both just fine. Most of what we do is simply open the browser. Here I think Google is a little ahead of it's time with Chrome OS. We need fast internet everywhere before that'll work out well. Right now, it's still about local apps.
I think on a 11 and 13 inch display it's really nice. Safari looks great in Full screen on my 13 inch screen.
I find that the best way to experience Windows is in a desktop or docked laptop kind of environemnt. Like if I'm sitting there with a big display and a great mechanical keyboard and a high quality gaming mouse that's a great experience.
It's when you get to laptops being used as laptops that I start to hate it.
To me, it feels like a beta feature. Full Screen in OSX is crap compared to Full Screen in Windows. It doesn't seems like it works right.
I agree that Windows is best experienced with a gaming mouse and keyboard.
Still, most laptops are shit. Basically that is the only thing I like about all Mac computers: Their laptops are pretty good. You appreciate it so much more when you look at Windows laptops. Thank god for Ultrabooks (Actually thank Sony for already having them for several years. My boss has one at work and it is amazing)
I don't think I'm going to buy a laptop unless it's a Vaio.
There's an awful lot of Fan Dumb (That's a TVTrope, standard disclaimer that TVTropes will ruin your life yada yada yada) in this thread where people are assuming the way Windows does something is right just because it's either the first OS they used extensively or else because it's ubiquitous. That's preposterous. If I see one more person suggest the way OS X or Linux does something is "wrong" or "broken" or "incomplete" or whatever and then proceeds to justify it almost entirely through reciting some variation of "I was happy with Windows's way of doing it, why not do it that way?" I'm going to scream. In the same vein, "people might have to learn something new" is not a valid criticism. The problem is not that changing it will cause what people know to be wrong, the problem is you've taught a generation or more of computer users bad habits - namely, you've indoctrinated them to expect correctly operating an interface to be functionally equivalent to reciting a routine. There was a time when that was almost a technical necessity. Now it's not, and that philosophy is the enemy of innovation and improvement. At some point, we need to get people out of the habit of expecting everything to be the same always forever, and into the habit of using natural interfaces. I damn near weep when people argue in favour of menu bars and scroll bars and justify it by saying "people are used to it, they'll be confused". Who cares if they're used to it? It's counter-intuitive, inefficient and we don't need it any more. If we kept every legacy interface around, we'd still be knee deep in typing "Run" every time we wanted to do something.
@Jensonb: I have a natural tendency to like things that are new, but your argument (or at least the examples you provide) is flawed. When touchscreens aren't involved, gestures are no more intuitive than GUI interaction. It's not intuitive that moving two fingers up and down on a trackpad should scroll your active page. You have to be trained to know that, the same way you would have to be trained to know that using a scroll bar (or scrollwheel on a mouse) provides the same functionality. 'Natural' interfaces aren't natural unless there is zero (or close to it) abstraction between you and the content. If you're not touching the screen, gesturing in front of it through Kinect or something along the lines (and even that is pushing it a bit), or talking to the machine in natural language, training is required.
That's not to say such interfaces or interaction methodologies are worse. It's just that they're not inherently better when there's an level of abstraction, because the naturalness isn't actually there.
There's an awful lot of Fan Dumb (That's a TVTrope, standard disclaimer that TVTropes will ruin your life yada yada yada) in this thread where people are assuming the way Windows does something is right just because it's either the first OS they used extensively or else because it's ubiquitous. That's preposterous. If I see one more person suggest the way OS X or Linux does something is "wrong" or "broken" or "incomplete" or whatever and then proceeds to justify it almost entirely through reciting some variation of "I was happy with Windows's way of doing it, why not do it that way?" I'm going to scream. In the same vein, "people might have to learn something new" is not a valid criticism. The problem is not that changing it will cause what people know to be wrong, the problem is you've taught a generation or more of computer users bad habits - namely, you've indoctrinated them to expect correctly operating an interface to be functionally equivalent to reciting a routine. There was a time when that was almost a technical necessity. Now it's not, and that philosophy is the enemy of innovation and improvement. At some point, we need to get people out of the habit of expecting everything to be the same always forever, and into the habit of using natural interfaces. I damn near weep when people argue in favour of menu bars and scroll bars and justify it by saying "people are used to it, they'll be confused". Who cares if they're used to it? It's counter-intuitive, inefficient and we don't need it any more. If we kept every legacy interface around, we'd still be knee deep in typing "Run" every time we wanted to do something.
