Mac OS X: Mac OS-X or Windows XP - Which one is most user friendly?
Mac OS-X or Windows XP - Which one is most user friendly?
by dj_white_rice - 5/25/05 5:42 PMI regularly use Windows XP and also Mac OS-X. I find that the Windows XP in more customizable and user friendly in that it does a lot of the work for me.
Here are my feelings on both operating systems.... what has been your experience?
Windows XP - Desktop Navigation: Excellent - You click on anything and it opens or at least tries to open. Folders open with a click and you can go as deep into the folder as needed, folders can be made to open in their own window, folders can be customized.
Mac OS-X - Desktop Navigation: Average - Your stuck with limited folder viewing options. Folders branch out with a funky menu when you open them, it takes more work to find what your looking for because you can't just pop open folder after folder. (What happened?? Used to be easier with the pre-OS-X versions)
Windows XP - Desk Top Customization: Excellent - Customizing the desk top is easy. Move things where you want them, have a trash can on your desk top, use most any graphic for your desk top picture, change your icons without needing an additional piece of software, change the desktop colors easily. Move the main menu to any side of the screen.
Mac OS-X - Desk Top Customization: Average - (Was better with OS-9 and OS-8) - Requires additional software to customize most desk top and menu features. Your pretty much stuck with the one Apple gives you without the software other then being able to change the photo on your desk top. No trash can (pre-Tiger) on the desk top, Top menu is stuck at the top (Can't relocate it)
Windows XP - Program Navigation: Above Average - Stick a shortcut of any program on your desktop, go to the main menu start button and a menu pops up that is easy to browse from the get go. Move the menu to any four sides of the screen as you like.
Mac OS-X - Program Navigation: Average - Unlike Windows XP's menu the Mac OS-X menu is firmly stuck to the top of the screen. Unlike previous versions of the Mac Operating system in which all of your control panels, menu items, printers were available from a drop down menu, the OSX version may have that option available but if it does I sure in the heck can't figure it out. I feel sorry for those upgrading from a previous Mac OS who are used to having the drop down menu. The main navigation with OS-X is something we saw under previous versions of the Mac OS..... a desktop launcher. It's a cute launcher, but personally I, like so many others, disabled the launcher in previous versions of the Mac OS. Unfortunately, our pretty much stuck needing it in order to launch your program applications unless you want to dig around in your hard drive folder (If you can find it). While the launcher bar can be moved to any side of the window, it often gets in the way even if you have it set to hide automatically when not in use. Basically, you have to use additional software to add back in many of the features lost between OS-9 and OS-X.
Windows XP - Loading files: Above Average - Open or download a file that windows does not recognize and it will attempt to locate something that will open it via the Internet. Of course you will need additional software to open some of the different types of compress files like Stuff-it, ZIP, Rar, etc. Most are available for free. Installing a new program is pretty much straight forward as well and many programs offer the ability to customize the software as you install it.
Mac OS-X - Loading files: Above Average - Most OS-X programs come installed in a disk image that opens up like a folder or a virtual disk on your desk top. You then either click it to being installation or move it to a folder on our hard drive. Installation this way makes it pretty simple though for the most part likes the customization features that installing a windows program offers. Since the current version of OS-X also comes with a emulator of OS-9, you can still open and load those programs too unless they are programs that interfere with OS-X and therefore disabled in advance to prevent installation.
Windows XP - Disk Clean Up: Above Average - Windows XP like the previous versions of windows software creates tons of little files all over the hard drive in different folders, so you need a intelligent way of digging them back out when you no longer need the program. Fortunately, Windows has a control panel that lets you both add and remove installed programs. (It doesn't always work) You can buy additional software that keeps tracks of all the files for easy removal but I have never felt the need to buy it. I bought a software uninstaller once and it was worse that what windows has built it. One excellent feature of windows is it's Scan Disk and Defragmenting software. Works great.
Mac OS-X - Disk Clean Up: Less than average - Almost every Mac operating system I have ever used has required the use of additional software in order to scan and defragment the drive, fortunately I always had a friend who had a copy to give away. Mac OS-X seemingly optomizes the disk after the automatic installation of each OS-X based program. I'm not sure what exactly it is doing when it does that, but it sure slows down your progress. Like previous versions of the OS you will want to invest in one of those stinking costly programs that can defragment and scan your disk for problems. (That's a bummer) As far as removing a file or program, you'll have to do that by hand as well. (Another bummer) Unlike Windows XP which has built-in software for removing programs, OS-X doesn't. Now to be fair, most of the OS-X programs are self contained and located in your applications folder (assuming your able to locate it), but there are some additional preference files and other files that get left in your mac even after you remove the software (That sucks) and unless you are an advanced OS-X user, well it's gonna be there for a long time. That is a bummer if you like to keep your system clean of the places you have been and the things you have done...
