Windows is simply a better multitasking OS

[cheez]

For OS X have you ever tried the space bar to open a file? It's instant.

Hmmmm... I haven't tried that. I thought pressing a spacebar wouldn't do a thing. I will try it out when I get hom.

For Windows 7 have you ever tried the snipping tool? It's built in. You can customize it any way you want, grab portions of screens, entire desktop, manually draw the area you want, and annotate on it right after the capture.

Yes I use that at work. It's slow. The whole screen flashes and takes a second or two to refresh before you can actually take screenshots or draw the area and screenshot. And after the screen print, it doesn't automatically save the PNG file on desktop like Mac OS X does... I think Mac OS X built-in screen capture is the best.:thumbsup: It's so damn fast and convenient.

 

[cheez]

Wow, you aint kidding. I just looked at the preview. My God, WTF?

Can you give me the link to that review? I want to laugh also. It's Friday.

 

[sourceninja]

Have you put Linux onto the MacBook? Can it handle the trackpad properly? That is the key, you don't just need the hardware, you need the drivers for it as well.

It works well enough, but I'm happy with OSX. The thing is, I don't want to support the direction apple is going, so when this thing needs to be replaced (2-3 years) I will go back to my roots (linux).

 

[Nothinman]

Not really. Certainly not several. At least, depending on what you mean by "several."

It really just depends on which machines you bought and when. Buying low-end, artificially handicapped machines is a surefire way to screw yourself regardless of OS. Remember 2000-2002, and all those i815 laptops with 512MB memory ceilings?

And don't forget that nasty PPC -> x86 transition (and now the x86 -> x64 transition.) That's a big mess that Microsoft just didn't have to deal with. (I seriously knew people with iBooks and Power Macs that were still under AppleCare warranties when 10.6 came out and dropped PPC support.)

Personally, I think it excuses a lot, even if Apple wasn't particularly "nice" about it. Major architecture shifts are a big deal, and you have to give up legacy support sometime.

But if you really want to keep a computer for ten years, nobody is forcing you. It's not like there's an Apple Mafia that show up at your house if you're not running the latest OS. Sure, you might get behind on some software updates, but security patches still get pushed out. (10.5 came out in 2007, security patches for 10.4 were still being released at least in '09.)

I've skipped more OS X revisions than I've actually used, delayed upgrading to 10.7 for almost a year, and will probably skip 10.8 and iOS 6 completely if there's no killer app I haven't heard about yet.

Likewise, I upgraded from Win2k to XP in '06 and to Win7 in 2011.

"If it ain't broke."

The primary point was that the cost of the software is largely irrelevant, especially for something like an OS which is required to use the hardware. And if you're that cheap or value your freedom there are free and libre alternatives available.

Yes I use that at work. It's slow. The whole screen flashes and takes a second or two to refresh before you can actually take screenshots or draw the area and screenshot. And after the screen print, it doesn't automatically save the PNG file on desktop like Mac OS X does... I think Mac OS X built-in screen capture is the best. It's so damn fast and convenient

It's a little slow, but nothing more than annoying. And I want to punch any software in the face that automatically does anything with my desktop. I'll tell you where I want that file, thank you.

 

[TheStu]

The primary point was that the cost of the software is largely irrelevant, especially for something like an OS which is required to use the hardware. And if you're that cheap or value your freedom there are free and libre alternatives available.



It's a little slow, but nothing more than annoying. And I want to punch any software in the face that automatically does anything with my desktop. I'll tell you where I want that file, thank you.

The default save location is the desktop, but you can change the default location, and the filetype to whatever you like (almost whatever you like with regards to the filetype). This is on OS X, I don't know about the snipping tool in Windows, I have only used it twice.

 

[Nothinman]

The default save location is the desktop, but you can change the default location, and the filetype to whatever you like (almost whatever you like with regards to the filetype). This is on OS X, I don't know about the snipping tool in Windows, I have only used it twice.

Terrible default. And I just checked and the snipping tool in Windows doesn't seem to have any options for automatically saving, not that I would want it to anyway.

 

[TheStu]

Terrible default. And I just checked and the snipping tool in Windows doesn't seem to have any options for automatically saving, not that I would want it to anyway.

Honestly, it may have changed to the Pictures folder. But why is it a terrible default? Anyone that cares will look to see how to change it, and everyone else won't care.