If the interface was truly natural, then the problem you describe would not exist. Natural interfaces rely on people's embedded intuition. OSX does not do this in every respect. Neither does Windows. Neither does Linux. But, my Example still stands: having to dig through menus or completely exit an application to get back to the host window is not the best way to do so.. Over the last 8 months, I have used OS X much more than Windows, and I can still comfortably say, having experience with both, that OSX is not the end-all, and does have its own significant issues. See my complaints above. Also, this... among other things.
Nothing wrong with learning something new, but let's not be naive. There are worse and better ways to do things... and OSX is certainly not entirely in the latter camp.
My main computing device is a top spec MBA 11" which, due to the fact I have two different jobs, requires me to work between Win7 and OS X on a daily basis. For a small-screened device such as it is, I much prefer OS X over Windows. The multitouch gestures, quick access to Spaces, full screen app navigation, Spotlight, etc, makes my workflow super painless while optimising the limited screen real estate. I don't mind Windows from a design point of view but what I like most about it is the third-party app development scene which, by nature of the platform's popularity, is full of great projects. However the first party applications, system navigation and UI just doesnt seem optimised for how I use the device. That's not to say it is inherently good or bad, but it suits me and my device better.
@Vermy81: I guess I shouldn't have said "Office" should have said something along the lines of in an office setting or a corporate environment. I think that if you would switch from MS to a different the switch to a new OS would be a huge change for most users of a PC. (Unless it's the marketing/advertising department). MS is used heavily in an office enviornment and not sure how people would react to the change or really want it. But that will vary from user to user.
Let's start a discussion.
-For those who love Windows, what makes it a great operating system? Why do you choose to run it on your machine?
-For those who hate the OS, what reasons do you have for disliking it? Is Linux actually a viable solution?
(Those who like Windows, please don't troll me for making this thread. I use Windows daily, I'm honestly just trying to start a discussion.)
I wonder what Falcon has to say about this...
Windows NT is a decent operating system. I also like using Linux. Windows has better application and gaming support, and multimedia on Windows is generally a smoother and more polished experience. On the other hand, I find that it is typically simpler and easier to configure servers running Linux. But that's just my bias, I haven't worked as extensively with Windows servers.
@Wolverine: There's only one major contention with Windows for me: The fucking malware. If Bill Gates and company had simply put safeguards in the structure of the OS, like Linux and Apple have in theirs, there would be nothing to complain about or worry about. They've greatly improved their imagine in this vital area in the past few years, but with all the bad feelings engendered by Windows 98 and XP getting infested left and right in their heyday, it's a bad taste to fully remove.
Windows OS, in many respects, is quite awesome and impressive in terms of the amount coding and man hours poured into it. Then again, you can say the same thing about Apple and Linux. Especially, Linux simply because it's basically driven and half maintained by penguin worshipping, paranoid tech users and programmers over the past 20 years. Apple and Windows were driven by mass infusion of money and the desire to be greedy in the traditional, soulless American capitalist pig mentality. Then again, just about every company and corporation is like that anyway so let's not berate them too much.
@CROM said:
First and only reaction - Not sure if trolling.
For windows it just does what I want it to do. It plays games and has the software I want. This might be different for different people but I never feel like the OS gets in the way of what I'm trying to do either. Window management is a breeze with 7 compared to the nightmare I experience on my girlfriend's macbook. "oh you want to maximise that window? I think half the screen is enough for you, no need to be greedy!" I am also not a fan off the task bar for an application being at the top of the screen not attached to the window you are interacting with but that is more of a personal preference baked in from years of using windows.