Windows XP: Security - Below Average/ But Improving - Let's face it, Windows operating systems have more holes than swiss cheese. If there is a hole in it, there is also a bug on the Internet or on a friends floppy, CD, Flash Reader, looking for that hole to climb into. Not only that, use Windows XP as is and your gonna have 5,000 or more spyware files and other pieces of creatively written software living on your computer sending hidden messages to it's masters around the globe. However, I have to give Windows XP makers a big thumbs up when it comes to their recent determination to plug up holes, offer perhaps the most advanced spyware blocking software and plans for the release of a anti-virus software... that gets them big Kudos in my book. It simply took them forever and ever to figure out that this was their responsibilty. After all, they made the software with lots of holes, whey should we the consumers who already have to pay mega-bucks to keep up with their newest operating system releases have to also buy additional software to fix the holes they left open? Additionally, Windows XP release SP-2 adds basic firewall protection for no additional cost. Cleaning out internet browser cache on windows versions of browsers is similar on all the browsers and requires minimum computer user skills.
Mac OS-X: Security - Above Average - Mac OS-X has one of the best reputations for having the least amount of bugs and most secure system. It would be hands down the best computer to use online the Mac versions of browsers were capable of all the things a Windows browser is capable of. Spyware? What's that! Most spyware is targeted at Windows computer users as is most of the current virus. I've only found one or two virus softwares available for the Mac. Virex by Network Associates is the cheapest if you can actually find somewhere that sells it. Network Associates has tons of virus updates and software options for windows users and so do tons of other vendors, but on the Mac OS-X these simply not enough business for them. Mac OS-X has a built-in fire wall as well as a pretty tight security set-up to keep wanna-be hackers out of your computer. It's kind of funny cause you can take a new Windows computer out of the box and plug it into the Internet for a few hours and end up with tons of virus and spyware files in your system. But with the Mac OS-X I'm not even convienced the antivirus software has done anything yet, not to mention the lack of need for extra software to block and capture spyware bugs. So in this area Mac OS-X wins hands down, at least until the operating system gets popular to become the future target of all those little boys with way to much time on their hands who look for the holes and ways to send their bugs into them. Sadly, if anyone makes any spyware bugs that dig deep into the OS-X system... most people will be out of luck since there is nothing I know of available for OS-X that easily removes files. Unlike Windows XP which the daring could dig in the files and yank out the bugs, Mac OS-X just isn't that easy to dig through.
Windows XP: Overall - Above Average - Depends on what your going to use your computer for. If your going to want to surf the web safely then you might want to get a Mac OS-X based system. If your looking for gaming, Internet compatibility, or a fast computer then your going to want to go with a computer offering Windows XP.
Mac OS-X: Overall - Average - Yes, it's got the security issue beaten unlike the hole infested Windows XP, but at this point Macs for the most part are still G4 processors with a max speed limit slightly above 1.25 ghz. The new Mac G5 processors come with a maximum 800 Front Side Bus speed and are breaking the 2 ghz barrier with a 64bit processor, but they cost up to $2,000 more. If you can swing the cost then go Mac. I think OS-X is still just an infant. Should Apple continue borrowing ideas from Windows XP and maintain it's security features, they will eventually out shine Microsoft. (But, honestly... I've been watching Apple since the 1980's and their management teams assigned to coming up with the corporate visions and directions for the Mac processors and operating systems have a terrible reputation for doing the obviously stupid. Sadly, while I own a brand new Mac Mini that sits on top of a newly custom built Pentium 4 3.2 ghz processor running Windows XP pro. Apple still has not re-earned my trust from tons of stupid things it's done in the past that cost me and many others some of our cash. It may be a few years before Apple computers is able to fully redeem itself. I switched to Windows and left the Mac operating systems in the 1990's, its only now I am trying them out again (Something I had sworn I would never do). They make a great computer and great operating system and since OS-X is now based on a unix platform, tons of people are flocking to it over Windows XP. However, Windows XP is a more consumer friendly and consumer industry accepted platform than the Mac OS-X.
In a nutshell Mac.
by R. Proffitt
- 5/25/05 5:59 PM
In reply to: Mac OS-X or Windows XP - Which one is most user friendly? by dj_white_rice
But if I had gone that road I would not be making much money in my field. Too bad Apple pulled the plug on other than Apple makers a few years ago.
