SuperSite Blog

Time Machine v/s whatever Windows uses (Previous versions + Backup)

iChat v/s Live Messenger (even though Messenger isn't really part of Windows)

Interesting idea. Perhaps the feedback provided for both OSes will fill in some blanks and result in a balanced view of each - and most probably reveal that for many users just how similar the two OSes are.

That's unfortunate, because the effort may mask how the two OSes are used. Far too much emphasis is placed on the single user experience absent the critically important work-flows that exist in even the smallest of companies. It's much the same as your perspective opposite which communications platform is best - Google's offerings clearly work for you well, but they ignore how small groups of professionals work and benefit from Exchange and its related server and desktop members. That's no fault of yours, but rather reflects your perspective, which does not reflect how many professions use software. I'm not suggesting that all companies deploy and maintain an Exchange - clearly numerous hosted Exchange services are available, but I am using it as an examples of what I mean. It is true that most people who use computers use them within work-flows that involve many internal and external parties. The bidding process as executed by small construction companies, or the engineering around wireless tower servicing come to mind as well as the specialty financial services firms that work with legal teams - each depends upon complex work-flows that reveal how an OS is used as part of a broader communications system. Not until an OS is assessed in this context can its strengths be understood and candidly, Windows (any flavor) is very hard to appreciate without reviewing how it is actually used.

Again, even the smallest of companies with 5 to 10 people depend upon Windows, because it fits better within the work-flows that they and external parties MUST execute against. Windows has evolved around this reality, where OS X seems to ignore it - much as Google's offerings do. Where for example, can a provider create and apply unique policy based objects relevant to only one company's retention policies? How does any client on OS X report it adherence to them? While seemingly minor, I can assure you it is not and it only hints at the requirements faced by even tiny firms. This is the kind of very difficult to appreciate stuff that Gates used to refer to when he'd sat things like: "Thank goodness that businesses provide the subsidy allowing for consumer oriented features at all."

It's time we examined our OSes in their larger context and most candidly, OS X/*nix ability to connect to shares and or Exchange is not enough... they have to be managed and even in tiny shops where small providers like ourselves leverage the entire ecosystem to create and apply very granular policies as part of appropriate business solutions.

How about the iLife suite that Apple bundles with OS X vs. Winows' offerings...that seems to be one of Apple's and their fan's biggest "reasons" to prefer OS X.

--tayme

Can you go over how you do an upgrade with both?  Can you do a clean install with the new OSX $29 10.6 upgrade CD.  I realize none of this is out yet.

My comments are only procedural.

My opinion is that you can't do a fair comparative review. You will automatically favor Windows.

The only way you could approximate a fair review would be to coauthor it with a person who has comparable Mac knowledge.

And, trying really hard to be fair here, the bias is inevitable given your years of using Windows. You know it in a depth that you don't know OS X.

Now, aside from that, your shrill and petulant postings on all things related to Apple don't establish any credibility for such a review. The final conclusion is a foregone conclusion.

The details of how you do this "review" and the features you cover, or omit, are minor details compared with these issues.

Perhaps if you don't believe that Paul can do it unbiased perhaps co-authored with Leo Laporte then? If he has the time of course...

I was curious... if you were as liberal as Apple in calling everything new in Windows 7 a "feature" (like 300 new features in Leopard) how many new "features" would there be in Windows 7? I mean, if they can call new fonts, messenger updates etc. features, Windows 7 must have thousands of them.

How about the dock and Expose' vs. the start menu bar and Aero Peak/Flip.

I have a lot of questions, though I am certain I will never use OSX anyway, not for real.. It's not OS itself, it's the ecosystem as Iketchum said. But here, questions:

- compare deploying updates in medium sized managed network (WSUS or similar)

- remote connection

- Active Directory and Group Policy

- automatic driver downloads/ suggestions/ troubleshooting

- GUI OS management (all Control Panel stuff, and how it works for both average Joe and advanced user, so comparing both easy and friendly use, as well as advanced stuff); I have put GUI intentionally, I'm not interested in writing in any kind of command prompt if I don't have to

- networking in general, but mostly stuff about network shares, security, again, linked to stuff like Active Directory etc

- out-of-box multimedia capabilities (Media Center/Media Player vs Quicktime and such)

there is more, but food delivery just came in, so got to go ;)

I don't get it. Win 7 is to Vista what Snow Leopard is to Leopard. A performance rewrite of the basic operating system with minor UI tweeks.

MS gets the 2 fingers and its product is called Vista 2 (not that I have anyhting against Vista, been running it 2 years and never had a problem, besides some minor driver issues), whilst Snow Leopard is hailed as the holy grail of the future.

I watched the Apple keynote and some french dude was rambling on about a new type of thread technology and that it was revolutionary. As if MS doesn't have got  anything similar.

In my experience, if you take a similarly specced Mac and a custombuilt Win machine with a Core2Duo, then Mac OSX runs slower.

I run advanced modelling programmes and I've run the same instructions on a Macbook Pro running Vista and then on Leopard (its a Bootcamp machine) and it was a lot slower on the Mac OS.

Leopard looks nice and stuff, but at the end of the day an OS should interface between my hardware and software running on it, not be the main objective of the PC.

Networking comparison would be great. Especially something about virtual wi-fi and a bandwidth comparison.

Options (commercial and free) for running applications from other OS's applications (think needing to test IE6).

Window management, specifically with respect to OS X dock enhancements and Win7 taskbar changes.

Integrated search capabilities: performance, quality of results, ability to customize, "intelligent" features (i.e. definitions, integrated web search).

Integrated previews when browsing the file system: support for thumbnails for various video codecs, ability to preview common commercial file types i.e. PDF, PSD, etc without needing to load full app, etc.

Real world performance for extremely common tasks, i.e. quickly playing a video, reading a PDF, copying folders to external storage, and e-mailing documents/images from file explorer.

Search usability, functionality, and performance (speed and results).

Other than the obvious, I would include things like what is indexed by default and network location indexing (don't know if you can do this on the Mac), application searches and resulst display options.

Instead of feature by feature, could you compare tasks?  For instance some common things I use the OS for: organizing files, searching for files (by attributes and contents), applying patches, home networking (sharing files, streaming media between computers)...

"Let's keep this civil and on topic."

Wait... what?

This might be the hardest way to compare, but the most effective - top 10 user scenerios for an OS. Like music/video playbakc, internet browsing, file management, note taking, photo sharing, automated backup...etc.

You definately want to compare windows live vs iLife as well for both upgraders and new users.

^ +1

don't stress on geeky techno sides which nobody cares in real life. Compare them int he way 99% of the people are gonna be confronted with it:

- How easy to setup printer

- How easy to find the Wifi control panel and change settings for example.

- Backup / recovery

- Included productivity

- Included security

- Speed to copy 1 GB on small files from a USB drive and 1GB of large files.

- Boot times (not used much these days), and back to sleep times. Resume Wifi time from wake-up...

Since I went from Windows XP to Mac OS X and almost did not look back, I would like to see if the reasons why I changed look differently two mayor upgrades later in Windows.

Most important for me is how easy and quick the User Interface is. I find myself using less time on OS related configuring in Mac OS X and I have less friend calling me for advice (after they also changed OS on my recommendation).