It's all personal preference really but I know which I prefer!
@BaskervilleManor said:
I have corrected you so that its historically accurate, no need to thank me.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/04/25/apple-10-years-behind-microsoft-when-it-comes-to-security/
@BaskervilleManor: this guy...
@Falcon: Are there are any grounds to that article or is it just bullshit designed to scare mac users into buying kaspersky?
@ebritt: Well, given how it took Apple over a month to fix that Java hole, it's probably about half and half.
@Fish_Face_McGee said:
Even that's pushing it. It's mostly scaremongering. A tiny part of it is true - Microsoft have made enterprise-class security and rapid response a priority ever since the XP fiasco, but the hyperbole (Ten years behind? Really? That's utter bullshit) is astonishing. Apple were already ahead ten years ago and it's not like they've been standing still. If Microsoft is ahead now, it's only a bit.
And the fact is there still aren't anyviral threats for vanilla OS X. The holes are all in Java, Flash and other add-ons. That's why Apple has been systematically stripping third party junk like that out of the OS. Don't install Flash (And, by extension, Chrome) or Java and your computer is borderline bulletproof provided you continue to be wary of Trojans etc.
Of course, you could quite happily run stock Windows 7 without anti-virus if you kept it up to date, avoided using things like Flash (And again, by extension, Chrome) or Java and exercised simple caution.
Fact is, both platforms are pretty damn rock solid. They are at comparable levels of adequate security. We're at the stage now where the OS vendors - whichever one it may be - are rarely to blame when something goes wrong. It's usually either end user incompetence or outdated third-party software.
But that kind of talk doesn't sell bloatware.
And so...You can't move for the FUD emanating from Kaspersky and their ilk these days.
I feel like Windows is pretty good but it's on pretty bad hardware.
Like sure you can get the most gigahertz and gigabytes but it's very difficult to find a Windows laptop with a really best in class trackpad, or battery life, or heat level. It's also very hard to find one that doesn't come loaded with the custom crap the vendor wants to put on it.
@Jensonb: Right.
@Jensonb said:
except that "vanilla OSX" includes Java. In fact, Apple's Java updates are pushed through the OS updater, which is annoying. Saying "don't install flash" is not good advice, because any piece of software could have an undiscovered 0-day. How many times has this happened to Adobe reader? I'd argue Chrome is the safest, since it sandboxes everything. I do not run AV, and I use chrome, flash, and all of the other good stuff. It comes down to what you download, and what sites you visit.
Now, on to the main course.
I still love Windows more than any other Operating System. I've used Linux off and on in the past few years, and while it is free and ultimately customizable, I simply don't like the UX enough. Also, I like to be able to run the majority of programs natively.
OSX is ok. My biggest beef is that it has AWFUL window management. Losing windows, not having adequate resizing (e.g. window's maximize/snap-to-sides) etc. OSX is a fine operating system, and the gestures work well... but in the end, I think W7 is an amazing operating system, and totally happy with Microsoft's current offerings.
@MAGZine said:
Is there anything in Windows that works like what Apple used to call Expose where you four-finger swipe and you can see all your running applications in a single view?
I find myself really missing that functionality in Windows. Don't say alt-tab. For one thing the alt-tab popup is too small to see much of anything, I find it really a lot more awkward. Especially that you have to hold down the keypress to keep it up there while you're looking for something.
This topic can go so many different ways and perspectives taken on the OS debates. If you look at it from a mainstream day to day use, Windows is the clear winner and I don't see that changing. I think trying to swap to a Linux or a OSx environment for day to day usage would be a huge change for the normal 8-5 office worker. (And the amount of support for applications would need to be updated a changed).
