How is the Mac OS X's user interface better than Windows Vista's?
Hello! 
I know the Mac OS X user interface is vastly superior to Windows Vista's and I regularly come across a lot of small features that make me marvel at Apple's attention to detail. I love it that Exposé shows the titles of windows when you roll over them, that you can instantly know the meaning of any word you come across in a Cocoa application, TextEdit gives you the option of reviewing changes when you try to close the document, shortcuts follow files even when they are moved or renamed, etc.
Now I have been assigned the task of writing an article on Mac OS X's user interface and comparing it with Vista's. However, though I know there are many features I can enumerate, I can remember only a few. Therefore, I am asking your help. Please mention any features of Mac OS X and the bundled applications' user interfaces that make using a Mac a more pleasant experience when compared to using Windows Vista. Even the tiniest of features are welcome. I'll be very grateful for the help.

I know the Mac OS X user interface is vastly superior to Windows Vista's and I regularly come across a lot of small features that make me marvel at Apple's attention to detail. I love it that Exposé shows the titles of windows when you roll over them, that you can instantly know the meaning of any word you come across in a Cocoa application, TextEdit gives you the option of reviewing changes when you try to close the document, shortcuts follow files even when they are moved or renamed, etc.
Now I have been assigned the task of writing an article on Mac OS X's user interface and comparing it with Vista's. However, though I know there are many features I can enumerate, I can remember only a few. Therefore, I am asking your help. Please mention any features of Mac OS X and the bundled applications' user interfaces that make using a Mac a more pleasant experience when compared to using Windows Vista. Even the tiniest of features are welcome. I'll be very grateful for the help.

Comments
Gadgets on the desktop are pointless because they are behind everything. When I need to get to something, dashboard brings the widgets forward but hides them away when I don't need them.
The resize buttons are different sizes. This is illogical and unnecessary. There's no way you can determine if it's more probable that a user would want to close the window than maximize it at any given time so why make the close button bigger?
The Office 2007 interface is terrible. Even compared to old versions of Office. I sat looking at the toolbar just wondering what categories everything was in. Apple goes by the rule of keeping it simple and less is more. Microsoft throw all the options into a pile with little organisation.
You can see this in their control panel dialogs that have tabs within tabs withing windows. They also have this really stupid action where if you have two rows of tabs and click the top one, it jumps to the bottom so then the tab next to it isn't the one that was there a second ago and it jumps again. It's infuriatingly stupid.
How is the Mac OS X's user interface better than Windows Vista's?
In some ways Mac OS X's UI is better. But in many ways it is not - such as networking, filesharing, Get Info, lack of true full-screen window mode, right click contextual menu proliferation, the Finder windows, save/open dialogs, etc., etc.
I'm a dual platform user and I disagree with your list except for "true full screen window mode". For example, I right click all the time on my Mac with my Mighty Mouse to get contextual menus. Perhaps you could elaborate on the items on your list and specify the differences berween Mac and Vista.
Aryayush
First, Vista has many different "forms" so in doing any comparison make sure you take note of this. Home Basic and Business Premier are much different implementations of Vista.
Second, I suggest you go to Paul Thurrott's highly respected Windows Super site
http://www.winsupersite.com/
He is well respected in the Windows community but is very fair in his assessments of Mac OSX and the different forms of Vista. He's not an MS evangelist. (Beware of the Mac evangelists on this site). He has written many good, in-depth articles on Vista and was a Vista beta tester. Take a look also at his reviews of OSX Tiger and the "preview" of Leopard.
While I think OSX is far superior, keep an open mind and make your own judgements.
"... how does the new Aero interface stack up compared to Windows XP and Mac OS X in terms of low-level user interface efficiency? Given the previous lackluster track-record of Windows in terms of User Interface Friction, it seemed important to measure if the new release improved on some of the weak spots of previous releases, such as menu latency and mouse precision."
