What's so bad about Windows XP?

surfwax95 said:

Spring loaded folders is the ability to hold an item over a folder and have it open up for you.

Click to expand...

Cool. Great idea.

To answer your question on the zoom/maximize thing, unlike a Windows window which has minimize, maximize, and close, an OS X Window has minimize, zoom, and close. Whereas Windows favors the practice of maximizing windows by doing this, OS X's zoom button, while varying in function from program to program, will usually toggle between the default placement/size and the user-set one. The app I feel makes best use of it, though, is Safari, which resizes the window to whatever size it needs to be for the webpage's full width to be accomodated. This way I can with the click of a button see the entirety of a webpage while not having it take up the whole screen. OS X favors having lots of windows open on screen at once, whereas I found Windows seemed to encourage maximizing stuff and using the Alt-tab method.

This brings me to the next object of your confusion, which is expose. Whereas Alt-tab is an archaic and unintuitive mechanism, Expose is the combination of F9, F10, and F11. Press F9 and all the windows you have open will instantly resize and reposition themselves to all fit on the screen for you to pick the one you want to bring to the front. F10 is the same function but only does it for the active application. If you want to switch to viewing the windows of another app, just press tab to cycle through the different apps and their respective windows. Pres F11 to temporarily clear everything off your desktop so you can deal with Finder windows or a downloaded file or whatever there. Simply press F11 again when you're done and all the Windows come back on screen in the same arrangement they were before so you can continue multitasking. What's more, OS X does have an Alt-tab equivalent (command-tab), but it switches between applications rather than specific Windows. It actually has some added functionality over the Windows counterpart because if you select an application in command-tab and decide you want to quit it but not exit command-tab, you can simply press Q to do so. It's a small feature, but it's nice to be able to do that on a whim while going through a bunch of apps without interrupting what you're doing.

Finally, to Left face Down, like I said, those are neat little things that make the computer more enjoyable but they're not what sell the OS, or at least not what sold it for me. They're icing on the cake. And you can reposition the Dock in OS X as well in case you were not aware. Additionally, Longhorn became Vista, which is a entirely new version of Windows Microsoft is releasing this year. And there is no copy of spring-loaded folders so far (that would require effort on Microsoft's part). By the way, it's funny that you post that setup because just yesterday I saw someone's computer set up like that (well the start menu position anyway) and I was thinking "Wow, that's cool."

Coincidentally, I just got back from an Apple store -- just now. I felt like a lost dog. I tried using a few different Macs, and had NO IDEA what I was doing. I was actually kind of embarrased, because I *really* know my way around a PC. It was a weird feeling.

Click to expand...

Oh believe me, I KNOW that feeling from the months leading up to me getting this PowerBook.

Discerptor said:

Additionally, Longhorn became Vista, which is a entirely new version of Windows Microsoft is releasing this year.

Click to expand...

So Vista is the next Windows, not the next Longhorn as originally it was going to be? Eh, I guess that would work for some other people but not me. Longhorn was just a worthless shell that made Windows XP all fancy, and I expect that Vista will just be a merger between the two in a way. Instead of having to buy the fancy stuff afterwards, it's the base.


I found some pretty cool shells out there, I must admit. Aston Shell was practicly the only one that didn't slow my computer down a single bit. Though I just like the right click function that came with Aston Shell, and most other shells.


Trying to not go far far astray, I would love to see windows get rid of the start menu completelly and just rely on a right click to pop up the start menu (as in Aston Shell/BlackBox).


I have to say OS X isn't all bells and whissles, but that's one of the great things about it. I'm going to have to get use to the menu, though I plan on doing what I do now. Stick everything (practicly) that I use on the Dock.

curious said:

Coincidentally, I just got back from an Apple store -- just now. I felt like a lost dog. I tried using a few different Macs, and had NO IDEA what I was doing. I was actually kind of embarrased, because I *really* know my way around a PC. It was a weird feeling.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way. But I guess I'm looking at as an adventure. Not a burdeon. It's like the new Intel Mac commercials. Dull tasks, etc. That's what my was at work and at home. Until I got the Mac. Now home computing is fun.

I do understand that you'll be working, not playing on your mac.

Left Face Down said:

Longhorn was just a worthless shell that made Windows XP all fancy, and I expect that Vista will just be a merger between the two in a way.

Click to expand...

I particularly like how when Windows crashes under Vista you get to play a game of solitaire

Left Face Down said:

So Vista is the next Windows, not the next Longhorn as originally it was going to be? Eh, I guess that would work for some other people but not me. Longhorn was just a worthless shell that made Windows XP all fancy, and I expect that Vista will just be a merger between the two in a way. Instead of having to buy the fancy stuff afterwards, it's the base.

Click to expand...

actually, Vista is Longhorn. Microsoft renamed the OS from Longhorn since that was never meant to be the release name, just the code name for development. And Vista is not an attempt to make XP all fancy, it is a totally new OS; just like OS-X was a totally new system from OS 9.

scooter said:

actually, Vista is Longhorn. Microsoft renamed the OS from Longhorn since that was never meant to be the release name, just the code name for development. And Vista is not an attempt to make XP all fancy, it is a totally new OS; just like OS-X was a totally new system from OS 9.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd compare it more to the change from Windows 98 to Windows XP. And yes, I'm fully aware I skipped over ME. That OS's existence may never be mentioned again.

Discerptor said:

Well, I'd compare it more to the change from Windows 98 to Windows XP. And yes, I'm fully aware I skipped over ME. That OS's existence may never be mentioned again.

Click to expand...

You also forgot 2000 which was pretty close to XP minus the eye-candy and a few speed enhancements.