But for me I am a Window's user. It does what I need it to do and I know how to work with it. I am gamer is another thing for me - Windows doesn't have the huge issue of game support like Linux and game dependent for Max users as well. I am not a fan boy to Windows either it's just what I have used as I grew up... And use from a day to day basis as well being an IT guy.
This is a really good topic to discuss as long as fan boy rage doesn't take over.
@Vermy81 said:
Windows Vista and Windows 7 had something called Aero Flip 3D. This has been removed in Windows 8, and you now get a bar on the left side that can be brought up with Win+tab (Win+ctrl+tab to make it stay) or mousing over to the top left and bringing the mouse down. However, with this being a WinRT feature, it only appears if you have Start screen apps running. If you have just the desktop running, it will not appear.
@GTFShadow said:
What is it about office work that requires Windows? The jobs and internships I've had have all been either in media or education and a lot of Google services and Adobe stuff was used. Both of which are cross platform. Wouldn't they just go from using Excel all day to using GDodcs spreadsheet or the one in iWork or whatever.
It varies by need but in general Excel is much more powerful than alternatives when it comes to spreadsheet applications. You also have to consider the considerable amount of custom application software that has been built around Office at this point that would be extremely costly to redevelop. It should be noted that for the average user the full power and capabilities of Office are never seen or used but there is a lot more going on under the hood for people and organizations that need those capabilities and Office applications are built to pass quite a bit of data between them as well as for use in other products and services. Now all of that could certainly change in the years to come but as it stands right now MS is king of that space and the alternatives aren't quite there yet in the enterprise space in terms of fulfilling needs. Sure there are cost benefits to some of the alternatives and a smart IT head will think about those needs and make a decision that balances things out.
Also never underestimate training and retraining costs. Switching systems can be extremely money and time consuming for an organization.
Compared to the 98 and XP days Windows is a pretty robust platform at this point without the headaches it used to have. We'll see how that goes with Win8 and the transition to Metro.
OSX feels like a sloppy OS. Full screen is something that is actually very important to me, and they don't do it right. Also, the fact that programs don't close when you hit the x button surprises me. That's actually second to the Apple fanboys that tell me how amazing OSX is. I really think it's okay, but second to Windows 7.
Speaking of Windows 7, I think it is a fantastic operating system. The killer feature to me is Windows snap, where it is incredible easy to make an application half the screen. Makes multitasking a breeze.
In my opinion the big problem is the computers that vendors make. Heat issues, weight, battery life, shitty screens make Windows look bad. Ultrabooks make it a lot closer of a race, but still if you walk in to Best Buy and look at the laptops, almost all of them look like crap. Only exceptions are the Ultrabooks (which Best Buy doesn't carry in store anymore).
HP, Asus, Lenovo, and Dell have pretty solid Ultrabooks. They should use those to compete.
@Vermy81 said:
No, but I find this only necessary in a notebook environment. I never find myself saying "where the hell is that window". As someone said, windows-key Tab will bring up the aero flip, but I never use this easier.
Exposé/mission control is fine, but I don't find it necessary. My biggest issue with window management in OSX is that you can actually 'lose' windows. Example: I use Steam on my Mac. If I I'm chatting, and I close the main window, that window is GONE. I have two options: close the chat window, or dig through menus to get it back. This is not a steam problem, but a Mac problem. And while you can sometimes recover your window through the top bar, there is no guarantee that you'll be able to pop up the window.
And don't even get me started on full-screen apps.
Funny. I do believe my MBA came stock with Java. At any rate, Apple is controlling the publishing of updates, so regardless of their 'vanilla OSX' approach, I'm not entirely sure it's fair to remove all responsibility. The argument against Reader is invalid. 0-day exploits can be found in Safari, Preview, etc. ALL of the stock OSX apps are vulnerable to an 0-day exploit. That is to say, your original argument claiming that OS X is bulletproof, and that all holes lie inside of 3rd party software is woefully invalid. Just look at the pwn-2-own contents hosted every year. Safari has traditionally gotten demolished, and those would be classified as 0-day exploits. For windows management, see my comments above. Losing host windows is not cool, or good practice. I like OSX, but I find its window management to be subpar.