 

[ViviTheMage]

sweet, another metro bashing thread!

 

[TheStu]

sweet, another metro bashing thread!

I don't see it that way. However, thank you for adding such constructive commentary to the thread.

 

[Nothinman]

Honestly, it may have changed to the Pictures folder. But why is it a terrible default? Anyone that cares will look to see how to change it, and everyone else won't care.

Because it promotes abuse of the desktop by using it as a dumping ground.

 

[Tegeril]

Because it promotes abuse of the desktop by using it as a dumping ground.

I don't buy this argument at all. Not one bit.

When you're capturing a screenshot of something, I'd wager the most frequent action to take is to then do something with that picture (e.g.: drag it to Cloud in the menu bar, drag it into an email to attach it, etc).

Also, if the default save location is not the desktop you need that folder open and you also need to teach users what actually happens when they hit those keystrokes instead of having an immediately visible reaction to a behavior.

It makes the most sense as a default and can be changed, seriously, it's fine.

 

[Dug]

My workday consists of several (probably 10) ssh connections, numerous scripts to automate tasks, a few log viewers, textmate with about 5-10 things open, springsource tool kit, a browser with a couple entertainment tabs open and a browser with work tabs open, an im client, oracle sql developer, excel, and sometimes (although rarely) photoshop or xcode.

I try to group stuff on to desktops. So I keep my terminals on one desktop, my fun stuff on another, and the rest of my work stuff on a 3rd. For bit apps like STS, photoshop, or xcode, I want them and any associated browser windows on their own desktop.

Then the magic pad and gestures takes care of the rest.

You just need 15 screens and a barstool so you can spin around to see them all.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Because it promotes abuse of the desktop by using it as a dumping ground.

No, it's not a dumping ground, it's a temporary workspace where you put stuff for a while while you're working on it. I am very happy with the fact that screenshots get tossed on the desktop where I can see them easily (I have full sized icons on the desktop, while my folders/directories are usually in list view, so it is hard to notice new items since they don't alter the visible space in any way -- while new icons on the desktop are easy to pick out.)

I try to keep my desktop clutter to about 30% of usable desktop space. Oriented around the top and right sides. Commonly used folders in two rough rows at the top, organized from left to right by topic: photos on the left, job stuff in the middle, Internet/random on the right side. Down the right side in two rough columns are documents and folders that I have created recently but don't really plan on keeping or on finding a good home for in my hierarchy. (E.g. if I downsample a bunch of music to put on a travel drive, I will create the containing folder on the right side of my desktop.) Every couple of weeks I clean out this space. Screenshots end up here pretty often. Usually a screenshot is either uploaded to a website, or used for reference for a day or two, and then discarded.

I still appreciate the desktop as a metaphor for a physical space where stuff stays where you put it, until it's moved. Usually my folders/directories are too full of similar items for this to be practical, so an alphabetical or date-ordered list is preferred there, but when I've only got 20-30 things to look at, and those things either 1) stay fairly constant over a long period of time (stuff at the top) or 2) are there only temporarily and can usually be trashed without much consideration (stuff at the right side) then it's still a useful concept, despite talk of how it's outdated.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't buy this argument at all. Not one bit.

When you're capturing a screenshot of something, I'd wager the most frequent action to take is to then do something with that picture (e.g.: drag it to Cloud in the menu bar, drag it into an email to attach it, etc).

Also, if the default save location is not the desktop you need that folder open and you also need to teach users what actually happens when they hit those keystrokes instead of having an immediately visible reaction to a behavior.

It makes the most sense as a default and can be changed, seriously, it's fine.

And I disagree. 99% of the time after I take a screenshot I'm either pasting it in or attaching it to an email and putting a copy on the desktop doesn't help that at all.

In theory, you're right. But I've seen way too many users with their desktops filled with crap to the point where they can't find anything on it without staring for a full minute to believe that it's not a problem.

 

[runawayprisoner]

And I disagree. 99% of the time after I take a screenshot I'm either pasting it in or attaching it to an email and putting a copy on the desktop doesn't help that at all.

In theory, you're right. But I've seen way too many users with their desktops filled with crap to the point where they can't find anything on it without staring for a full minute to believe that it's not a problem.