Has Win7 got rid of the numerous and ignoring alert boxes popping up all the time? I don't value the security that much, because the way I noticed my non-techsaavy friends is, that if they do not understand why an alert has arrived, they just say yes. So security comparation should focus on the OS's way of handling and not depend on the user.

Has it become as easy to install appz as in mac os x?

Has the startup time from sleep become as fast as mac os x?

Has the system settings menu become as easy to manage as mac os x, so I can tell my grandmother to change her desktop image by herself?

Has it become as easy as mac os x to install printers?

Has the installation of the OS become as userfriendly and non-technical as mac os x?

Has windows search become as good as Spotlight?

On the contrary, I do miss some features from Windows:

Has the multiple ways of access to app-features come to Snow Leopard? (like right-click menues and so on)

Has snow leopard implemented maximizing of windows as good as windows?

Some thing that I find badly implemented on both OS:

How do the OS handle external HD in different formats? (i.e. NTFS in mac os x and HFS in Windows (and windows home editions failure of reading dynamic formatted disks))

How easy is it to set up sharing between computers on a network?

What has the OS done to not be held down the first 10 minutes of startup by numerous background applications fighting for cpu?

All these questions are minded on the ordinary users I know (i.e. students at my university, musician friends etc.). My tech-saavy friends are skilled enough to set up both OS's the way they like it. The real question for me is if an ordinary user can use it from day one, without help from a tech-saavy friend. Until now I have only seen that to be true with Mac OS X.

I think support, and I don't mean customer support.

Windows 7 - Supports a lot of hardware and software (they claim that "if it works with windows vista it will work with windows 7") Not to mention you can install xp to run on top and support more. I don't have to purhcase any new software or hardware if I bougth a computer that was running vista and in some cases xp.

Snow - Support only part of the hardware supported that was purchased with Leopard (10.5). All powerpc macs are no longer supported. Less hardware options and less software options. Also apple in my pass experience allways breaks many software apps that worked with previous verisions of os X. This happen to us from 10.3 -10.4 and from 10.4-10.5.  In a possitive note I eally like the option to run both mac and pc in one computer but that is the hardware not the operating system?

Another thing I want to note is that 10.5 has a major bug with WiFi. If you have many wireless stations with the same name and key but different channels os 10.5 will loose connection and at times you will have to rejoin the network. I am hoping that they fixed this with 10.6

@LuxZg

- compare deploying updates in medium sized managed network (WSUS or similar)

- remote connection

- Active Directory and Group Policy

- automatic driver downloads/ suggestions/ troubleshooting

Apple does not have an easy way to do autoupates in OS X. You can set it so it downloads the updates but it wont installed unless you tell it too by:

Loging in to computer

Using ARD (apple remote desktop)

Both methods are bad, I never run updates like this

The other way is: have a computer/s to run updates and install apps. Create an image, and set it up to netboot using server:

Now you can push this image to computers by:

going one by one and holding N key as it turns on

use ARD to change the boot disk and reboot computers

or

take a portable hard drive with the image and use CCC or disk utility

Like I said this sucks if you dont have a os X server, if you do than makeing the image takes a long time but after you easily re-image macs.

You can do similiar things on the PC, but I think windows xp, vista and 7 have better tools for managing updates/drivers. The other nice thing is that without having a windows server the defautl is set to auto-update machines with critical updates. The negative is that sometimes it does update when you need to use it.

One thing that  I am wondering is if 10.6 is near compleation as windows 7 is? Windows 7 looks like it should have been release allready (im not complaining it is needs work) I had time to play with 10.6 so would it be usable if it was released now?

Compare network printing and set up, formating disc capabilities and reading different formats. Home network creation. Better not compare price, though.

Some excellent stuff here so far, thanks.

I agree it needs to be real world. I can point to architectural advances in both Vista and Leo that haven't resulted in any real world benefits to actual users. (Windows: Where is the new generation of Avalon-based apps we were all going to be using by now? for example).

To the doubters, this is not a foregone conclusion. While I doubt that I will end up recommending that people abandon Windows for the Mac, I do feel that these OSes will be pretty comparable overall. The advantages and disadvantages of the respective platforms are what they are, and overall, these two updates probably won't changes things.

We'll see.

Another thing that came to mind as I was walking is upgrade cost:

OK only a small numbers of intel computers were sold with 10.4. Are these custumers that have 10.4 not 10.5 (even do I know most of them did buy 10.5 update) able to buy 10.6 for $29? (without buying 10.5 for $99 or what ever it costs)

Same for windows if you bought a computer with xp that can run vista and windows 7. Can you buy update version of windows 7 without paying more than you would have from vista?

Also when you compare prices please compare OEM costs when you buy a new computer

Last note you might want to run windows 7 and 10.6 on your macbook to test things like speed and so on. Same machine

@pthurrott: "I can point to architectural advances in both Vista and Leo that haven't resulted in any real world benefits to actual users"

I didn't know you and Leo were so close!

:)

Here's one Paul, while a lot of the differences and similarities in both OS's can all really come down to user preference, the security of each OS is a tangible benefit.

Why not point out what Apple and Microsoft have done to make their respective operating systems even more secure.

Please touch on Min Win, Kernel Patch protection, Address space randomization and what ever else both systems have in place to protect their users.

Many here will argue over UI preferences, but security is a very clear subject to tackle.

Pingback from  Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard: Which features should be compared? (Updated) | Windows Seven 7

@LuxZG why compare these items..

"compare deploying updates in medium sized managed network (WSUS or similar)"

"Active Directory and Group Policy"

"networking in general, but mostly stuff about network shares, security, again, linked to stuff like Active Directory etc"

While there might some interest in how well both of these OS's work in a Windows business environment, we already know that Windows 7 will play better in a corporate Active Directory world.  If we must then lets ask the same questions then of both in a corporation that uses Apples flavor of Open directory, in a OS X dominated environment, where Windows machines would be the minority.

I would like to see....

Spotlight vs 7's search, performance and the depth at which applications support it.  For instance will either search into say Quicken on OS X or Windows to find something.  (going for a non Apple or MS app).

Network file copy speed.  This is something almost everyone does, even at home these days.  This test should show Leopard, SN, XP, Vista, 7 copying files to a peer OS, Windows 2003, Windows 2008, Leopard server, Samba server.  There was a lot of grief on my part with Vista and 2003 server, where Leopard and XP were much better.   MS said that Vista worked better with 2008.

Native OS support for lots of little things, like pdf support, ISO mounting support etc.

Wireless networks.  I had problems with Vista and the problems were just so  inconsistent, often ending with vague error messages such as "limited or no connection".  XP and Leopard are super easy to get on a wireless network and rock solid.

Some walk through's of the most common things (say top 10) a user would do with an OS, and evaluate the ease or lack of ease.  Count the steps, read the dialog boxes to see which is easier.  Some of this is subjective, but if one OS takes 4 steps to task #1 and the OS takes 2 its pretty clear.

Lastly a measure, if possible, of how complete an offering is if go all the way Microsoft or Apple.  Example would be a Mac user, with an iPhone and Mobile Me, vs Windows 7 user, with Live products and Windows Mobile.  Show cost and features with a focus on integration.