1. Menu latency (time needed for menus to drop and submenus to display)
2. Desktop Operations ("opening folders, deleting elements" etc.)
3. Mouse precision ("measur(ing) both the time necessary to complete a series of precision tasks and the number of errors) using the same mouse and mousepad across platforms).
"The most preoccupying results of these benchmarks concerned mouse precision and efficiency: in these benchmarks (which measure both the time necessary to complete a series of precision tasks and the number of errors, and used the same mouse and mouse-pad for all tests), Windows Vista scored significantly worse than Windows XP. Windows Vista scored a Mouse Precision Error Coefficient of 0.52, compared with 0.40 for Windows XP, and 0.08 (!) for Mac OS X"
Good post. Data using objective benchmarks. How refreshing.
Can you do this with Flip 3D? Or is it simply like alt - tab? (or a prettier version of XP's alt - tab)?
Macvault
I'm a dual platform user and I disagree with your list except for "true full screen window mode". For example, I right click all the time on my Mac with my Mighty Mouse to get contextual menus. Perhaps you could elaborate on the items on your list and specify the differences berween Mac and Vista.
Aryayush
First, Vista has many different "forms" so in doing any comparison make sure you take note of this. Home Basic and Business Premier are much different implementations of Vista.
Second, I suggest you go to Paul Thurrott's highly respected Windows Super site
http://www.winsupersite.com/
He is well respected in the Windows community but is very fair in his assessments of Mac OSX and the different forms of Vista. He's not an MS evangelist. (Beware of the Mac evangelists on this site). He has written many good, in-depth articles on Vista and was a Vista beta tester. Take a look also at his reviews of OSX Tiger and the "preview" of Leopard.
While I think OSX is far superior, keep an open mind and make your own judgements.
Did you just say that he is unbiased towards Mac OS X? The guy who keeps griping about not being able to run Mac OS X on his PC?
I'm going to have to disagree with everything you just said except that he's respected by Windows Users.
I found the Article
Sebastian
Hello!
I know the Mac OS X user interface is vastly superior to Windows Vista's and I regularly come across a lot of small features that make me marvel at Apple's attention to detail. I love it that Exposé shows the titles of windows when you roll over them, that you can instantly know the meaning of any word you come across in a Cocoa application, TextEdit gives you the option of reviewing changes when you try to close the document, shortcuts follow files even when they are moved or renamed, etc.
Now I have been assigned the task of writing an article on Mac OS X's user interface and comparing it with Vista's. However, though I know there are many features I can enumerate, I can remember only a few. Therefore, I am asking your help. Please mention any features of Mac OS X and the bundled applications' user interfaces that make using a Mac a more pleasant experience when compared to using Windows Vista. Even the tiniest of features are welcome. I'll be very grateful for the help.
I'm going to help you out with this one because the Mac UI is one of my favorites
- Windows do not default to a Full Screen View on Mac OS X, it's a waste of screen estate.
- When I close a Window it doesn't quit the Application like it does on Windows because the Application is self contained in the Window
- Windows don't have a Menubar on Mac OS X. The only Menubar is the one at the top of the screen.
- There is no Start Menu on Mac OS X. It was always hard to find anything in that.
- Exposè, F9 shows all of my Windows, and F10 Shows all the Windows of the Application I'm in. F11 hides all Windows so I can access my Desktop and F12 brings up the Dashboard so I don't have to keep it in my Dock.
- On my Macbook I have 2 Finger Scrolling with my Trackpad. I have no need for a scroll wheel and because the Trackpad is so close to the Keyboard I can easily access it without moving my Thumbs too much. So if I need to scroll I just rest one Thumb on the Trackpad and navigate with the other.
- The Button on my Macbook's trackpad is not very thick so I don't accidently press it.
- System Controls like Screen Brightness and Volume Control are located in the Function Keys.
- Spotlight can search out anything I need, but I rather prefer Quicksilver. Quicksilver isn't part of Mac OS X though so I won't say much more on it.
