Windows is simply a better multitasking OS

[OneOfTheseDays]

I love my new Macbook Pro Retina Display laptop, but I have to admit that I miss the multitasking of Windows 7. It's not that I can't multitask in OSX, it's just not nearly as efficient.

For starters, there's no transparency. This means I can't really see what windows are open behind me if they are directly behind the current window. Now I can do the finger shortcuts to bring them up, but that's an extra step that I don't have to do in Windows. Windows also makes much better use of screen real-estate. For an app in OSX to use the full screen it has to enter into fullscreen mode which is cumbersome. In Windows it's so bloody simple, double click the top title bar and voila. Also I can shuffle windows around very easily in Windows so that I can view them side by side.

All in all, I enjoy my laptop and for the most part enjoy OSX. But my next laptop will be Windows based for sure. I miss it.

 

[hhhd1]

You might consider waiting a bit, windows 8 interface is ridiculous, which is scheduled to be out sometime in the next couple of months.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to try out the release preview which is available to download for free now, use something like vmware-player to run it.

 

[Zaap]

Heh. Yeah, any advantage Windows may have had, Microsoft just threw away with Windows 8.

I'd be ashamed to be bragging on Windows and then point to that juvenile pile of turd Windows 8 as if that's anything to be smug about.

Windows 7 is indeed a solid OS, but 8 is just an embarrassment.

Just about everything the OP cited as great about 7 has been dumbed-down or stripped out of 8: Transparency? Forget it- It's like MS went back to 1998 for the current interface.

Better use of screen real estate? Excuse me for a second...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Metro! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 8 wastes screen real-estate like its going out of style.

If your next laptop is "Windows based for sure", get one before 8 becomes standard, or plan on 'upgrading' it back to 7 if you want to enjoy the advantages.

Apple by comparison with Mountain Lion just keeps on improving and refining OSX. They actually understand both the mobile user interface, and the desktop UI, and how to meld features of either together when it actually makes sense. Microsoft on the other hand just shifted focus to their wanna-be iPad competitor pipe dreams, and trying to force their desktop user base into it at the expense of what made Windows 7 great, and proving they've learned almost nothing about UI design.

As far as I'm concerned, MS is out of the OS race for now. Windows enthusiasts can still proudly cite 7 as a contender. But the Fisher Price and Play Skool editions otherwise known as 8 simply cannot be cited as better than anything else, or frankly, even on-par with any other major OS.

 

[Ns1]

I love my new Macbook Pro Retina Display laptop, but I have to admit that I miss the multitasking of Windows 7. It's not that I can't multitask in OSX, it's just not nearly as efficient.

For starters, there's no transparency. This means I can't really see what windows are open behind me if they are directly behind the current window. Now I can do the finger shortcuts to bring them up, but that's an extra step that I don't have to do in Windows. Windows also makes much better use of screen real-estate. For an app in OSX to use the full screen it has to enter into fullscreen mode which is cumbersome. In Windows it's so bloody simple, double click the top title bar and voila. Also I can shuffle windows around very easily in Windows so that I can view them side by side.

All in all, I enjoy my laptop and for the most part enjoy OSX. But my next laptop will be Windows based for sure. I miss it.

I don't get it. In Win7 I have to alt tab everything. Multiple IE8 windows = you're fucked.

in OSX, I just multi-swipe to expose and pick what I want. Don't even need to move my cursor to the taskbar.

Points are valid for full screen however. I think the reasoning was/is "you don't need full screen" but old habits are hard to break.

Add to that spaces and shit (I haven't touched Mission Control) and I can do way more in OSX vs Win7 (from a multitasking perspective ONLY)

In Windows 7 I'm just laying on the alt-tab keys all day, and in those cases where I have multiple instances of the same app running (15 porn windows, for instance) OSX just blows away Win7.


I'll have to buy Mountain Lion this week so see how mission control changes my multitasking...

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I really enjoy the Exposé features (now called Mission Control) although I enjoyed them better in their earlier incarnations prior to Lion (have not yet moved up to Mountain Lion, which from what I hear takes steps to repair the damage done in Lion). I keep the lower-left hotcorner as Show All Windows and the lower-right hotcorner as Show Desktop, which is how I've had it running since 10.4 Tiger. I usually Alt-Tab between 2-3 apps, but from time to time I will use Show All Windows.