Here are some ideas:

Command line environments for both -- Terminal.app vs. cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell, taking a look at terminal features like tabs, split screens, cut/copy/paste, etc., as well as job control, integration with the OS (ability to get or set options, e.g. via ifconfig, netsh, or Get-WmiObject for network settings), included utilities, shell features such as command completion, etc.

Multiple-monitor support (how easy is it to set up, how well does it work, what sort of preferences), and multiple-desktop support (Spaces on OS X, not sure if Windows 7 has anything similar???)

A comparison of network filesystem support (CIFS/SMB/SMB2, NFS) as both client or server would be helpful.

How do the firewalls compare, from ease of use and security standpoints? Are both equally customizable?

A comparison of the included web servers might be useful interesting, but I'm not sure (???) if anything is changing significantly with either.

Secure remote access options, client and server (ssh, remote desktop, etc.)

Process management? (Activity Monitor vs. Task Manager)

A comparison of accessibility features.

How complete and consistent are keyboard shortcuts, and which system is easier to navigate using primarily [or only] a keyboard?

I forgot, battery life.  I say this because it was a major problem with Vista for me.  Is 7 better now and is better or as good as SL.

After reading your first post, I would say you are off to a good start.  I can see arguments for both sides about whether their OS is a minor upgrade or not.  They both seem minor to me in different ways.  

On the surface SL looks very minor, under the hood, going from mostly 32 bit code that could run on a PPC or Intel, to mostly 64bit and only Intel, plus that open CL stuff is a big change.

Windows 7 looks to be a big change at first, but when you start using it a lot it feels like a faster Vista.  Put them both in classic mode and the difference is even smaller.

"You can do similiar things on the PC, but I think windows xp, vista and 7 have better tools for managing updates/drivers."

????  How much simpler is Apple makes the hardware and the OS?  Apple update pretty much does it for you.  

Unless you are specifically talking about third party hardware.  Then its up to the maker of the hardware and both Windows and OS X are at the mercy of the hardware maker.

Paul's question of what would be a fair comparison is actually VERY difficult to answer. Probably actually impossible.

Here are just a few questions that really need to be answered in no particular order:

It's fair to include Time Machine since the client ships with Mac OS X but it's pretty much useless without an NAS box so reviewing without external storage makes little sense since it cripples the feature. But if you include an NAS box to get a workable solution then it's only fair to include Windows Home Server. And if he includes the full infrastructure backup support then he really should include the higher end Windows solutions like IntelliMirror and automatic folder synchronization to Active Directory managed network storage.

Apple doesn't compete in the corporate and enterprise markets so calling out their lack of features in those markets isn't really a valid comparison since those are markets they previously didn't serve, but it's not unreasonable to say that their biggest new user level feature in Snow Leopard is Exchange support which only matters in those environments so now does it make sense to address the lack of other corporate features in Mac OS X or should Paul ignore the new Mac OS X Exchange support?

For that matter, since Apple doesn't compete in many markets that Windows supports, is it fair to ignore all those features of Windows that don't have a parallel on Mac OS X? If so, does this stop being a comparison and just a list of what they have in common? Is that of any use?

If Paul does a "least common denominator" comparison then Windows gets no credit for supporting multiple video tuners or providing a Digital Video Recorder or a secondary UI for use from across a room on a TV screen or Active Directory support or IntelliMirror or ReadyBoost or ReadyCache or Blu-ray support or, or, or. That seems pretty biased so that's probably not the way to go.

Should he only compare what ships in the OS itself? That leaves out Windows Live Essentials and iLife and iWorks and MobileMe.

Should he include what's available for download and use at no charge? That includes Windows Live Essentials but excludes iLife and iWorks and MobileMe.

If the answer is that extra price add-ons should be included then up to what price?  

Should he include what most users get as a bundle which includes Windows Live Essentials and iLife and some variety of Office or Works+ but excludes iWork and MobileMe.

Should Paul call out multi-touch support in Windows 7 since no Macintosh has the hardware to support it or is that precisely the thing a comparison should call out? What about the new sensor support? What about Tablet support? What about the full voice recognition system that's been in Windows since Vista but isn't used by most people?

Should Paul do different comparisons for different markets? Should he do different comparisons for different versions targeting different markets?

Should he compare the full, Enterprise ready Windows 7 Enterprise and Windows 7 Ultimate with Mac OS X? Should he compare Windows 7 Home Premium in a "home user" comparison? Should he go with Windows 7 Professional for the "small business" comparison? Should he compare "Windows 7 Enterprise" for the comparison that includes OS X Exchange support? Should that review include integration with Windows Server 2008 R2's DirectAccess and branch cache since the clients for those features are included in the client OS? (Kind of the same question as discussing Time Machine). Should that review include integration with SQL Server and SharePoint and all the System Center suites?

Should he compare NetBook support using Windows 7 Starter on limited hardware devices when Apple doesn't make any machines in that market? Should he compare NetBook support on more powerful machines using Windows Home Premium?

That's just a few items off the top of my head. Now try to answer those fairly without picking the answer that favors the platform of your choice.

Time machine works great with an external USB drive, or even a second drive in a Mac.  There is no need for a NAS.

I would try to keep items that are mostly a matter of opinion, such as dock vs taskbar, since those opinions are usually affected by familiarity (which in turn creates preferences).  With those items it's best to just point out what you really like about each and what you find truly obnoxious about each, as if you were setting out to design your own version and wanted to take the best of each.

For things I would like to see compared, I would think of task based items...

- Backups.  How easy to get started, ease of options such as number of backups and scheduling, ease of restoring old versions of files and a full system restore.

- Home networks.  How easy is it to set up a home network with multiple users and file shares with user security.

- HTPC.  How easy to create a HTPC experience that would be wife and non-tech friendly.

- File locating.  How quickly can a user find the files they want if they don't remember where they are.

- Updates.  Which OS handles updates the easiest.  Which system is easier to keep up to date with drivers and core OS components.

- Security.  Which OS does best at making sure the users doesn't inflict harm on themselves.

- Resource use.  How do the OS's compare when they have similar specs typical specs (2.2GHz C2D/2GB RAM/7200RPM HDD) and is being heavily used? 75-125 web pages open, Photoshop open, office documents open, etc., etc. all open at the same time.

- Error recovery.  How are application crashes and incompatibility handled by each OS.

- Hardware support.  How easily will the OS handle various hardware upgrades such as video cards or tv tuner cards, etc, that a typical user may buy.

- Media Playback and management.  How does each OS handle media playback that typical users would normally encounter such as DVD's, various audio and video file types, and streaming on from the Internet?

I'm trying to think of regular tasks that users would do or encounter on a normal basis...

rr0de74@live.com

"????  How much simpler is Apple makes the hardware and the OS?  Apple update pretty much does it for you."

My point is is is not an auto system, you have to manually run it ans an administrator. You can also set it to download and install updates but it is not the defualt and it is on a per user basis. So if you set it up in your admin account it will not download and installed updates in your guest account.