- Command+Tab and Command+` feels smoother on Mac OS X then Alt+Tab on Windows.
- In Exposè there are live previews of Video for example
- If I minimize a Window it goes to my Dock, and if it's video, yes there is a live preview.
- Everything from Icons to Text looks a lot nicer on my Macbook then it would on a PC.
Also I'm going to teach you a little trick I figured out using Command+Tab/` and Exposè. To pull it off successfully you need a lot of Windows open. At least one Application should have Multiple Windows.Switch to an Application with only one Window open and hit F9. Once you're in Exposè use Command+Tab to navigate to a different application, one with Multiple Windows is Preferable. Now Hit F10, it will show all the Windows, and now you can navigate through it's Windows in Exposè. That's the whole trick and it's a rather nice one.
Sebastian
Did you just say that he is unbiased towards Mac OS X? The guy who keeps griping about not being able to run Mac OS X on his PC?
I'm going to have to disagree with everything you just said except that he's respected by Windows Users.
so you are saying it would be bad to able to run osX on a pc? ....right. While I can understand the marketing wisdom behind Apple's decision not to license osX on an open platform, can you not appreciate that for a lot of people it would be sweet to install osX on their pc?
Have you ever actually read any of Thurrtt's reviews on Mac OSX? On Vista? IMO, he writes very balanced and unbiased reviews on the pros and cons of both OSX and Vista. Among other things, read his Aug, 2006 review of the pre-release of Leopard.
so you are saying it would be bad to able to run osX on a pc? ....right. While I can understand the marketing wisdom behind Apple's decision not to license osX on an open platform, can you not appreciate that for a lot of people it would be sweet to install osX on their pc?
Apple is a hardware company. Asking them to license Mac OS X is like asking them to shoot Steve Jobs in the back. Mac OS X is their competitive advantage over all of the rest.
Sebastian
Slewis,
Have you ever actually read any of Thurrtt's reviews on Mac OSX? On Vista? IMO, he writes very balanced and unbiased reviews on the pros and cons of both OSX and Vista. Among other things, read his Aug, 2006 review of the pre-release of Leopard.
OK before I refreshed I found an article that I was looking for on RoughlyDrafted, you'll find a link in the original post.
Sebastian
Apple is a hardware company. Asking them to license Mac OS X is like asking them to shoot Steve Jobs in the back. Mac OS X is their competitive advantage over all of the rest.
Sebastian
can you not understand the difference between asking them to license osX and personaly wishing you could run osX on your pc?
That said, I agree with you. Thurrott only seems balanced because he has to concede certain points to Tiger. He's notorious for comparing Mac OS X to Vista, even years before it was released. He's also the person that dismissed Leopard features as totally useless because Windows has had some extra basic system backup tools for a few years, or because Linux had virtual desktops first.
Ok, I found the link and saw Thurrott's comments as reported in the RoughlyDrafted article. Having read almost all of Thurrott;s reviews and his weekly Blog, I can say that some of the comments are somewhat out of context. I'm having a hard time trying to understand what your point is with regard to Thurrott. Again, I suggest you actually read some of his reviews. He likes some things Apple does in OSX and some things MS does (will be doing) in Vista. Please enlighten me. I want to understand your point of view.
Thanks.
RoughlyDrafted. There's a bastion of impartiality if there ever was one.
That said, I agree with you. Thurrott only seems balanced because he has to concede certain points to Tiger. He's notorious for comparing Mac OS X to Vista, even years before it was released. He's also the person that dismissed Leopard features as totally useless because Windows has had some extra basic system backup tools for a few years, or because Linux had virtual desktops first.
Not true Gregmightdothat. If you read the Leopard review he says that "Time Machine is a truly good idea". He then discusses the history of a similiar program in Windows Server 2003 and its probable implimentation in Vista.