IMO going full-screen in most apps is simply a waste of screen real estate. There are a few apps where I can see it making sense (Photo/movie editing, where you have a lot of palettes/toolbars floating around, and you want to have the main content as big as possible) but for everyday stuff like word processing and using the Web, fullscreen is just silly. On my 1680x1050 MBP, my Web browsers and Word windows usually only cover roughly half the screen (800-900 pixels wide). I can see an Excel spreadsheet taking up the whole screen if it has a lot of columns. And when I'm coding, I often make the window as large as possible to display those long lines of code. But for the most part, fullscreen is a waste IMO (unless you are easily distracted). I think that it made sense for Windows throughout its early history with the 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 resolutions where there really isn't much room on the sides of an application window to show other stuff. But with a high-res display I don't see much of a point.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

First of all, why discuss Windows 8? The OS isn't even out yet.

Secondly, Windows makes it far easier to position and manipulate your apps accordingly. The lack of a basic maximize button is OSX biggest flaw. And yes, there are many times where it is necessary for me to expand my windows beyond the default size. Entering into full-screen mode is just cumbersome, there's no way to argue against that. I'm not saying you CAN'T multi-task in OSX, it's just significantly harder to compared to Windows. I need to know several keyboard shortcuts just to get to a level of functionality that I consider minimal at best. With Windows I hardly ever needed to use keyboard shortcuts for much of anything besides copy/paste.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Keyboard shortcuts? The only ones that I use in relation to window management / task switching / multitasking in OSX are Cmd-H (Hide Window), Cmd-W (Close Window), Cmd-Q (Quit Application) and Cmd-Tab (Switch Application). When I was a Windows user, I used all of these (except Hide) all the time. Alt-F4 to quit, Ctrl-W to close window, Alt-Tab to switch.

I definitely like the fact that on OSX the vast majority of keyboard shortcuts use the Cmd modifier instead of having to switch back and forth between Alt and Ctrl like in Windows. Ctrl is hard to reach with the pinky, and Ctrl-V/Ctrl-C/Ctrl-X (Paste/Copy/Cut) are simply hard to do. Cmd-V/C/X is much easier. Alt/Cmd is easy to get with either thumb.

I do occasionally wish that OSX had a window "tiling" feature like Windows does. But most of the time, I really just don't worry about the positioning of my windows/apps. The only time I do is when I need to have 2 documents/pages open side-by-side.

 

[TheStu]

First of all, why discuss Windows 8? The OS isn't even out yet.

Secondly, Windows makes it far easier to position and manipulate your apps accordingly. The lack of a basic maximize button is OSX biggest flaw. And yes, there are many times where it is necessary for me to expand my windows beyond the default size. Entering into full-screen mode is just cumbersome, there's no way to argue against that. I'm not saying you CAN'T multi-task in OSX, it's just significantly harder to compared to Windows. I need to know several keyboard shortcuts just to get to a level of functionality that I consider minimal at best. With Windows I hardly ever needed to use keyboard shortcuts for much of anything besides copy/paste.

Except that gestures and keyboard shortcuts are faster than moving crap around with your mouse. What's faster, alt-tabbing between 2 programs, or moving your mouse down to the taskbar everytime? Besides, what are the 'several' keyboard shortcuts you need to know?

If the application that you are using requires the entire screen to hold all the data, press the plus sign, and it will fill the screen. Otherwise, it just expands the window to fit the data. I think maybe you aren't used to the differences between the two OSes, or your workflow is rigidly set in stone. It isn't more difficult to multitask in OS X, it is more difficult for YOU to multitask in OS X.

And you're kidding me about the transparency, right? The 4 pixels of blurry glass on the edges of the windows really helps you see what is behind? How is that any better than NO side window chrome, the default in OS X.

You want to position your apps? Divvy.

 

[Nothinman]

I love my new Macbook Pro Retina Display laptop, but I have to admit that I miss the multitasking of Windows 7. It's not that I can't multitask in OSX, it's just not nearly as efficient.