On a windows xp sp2 machine, vista, or windows 7 auto updates are setup to run and installed automaticly with out you haiving to do anything. Any user that logs on to the machine will still get updates and they will install. The only complain that I have is that sometimes updates come in at at times when you are using your computer and it will promp you to restart.

My main point was to answer LuxZG's coments on a medium size network. Windows users have more tools at hand for managing auto updates. For example you can set things up so that all updates install in all of your machines except for windows media player 10 or IE 8.

Oops.. It should have said:

I would try to keep items that are mostly a matter of opinion, such as dock vs taskbar, *out of the comparison* since those opinions are usually affected by familiarity (which in turn creates preferences)

Those are valid questions. However:

"Should Paul call out multi-touch support in Windows 7 since no Macintosh has the hardware to support it or is that precisely the thing a comparison should call out?"

This is not true. From www.apple.com/.../enhancements-refinements.html:

"All Mac notebooks with Multi-Touch trackpads now support three- and four-finger gestures."

rr0de74@live.com

Fair enough on getting partial support with non NAS external drives with the TIme Machine client. Again, though, the same question remains, should Paul include features that require additional hardware? If not, should he limit discussion of the feature to however small it's feature list is without that hardware? If so, what level of hardware cost should be covered - where do you draw a fair line that doesn't favor one OS or the other?

@Mike most of your points are valid.  Paul should pick either to do a consumer view point, since his site is 90% consumer stuff.  Or do two comparisons, consumer and then one where OS X gets its *** handed to it in a corporate environment.  Medium to large environment that is.

Time Machine was only external USB when it shipped.  The only NAS I think it supports now is the time capsule or whatever its called and I am not even sure its supported with WiFi.  There was a well known, easy to hack method for allowing Time Machine to use any drive it could see, even a Windows share, but it was not supported at the time.

@mikegalos

Looking back on past work from Paul on vistaVS10.5 and so on, as well as others that have tried, I can say that I admire that they tried. It is a really hard thing to do and you are right where do you draw the line. Unless Paul is looking into writing another book on the subject I don't think that it is possible to cover a detail comparison of all faetures in SL or Windows 7.

I do agree with many of your points

I think it's fair to include hardware if it's used to test a built in function such as backups.  If the OS has a backup feature, then it should be tested using common hardware and network situations.  Most users that use the built in backup are going to use an external hdd, a spare internal hdd, or a network share.  I would say test each.

Darksages

I suspect Paul will do an admirable job on an impossible task. I just want people to realise first off that it really is impossible and second to realize how their own biases control which comparisons they want to see and which they'd prefer not be mentioned.

rr0de74@live.com

And Time Machine supports the HP Windows Home Server boxes as an NAS as well as of the last update.

In my job, I'm creating PDFs all the time. I'd like to see these systems will handle PDF creation.

@chipwinter

Windows - no support for PDF, you install software some free some not adobe recommended

Mac - support for read/create but if you want real PDF support you need adobes version

rr0de74@live.com

It's more than just consumer vs corporate. There's also things like small business support and netbook support and media center support and several others.

And it's not even that easy in the consumer market, The real key is to not say, "whatever Apple includes in OS X (as the smaller player) is worth comparing and whatever they decided not to include should be skipped" as a means of determining what is and isn't "consumer" support. The key is to come up with real world comparisons of features that address all or at least many of the real markets.

Remember that if we say about a Windows feature "hey, Paul can skip that one since it's only used by maybe 5% of Windows users" that's saying to ignore a feature that's used by more people than the entire Macintosh user base.

The trick is to compare the two operating systems capabilities and not to say "who builds a better OS X".

"And Time Machine supports the HP Windows Home Server boxes as an NAS as well as of the last update."

On the OS X side you still need the hack.

www.mediasmarthome.com/.../Using-Mac-s-Time-Machine-with-HP-MediaSmart-Server-EX470-475

Be sure to include this photo:

www.flickr.com/.../273721740

"My main point was to answer LuxZG's coments on a medium size network. Windows users have more tools at hand for managing auto updates. For example you can set things up so that all updates install in all of your machines except for windows media player 10 or IE 8"

I agree, as most of my daily job revolves around Active Directory/Windows Server/Exchange.

That is why I agree with Mike that this is an impossible task.  From a high level I see Microsoft  primarily business first and consumer second and Apple the exact opposite.  They both do cross over but they both focus on different areas first.

Making it even more complicated is that Apple is a hardware company first with a software division and Microsoft is a software company with a hard ware division.

I have never thought the comparison of the two is good, not in Apple adds or by pro Apple or pro Windows sites.

Mike,

"I suspect Paul will do an admirable job on an impossible task. I just want people to realise first off that it really is impossible and second to realize how their own biases control which comparisons they want to see and which they'd prefer not be mentioned."

I agree that it is impossible, however I think the outcome is already known, based on Paul's expertise (Windows) and bias against Apple, which comes through so very well in nearly everything he writes about the company. Examples are so numerous as to be unnecessary here.

However, on a meta-level again, some suggestions:

1. Don't write or think about the COMPANIES, just the PRODUCTS. I abhor Microsoft for what I think are very good reasons; you and Paul have similar feelings about Apple. I suggest that, to the extent possible, these must be set aside.

2. Try, really try, to take a gestalt approach. What we do NOT need is an enormous "feature table", a la the Windows 7 versions table (and let's not go there again....). The user experience is not about which product has more tweaky bells and whistles, it is about how the whole thing works.

3. There is no unique point of view to use. The review must consider novice, intermediate, and expert users, and----although I doubt this can be done by Paul---an honest look at how switchers would view these systems.

4. I'm tempted to say that pricing is irrelevant, but that isn't so. People will buy something that is clearly inferior if it is cheap enough. Some people just don't care once a product meets a certain minimum standard, others will pay a lot more for various reasons. I don't know how to address this.

5. Gestalt again: Apple doesn't sell OS X randomly, they sell it only on their own hardware. I don't know how you get a level playing field here. The usual pattern (see "Laptop Hunters") is to compare the cheapest PC hardware with Macs and reach pretend conclusions. In fairness Apple has exaggerated the dual vendor issue in their own ads. There ARE many well-known issues of dual vendor support problems (drivers, etc)  when one company makes the OS and another the hardware. The counterpoint is that, if Apple doesn't make what you want, tough. It is a major difference and I don't know how to deal with this, but it can't be left out.

6. What you lose by using one system as opposed to the other. Macs now -are- PCs, either through dual boot or Virtual machines. In my view, that makes Macs a superset of any Windows machine. Not sure if there is any rebuttal to that from the PC point of view. However, there are costs to switching in either direction; that's an important consideration.

7. If we go into user interface issues, try for a few objective criteria. Fitts Law. Click counting. Not sure what else. I think the Windows UI fails in fundamental ways, but if I don't explain that via something like Fitts law, no one will listen. If the review mentions UI, it must have objective grounding, not just what you're "used to".

8. Standards compliance. That can be (must be, I think) browser performance, but also integration into the world. It must (points for Windows here) include integration into the corporate world of Microsoft Office, and Exchange.

9. Dealing with digital media. Standards compliance again, plus performance. Both companies, with Zune and iPod, are trying to tie you to their own systems. This isn't a good thing, so that's an important part of the review.