Bob
Nutshell a good description of Apple
by dj_white_rice - 5/25/05 6:20 PM In reply to: In a nutshell Mac. by R. Proffitt
This is true, Apple has kept a dedicated following in the art, media, music and other industries and I think operating systems prior to OS-X helped account for that. Pre-OS-X had almost 20 years of development and a solid following with those software manufactures supporting the platform, but windows eventually caught up in these areas and now often have much more advanced software for graphics etc.
However, I must confess something.... I am writing this on my Mac Mini... lol. I prefer it for all of my art and graphic programs because it seems much easier having the drop down menu at the top and general software navigation once your using an application.
By the way, one thing that encouraged me toward OS-X this year was the USB connectivity, but more importantly is the "right click" supported feature on my mouse. Everything connected to my Mac Mini is windows based equipment including my monitor. Only the Mac Mini and a Mac USB Keyboard are Mac. Everything else is Windows based.
I use a IOGEAR KYM USB Switcher that lets me use my VGA monitor, Microsoft Wireles Mouse and PS-2 keyboard with my PC or Mac via a double tap on the keyboard. I also have the PC and Mac set-up via a ethernet router/switch so I can use Microsofts Remote Desktop on either computer to access them. Further I use a Mac/PC USB to USB network cable for easy access to files on either computer with a transfer rate of 104 megs per second, I also now use a IOGEAR USB 2-to-1 Peripheral Sharing Switch connected to a generic USB hub that allows the Mac and PC to share all of the USB devices I have, like a card reader, HP All-In-One printer and a digital camera.
It wonderful to see how OS-X has made the Mac so easy to network with Windows and other operating system networks.
Yah, one of these days I'll start liking Apple again if they make a affordable G-5 processor.... lol
Nutshell
by taboma. - 5/25/05 10:37 PM In reply to: Nutshell a good description of Apple by dj_white_riceMac Mini is a G5 processor I thought. I use both Windoze and Mac. Mac is simpler and user-friendly. You do not have to use a multi-button mouse either if you prefer not to with a Mac. I use a single button optical mouse and everything is fine. Simple, and to to the point! There is a forum issue on multi-button mouses somewhere out there. Check it out.
Thanks for your input.
Kevin
(NT) Mac Mini is a G4 processor
by mrmacfixit - 5/26/05 4:47 AM
In reply to: Nutshell by taboma.
Amazing performance
by mrmacfixit - 5/28/05 11:28 AM
In reply to: Nutshell a good description of Apple by dj_white_rice
"Further I use a Mac/PC USB to USB network cable for easy access to files on either computer with a transfer rate of 104 megs per second"
Either you have something special going on or you are confused. That is one heck of a transfer speed. A 300MB file moving from one machine to the other in less than 3 seconds, WOW! Where can I get one of those cables!
I wonder how it speeds up the USB 2.0 speed from a theoretical 480 Mbps (Megabitspersecond) to a lightning fast 104 MBps (MegaBytespersecond). That's about 8 times faster than regular USB 2.0 and probably means that USB and Firewire are doomed to extinction as a network transfer protocol.
And we saw it here first!
Coupled with that, both machines are connected to a Router/Switch and the KYM(sic) switch. Microsoft Remote Desktop is also deemed necessary to "access them" when correct setup of the Mac and PC would allow access to both machines.
About the only thing I like about this setup is the use of the IOGEAR USB 2 to 1 switch. Now that is a neat piece of kit.
JMO
P
Wow
by strickjh2005 - 5/31/05 5:29 AM In reply to: Amazing performance by mrmacfixit
You dont have to be a jerk about it. He made a mistake. Who doesnt?
bits and bytes
by Crucegg435 - 6/3/05 1:38 PM In reply to: Amazing performance by mrmacfixit
First of all bytes are bigger than bits, bytes are made up of bits. So if one byte contains 8 bits, or any combination of 8 ones and zeros, so he must have meant megabytes. Why do you think downloading takes a while on cale internet, even though it is faster? because it moves files at a maximum 0f 6 megabits, or 6 thousand bits. do the math and figure that if one byte equals 8 bits, then a megabyte equals 8 thousand bits, cable can only transport 6 thousand bits a second. So the guy must be talking about bytes, so firewire and usb are safe for now.