He also praises Spaces and describes the history of this type of application in Linux. His final words are "Apple's version (of multiple desktops) is obviously more polished and, well, Apple-like.:
He also says "Apple is working dramatically to improve how well Leopard will work for people with disabilities, and they certainly deserve credit for this work".
I could go on but I fail to see how he says (in your words) " Leopard is totally useless".
can you not understand the difference between asking them to license osX and personaly wishing you could run osX on your pc?
I know the difference, and I've been on Dell IdeaStorm these past 2 days and already shot down 3 people asking for Dell to try and negotiate with Apple. Paul Thurrot is one of those people who thought he knew Apple better than Apple, currently Apple is doing just fine without his advice.
Sebastian
RoughlyDrafted. There's a bastion of impartiality if there ever was one.
That said, I agree with you. Thurrott only seems balanced because he has to concede certain points to Tiger. He's notorious for comparing Mac OS X to Vista, even years before it was released. He's also the person that dismissed Leopard features as totally useless because Windows has had some extra basic system backup tools for a few years, or because Linux had virtual desktops first.
It's also one of the few sites I allow an RSS Widget on my Dashboard for
When he talked about Leopard features, he mentioned something in Server 2003. I looked into it and as it turns out, Time Machine is more dynamic, and probably millions of times easier to use. Spaces on the other hand is a natural extension of Exposè, though Apple turned it into a seperate App just like Dashboard, it all uses Exposè.
But if he truly liked Mac OS X, he probably wouldn't be running a Supersite for Windows only to try and compare Windows and Mac OS X at every turn.
Sebastian
Slewis,
Ok, I found the link and saw Thurrott's comments as reported in the RoughlyDrafted article. Having read almost all of Thurrott;s reviews and his weekly Blog, I can say that some of the comments are somewhat out of context. I'm having a hard time trying to understand what your point is with regard to Thurrott. Again, I suggest you actually read some of his reviews. He likes some things Apple does in OSX and some things MS does (will be doing) in Vista. Please enlighten me. I want to understand your point of view.
Thanks.
Well as I said in a post just before this one, he wouldn't run a Supersite for Windows only to write a few reviews that compares Windows and Mac OS X at every single turn. He would also try to understand Apple's position as a hardware company against other hardware companies, not against Microsoft. True Apple themselves compare Mac OS X to Windows at Macworld and WWDC, the main selling point of their computers is that they have Mac OS X.
Apple makes fantastic hardware, but anybody can stick a camera in the bezel. The entire reason I bought a Mac was for Mac OS X.
Even in his Tiger Review he can't seem to understand the basic fundamentals of Mac OS X.
...and though recent file system niceties like the My Documents folder in Windows (simply called Documents in OS X) try to simplify matters,
Sure he's praising Spotlight for all it's worth but it's not even worth the praise most people give it, and Documents doesn't correspond to "My Documents" because My Documents corresponds to the Home Folder which makes much more sense then referring to every file on your computer as a document.
Not coincidentally, Microsoft is working on similar, if further-reaching, technology for Longhorn. Apple's solution, however, is here right now and it appears to work quite well. Score one for Apple.
Not coincidentally at all, but further reaching? Nope. Spotlight doesn't search system folders, but it searches anything you would be looking for. Bonus: You can search Mail without opening Mail, I don't believe this is possible in Windows Mail. He places far too much confidence in Microsoft's ability. But yes, Score 1 for Apple, for actually delivering it instead of talking about it years before hand.
In the previous version of Mac OS X, version 10.3, Apple introduced a feature for power users called Exposé that seeks to help manage the multiple applications and windows one typically opens in the course of using a Mac. But Exposé is a weird solution, requiring you to hit various "hot keys" (read: A function keys) in order to trigger its display, kind of a throwback of sorts to the early days of DOS-based applications. Anyway, Apple apparently decided that Exposé was so cool, they added another Exposé-like application to Tiger. It's called Dashboard, and it's gotten the company in a bit of trouble because it so closely mimics a third party solution called Konfabulator.