10. Future prospects. Which system is likely to be more usable in the future? Which appears to be most cognizant of current technical trends? Which will scale better on a 64 core chip, etc? Which takes better advantage of GPU processing? Which integrates better with smartphones on a 3G (or 4G) wireless network? Some of these answers aren't at all clear, because we don't know, for example, if the iPhone or WinMobile or some dark horse will predominate in the mobile world.

That's plenty. Again, I don't think the important part of this review is the specific issues addressed. I also doubt that it is going to move many users one way or another....certainly not in this group.

@Paul - Are you planning to do your comparison in a home environment or business environment or both? That may change the contents of the questions.

--tayme

chuck

I suspect you'll find that Paul will do a more neutral job comparing the two operating system update than any of the many Mac fan sites.

However, I suspect from the inherent biases present in your list that anything short of a "Let's use the exact feature set of OS X as the ideal and see how each did at meeting that 'neutral' criterion" will fail to meet your personal prerequisites.

Since I scrolled to the bottom and added the question that came to mind over lunch, I found that when I went back up and started reading where I left off this morning, that you guys have began the discussion of home vs enterprise...so I'll just second, third, and forth that!

--tayme

Iwould compare printer sharing, as many households use it through a single PC. So far IMO, Vista wins, but I would like to see the difference between the two new OS's.

DRWAM

I'm not sure what Snow Leopard adds to home printer sharing (I suspect we've got better Mac people to answer that on here) but I think you'll find that Windows 7's HomeGroup features make it even easier than it was in Windows Vista.

@Bjoarn2

"Has the installation of the OS become as userfriendly and non-technical as mac os x?"

Erm, I take it you've never had to install OSX on a completely clean (not HFS format) disk then?

Honet to gods, FreeBSD is easier than OSX

Having said not to do specifics, here is one:

Power consumption. Since battery technology is the critical technology that doesn't follow Moore's law, this is a critical point.

I'm less concerned about other resource consumption, be it cpu, memory or disk, because that's all cheap and getting continuously cheaper.

@ rr0de74@live.com

"Time machine works great with an external USB drive, or even a second drive in a Mac.  There is no need for a NAS."

Unless you have several macs, and you don't want to fork out for a seperate external USB drive for them all.

Anyway, as for what to compare, I agree with the guys who've suggested comparing comomn TASKS, mostly.

However, it would also be worthwhile to discuss the discoverability of features, and individual feature-ettes.

Between those two approaches, I think a valid comparisson could be made.

Just for the record, I think the "control panel" layout in OSX is much better than in windows.

However, the Vista and win7 control panels are getting there, but not quite - they look a bit cluttered.

"However, it would also be worthwhile to discuss the discoverability of features"

Good point. From what I've heard, OS X is better at this, but Windows is making it easier with Windows 7.

All right, Mike steps in and everything gets messy...

It's pretty simple I think.  Nobody cares about a specific professional environment or whatever, or tablet PCs ...

We care about tasks that people do day to day at HOME. Communicates in between PCs, stream music library, share printer on network, edit photo, setup wifi , updates, security...

Sounds like you find that unfair...

@chuck: "I abhor Microsoft..."

Wow! At least you're being forthright about it.

Shark, someone pointed out on this blog once, that the reason behind forcing only one button on the mac was to force application developers to make things more easy to navigate, to remove the option of right clicking, if you will.

Whilst I'm not sure whether I totally agree with that, I certainly can see merit to the concept.

However, when working on complicated audio software (for example, Logic on the mac Vs Pyramix on Windows), one of the things that annoys me in Logic is that I need to choose a different "tool" to do everything, whereas pretty much everything in Pyramix is done with the mouse cursor, and holding down modifier keys.

Admittedly, I haven't used the two most recent versions of Logic, but I got the impression that it was "meant" this way if you will.

Of course, on the flipside, this makes learning to be fast at Pyramix quite an uphil struggle for the uninitiated, but you do always have the OPTION of having seperate tools, on a toolbar.

It's the different approaches of the two OSes in these and similar aspects that fascinate me most.

Only pb is that Paul, just like Mike who spend gazillions of hours on their Windoze machines and close to 0 on a Mac (Mike would have to confess to St Ballmer) will find their OS more natural more easy to find a setting or do a common task with it. I'm sure they don't even know that the icons of the toolbar of every app in OSX can be customized via the same menu "View -> Customize Toolbar".

Don't worry I spend most of my time on WIndows XP and Vista and know my way around them too !

what a complete farce.  All Paul will do is snipe in this canard.  All one needs to do is listen to that last windows weekly when paul played up win7 as revolutionary retooling but snow leopard as a service pack. paul made a point to disagree with laporte who equated the two OSs similarly.  gutless wonder that leo is, he didn't stand up for himself...  and later on when paul called him a rare rational mac user,leo THANKED him.  What a sock monkey he is...  just like paul's gonna try to make out of snow leopard in this 'comparison'.

it might also be worth noting that my previous example of pyramix Vs Logic totally blows Fitt's law out of the water.

paul is a partisan hack right out of the gate with this:

Fundamentally, I feel that both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are minor, evolutionary updates, technologically. Windows 7 is a major update from a user experience perspective, while Snow Leopard is not. Mac purists may argue that OS X didn't need a major user experience update, but I don't agree with that, and feel that OS X--from the end user's perspective--has been pretty stagnant for a while. But it's not all wine and cheese on the Windows side of the fence. Windows changes a lot between versions, but it sometimes feels like Microsoft is just experimenting to see what works. In fact, there's some Mac envy in Windows 7 I absolutely don't agree with, including the new OS X Dock-like taskbar.

...so to be clear, both are minor revisions, however Win7 is a major update too?  And of course he can't keep back his contempt of the OSX dock here (I didn't hear any of this garbage from him and Windows start button holding on for 14 years!) and his only complaint so far with Win7 is that it's too mac-like at times.  What a complete and utter waste of everyone's time.

OS Death Match!

Who said I've gone over the edge?

Mike,

"However, I suspect from the inherent biases present in your list that anything short of a "Let's use the exact feature set of OS X as the ideal and see how each did at meeting that 'neutral' criterion" will fail to meet your personal prerequisites."

I'm not suggesting that approach. I suppose there are inherent biases, but at least some of those comments (multiple user viewpoints, switching costs in either direction) were fairly neutral.

I'm not even sure I see a point to this exercise, other than to let Paul say that Windows has "caught up". No surprise, he already thinks XP(!) than OS X.

Shark,

"@chuck: "I abhor Microsoft..."

Wow! At least you're being forthright about it."

It's not a secret. It's much more about their corporate behavior than their products. The products are certainly serviceable, if mediocre. It's the repeated anti-competitive, illegal business practices that make the company anathema to me. This is all well-documented, so not just my opinion.

Of course, I also said that this review should be about the products, and to set aside the companies and their behavior.

DarkSages - thanks for the infos you gave, but it does NOT look nice.. I hope that Pauls article will show a friendlier way

rr0de74@live.com - I had no intention to ask about OS X in Windows-dominated network. I just don't know the names of comparable Mac services, so I wrote Microsoft names. I do want exactly that - how does Win7+Server 2008 R2 work vs Snow Leopard+OS X Server. So I'm not asking for NTFS on Mac, I want to know how NTFS compares to HFS.

