SuperSite Blog

It doesn't seem like Windows 7 is all that good. From your posts, I would think Vista is actually better.

I don't know, I think Windows 7 looks good.  While I understand the foundation of Paul's argument-I experienced it myself in trying to help a friend install the Elgato Eye-TV on her Mac, I was lost since the Mac desktop gives zero indication as to HOW to start an application-I think, though, the argument is moot.  By that, I mean there is no way achieve both simple AND easy and keep everyone happy.  If Microsoft made the desktop verbose, then longtime users will complain. Look at UAC. It works great. Ubuntu and Mac OS have similar features, yet Windows users hate it.  There is just no way to make everyone happy.

The only true Windows 7 error recovery is switching to OS X. Sure, it was an error that you stooped so low to think of even using Windows (usability and Windows being an oxymoron), but you can recover from your error by getting the much better OS X.

@robertsjoe - Please back that idiotic statement up with documented proof that OS X is error free as you appear to be claiming here. Or, on the other hand...please provide a valid listing of all OS X errors that you have encountered vs the Vista errors that you have encountered.

--tayme

I was wondering Joe, If OS X is so great. why do you spend all your time on a website dedicated to Windows? That's pretty sad Joe

@dan67: No worse than a blog that spends so much time blogging rabid anti-Apple posts and Windows fanboys spending so much time on it.

It is NOT recommended by Apple that people run anti-virus software on OS X.

news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10111958-83.html

That is not the case with Windows. Please do not attempt to use Windows without running anti-virus and anti-spyware software. Your system will be toast.

OS X error free?! Oh, come on...

There have been just as much bug fixes for Leopard as for Vista (>600).

Also, the total size of all Leopard updates is about twice the size of Vista SP1.

As I said before: Get out of the iWorld, back to reality where facts matter.

Good point, geogray. Getting that balance between simple and easy is a lot more difficult when the product is as mature as Windows is.

Microsoft is trying to make the product cleaner -- not sure if they're making it simpler or cleaner -- but inconsistencies like the ones Paul pointed out truly  ruin the experience. Make it consistent, MS, and force 3rd party developers to do so too.

@ "maati" He didn't say OS X was "error free". You did.

For the record, I've found OS 10.5 to be the buggiest version of OS X since the initial version, which was barely better than a beta. Having said that, it's still far less buggy than XP, and far less frustrating than Vista.

But to say it's perfect or bug-free is just ridiculous.

Sorry for the OT post, but y'all started it. ;-)

I've installed PC's with the Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE).  It's not an easy task.

The OEM System Builder website contains a doc on the matter.  What you have to do is create a Windows Preinstallation Environment (WinPE) build (which is created by way of stripping out the GUI components of Windows, sort of like Server Core, but without the background services - there is a tool that creates it for you), with the optional components package, and a special WinRE package also.  You also need to inject drivers into the WinPE/RE if needed by the target machine.  There's also a failover script that has to be created, which causes the machine to fall back to a special WinRE hidden partition when Windows doesn't boot.  The final step is to create a specialized unattended installation using Windows System Image Manager (WinSIM) which creates not only the Windows partition and installs Windows, but also creates the hidden WinRE partition at the beginning of the drive, and extracts the contents of the WinRE image there.

The document is about 26 pages long.

For them to include the functionality automatically on a new install saves me a huge amount of work, and is totally welcomed.

I believe computer UIs will always require a learning curve from the user. Unfortunately, not every user is an enthusiast that wants to enter that learning curve, thus their experience is often quite diminished in knowledge, productivity and enjoyment.

After recently giving a friend a 3 hour tutorial on the Mac OS X interface I have to say it still baffles me why it enjoys such an overrated reputation for elegance and ease of use. I do think OS X is a very respectable OS, but for example, whenever I switch between Leopard and Vista I am so struck by the bland and lifeless gray looks of Leopard compared to the colorful vibrance of Vista. I also find Explorer easier to navigate than Finder (the breadcrumb interface in Explorer rocks!). But the "simple vs. easy" debate is clearly shown in the new Mac keyboard layout. By making the controls for media, Expose, Dashboard, etc. contained in the F-keys, Apple has made the keyboard simpler but now, functionality is more difficult. I.e. it is not longer immediately apparent how the user activates the application-specific windows or shows the desktop in Expose (previously, F9, 10 & 11). In addition, activating Spaces now has a more complicated keyboard command. Here's a case where simpler makes things less easy.  

