Forums | MacLife

b_dubb · 2005-09-01 1:01 pm

so Vista far outstrips Tiger for data management and .... blah blah blah.

any thoughts on whether this bloke is full of it or not?

b

linky

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/wi … ger_01.asp

Last edited by b_dubb (2005-09-01 2:31 pm)

Onanum · 2005-09-01 1:03 pm

Link please big_smile

Zetetic Apparatchik · 2005-09-01 1:07 pm

WinSuperSite. And it doesn't say that Tiger sux; it does point out major crapness in the current metadata setup on Tiger. Try reading it. There's a link in the thread about Tiger's UI problems.

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2005-09-01 1:08 pm)

avkills · 2005-09-01 1:20 pm

Seemed fairly balanced to me. Although I disagree about the smart or virtual folders that come pre-existing with Vista, another article I read pointed out that they would confuse people since the folders in the start menu or whatever were not actually pointing to the actual users folders which share very similar if not exactly the same names. Whatever.

Lets just wait to fully compare when Vista is actually a shipping product vs whatever Apple currently has shipping.

-mark

Last edited by avkills (2005-09-01 1:21 pm)

stoned · 2005-09-01 1:37 pm

discussion is totally useless without a link.

pirloui · 2005-09-01 1:45 pm

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/wi … ger_01.asp

stoned · 2005-09-01 1:56 pm

having never seen vista personally, i think it is a fair and well-balanced article. the 256x256 icons sound cool, as well as the ability to not start searching until you want to.

and the author did concede that almost everything vista does is already done by tiger.

Egress · 2005-09-01 1:58 pm

Wouldn't it be more fair to compare Tiger with XP SP2? Then it would be apples to apples.

MattElmore · 2005-09-01 2:03 pm

Wouldn't it then be Apples to PCs? smile

Seriously though, comparing anything to XP would hardly be fair to Microsoft!

skymt · 2005-09-01 2:09 pm

Egress wrote:
Wouldn't it be more fair to compare Tiger with XP SP2? Then it would be apples to apples.

Not really. Vista and Tiger are direct competition. They introduce many of the same features. Powerful new graphics abilities, fast search, new interface concepts for the display of information, etc. The fact that Vista will be released a year later is irrelevant.

test · 2005-09-01 2:13 pm

I agree the article is fair and balanced. The author points out some legitimate faults in both OSes and also points out areas where each has the advantage. I look forward to part 2, with the discussion turning to security.

b_dubb · 2005-09-01 2:42 pm

they have a word for Vista, right? Vaporware?

the article seems kind of pointless. why compare something that isn't commercially available to something that is? if its not ready for the public, its not ready for real world conditions.

wonder how long a Vista Beta box would be on the net before it got hacked/wormed/virused/ruined ?

did the guy even mention security? seems all the bells and whistles won't matter if the OS is as vulnerable as previous Windoze releases.

b

Zetetic Apparatchik · 2005-09-01 2:52 pm

Vista isn't vaporware ; it is the final expression of Longhorn, the earlier ones can be considered vaporware.

It is a comparison of the feature set, not bugginess etc. I would've thought Beta 2 would've made a better comparison, but whatever.

Vista is much more secure. (Although an exploit has already been found roll � this is what betas are for)

The second part will be about security. IT SAYS THAT AT THE END OF THE smurfing PAGE.

skymt · 2005-09-01 2:59 pm

b_dubb wrote:
they have a word for Vista, right? Vaporware?

the article seems kind of pointless. why compare something that isn't commercially available to something that is? if its not ready for the public, its not ready for real world conditions.

I think it really will come out some time next year, now that they've cut all the good stuff out of it.

wonder how long a Vista Beta box would be on the net before it got hacked/wormed/virused/ruined ?

did the guy even mention security? seems all the bells and whistles won't matter if the OS is as vulnerable as previous Windoze releases.

b

Vista will be much more secure than previous Windows versions. Microsoft has changed the user account setup so that default user accounts have fewer privileges. That way you can't install software (or have it installed for you, thanks to IE or OE) without an admin password. Users will probably just make their everyday accounts admin, but at least that isn't Microsoft's fault.

They also plan to reduce the number of services active by default. That should reduce the number of remote exploits.

Microsoft is actually shaping up, security-wise. I guess we'll just have to bash them about something else.