I don't agree with some people that ONLY thing to be considered in articles should be "common people" stuff. I want advanced stuff as well. If someone could show me that all-Mac business environment is as good or better than all-Windows environment maybe I'd start considering it in the long run.

I do agree that we need to compare not just OS itself, but their "free addons" so to say, like Live Essentials, or iLife and iTunes as well. It would only be fair to take the OS on both sides, install them, and install all the Microsoft/Apple created free software for that exact OS as well. If it's iLife so be it. If it's Live stuff, put it on. Bring on the tools made by these corporations, don't just use naked OS.

I do know that this would be an interesting comparision, so I'm looking forward to it. And the more info, the better.

Oh, and one thing I don't see much purpose in.. stuff like copying files on USB or network.. OK, if it's a huge difference, like 10 minutes on Win7 and 5 on Mac.. but otherwise I believe it to be a moot point. few seconds won't matter in the bigger picture.

There is one more thing, which should not be overlooked. How easy is it to find some application for that OS. Free application, that works well. I often just open google and write something like "image compare tool", and few clicks later I'm using some tool. I'd really like to know if it's as easy on Mac as well, or do I have to go to certain sites like tucows or download.com or something similar (for Macs)

Cya! And Paul - can't wait for the article!

P.S. Have NOT read all comments, I'm going to bed.. if someone wrote something as an answer to me I'll take a look at all the posts in the morning, I hope comments will still be enabled!

What I'd really like to see is a comparison/review that's similar in depth to John Siracusa's OS X reviews (such as this: arstechnica.com/.../mac-os-x-10-5.ars). I don't actually agree with some of his opinion points (good and bad both), but that's mostly irrelevant; he just does a really thorough job of investigating the platform. Of course, Siracusa himself will do doubt have a Snow Leopard review of his own, but it would be interesting to see a similarly-scoped article that covers both new OS versions side-by-side.

How about a consumer reflection on cost.

How much value for your dollar do consumers get in visible changes?

If you quantify visible changes as a dollar amount, can you compare those visible changes based on a dollar scale?

ie.  How much is xyz change in UI or other new visible changes worth in dollars?

If Windows 7 is $x, how much of that is a user willing to spend for the new taskbar, for instance?  How much are they willing to spend on the new wireless connectivity enhancements?  How much on performance updates?

Then look at Snow Leopard.  How much is a user willing to pay for Quicktime X?  Um....what other visible changes are there?

Compare those dollar values to the actual selling price.  How do they compare.  How do they compare to each other on value?

BTW:  Apple advertising printer automatic updates as a feature of Snow Leopard on the main page is a total laugh.

Sigh...this is starting to go the way of most of the threads here...Paul asked for a list of things that we feel he should compare...not for us to, in our own biased opinions, provide commentary on what or why we feel one platform is better than the other. Its a pretty simple request, people...why turn it into something it is not?

--tayme

@tayme "Sigh...this is starting to go the way of most of the threads here" agreed just look at Waethorn post above yours for proof of jack ass fangirl stuff.

@daveinla

"Nobody cares about a specific professional environment or whatever, or tablet PCs ... "

I think we do, it should be covered even if it's just to say that it's junk. I have purchases computers just becuase it was a tablet pc. Also the professional enviorment is important because it is what we as consumers use at work. Last did you really need to take a cheap shot at Mike...

@chuckb84

"Don't write or think about the COMPANIES, just the PRODUCTS."

I think that we do need to think about the companies becuase they are the ones that make the product and will decide it's future. One of my main personal complains is that Apple over prices many of their products and at the end as a customer, once they release their next version good luck on getting help or support with the old. At least hat has been my experience as an apple customer ipod/mac and from an IT who spents hours on the phone with them.

Microsoft - has their own issues but I feel that they care about supporting their custumers by supporting all their products for a long time after release. It was not long ago that I was on the phone with them about a server running 2000.

As a consumer I will give the credit to apple with their apple store "genious" support. As an IT I will give it to Microsoft for supporting all of their products well. In the other hand I never call support unless it is something out of the ordinary that is wrong. I still can't belive apple has not fixed their print server quotas after what three os releases 10.3, 10.4 ,10.5 and they do count that as one of their features.

In my opinion Windows Live and iLife should be included to at least some extent, since such applications matter greatly to the average user. A lot of functionality would be ignored if the comparison didn't include those.

"There is one more thing, which should not be overlooked. How easy is it to find some application for that OS. Free application, that works well."

Agreed.  I loved the XP powertoys, ISO power toy and image resize were some of my favorites.  Image resize was gone with Vista, with some 3rd party attempts that were either clunky or to big compared to the simple XP power toy.  Netstumbler was another nice free tool that died with XP.

On the OS X side little things like printing to PDF built into the OS, or mounting ISO files are nice things that I must go find for Windows, free most of the time but hunting I must go.

Why has this become an OS debate? He just asked for suggestions as to what he should compare.

+ 1 for iLife and Live.  iLife cost money for those not buying a new Mac but upgrading to SL.   However at one point they bought a Mac and got a copy of iLife with it.

iLife is a huge draw for consumers.

"agreed just look at Waethorn post above yours for proof of jack ass fangirl stuff."

Oh, be quiet. There were a lot of posts before that.

Daveinla

"It's pretty simple I think.  Nobody cares about a specific professional environment or whatever, or tablet PCs ... "

And that's precisely the kind of provincial thinking that I mentioned earlier as "Let's use the exact feature set of OS X as the ideal and see how each did at meeting that 'neutral' criterion"

It's the mindset of "Apple tells me what I want to do. If I can't do it with their product then not only don't I want to do it and if I don't want to do it then nobody else should want to, either."

Pingback from  Windows 7 Blog » Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard: Which features should be compared? (Updated)

FYI: My avatar is shaded green in support of the students in Iran today. (It's not, as some might suspect my take on most of the comments in this discussion)

Mike, it hard for me to believe that print sharing can get any easier on Windows. It's practically all automatic and very impressive, even good with XP, better with Vista.

And I'm sure the comparison will be unbiased.. not!

The truth is there are advantages and benefits to both OS's. Neither one of them provides a perfect solution. Based on that it comes down to a hardware question. Since I can run Windows on my Mac, I can have both and the benefits of both. Not to mention the cost of a copy of Win 7 is less than the cost of a PC. The things that the PC does best I do there and the same for the Mac. So in my opinion SL is the better OS not because if what it does or doen't do but because of the hardware it runs on.

@mikegalos: That's a lot of questions you have there. Should this, should that. Maybe you can answer them on your own blog? Thanks. Bye.

Kent, one of the other docs has an iMac, but will only run Vista on it. He bought it for the hardware. He gave me the Leopard upgrade disc! Free is good.

I'm not sure why Paul needs to write this series of articles.  It all boils down to this for Paul: MS  update = major.  Apple update = minor.

"Windows 7 looks to be a big change at first, but when you start using it a lot it feels like a faster Vista.  Put them both in classic mode and the difference is even smaller."