I echo Paul's sentimates over the Windows 7 taskbar design that mimicks the OS X dock in housing both running applications and launching shortcuts. Although, it does appear that the user doesn't have to use Windows 7 this way if they don't want to.

For me, Windows is distinguished from the Mac in two important ways: 1) everything is contained in a single window (menus, toolbars, palettes, etc.) and 2) the taskbar clearly tells me only what's running and how many windows are open on the desktop.

I find this to be the definitive distinction between Windows and OS X and for this reason, I have to say I prefer Windows.

I'd say that Startup Repair is simple & easy for the vast majority of users.  It offers functionality that many users won't know even existed, and will automatically fix startup errors.  It's also simple & easy for deployers (like me) because the process is included in the box, and doesn't take 26 pages of reading to accomplish (that's what it takes for Windows Vista).

Systems currently shipping fall under a few categories:

a)  They don't have WinRE installed, requiring the user to use their DVD for Startup Repair

b)  They have WinRE installed, but the system won't auto-failover to the WinRE partition, requiring user intervention to boot WinRE and perform Startup Repair

c)  WinRE is installed, and the automatic Startup Repair performs perfectly

If Windows 7 does c) by default, then that's easy for me, and for end users.  It's also simple, because there aren't a lot of extraneous options to get in the way for the user, and cuts several tasks out of my workload.

"Surprisingly it worked, as Bryant indicated … but that’s not the point. After everything was said and done, I felt like I just jumped through a bunch of technical support hoops to fix a problem I already knew how to fix on my own but couldn’t."

He mentioned that he wanted to use LKGC (Last Known Good Configuration), but Startup Repair suggested System Restore.  Isn't that practically the same thing?  (Except that System Restore allows multiple snapshots)

I think you have this a bit wrong anyway Paul:

"sim·ple [ símp'l ]

adjective  (comparative sim·pler, superlative sim·plest)

Definition:

1. easy

....

5. straightforward"

"straight·for·ward [ stràyt fáwrwərd ]

adjective  

Definition:

1. easy"

"straightforward (adj)

Synonyms: clear-cut, uncomplicated, facile, undemanding, *easy*, basic, *simple*"

In any case, Apple's are simplistic, not simple.  That's a real difference.

I'd like Paul's next article to read:

"Mac OS X:

Simple vs. Simplistic"

@lotsamystuff

Nevermind whether it is 'error free' or 'nearly error free'.

Because both arre simply not true.

Thus robertsjoe was once again wrong. As he's only got those deceptive apple ads in his brain, he's always wrong, or nearly always wrong.

Wae,

I agree with you and mike that "simplistic" would probably be a better word in this case. Paul's obsession with "simple vs. easy" began with that article about Google. I pointed out then that even applications that start out simple become complicated over time as new features are added. GMail is no longer simple. The iPhone's home page is good when you have few applications. It gets a little less simple with each new application. New users have to be told about the swiping action to get to the other home screens. Operating Systems cannot be simple and shouldn't aim to be simple.

"Operating Systems cannot be simple and shouldn't aim to be simple."

Wasn't it Paul that suggested awhile back that you don't "use" an operating system - you use the applications running in it.  The front-end/shell/GUI/whatever is just a way of organizing applications, and can almost be considered an "application" by itself.

If you look at it this way: there are thousands of applications whose sole purpose is a front-end to launch other applications, and organize them into a unifying structure.  How is that much different from an operating system shell as it is today?

So what else is an operating system?  It's a link between applications and the hardware for one.  We have that in software layers too.  Hardware -> Drivers -> OS resource sharing -> API's, etc....DirectX can share resources between hardware-related API's, such as Direct3D, as can many other API's and shared code.  Great.

All I'm saying is that computing as it is today is built upon many, many layers of complexity, each one designed to eliminate some of the complexities of the layer below it, while introducing it's own set of complexities it itself.  It's all just messages getting broken up, and then reassimilated through each layer.  You end up with multiple translations along the line.

Maybe we should be rethinking this whole computing paradigm from the ground up.