But not so guilty that I couldn't revel in this article from MIT's Technology Review, which is fairly critical of the most recent version of Windows. So critical in fact, the author says he's converted from a Windows loyalist to a Mac convert. He laments: "Regardless of widespread skepticism, I was confident that Vista would dazzle me, and I looked forward to saying so in print. Ironically, playing around with Vista for more than a month has done what years of experience and exhortations from Mac-loving friends could not: it has converted me into a Mac fan."
He realizes that, "many of Vista's "new" features… mimic OS X features introduced in 2005." The new Windows copycats Mac's dashboard widgets and other amenities Mac users have been using for two years. The author also conceded that, "Playing with OS X Tiger in order to make accurate comparisons for this review, I had a personal epiphany: Windows is complicated. Macs are simple."
You don't say? It so happens that ease-of-use is directly proportional to the efforts of the designer. Remember that simple is hard and hard is simple, i.e. it's difficult to make something simple to use and easy to make something that ends up being hard to use.
Check out Walter Mossberg's article in the Wall Street Journal, where he says, "Vista isn't a breakthrough in ease of use. Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP."
Mossberg also notes how the new Windows is really just the old Apple, "Nearly all of the major, visible new features in Vista are already available in Apple's operating system, called Mac OS X, which came out in 2001 and received its last major upgrade in 2005. And Apple is about to leap ahead again with a new version of OS X, called Leopard, due this spring."
Apple is just loving Vista's mediocre reviews. Apple even put up banners at their conferences promoting the latest version of Mac OS X by saying, "Introducing Vista 2.0." That's just cruel!
Regardless of Apple's smugness, of the people I know who've used both OS X and Windows extensively, nearly all prefer the ease-of-use and innovative features of the Mac. It's not even close. Really the only people who tease me about my affinity for Macs are those who haven't used them and have spent great time and effort to acclimate to the hard way of doing things on Windows, which I hear isn't so hard… once you get used to it.
But isn't that the point?
7 comments:
Make fun of Microsoft all you want, but in the end, Macs are just silly toys.
Macs are great for the artsy graphic designers and rebel computer-cultists who subscribe to their magazines about make-believe Mac-Land where everything is Mac and slap fruit insignias on their car to say "hey - I'm different based on the type of computer I decided to buy once", but those of us in reality - aka the business world - you know, the place that the economy revolves around and enables Mac users to generate an income so they can BUY a Mac...you know...that place - Macs are nothing more than odd machines with quirky features...which is fitting, I guess.
fyi...I hope my comment was humorous...I was thinking last night that it could definately come across as jerky...which is probably Par for the course with me.
:)
No prob.
But I did look up some relevant definitions:
"quirky features." Plural noun. Innovations that Microsoft first mocks, then resists, and finally adopts over the course of about five years.
"reverse engineering." Verb. One of two methods substituted for doing your own research and development.
"buying smaller, more innovative companies." Verb. The other method.
:-)
It's ironic that a blog that pokes fun at Microsoft is hosted by a site powered by servers running a Microsoft operating system.
Basically, without Microsoft, this blog wouldn't exist. :)
I know, I know, Microsoft is everywhere.
But Microsoft doesn't represent a necessary CAUSE, it represents a LIMITATION.
Note that the my blog doesn't NEED to be on a Windows-based server, a Mac-based server would work just as well (better?). I also use Microsoft Word everyday to write documents because I don't have any other good options, but the Microsoft program isn't required for word processing to exist. It just squashed all the competition to the point of irrelevancy. Too bad for us.
The monopoly we have to live with is a Microsoft monopoly; you don't have much choice about that. But monopolies always hurt the customer by eliminating competitive market forces and dulling the need for innovation.
So not only COULD this blog (and other internet thingies) exist without Microsoft's monopoly, we'd likely have MORE advancements and innovations if the monopoly wasn't so overwhelming.
That's why government should always have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws and why it's always a good idea to support innovative competitors.
If only Apple followed the same line of thinking with their iPod and iTunes. You want to play a file on another MP3 player that you bought off of iTunes?
Good luck.
You want to play a movie that you purchased through iTunes anywhere else BUT your PC/Mac or iPod video? Good luck.
Why doesn't Apple give iTunes/iPod the same flexibility with their files and purchases that others like Sandisk (play files from Real/Windows Media) afford their customers?
Because they don't have to, and it's one of the reasons I don't like Apple. It's nice purchasing an entire season of a tv show on iTunes and then not being able to burn it to a DVD to watch on my tv. Sure, I can watch it on my **iPod Video**, but not my own TV.
When demonizing Microsoft for it's monopoly...don't forget that Apple has plenty of skeletons in its closet. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates isn't under fire for stock options right now...
Isn't this borderline "false idolatry"?
Later
David T.
Post a Comment