I am with the others here. I don't think the desktop in OSX is as much of a dumping ground as it is on Windows.

I believe the reason is because OSX by default doesn't try to throw your newly installed software on the desktop... whereas Windows does. I bet you will find that the majority of Windows PCs bought from retailers would boot up with around 10-20 icons already littered on the desktop.

So I think it's more of a PC problem than a Mac problem.

I have found that in general, Mac users are accustomed to drag and drop. So by having the screenshot on the desktop, they can drag that screenshot into their emails and what-nots. When they don't want the screenshot anymore, they drag it to the trash bin.

I have also found that they don't work well with right click (their words: it changes all the time) or shortcut keys (too many to remember) at all... save for the more advanced users.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I believe the reason is because OSX by default doesn't try to throw your newly installed software on the desktop... whereas Windows does. I bet you will find that the majority of Windows PCs bought from retailers would boot up with around 10-20 icons already littered on the desktop.

So I think it's more of a PC problem than a Mac problem.

I agree, and it's something that I've never really thought about. I have never once had an application shortcut on my desktop under Mac OSX, but I do under Windows (even now in Win7 in Parallels on my MBP). As much as I think the Dock is kind of a weird half-assed thing, I guess it does have its benefits -- that being one of them. I can't recall ever having an application place a shortcut on the desktop automatically, either. It seems they are content with the Dock.

On the other hand, the Start Menu in Windows (and the thing in KDE that mimics the Start Menu, which is the only experience I have with Linux GUI desktop application launchers, although I know there are plenty of others) is something you kind of have to dig through to get what you want. Win7 (and Vista? can't remember, didn't really use it much) corrects it a bit with having the most recent 10 programs used show up immediately, but really the Dock is more of what I want. (Back in the Win98/XP days I was *super* anal about my Start Menu, and I had every application positioned exactly where I wanted it, in folders that made sense to me, not the defaults created by the software.)

And this gets around to the benefit of the application structure in OSX. (and older Mac OS, for that matter.) The app itself looks like, well, an app like you might have on a phone. It sits in the Applications folder, and when you click it, it opens. It is actually a folder with lots of files contained in it, but you can't tell that just from looking at it, and you can't ever poke around inside the application folder without specifically requesting to. (There are other things like this as well, such as the iTunes Library and the iPhoto Library. They look to the novice user like just a big, monolithic file -- but they are actually special directories, which you can dig through if you want to.)

But in Windows, the applications usually sit inside a folder which contains many associated files. If a user starts mucking around with those files, they could break the application. And all of those files are just sitting there waiting to be mucked with in the Program Files directory. So MS created the Start Menu to keep people from poking around in Program Files, but that made the Start Menu into a large, hierarchical beast that is really too complicated for most people. So they resort to sticking icons on the desktop to act as an app launcher.

 

[Nothinman]

I am with the others here. I don't think the desktop in OSX is as much of a dumping ground as it is on Windows.

I believe the reason is because OSX by default doesn't try to throw your newly installed software on the desktop... whereas Windows does. I bet you will find that the majority of Windows PCs bought from retailers would boot up with around 10-20 icons already littered on the desktop.

So I think it's more of a PC problem than a Mac problem.

I have found that in general, Mac users are accustomed to drag and drop. So by having the screenshot on the desktop, they can drag that screenshot into their emails and what-nots. When they don't want the screenshot anymore, they drag it to the trash bin.

I have also found that they don't work well with right click (their words: it changes all the time) or shortcut keys (too many to remember) at all... save for the more advanced users.

My Mac experience is pretty limited, but the few Mac users I've seen had their desktops just as full and disorganized as any Windows user I've seen so we'll have to agree to disagree.

But in Windows, the applications usually sit inside a folder which contains many associated files. If a user starts mucking around with those files, they could break the application. And all of those files are just sitting there waiting to be mucked with in the Program Files directory. So MS created the Start Menu to keep people from poking around in Program Files, but that made the Start Menu into a large, hierarchical beast that is really too complicated for most people. So they resort to sticking icons on the desktop to act as an app launcher.

Windows has had safeguards against people mucking with those files since XP so that's been a non-issue for about a decade now.