Huh??
by dmmv - 10/14/05 10:32 PM In reply to: bits and bytes by Crucegg435kilo = 1,000 (one thousand)
mega = 1,000,000 (one million)
giga = 1,000,000,000 (one billion)
tera = 1,000,000,000,000 (one billion)
KB = kilobytes
Kb = kilobits
MB = megabytes
Mb = megabits
GB = gigabytes
Gb = gigabits
Etcetera....
1024 bytes = 1 (one) kilobyte (KB)
1024 kilobytes = 1 (one) megabyte (MB)
(figure that one out!)
1 (one) byte = 8 (eight) bits.
That's why the numbers don't add up when you calculate storage size, and the math you did doesn't match the numbers on the HD box you just bought.
Always been that way. Even before Al Gore.
XP vs OSX
by voxampguy - 10/7/05 6:20 AM In reply to: Nutshell a good description of Apple by dj_white_riceI think that the original poster really has focused on extreme technical issues that don't really matter unless one has a lot of spare time instead of what really matters...productivity! I have not been too invovled since the old days in matters of "Mac vs. PC's" because the battle has been over for a while now. However, my point of contention has always been that it should not matter what os you run. More and more it doesn't as Microshaft is losing its control on the industry. Oh, they are trying desperately to hang on, but the movement is clear. Apple has finally realized their strength, and that is in development. iTunes, iPod, Garage Band, Final Cut...they have all markedly changed the way that people do things on a computer. Now, if they would just take some of these products to the Wintel side. Many of my friends thought I was nuts because they could not imagine using a mac. But now most of them use iTunes and iPods on their PC. They can imagine it now. Most people would rather do cool stuff or get their work done rather than "dink" with their OS interface. This guy has a lot of spare time.
Yes Productivity
by colorguy - 10/14/05 7:11 AM In reply to: Productivity? by BerardinoI have used Macs and PCs since they were created. I have both on my desk right now and use both every day. I must use the PC for my job and regularly use Notes, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. I use the PC until I need to get some real work done. Although the response talks about iTunes and media applications, the case is so true whenever you are developing anything that is document oriented.
I also don't understand how anyone can make an objective comparison of Mac OS X and XP and say that XP is anywhere close. The most basic of tasks like adding a printer are vastly different. Seconds on OSX and sometimes hours on XP. Get real. If you could switch computers the way you can switch brands of tissues and if the IT guys weren't so worried about losing their jobs, there would be many more businesses using Macs. How many Presidents and CEOs have Macs while IT forces the rest of the company to use PCs?
Presidents and CEO using Mac
by Berardino - 10/14/05 7:23 AM In reply to: Yes Productivity by colorguyAs far as how many Presidents and CEOs use Mac while the rest of the corporation are "forced" to use Windows, my guess would be maybe one? The one that believes listening to music equals productivity.
That's right, PRODUCTIVITY! It's not a toy when used by pros
by mikebutler - 10/14/05 1:31 PM In reply to: Productivity? by Berardino==========================================
''I was under the impression that i-pod [sic] and i-tune [sic] were for leisure time. And for sure they are fun (and expensive). However they are productive only to the manufacturer.''
==========================================
I suppose that's true if you are an accountant, but for those of us who are not accountants and who actually work with music, both the iPod and iTunes are tremendously versatile tools for an attractive price (and since iTunes is free, it's certainly not ''expensive!'').
There are already countless working DJs who have incorporated the iPod into their systems, and who have benefited from the convenience of being able to purchase single songs easily without schlepping to today's terminally lame CD stores to buy the whole CD.
And when producing corporate meetings, I used to have to lug (or pay to rent) a bulky professional CD player and a stack of CDs to plug into the sound reinforcement system for playback, which have all been replaced with a pocket-sized 5.6 ounce tool that carries a library of several thousand songs at my fingertips. Now that's productivity!
Productivity - The Mac is Not a Toy
by Lights1912 - 10/15/05 7:59 AM In reply to: That's right, PRODUCTIVITY! It's not a toy when used by pros by mikebutlerMikebutler pointed out in his post that the MAC is used by music professionals; it is also the primary tool in the graphic design and print industry. I do not refer to the secretary who produces a company advertisement, newsletter or flier in Microsoft Publisher and then runs it off to Kinko’s to have 500 copies made; I refer to true offset printing.
I have been a graphic designer for over 25 years and began my career working with paste-up mechanicals, Exacto Knives, blue boards, gum erasers and a lot of rubber cement. Since the advent of the Lisa, Apple has dominated the print industry. Offset presses are calibrated for use with the MAC not with the MS Windows PC, probably because the MAC and Apple are predecessors to MS. (Let’s not forget Uncle Bill worked for Apple when he began his career.)