For starters, there's no transparency. This means I can't really see what windows are open behind me if they are directly behind the current window. Now I can do the finger shortcuts to bring them up, but that's an extra step that I don't have to do in Windows. Windows also makes much better use of screen real-estate. For an app in OSX to use the full screen it has to enter into fullscreen mode which is cumbersome. In Windows it's so bloody simple, double click the top title bar and voila. Also I can shuffle windows around very easily in Windows so that I can view them side by side.

All in all, I enjoy my laptop and for the most part enjoy OSX. But my next laptop will be Windows based for sure. I miss it.

You can put Windows on there if you miss it so much. And if you want real multitasking you need to look at multiple desktops on Linux. OS X has them too although, I heard Apple screwed them up fairly badly with Mission Control.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Try out Cinch. There's a free version, but it allows you to drag things to the side and to the top to full screen or snap to the side like Aero Peek.

 

[Tegeril]

I'm confused, on the one hand your argument is that Windows is better at multitasking and on the other hand you're saying you need to maximize your applications. Those are generally mutually exclusive events.

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread was/TheStu covered everything else I wanted to say.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm confused, on the one hand your argument is that Windows is better at multitasking and on the other hand you're saying you need to maximize your applications. Those are generally mutually exclusive events.

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread was/TheStu covered everything else I wanted to say.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I believe in this case it simply means he's most comfortable with the Windows-style of window management. Having several things open to work on separate parts of the same task doesn't require they all be visible at the same time.

 

[gevorg]

End of mainstream support for Windows 7 is 1/12/2015 and the extended support will last until 1/14/2020. Both of these might be extended even more. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade to the latest Windows, yet. I bet Windows 9 will follow shortly after Windows 8, like in 1.5-2 years.

 

[Zaap]

First of all, why discuss Windows 8? The OS isn't even out yet.

You were the one citing 'your next laptop'. Are you getting it within the next 3 months?

 

[Spineshank]

Try out Cinch. There's a free version, but it allows you to drag things to the side and to the top to full screen or snap to the side like Aero Peek.

Or if you want to use BetterTouchTool to do shortcuts it also has this feature as a part of the program.

 

[mugs]

Mission Control > *

Windows also makes much better use of screen real-estate. For an app in OSX to use the full screen it has to enter into fullscreen mode which is cumbersome. In Windows it's so bloody simple, double click the top title bar and voila.

This is a case where early versions of each OS shaped user preferences, and those user preferences fed back into future OS design. Overlapping windows was an early feature of Mac OS. Mac users in general have always liked to have multiple windows visible at one time, e.g. so you can view information in one window while working in another, or drag things from one window to another.

I grew up using a Mac and switched to Windows when I got to college. I've *never* intentionally maximized a window in Windows. I actually wish I could disable the feature entirely, because I hate doing it accidentally. It's just the way my user tendencies developed from using a Mac for years. When you say Windows makes better use of screen real estate because it's easy to make an app full-screen, I say full-screen apps are usually a bad use of screen real estate. I really hate Apple's push for full-screen apps. I think both Apple and Microsoft are making mistakes when they try to push mobile UI designs onto desktop OSes.

 

[MrX8503]

Why don't you use gestures with the track pad? Mission control? Expose?

 

[Ns1]

Why don't you use gestures with the track pad? Mission control? Expose?

He clearly does not use hot keys

With Windows I hardly ever needed to use keyboard shortcuts for much of anything besides copy/paste.

 

[mugs]

He clearly does not use hot keys

I'm not a keyboard shortcut guy myself. I have a 6 button mouse, and I mapped the forward/back buttons to mission control (forward is current app, back is all apps).

 

[Oil]

The only thing I truly miss from Win 7 is Aero Snap. There are 3rd party options for that in OS X but I haven't looked at them yet

 

[sportage]

I was a windows guy for many many long years. Long expensive years.
I built windows machines.
Now, every day when I fire up my iMac, I think THANK GOD for the iMac.
If God were to ever create a computer, it would be a mac.
Windows would have to clean my carpets, feed the cat, and take the kids to daycare before Id even have the delusional state of mind to return to the world of windows.
And fer u windows guys... apple just released OS X Mountain Lion.
Guess he price...?
No, not $99. No not $49.
Mountain Lion $19.
Thats nineteen one dollar bills.
Hmmmm I wonder what Windows 8 will cost you Windows guys?