 

[runawayprisoner]

My Mac experience is pretty limited, but the few Mac users I've seen had their desktops just as full and disorganized as any Windows user I've seen so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Well, I'm not saying that Mac users don't do it. Just that it's more of a problem for Windows users (in general, not just your "friends" or "acquaintances") because icons are already on the desktop to begin with.

And for myself, personally, I use both OSes equally to know that it's more cumbersome to deal with on Windows since application icons get mixed in. On Mac, when the desktop gets overbearing, I just create a new folder to throw all that in, then either do the equivalent of Ctrl + A, Ctrl + X, Ctrl + V, or drag my mouse twice and my desktop is clean again... without me having to worry about deleting any crucial shortcut.

I often work with projects that need to deal with multiple types of documents, and having them all laid out on the desktop or somewhere that's easily visible to me is important. But that also means I can archive it all simply by dragging everything into a single folder.

Talking about which, on OS X, it's also much easier to deal with dragging stuffs from the desktop into separate windows than on Windows since Mac OS X has some multitouch gestures specifically for that purpose. I still have to resort to Ctrl + X, Ctrl + C on Windows when I have way too many windows open. Lack of some sort of window management overlord (like Expose) is sometimes pretty annoying on Windows.

 

[Tegeril]

And I disagree. 99% of the time after I take a screenshot I'm either pasting it in or attaching it to an email and putting a copy on the desktop doesn't help that at all.

In theory, you're right. But I've seen way too many users with their desktops filled with crap to the point where they can't find anything on it without staring for a full minute to believe that it's not a problem.

How does that not help, email clients in OS X are all drag and drop enabled, placing it on the right edge of the screen allows you to drag it into the email, send your email, then trash the file. Dropping it into another folder means you need to browse for the attachment with your email client, attach it, send your message, then open the file system browser of your choice, browse again to that file, trash it. If you aren't trashing it but are otherwise organizing it, you still need to get to it in that place in the file system before you can move it.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Windows has had safeguards against people mucking with those files since XP so that's been a non-issue for about a decade now.

Really? Guess I've never tried it really, not since Win98 which was my main OS at the time that it was out

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Windows has had safeguards against people mucking with those files since XP so that's been a non-issue for about a decade now.

What kind of safeguards are you talking about?

 

[Tegeril]

I would love to know what those safeguards are as well. I still know of people who seem to have no trouble causing issues like that.

 

[Nothinman]

How does that not help, email clients in OS X are all drag and drop enabled, placing it on the right edge of the screen allows you to drag it into the email, send your email, then trash the file. Dropping it into another folder means you need to browse for the attachment with your email client, attach it, send your message, then open the file system browser of your choice, browse again to that file, trash it. If you aren't trashing it but are otherwise organizing it, you still need to get to it in that place in the file system before you can move it.

All of the email clients I've used in Windows are drag and drop enabled too and it works from any directory, so I don't see the argument there. If I'm working a specific project I just leave an explorer window open to that directory so those files are easily accessible, I just don't need to use my desktop as a scratch workspace.

Really? Guess I've never tried it really, not since Win98 which was my main OS at the time that it was out

Yes, browsing out to the Windows or Program Files directory gives you a warning that messing with those files may break things and you have to click past it and you have to tell Explorer to show hidden/system files to see most of them. So there's two hoops you have to jump through which means you're taking responsibility for your actions with those files. It's not as if opening Explorer dumps you in system32 with full access to everything, quite the opposite.

I would love to know what those safeguards are as well. I still know of people who seem to have no trouble causing issues like that.

Those people probably disable those safeguards because they think they know more than they do. You can only do so much to protect people from themselves and usually those safeguards just add restrictions that make it more difficult to fix things by those of us that do know what we're doing. It's the normal trade-off between security and convenience.

 

[Tyranicus]

Because it promotes abuse of the desktop by using it as a dumping ground.

That's actually the only thing for which I use my desktop. I don't launch programs from it or anything like that. I use it as a dumping ground for files that I'm currently using but do not necessarily need to keep for an extended period, like screenshots.

 

[Compman55]

Windows 7 in my opinion will be the next windows XP.
over-lived, and rightfully so.

Yes I agree win 7 is better in most respects of multitasking.

If you ever look at microsofts pattern of OS releases it goes likw this:

Win3.0 = junk
Win3.1 = good
95 = junk
98 = good
me = junk
2k/xp = good
vista = junk
7 = god
8 = junk...........