I have no idea how Exposè is a throwback to the DOS days, especially since they never used DOS, or why you wouldn't use a hotkey for this kind of very basic functionality. Perhaps Mr.Thurrot would prefer Apple to create a mind control way of switching windows. Exposè is quite possibly the best UI idea to ever hit one's desktop since the Mouse and GUI came along.
As for Konfabulator, true Apple took a good idea and made it better, but Mr.Thurrot would probably disagree with me on that one as well.
Um, right. Since PCs and Macs have had tiny utility applications since the early 1980's, it's unclear why Dashboard widgets can't simply work on the normal Mac desktop (which is how Konfabulator works, incidentally). Having to move into and out of the Dashboard to perform these tasks seems a bit unnecessary. Why segregate them like that?
Well I won't point out the obvious like how Dashboard loads seperately from the Desktop so when you logon it doesn't spike the Memory and CPU usage until it's called up, at that point it loads the Dashboard and you don't have to do it again until you log on again. But yes, we've had similar ideas since the 1980s:
An opposing group claims that the idea of Konfabulator was actually not new. They point to Desk Accessories, a feature found in early Apple Macintosh operating systems in 1984. They point out that many of the functions the original Desk Accessories had were similar to what Konfabulator provided (or could provide). Among them were things such as a calculator and a clock. Some even draw the conclusion that Konfabulator is ripping off Apple, and not the other way around.
But of course that passage is wrong, and Wikipedia later added 2 more paragraphs below this one stating the obvious, Widgets are based off the web and for the most part, use Web Tech like Javascript, HTML, or CSS. So Mr.Thurrot is wrong on that account as well as half right about Dashboard being a Konfabulator ripoff. But just outright wrong if he thinks you shouldn't be able to see your Desktop anymore.
Overall, I've always been a big fan of Safari, and I'd use it rather than Firefox or IE if it were available on Windows. It's an excellent application.
I too am wondering why he bothers reviewing products he knows he isn't going to use. Moving on.
I think I've made my point. He approaches everything in Mac OS X from a Windows user perspective. More importantly, if he likes Mac OS X so much, why doesn't he use it instead of reviewing it? The truth is he only uses Mac OS X so he can compare it to other platforms and yes, he will appear unbiased if you just look at the surface because he praises Mac OS X, but doesn't give a damn about it.
Maybe his Boot Camp review will give us an answer:
And best of all, we as users win, too, because now we can have the best of both worlds: the elegance of Apple hardware coupled with Windows, the operating system that runs all those applications we want to run.
You too can run Norton, McAfee, OneCare Live, and Trend Micro! Sounds like Fun!
Color me blind but exactly what Application on Windows is worth using? It can't be Outlook Express, it can't be Windows Address Book, maybe it's Internet Explorer! Yes, I've always wanted a buggy browser where the biggest update in 5 years can't even topple Open Source Chaos.
Some Mac users don't see it that way. They'd like you to believe that Mac OS X is all anyone would ever need, and they're actually quite a bit distressed that anyone would want to run Windows on a Mac. Get a life: This software will open up the world of Apple to a much wider audience and if OS X is as great as they think it is, surely some of those people will start spending time with OS X instead of Windows. I can't really see the issue there.
Mac OS X is the only OS you would ever need, or it would be if it weren't for that damned Inertia that keeps the corporate world wrapped around Microsoft. There are very few Windows Applications worth running and they all have Guns and huge Maps with battle tanks or sorcerors.
Other then that, the only other reason to keep Windows around is because IT departments either can't or won't move the infrastructure around and you need it for work.
Sebastian
Certainly not by Mac users who can see throught his BS. I'm not surprised Windows enthusiasts listen to him. They run windows as their primariy OS....that tells you all you need to know about them.
Thurrot is garbage pure and simple.