Actually the reason it looks small now is because of how long ago the OS was demo'ed. It's been six months since Windows 7 Beta came out. Another thing is that 7 has a lot of little tweaks - kind of like the OS X Tiger to Leopard upgrade with 300 new features. It's not a major upgrade, but it definitely is not a service pack.

This is following the usual devolution, particularly since Mike got involved. Sigh.

And, just because I'm curious for a point of information,

"I'm working on a multi-part Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard comparison (read the introduction here) and am curious what you guys (and gals) would like to see included"

Any "gals" here who want to self-identify? I doubt it; I think you're all too smart for this nonsense.

@chuck: "This is following the usual devolution, particularly since Mike got involved. Sigh. "

It's funny that you should blame mike for it after making comments like:

"I abhor Microsoft..."

and

"The products are certainly serviceable, if mediocre."

Why would you even be interested in paul's comparison in the first place?

Death Match

Does this mean pistols at 20 paces?

Paul,

I'd like to interject a few thoughts.

First, perhaps you could compare a lot of the free software that's out there that available for both Windows and OS-X. We have so many software download sites and repositories out there, that it would be nice to see how it rates up between the two OSes.

Second, I'd also love to see how internet services line up between Windows and OS-X. ISP's, music, videos, retail, gaming, etc. Is it universal support for both or is it one sided with Windows having an advantage? Or is OS-X gaining traction? This could be interesting side by side comparison.

The gaming environment should also be examined as gaming tends to be a big deal on the PC side. It would be nice to see where SnowLeopard stacks up to playing the latest and the greatest and how Windows 7 does. After seeing a gaming computer set up for Crysis at Fry's and how both adults along with children seemed to flock to it, I see gaming as a bigger deal than our Mac counterparts.

"It's not a major upgrade, but it definitely is not a service pack."  That sums up 7 perfectly.

Kind of on the subject, and I think this article is dead on as well.

money.cnn.com/.../index.htm

Some key point that I agree with in it,

"But Microsoft's new operating system is set to debut on Oct. 22, and experts for the most part like what they have seen. That's a dramatic shift from the largely negative reviews -- and disappointing sales -- of its current Windows version, Vista."

"They fixed some very important features and made an impressive operating system."

"Users complain that Vista is sluggish, has too many versions and is susceptible to bugs."  Yet at the supersite, having 5 versions or more is good:)

"According to a survey of more than 1,000 IT professionals nationwide conducted in March by Dimension Research, 50% said they were considering leaving Windows altogether rather than switch to Windows 7. Apple's (AAPL, Fortune 500) Mac OS X was the system they are most likely to switch to."  

I see this one a lot these days among IT people.  Unix and Linux geeks tend to flock to Apple because of the nix link.

And finally the question Mike could not answer a while ago.......

"A stunning 83% of IT professionals in the Dimension Research survey skipped a Vista upgrade and continue to use the eight-year old Windows XP -- which is ancient, by computer standards."

Mike you don't have to walk down the hallway to get those numbers:)

@sub sometimes I wonder at your logic????  

Free software?  That would take days and pages upon pages of review to go over.  I think Paul's focus on the OS and probably software from the OS vendors, like Live and iLife is a good way to go with this comparison.

Internet services?????  WTF?  I guess you are talking about the CD you get from SBC, or the lame ass software that cable companies want you to install on your PC.  I feel comfortable in saying that anyone that comes here or reads Paul site probably NEVER touches that crap.  I have visions of AOL infesting a PC, installing security software, even though you have some already, a reskinned browser etc....problem after problem!!!

Gaming, I guess like its any contest between the two.  Hard core games Windows wins hands down.  That said console gaming continues to totally dominate in sales as PC games sales shrivel up.  I was also amazed recently at the number of games for the Mac when I was in a Apple store.  I dont play any games on a computer but lots of the major PC games are now made for the Mac, Sims, WOW, Call of Duty 4, Age of Empires, Civ, Halo, the latest red alert etc.  I would bet they lag in release time though.

If you really want to get into a philosophical discussion, you could compare  the innovations of each OS.

--tayme

"If you really want to get into a philosophical discussion, you could compare  the innovations of each OS."

What's to discuss there? Microsoft invented everything. :-)

Be sure to compare the configurability of the OS...that is the Control Panel options/System preferences options one by one in detail..like XvsXP.com did. Most of the OS GUI of both OSes lies in this part. Again XvsXP.com and its incomplete newer iteration MacsvsWindows.com is a good reference for deciding what categories to compare.

Lindy,

"And finally the question Mike could not answer a while ago......."

Followed by a statement and not a question. (Which explains why I "couldn't answer" it)

You see, Lindy, that little curly symbol in the lower right of the EN-US "QWERTY layout" keyboard that looks like this "?" is usually used at the end of a sentence to express that it is a question. Questions frequently also start with "who", "what", "when", "where", "why", "how" or some other word that indicates what it is that you want answered.

I'm just thinking that you might not know that and I'm trying, as ever, to help.

How about an OS wide dictionary?  Mac has it for spellcheck etc complete with a frontent app for definitions.  

Not sure if windows has a centralized Dictionary or not.  Seems like there is a different dictionary for each app that has a dictionary type feature...  Also there is no front end app for dictionary.

Another item is .Mac sync.  I know that windows has Live sync, but it is not very good.  Mac Sync syncs bookmarks, passwords, files, etc.  It is like what Live mesh does but Mesh falls a bit short by not integrating password, bookmarks, etc.  Also mesh is not an OS feature.  If MS integrates Mesh into windows many other MS products will adopt the sync api.

Last thing I hope...

It has always annoyed me about Windows how apps can take Windowing focus for themselves even after I have pushed them to the back.  A good example is when I scan in a large document the scanner app will take cursor focus at the beginning of every scan cycle.  If I am scanning a 50 page document I would like to be able to type while the scanning is going on in the background.  Window focus is handled much better on the mac.  I have used the mac and when you hide a window it stays hidden and focus remains in the user's control.  The only notion you get that the app is at a dialog, etc is that you get a bouncing icon.

Dont get me wrong... I prefer and use Windows, but we are airing dirty laundry in the hope that someone will read this and improve Windows/Mac even further.

I know I said the last one was the last one, but my mind won't quit.  This subject is too intriguing.

I know this isnt an OS feature anymore, but MS needs to really get on the ball and answer to iDVD and iMovie punch for punch.  The windows apps are a joke in comparison.  DVD maker is worse than iDVD was in Jan 2001.  Its been over 8 years.  You think we would at least have parity with iDVD 1 by now.

@ rr0de74@live.com - "How much simpler is Apple makes the hardware and the OS?  Apple update pretty much does it for you. Unless you are specifically talking about third party hardware"

For Microsoft - everything is third party hardware. So yes, I am talking about GENERAL hardware, meaning anything and everything. Since OS X is installed only on Apple hardware, this would be narrowed to add-in cards (graphics, sound, networking, TV tuners) and peripherals of any kind that's commonly used (from USB sticks to mobile phones). It is very important thing, as Windows offers wide hardware support both built-in and through the Windows Update services. Win7 pushed that even one step further, offering drivers by itself during hardware instalation, and this does include downloading third party utilities, tools, or at very list giving you direct link to driver download page of that exact hardware.

So again - please do a comparision of hardware support, at least for "popular" hardware.

