« Essential rules for understanding the Middle East | Main | Be prepared »
January 08, 2007
Microsoft versus Mac
Bill Gates and his minions are finally ready to release the long-delayed successor to Windows XP, the operating system called, "Vista."
It was Windows that drove me back into the waiting arms of my Mac; driver conflicts, random system crashes, and the dreaded Blue Screen of Death. I lost a partially-written chapter from a manuscript for my second book, and when the screaming, Tourette's-like fit passed, I ordered a Mac.
OS-X, the latest iteration of the operating system on my desktop and laptop, has been bulletproof and transparent; it stays out of the way, allowing me to work without interruption, carrying me through that book and the next without any drama or cursing -- at least, not at my computers.
And, just to keep my anger levels up, I always have the PCs at work to drive me batshit insane, with their Millennium Edition Windows OS to freeze, crash and burn when some case-related motion or grant application absolutely positively needs to be done.
Well, Vista is finally here, and while it's an improvement over its predecessor, it ain't no X.
[W]hen I'm using an OS and I want to describe how I interact with it, what's the description that best suits it?
For Mac OS X, it's the classic English butler. This OS is designed to make the times you have to interact with it as quick and efficient as possible. It expects that things will work correctly, and therefore sees no reason to bother you with correct operation confirmations.
If you plug in a mouse, there's not going to be any messages to tell you "that mouse you plugged in is now working." It's assumed you'll know that because you'll be able to instantly use the mouse. Plug in a USB or FireWire hard drive and the disk showing up on your desktop is all the information you need to see that the drive has correctly mounted. It is normally only when things are not working right that you see messages from Mac OS X.
Windows is ... well, Windows is very eager to tell you what's going on. Constantly. Plug something in, and you get a message. Unplug something and you get a message. If you're on a network that's having problems staying up, you'll get tons of messages telling you this.
It's rather like dealing with an overexcited Boy Scout ... who has a lifetime supply of chocolate-covered espresso beans. This gets particularly bad when you factor in things like the user-level implementation of Microsoft's new security features.
To put it simply, you can work on a Mac for hours, days even, and only minimally need to directly use the OS. With Vista? The OS demands your attention, constantly.
Not all the changes from XP to Vista strike the reviewer as an improvement; in fact, the older system seemed more logical and user-friendly than its new-and-improved offspring.
For example, in Windows XP you have a control panel called "Add or Remove Programs." While not elegant, it is clear. You know what that control panel's functionality is, no guessing. It adds and removes programs.
The Vista version? "Programs and Features." Huh? What does that do? Well, you don't know from the name, other than it has something to do with well, programs and features. When you think about it, that rather covers the entire OS and everything you'd do on a computer.
Yet "Add Hardware" is the same on both versions.
In Windows XP, you set your display options using the "Display" control panel. That's nice and clear. Vista? It's buried in "Personalization." Because when I want to change my monitor resolution, that's exactly what pops into my head as an experienced Windows user: Personalization. Yet mouse settings, which look to have been rolled into "Personalization," still have their own separate entry.
But that fact notwithstanding, the new Microsoft operating system has enough going for it to earn it "better-than-the-last-one" marks, although it isn't yet the Mac-killer Microsoft hoped it would be.
At the UI level, the human level, Vista is different far more often than it is better. Even so, I think it must be said that Vista is indeed an improvement on Windows XP. Honestly, I think that's the only metric that really counts when you think about it: Is Vista better enough than XP to be worth the upgrade? I'll say yes. This may be more of a comment on how bad XP really is more than how good Vista is.
However, is it significantly, or even slightly better than Mac OS X? Maybe in a couple of low-level ways, like the randomizing memory address usage function, or being able to use USB memory sticks as additional RAM, but at the human level? Not even close.
I've yet to see anything in Vista that blows away the Mac OS, even a version of the Mac OS that's over a year old. Microsoft still can't manage to make something simple and easy to use. Vista reeks of committee and design by massive consensus, while OS X shines from an intense focus on doing things in a simple, clear fashion and design for the user, not the programmer.
Sounds like there's no compelling reason to switch back to Windows, although the competition is a good way to ensure that the boffins at Apple keep improving their product, too.
Posted by Mike Lief at January 8, 2007 09:38 PM
| TrackBack