Windows Longhorn to Surpass OS X? o.O

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Check this out:



<LiL_Vash> Q: But Mac OS X already has a lot of these features. What's the big deal?

A: Apple has implemented some basic desktop composition features in Mac OS X "Panther." But the basic problem with Mac OS X isn't going away: It's a classic desktop operating system that doesn't offer anything in the way of usability advancements over previous desktop operating systems. Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X. In the future, Longhorn will further distance Windows from OS X. From a graphical standpoint, there won't be any comparison. As Microsoft revealed at the PDC 2003 conference, Longhorn is far more impressive technically than Panther.





WTF is up with that??
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 99
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    That's a Thurrot quote. Nothing more needs to be said.
  • Reply 2 of 99
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    That's a Thurrot quote. Nothing more needs to be said.



    That ain't true though.. I know it.. It must have been written by a Window$ fanboy....
  • Reply 3 of 99
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Proud iBook Owner 2k2

    That ain't true though.. I know it.. It must have been written by a Window$ fanboy....



    Thurrot IS a Windows fanboy.
  • Reply 4 of 99
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    you know it's funny that microsoft wont admit that apple is a competitor, and that it sucks, yet gates is always quick to compare windows to OS X, etc... what a dick.
  • Reply 5 of 99
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Well...if it does surpass OS X, we're still way ahead of Windows for the next 5 years.
  • Reply 6 of 99
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    I was interested in what he was saying until I got to this part: "Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X."



    Quack head. Next.
  • Reply 7 of 99
    I think when he said that XP is far superior to anything in OSX, he was talking about the Public Beta.
  • Reply 8 of 99
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iPeon

    I was interested in what he was saying until I got to this part: "Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X."



    Quack head. Next.




    Yeah exactly.. They're too Windows obsessed. They should open their "gates" and think clearer.
  • Reply 9 of 99
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    Pot, kettle, ... oh nevermind
  • Reply 10 of 99
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    "Our OS of 2 years in the future will beat your OS of today!"
  • Reply 11 of 99
    ensoniqensoniq Posts: 131member
    Was there a link to this article people are talking about? It helps to read the source...
  • Reply 12 of 99
    chaserchaser Posts: 63member
    Longhorn has a LONG ways to go, and by that time Apple will have released an even superior OS than that of Longhorns. Although Microsoft is releasing Longhorn in a few years, the time doesn't stop for Apple.
  • Reply 13 of 99
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Proud iBook Owner 2k2

    That ain't true though.. I know it.. It must have been written by a Window$ fanboy....



    Again THAT'S A Thurrot quote taken from



    http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp



    about midpage down. This man grates my nerves like no other. I always recognize his pedantic blathering. And he is a windows fanboy
  • Reply 14 of 99
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    If they really think that a task-based interface is leagues ahead of OS X in usability, then Longhorn will be light years ahead of OS X in usability... by a standard incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't pray facing Redmond every morning.



    Besides, OS X is incrementally introducing new ideas as Apple finds uses for them. In other words, such innovation as they introduce tends to be need-driven rather than conceptual. Microsoft, in many ways, reminds me of Apple 10 years ago: So fascinated with technology for its own sake, and so paralyzed by legacy, that they become oblivious to what their users actually want and need. Either Longhorn will be completely baffling, or Microsoft will do what they've been doing for a solid decade, and abandon as much of the way-out stuff they've been showing screenshots of for an interface that is built on top of the Windows 95 paradigm, so that it can be "turned off" by people who don't like whatever fresh hell they decide will replace Luna.



    The direction they're heading in, based on OneNote and Outlook 2003, is busy to the point of being disorienting, and based on adding more and more layers of "friendliness" between you and what you want to get done. That won't wash with anyone except, perhaps, Paul Thurrott.



    Oh, and as for the claims that it'll be more secure... sorry, Bill, but we've heard that how many times? I have yet to see evidence that anyone in a position of influence at Microsoft has any grasp of what security involves.
  • Reply 15 of 99
    Yeah. Windows has never been stable. Ever. Even XP Pro's Explorer crashes on me when I use it at school... its crap and it always will be no matter how many features they'll try to copy from us (OS X users).
  • Reply 16 of 99
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Proud iBook Owner 2k2

    Yeah. Windows has never been stable. Ever. Even XP Pro's Explorer crashes on me when I use it at school





    Strange. In more than two years that I am in a Win2k environment, I have yet to see that. Win2k has been extremely stable for me. And people say that XP is similar.



    Quote:



    ... its crap and it always will be no matter how many features they'll try to copy from us (OS X users).




    You talk about features copied in Windows Explorer in particular or Windows in general?



    Anyway, Apple too started to copy Windows features (fast user switch, Finder behavior and perhaps others). This is no more the point, I think. As the OSs evolve, the frontiers, feature-wise, fade. I believe what is important today and in the immediate future, is to achieve a high degree of technological perfection without compromising usability or frendliness of the system. Now "technological perfection" may be a relative term, but "usability or frendliness" are tested and approved or rejected by the users (thanks God, Paul Thurrott is not the only one), so they have a more objective meaning in some sense. And it appears that OS X does way better in this sector than WinXP or whatever.
  • Reply 17 of 99
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Proud iBook Owner 2k2

    (by Paul Thurrott)

    task-based interface are far superior





    Dear Paul Thurrott,



    Knowledge Navigator was a FAILURE.
  • Reply 18 of 99
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,095member
    Task-based interface... hmm...



    Doesn't Apple call this a "mode"? And haven't they been trying to reduce modal dialogs, so much so that in OS X, if you get one, you can still switch out of the app and do something else until you wish to address it.



    As they said in Inside Macintosh quoting: "Gentlemen, you overdo the mode."



    Then again, task-based is great for a company that needs a bunch of dumb terminal desktops with one application. The clerk can't do anything else. And OS X can be setup in a restrictive mode for such purposes.



    Again, what is the benefit of task-based as the foundation of an OS?
  • Reply 19 of 99
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Task-based interfaces are great when you have a specific limited amount of functions the user should have, like "burn CDs, write text files, send e-mail".



    Task-based interfaces are useless when the user *might* want to do anything *else*. The worst example of a task-based interface is Microsoft Agent, as seen in Microsoft Office's "Clippy" and Microsoft Windows XP's "search dog". "Do you want to..." - "What if NOT?".



    See the Knowledge Navigator series of videos of the late 80s to see what it's all about. Apple has since done enough research to realize that it's too restrictive. Microsoft hasn't. Thurrott is just a moron.
  • Reply 20 of 99
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Windows needs to be task-based because the interface is so terrible and inconsistant between apps that you need this holding-of-hand or layer-of-friendliness, as Amorph colorfully put it, otherwise lots of people would be totally lost.



    People don't need to be guided all the time. It's ok if you're a total newbie but humans have a something called a 'brain'. This 'brain' allows people to learn and remember. I don't need to be asked "shall I wipe your ass?" everytime I'm done going to the bathroom. I was taught how to wipe my ass when I was 3 in my house and I can now do it whenever I'm confronted by a public bathroom.



    A consistant interface is key. Someone that knows the basics of an app will easily apply what he knows to another app.
Sign In or Register to comment.