Benjamindaines said:

You also forgot 2000 which was pretty close to XP minus the eye-candy and a few speed enhancements.

Click to expand...

2000 was an evolution from the NT technology, not Windows 95/98/ME. Windows 2000 is technically a current OS because of this and is still used by many businesses instead of Windows XP.

scooter said:

actually, Vista is Longhorn. Microsoft renamed the OS from Longhorn since that was never meant to be the release name, just the code name for development. And Vista is not an attempt to make XP all fancy, it is a totally new OS; just like OS-X was a totally new system from OS 9.

Click to expand...

Well, that's all find and dandy for all of those who thought Longhorn was great. I, personally, thought it was just a bunch of bells and whissles which "added" to your Windows XP experience. Granted it seems they're advancing in technology. I remember when every one was like, Longhorn II... what will it be called? Then the name, Vista, came around.


Though finding it's just Longhorn with a few worthless features that help me find my data, which I have no problem doing now, with Docks and such. This brings me back to why I don't use things like Aston Shell. I don't want this over-complicated piece of crap. Windows Vista is going to require, right off the bat, a decent processor and probably a Gig of ram with all these features I keep hearing about which the average consumer doesn't have!


One of the best draws about Apple, especially the more I read about it. OS X has things like spring-loaded folders, which I know what that is now thanks to you guys, which sound wonderful. It has one Dock, which is pretty much all you need, and a taskbar which has relevant uses. One of the best selling points about the Mac to me, I must be honest here, are the Widgets plus things such as expose. It's just wonderful. Everything is at my finger tips and on my main screen. I don't have to navigate through 5 pop-up lists just to find the one program I want and I don't have to clutter my desktop with icons. I want to see my background darnit, that's why I put it there!


As I've said time and time again, past the whole games factor Mac computers are just great and have what I want and need.

Well, Microsoft claims the vast majority of the changes in Vista are "under the hood," so to speak. They're things the user won't explicitly see but that will make the OS perform better, more securely, etc. I do agree that MS is being rather excessive with the "extras" in Vista, though. I fear the system requirements of an OS that uses pixel shaders in its GUI.

Also, a corrective note: the Dashboard is not a selling point because it is merely a very good copy of the freeware Konfabulator, which is on Windows. Granted, Dashboard appears to have better performance and objectively has better integration with it being auto-mapped to F12.

Discerptor said:

2000 was an evolution from the NT technology, not Windows 95/98/ME. Windows 2000 is technically a current OS because of this and is still used by many businesses instead of Windows XP.

Click to expand...

Um, XP is NT 5.1, 2k is NT 5.0. They both came from NT. XP did not in any way come from 98. If it did I would be running 2k on all my Pc's.

I am at a command prompt in XP right now. NT 5.1.

XP tried to merge the better GUI interfaces of 98 and ME with the stability of NT architecture. And for those who use XP at work on a network...your computer WILL be slower at work since it is communicating with the network and probably syncing email too, not to mention any other network related software (ex. corporate virus protection) or consistenly verifying your network rights to any file servers. I imagine this is true for Macs too.

From a lifelong PC user my biggest problem with Windows is the use of Temp files...and like most have said that if you know what you are doing you can run Windows without problems. But to novices your computer becomes bogged down with these files...not to mention if you install and uninstall various software (Windows is terrible at remaining stable through this process). However, I have yet to be experienced enough in Macs to properly compare the two.

Microsoft also suffers from being the big boy on the block and if Mac were in it's position of dominance then Macs would be problematic too. Just look at the Firefox browser...at first it was more secure than IE (and still is) but as it has grown in popularity the security holes are being exploited.

I do agree that the Mac OS is far simpler than Windows and once acclimated you can easily find anything.

wasnt this thread about why he should get a mac???

UncSki1218 said:

wasnt this thread about why he should get a mac???

Click to expand...

You could look at it that way. It seemed more like... I don't have problems with Windows but I'm looking at Apple. Why do people say windows sucks, if he doesn't have any of the problems they complain about.


Ect. ect. to end with if he likes the way the Mac looks/feels/weighs/opperates then he'll probably get one.


I think... :blind:

dtravis7 said:

Um, XP is NT 5.1, 2k is NT 5.0. They both came from NT. XP did not in any way come from 98. If it did I would be running 2k on all my Pc's.

I am at a command prompt in XP right now. NT 5.1.

Click to expand...

XP is like a strange hybrid between NT and 98. I don't consider it a pure NT OS. And as the other guy pointed out, the amount of stuff XP bogs down the OS with makes it less favorable in business network environments. XP is an attempt to bring NT technology to the 95/98 crowd, but I, and apparently a lot of busnesses, don't consider it a true NT OS. Windows 2000 is still current as far as most businesses are concerned.

The OS X is just better. Simple as that.

You like it better and I like it better. That's why we're on MAC FORUMS. If you want to argue on XP's benefit, you might have better luck elsewhere...

sevenhelmet said:

You like it better and I like it better. That's why we're on MAC FORUMS. If you want to argue on XP's benefit, you might have better luck elsewhere...

Click to expand...

That's the problem with forums, they're so biased. Here on a Mac forum everyone's going to say that Mac OS is better, but if you go to say DELL's forum or any other Windows forum they're going to say Macs suck and Windows is better. I would suggest going to a Linux forum and explain to them that you are looking for a non-biased answer to the question, be sure to provide a link to it I'm sure everyone here would be very interested to see what people say (I know I am).

--Cheers

The OP asked questions. We did our best to answer them. Bashing Windows XP is not the right answer to a potential switcher. Just because this is a Mac Forum, people should not bash all other platforms.