@ mikegalos - regarding fair comparision, I agree.. it's a hard choice to be made by Paul.

All I can say is - it seems highly unfair to just take a Windows/OSX box and review it on it's own, when most of people today have several computers, home servers, media extenders and such. And I'm talking about home users here, I won't even go to business environment where even SOHO scenario would turn tables pretty noticably... Anyway, whatever Paul does, I do hope he includes a bit wider view of things, at least a network of 3-4 computers and a small "server-like" computer.. That's the lowest point that makes sense, and you can just argue what else makes sense from that point on. And explanation is simple. Paul has 5-6-7 computers at his home. I have only 2 - at the moment, as it's just my wife and me, but I expect one more at least this year. My wife's family has 5 computers, and it's just 3 people in the house. My brothers family has 3 computers on 2 people. I have to admit me and my family don't use home servers, but it's more because of lack of funds (and space/infrastructure) than lack of need. So like I've said, a network of several computers is pretty much a norm even in everyday home use. Usually one of those computers acts as "server" or "storage", even if it is using just "client OS" and not a dedicated server OS. But that will change in the life time of Win7/OS X Snow leopard as well I believe. So to repeat once again - a small network scenario with 3-4 clients and perhaps one "server" should really be taken in consideration. Now, will this be a full featured server, a Home Server, or just a client-computer setup with basic Internet sharing, network storage, printer sharing, multimedia sharing and such..well, I'll leave that decision to Paul.

Ofcourse, once we enter larger networks, and corporate environments, I think OS X would fail too much, so no need to go that wide..

@ daveinla - actually, a lot of us care about professional and business use, it's just that we're aware that OSX isn't tailored for the job. But Mike is right - should that be a "+" for Windows, or "-" for OSX? I could also argue that I don't need PDF creation, but that's not reason not to give a "+" to OSX for including it. Or support for mounting ISO images. Or anything similar. Btw, just to remind you - graphics studios, newspapers, audio/video studios and such, they all use Macs (mostly), so they can be used professionaly too, and people do want to know. But while applications that run ON TOP of OS are important to most professionals, they also want to know other things like management of large numbers of those computers, and such. But while OSX has it's own functions that Windows lacks completely (or barely touches), same is true other way around for other things. So I don't think it's unfair to compare even those functions that other side does not have. Actually - that's the whole point!

MikeGalos,

"Lindy,

"And finally the question Mike could not answer a while ago......."

Followed by a statement and not a question. (Which explains why I "couldn't answer" it)

You see, Lindy, that little curly symbol in the lower right of the EN-US "QWERTY layout" keyboard that looks like this "?" is usually used at the end of a sentence to express that it is a question. Questions frequently also start with "who", "what", "when", "where", "why", "how" or some other word that indicates what it is that you want answered.

I'm just thinking that you might not know that and I'm trying, as ever, to help."

This is your funniest post ever!  Not just funniest, but possibly the best post EVER on this idiotic, yet addictive, blog!

Mike the question?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????  Was asked a few days ago.  

My statement in this thread, was a statement.  +1 for you for getting that part correct.  You were asked, a few days ago, what the adoption rate of Vista was among corporations.  It was thought that you might know this answer because you work for Microsoft.

www.rif.org

Shark,

"It's funny that you should blame mike for it after making comments like:

"I abhor Microsoft..."

and

"The products are certainly serviceable, if mediocre."

Why would you even be interested in paul's comparison in the first place?"

Those are my personal opinions. Just opinions. I think there are a few other opinions floating around this place.

The interest in Paul's "comparison" is to point out that it will have all the drama and completely unexpected outcome of, say, the vote "recount" now taking place in Iran.

This is a foregone conclusion. And the fundamental reason is still this,

"It's time for Microsoft to respond to the challenges it faces with leadership and authority. And if you care about the systems you support now, your jobs, and your very livelihood, you might do demand the same from the company. All of us have backed the same horse.

--Paul Thurrott

June 24, 2008"

Read that in this context,

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair"

Pogue, Mossberg, Ihnatko and Siracusa will make comparisons that can be believed, but you won't find that here.

So, here's what I understand: You don't care about Paul's opinion, but you do care about his alleged bias. This alleged bias prevents you from ignoring paul and contributes to this passive-aggressive behavior of yours.

"Pogue, Mossberg, Ihnatko and Siracusa will make comparisons that can be believed, but you won't find that here."

You're right.

They will definitely come up with a comparison that Apple can use in its advertising.

"Pogue, Mossberg, ... will make comparisons that can be believed"

That's laughable.

@Kent

It's a very valid point that a mac can run OSX AND Windows - and is very much worth considering.

However, there are a lot of users for whom the advantage of being able to run OSX does not outweigh the cost increase to be able to do so.

For example, in the studio, we considered getting a Mac Pro tower, so we could run any audio application a producer requested. However, we realised that we could build the equivalent workstation for far far less money than the Mac Pro, and opted to not support OSX, especially considering that the only apps we would be losing out on were Logic and Digital Performer.

So, in certain circumstances, the "cost" of OSX is much greater than the the $129 price tag.

@Lindy,

Wow. Sometimes your logic is very suspect or in some cases not at all.

You're comparing conditions of the past. Are you even aware SBC no longer exists anymore? That analogy of yours is completely irrelevant to 2009 ISP and other Internet related services. However, current ISP and other Internet Services are the reality in 2009. I can't think of a better time to review them. Most ISP's today don't bundle a browser anymore. Another Mac user perception that is no longer relevant today. I haven't seen AOL cd's in years. In fact, AOL quit making those disk as of August 2006. Not in stores, magazines, or anywhere else for that matter.  Almost 3 years after those disk ceased and that's your best argument?You're using FUD tactics that no longer exist.

With recently new broadband platforms such as Verizon's FIOS network, AT&T Uverse, and the rollout of Wi-Max based ISP's, there's plenty to review for Windows 7 and SnowLeopard in 2009.

You don't need to chart every software download services, just the top two or three to make a comparison. Many of the features that Apple touts and charges Mac users in iLife be done for free using either dowload or internet based services. If you can do everything iLife can do for nothing, then what's the value of iLife then? Is it really worth the cost if there's another way to tackle the features? That's something every computer customer needs to factor.

If there is a lag, then why? If Macs can do everything a PC can do, why can't it play Crysis. If it can't, then its an unfair comparison because Macs CAN'T do everything that Windows machine can. To me that's an important distinction, because you're being upsold a premium machine that cannot do pound for pound every single feature that a Windows machine can do. Maybe for business its not a big deal, but for consumers it is. Unless your business is in the PC gaming industry in which it becomes an essential part of their business.

Or if your a retailer such as Fry's or Microcenter, it is a very big deal. I still see folks buying their ATI and nVidia cards especially for gaming purposes. That market has not shriveled up. All of the MMORPG's such as World of Warcraft, has successfully increased its revenue. Thats why future MMORPG's are in the works with theme's from Star Wars, Star Trek, the Sims, and other franchises. I think its a perfectly relevant since billions of dollars world wide are spent every year on such services.

Now does my argument sound illogical? No. But nice Epic Fail. Keep trying, Lindy.

Peace.