 

[Nothinman]

I was a windows guy for many many long years. Long expensive years.
I built windows machines.
Now, every day when I fire up my iMac, I think THANK GOD for the iMac.
If God were to ever create a computer, it would be a mac.
Windows would have to clean my carpets, feed the cat, and take the kids to daycare before Id even have the delusional state of mind to return to the world of windows.
And fer u windows guys... apple just released OS X Mountain Lion.
Guess he price...?
No, not $99. No not $49.
Mountain Lion $19.
Thats nineteen one dollar bills.
Hmmmm I wonder what Windows 8 will cost you Windows guys?

The price argument is stupid for many, many reasons. But Apple has released 7 upgrades of OS X since 2002, when XP was released, while MS has released 3 if you include XP. If you bought XP retail for $200 and the Vista and Win7 upgrades for $100 that's $400 total. It's hard to find good retail prices for older versions of OS X, but they seem to range from less than $100 to over $200 on Amazon. So if we cut that low at $75ea that's still $470. And most people stick with the seam version of Windows for 5+ years and get the license with the PC so it's a moot point.

And even if you factor in another $100 upgrade for Win8, that only puts it $30 above OS X and chances are there will be another version of OS X out before Win9. And it's even worse if you include the first two releases of OS X.

If you're happy with your walled garden that's fine, but cost definitely isn't a reason tout anything from Apple as better than the alternatives.

 

[TheStu]

The price argument is stupid for many, many reasons. But Apple has released 7 upgrades of OS X since 2002, when XP was released, while MS has released 3 if you include XP. If you bought XP retail for $200 and the Vista and Win7 upgrades for $100 that's $400 total. It's hard to find good retail prices for older versions of OS X, but they seem to range from less than $100 to over $200 on Amazon. So if we cut that low at $75ea that's still $470. And most people stick with the seam version of Windows for 5+ years and get the license with the PC so it's a moot point.

And even if you factor in another $100 upgrade for Win8, that only puts it $30 above OS X and chances are there will be another version of OS X out before Win9. And it's even worse if you include the first two releases of OS X.

If you're happy with your walled garden that's fine, but cost definitely isn't a reason tout anything from Apple as better than the alternatives.

If you bought a top end computer when XP came out, you almost certainly weren't still using that computer and upgrading to Vista and then 7.

If you bought a top end computer when 10.0 came out, you almost certainly weren't still using that computer and upgrading to every single 10.x release.
1: 10.1 was a free upgrade
2: 10.3 dropped support for beige G3 Macs
3: 10.4 dropped support for Macs without Firewire
4: 10.5 dropped support for all G3s and any G4 less than 867MHz
5: 10.6 dropped support for all PowerPC Macs
6: 10.7 dropped support for single core intel CPUs
7: 10.8 dropped support for certain Core 2 Duo Macs (with integrated GPUs)

All that pedantry aside, I agree that although on paper the $20 upgrade cost for 10.8 looks good, very few bring up the $30 cost of 10.7, or the $30 cost of 10.6. $100 in 2.5-3 years isn't terrible, but it isn't $20. So you're right, arguing cost is just silly.

 

[Nothinman]

If you bought a top end computer when XP came out, you almost certainly weren't still using that computer and upgrading to Vista and then 7.

You would be surprised. My previous work laptop came with XP on it and I put Win7 on it shortly after it came out and it ran better than XP simply because of the smarter memory management. And that was a run of the mill Dell something or other with 2G of memory so it wasn't exactly top end. I doubt Vista would have been a great experience, but Win7 was easily better on the same hardware.

So technically, OS X is worse again because all of the upgrades dropped support for older hardware and forced some people to buy whole new PCs while MS hasn't done that within the same time frame.

 

[Tyranicus]

You would be surprised. My previous work laptop came with XP on it and I put Win7 on it shortly after it came out and it ran better than XP simply because of the smarter memory management. And that was a run of the mill Dell something or other with 2G of memory so it wasn't exactly top end. I doubt Vista would have been a great experience, but Win7 was easily better on the same hardware.

If it had 2GB of RAM when you got it, you certainly did not get that machine when Windows XP first came out.