What's with all the hate to Apple's full screen?
I think on a 11 and 13 inch display it's really nice. Safari looks great in Full screen on my 13 inch screen.
I find that the best way to experience Windows is in a desktop or docked laptop kind of environemnt. Like if I'm sitting there with a big display and a great mechanical keyboard and a high quality gaming mouse that's a great experience.
It's when you get to laptops being used as laptops that I start to hate it.
I've been a Windows user since 3.1. When Microsoft went to 95, to me the most fundamental change was it went to being a file-oriented workflow. Instead of opening an application, you could also create a file first, and then simply run it to open the app. I never open a file by clicking File / Open from within the application. It's the perception that you could do the same thing twelve different ways in Windows that always appealed to me. Apple os's always seemed very limiting and controlling to me. I couldn't even figure out once how to rearrange icons that were scattered all over a window.
I've also always been a gamer - which is huge. Every job I've ever had has been a Windows shop also.
Nowadays, they're essentially so similar it's basically what you're just used to. XP suffered through the dark days of bad security. Although it seems as though it's now Apple's turn, they may get lucky because mobile is now a tempting target too.
Basically, they're both just fine. Most of what we do is simply open the browser. Here I think Google is a little ahead of it's time with Chrome OS. We need fast internet everywhere before that'll work out well. Right now, it's still about local apps.
@Vermy81 said:
To me, it feels like a beta feature. Full Screen in OSX is crap compared to Full Screen in Windows. It doesn't seems like it works right.
I agree that Windows is best experienced with a gaming mouse and keyboard.
Still, most laptops are shit. Basically that is the only thing I like about all Mac computers: Their laptops are pretty good. You appreciate it so much more when you look at Windows laptops. Thank god for Ultrabooks (Actually thank Sony for already having them for several years. My boss has one at work and it is amazing)
I don't think I'm going to buy a laptop unless it's a Vaio.
@Jensonb: I have a natural tendency to like things that are new, but your argument (or at least the examples you provide) is flawed. When touchscreens aren't involved, gestures are no more intuitive than GUI interaction. It's not intuitive that moving two fingers up and down on a trackpad should scroll your active page. You have to be trained to know that, the same way you would have to be trained to know that using a scroll bar (or scrollwheel on a mouse) provides the same functionality. 'Natural' interfaces aren't natural unless there is zero (or close to it) abstraction between you and the content. If you're not touching the screen, gesturing in front of it through Kinect or something along the lines (and even that is pushing it a bit), or talking to the machine in natural language, training is required.
That's not to say such interfaces or interaction methodologies are worse. It's just that they're not inherently better when there's an level of abstraction, because the naturalness isn't actually there.
@Jensonb said:
If the interface was truly natural, then the problem you describe would not exist. Natural interfaces rely on people's embedded intuition. OSX does not do this in every respect. Neither does Windows. Neither does Linux. But, my Example still stands: having to dig through menus or completely exit an application to get back to the host window is not the best way to do so.. Over the last 8 months, I have used OS X much more than Windows, and I can still comfortably say, having experience with both, that OSX is not the end-all, and does have its own significant issues. See my complaints above. Also, this... among other things.
Nothing wrong with learning something new, but let's not be naive. There are worse and better ways to do things... and OSX is certainly not entirely in the latter camp.
@Vermy81: I guess I shouldn't have said "Office" should have said something along the lines of in an office setting or a corporate environment. I think that if you would switch from MS to a different the switch to a new OS would be a huge change for most users of a PC. (Unless it's the marketing/advertising department). MS is used heavily in an office enviornment and not sure how people would react to the change or really want it. But that will vary from user to user.