NAG · 2005-09-01 4:44 pm

Still, comparing a beta OS to a shipping OS? You might as well compare OS 9 to Vista.

lord funk · 2005-09-01 4:47 pm

NAG wrote:
Still, comparing a beta OS to a shipping OS? You might as well compare OS 9 to Vista.

Absolutely. Not to mention - how long until what is announced in Vista is implemented through a patch post-release?

NAG · 2005-09-01 4:54 pm

lord funk wrote:
NAG wrote:
Still, comparing a beta OS to a shipping OS? You might as well compare OS 9 to Vista.
Absolutely. Not to mention - how long until what is announced in Vista is implemented through a patch post-release?

Yeah, Vista could turn out to be a nice OS, but we won't know until it turns up. (OS X Beta was very different than what became 10.1...which was like a service pack for 10.0.)

Madd the Sane · 2005-09-01 5:01 pm

I'd like to remind you that Windows Vista is only in Beta 1. Lots of things are going to change, and many, many features will be added by Beta 2 and beyond.

I'm surprised he said that. Based on the trends from Microsoft, Beta 2 will have less features and won't be available to developers until months after its intended release.

imikedaman · 2005-09-01 5:08 pm

Madd the Sane wrote:
I'm surprised he said that. Based on the trends from Microsoft, Beta 2 will have less features and won't be available to developers until months after its intended release.

I can't tell if you're kidding. It's common sense that Beta 2 will have more features and be more polished.

I for one am hoping Vista turns out to be a nice OS.

ukimalefu · 2005-09-01 5:49 pm

NAG wrote:
Still, comparing a beta OS to a shipping OS? You might as well compare OS 9 to Vista.

What he said. I prefer OS 9 over Vista, by the way. Based on the fact that I can use it RIGHT NOW!

Zetetic Apparatchik · 2005-09-01 7:13 pm

Madd the Sane wrote:
I'd like to remind you that Windows Vista is only in Beta 1. Lots of things are going to change, and many, many features will be added by Beta 2 and beyond.
I'm surprised he said that. Based on the trends from Microsoft, Beta 2 will have less features and won't be available to developers until months after its intended release.

Wrong. Beta 2 is specifically a user-end-feature release.

Thunderstruck · 2005-09-01 9:23 pm

It's written by Paul Thurrot. Those familiar with that name would know his reputation in Windows vs Mac discussions.

Touque Guy · 2005-09-01 10:16 pm

I liked stacks better when they were called folders

ConnertheCat · 2005-09-01 10:40 pm

skymt wrote:
Egress wrote:
Wouldn't it be more fair to compare Tiger with XP SP2? Then it would be apples to apples.
Not really. Vista and Tiger are direct competition. They introduce many of the same features. Powerful new graphics abilities, fast search, new interface concepts for the display of information, etc. The fact that Vista will be released a year later is irrelevant.

No, they are not in direct competition. By the time Vista makes it to market, 10.5 will probably be out.

Thunderstruck · 2005-09-01 11:45 pm

Vista's latest release schedule is near the end of 06. Leopard is scheduled for between end of 06 and early 07.

They will go head to head.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2005-09-01 1:01 pm

thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#2 2005-09-01 1:03 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#3 2005-09-01 1:07 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#4 2005-09-01 1:20 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#5 2005-09-01 1:37 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#6 2005-09-01 1:45 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#7 2005-09-01 1:56 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#8 2005-09-01 1:58 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#9 2005-09-01 2:03 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#10 2005-09-01 2:09 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

Egress wrote:

#11 2005-09-01 2:13 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#12 2005-09-01 2:42 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#13 2005-09-01 2:52 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#14 2005-09-01 2:59 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

b_dubb wrote:

#15 2005-09-01 4:44 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#16 2005-09-01 4:47 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

NAG wrote:

#17 2005-09-01 4:54 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

lord funk wrote:

NAG wrote:

#18 2005-09-01 5:01 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#19 2005-09-01 5:08 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

Madd the Sane wrote:

#20 2005-09-01 5:49 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

NAG wrote:

#21 2005-09-01 7:13 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

Madd the Sane wrote:

#22 2005-09-01 9:23 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#23 2005-09-01 10:16 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

#24 2005-09-01 10:40 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

skymt wrote:

Egress wrote:

#25 2005-09-01 11:45 pm

Re: thoughts on Vista VS. Tiger article?

Board footer