Next there is the issue of pure economics. An offset printing press is a very expensive piece of equipment, sometimes costing as much as $500,000 USD. Therefore when a new Apple O/S is released, presses are calibrated for that new release through updates. When a new printing press is released, it is calibrated to the latest Apple O/S. (Just like when HP releases either driver updates or a new desk top scanner for the home PC user.) It becomes a never ending cycle. In keeping with economics, there is also the question of downtime. I produce not only print but also web. The bulk of my web work is done on my PC (I prefer to use my MAC’s for the graphics portion of it.) The reason for this is simple, the majority of home users are using an MS operating system and I can best judge the final output of the page by producing it and viewing it on a PC. I can not begin to tell you how many times my MS XP Pro system has frozen up while I am in the middle of producing a job or a portion of a job. I can not begin to try and estimate how many re-installs of Windows I have had to do either; because of security leaks which caused bugs, viruses, Trojans, etc, or even because I installed a software or hardware upgrade and XP Pro decided it just did not want to play nice and crashed my system. This is down time and it can be very expensive. I have NEVER had to reinstall my O/S on any of my MACs or Apples, nor have I experienced major system crashes on them.
In understanding the MAC one also has to understand it is a UNIX based operating system. Therefore, it is capable or installing and running open source software and programs. I do not know how much more economically feasible it can be for a company to legally download free software.
Next there is quality. I do not care how good your graphics card is and how well you have calibrated your screen, what you see on a PC is NOT what you are going to see in print. The MAC is calibrated to such an extent, that when I produce something in a Pantone Spot Colour, what I see on my screen is only slightly off from the actual print output. I can hold a Pantone sample chip up to the screen on my MAC and there will be very little difference. This is just the quality I experience when I am working on a project. Take it to the printer. The secretary I mentioned before who is producing the company newsletter in MS Publisher and takes it to Kinko’s is not getting a high quality output, not to impugn the work of Kinko’s they do excellent work and I frequently use them myself for certain jobs. But Kinko’s is producing a high resolution laser print. Offset Printing is done by layering inks one on top of the other to produce the final output such as a magazine and certain colour values are assigned. The inks are then absorbed into the paper. A laser printer uses static electricity, photon light particles and heated rollers to basically glue the ink to the page. Rather than the inks being layered, the toners are placed on the paper, in one single operation, at the same time. Therefore the colour lacks the depth and truth of an offset production.
What about speed and reliability? Let’s not forget the MAC is a UNIX based system, hence no .dll hell. A MAC is call on demand, it does not load the drivers for every single piece of hardware and software I have running at startup, it only loads them as I use that hardware or software, unlike an MS system. This results in speed. Graphics programs such as Corel Paint or Draw or Adobe PS or Illustrator use a lot of resources. When I am running PhotoShop I want to know that ALL I am running is PhotoShop, not a Heinz 57 of additional processes that are going to slow me down. This does not happen on the MAC, which is probably why it is the O/S of choice for those in the Music, Film and Graphics Industries. I know I do not have to worry about my system crashing and, while I am a firm believer in save as you go, there are times, especially when you are so involved in a particular project, you get tunnel vision, and you forget to save. (Yes I have lost projects or parts of projects in the past.)
Finally there is security. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that CEO’s and company presidents use MAC’s while their subordinates are relegated to the PC and this was questioned. Again I would state the MAC is a UNIX based system. UNIX is known for its security while MS is known for its lack thereof. Perhaps the person who thinks only one company executive is using a MAC while the rest of the corporate world’s chief officers are using PC’s would like to have his financial records loaded into a Window’s based security system? When you buy a pair of Levi’s at Macy’s, when you order a Whopper at Burger King, when you use the ATM, when you call your broker and buy 1,000 share of Apple, when you run a search on Google, when you get into your car and turn the ignition - you are using UNIX based programming. So why then would a company executive use a PC? The MAC is a user friendly alternative to most Linux based operating systems and therefore, YES most corporate executives, governmental leaders, institutes of higher learning and financial institutions are using Apple, or in some cases Linux, based operating systems for their most secure purposes. Why MS for the rest of the company? Because that is what they are accustomed to and it is easier to provide the staff with an MS based PC than to go through the costs of retraining an entire company. If Uncle Bill had not left Apple and started his own corporation, perhaps Apple would be the standard world wide.
So in answer to the previous postings – YES professionals in numerous fields use the MAC O/S for various reasons including Industry Standards, speed, reliability, security and quality. Anyone who cares to tell you otherwise needs to get off their soap box and do their research.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
