Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you think Windows will get better?
- Thread starter marine610610
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, but you have to admit, OS X has it's share of eye candy as well. At the end of the day, both msft and aapl's job is to sell things, if eye candy gets people spending more dollars, it will continue to become pervasive. Unfortunately, most (I would say over 85%) of consumers don't care/understand what their computer is doing, and are turned on by flashy eye candy.
Also, I think aapl is at the forefront of people that use their computer to be entertained; aapl is the industry innovator for this-- look at the development of ipods/iphone/atv...... apple will have great success by attracting new consumers in with such toys, and then sell them on the mac computers as a unifying hub for all their apple toys.
edit--- OK, back on topic-- windows vista sucks
Is that a question?
Yes, OSX does have some useless pretties, but at the end of my day, it's about functionality. The more beautiful thing is the one which works better, not the one with the nicer color scheme. Apple has always paid more attention to basic human engineering issues than Microsoft. The problem with Microsoft's approach is that they've always tried to paper over their lack of solid design principles with things which are meant to make you feel better about suffering through a fundamentally poor user experience.
Well said - in the case of Micros**t, the eye candy is often there to distract you while you wait 
In OS X it is there to make the overall package look better.
In OS X it is there to make the overall package look better.
Neither Mac OS X and Linux has a "DOS Prompt". I see a "shell prompt". there is a huge difference. But yess I keep four to six terminal windows open all the time. I think move software developers do.
You'd be surprized. I'd bet most people use their computers just as a media player and for games.
I don't quite get why "eye candy" get such a bad rep. I mean, in today's modern world we want aesthetics applied to everything don't we? You don't buy a luxury SUV for simply having a big car do you? No you get it because it's 'nice' as well as a big f-in' car.
With OS X and Vista the Aqua and Aero themes are fine with me. I'm happy that Vista has Aero, I'm thrilled using OS X and having the little things rounded off so that computing feels a little more organic. The Genie effect and Expose are both eye candy's that are pleasing, functional, and don't get in the way.
Though Vista's window scroll function is pretty useless, and I would consider superfluous.
With OS X and Vista the Aqua and Aero themes are fine with me. I'm happy that Vista has Aero, I'm thrilled using OS X and having the little things rounded off so that computing feels a little more organic. The Genie effect and Expose are both eye candy's that are pleasing, functional, and don't get in the way.
Though Vista's window scroll function is pretty useless, and I would consider superfluous.
I'd be astonished, since I've never met anyone who only uses their computer for media and games.
It gets a bad rap when it's used as a substitute for thoughtful human engineering. The Windows "Start Menu" gets picked on a lot, but it's a good example of form over function. It doesn't matter how "pretty" Microsoft makes the Start Menu, it's still a poorly conceived feature.
The "Genie Effect" could be called eye candy but at least it illustrates an OS function in a fairly direct and honest way. If the window flew around the screen before it minimized to the Dock, then that would be eye candy. Exposé functions in a minimalist fashion without any superfluous action or decoration. I wouldn't call it eye candy at all. I'm not sure it's a wonderfully designed feature (another subject), but it's certainly not present just to prettify the OS.
So IJ you're stating that eye candy is useless graphical presentation in the OS? Fair enough, I'm onboard with that thought.
Though I find the press and people looking for any inkling of a reason to argue would say that just about any kind of animating portions of an OS would be called eye candy. And that is why I state that I don't understand why Eye Candy gets a bad rap, cause the press and lamerz tend to nit pick the hell out of the term/feature.
Overall, I like animated features in an OS, I figure I spent $2k on some new hardware so "Show me the money!". Though Vista gets the graphical 'wow' factor all wrong because it does look nice, but is less functional than OS X, I really really hate the regular app switcher and how it shows a small thumbnail of the open window, really confusing.
Though I find the press and people looking for any inkling of a reason to argue would say that just about any kind of animating portions of an OS would be called eye candy. And that is why I state that I don't understand why Eye Candy gets a bad rap, cause the press and lamerz tend to nit pick the hell out of the term/feature.
Overall, I like animated features in an OS, I figure I spent $2k on some new hardware so "Show me the money!". Though Vista gets the graphical 'wow' factor all wrong because it does look nice, but is less functional than OS X, I really really hate the regular app switcher and how it shows a small thumbnail of the open window, really confusing.
That's my definition, anyway. Animations are fine, but they should be clear representations of useful functions, and not there just for the "wow" factor. I'm not very familiar with Vista, but I know XP quite well, and in the default "training wheels" mode, it's larded up with all sorts of superfluous effects and "help," which seems to me to be a substitute for having designed the thing properly in the first place. So if someone asks me whether I think Windows will ever get better, I'd probably have to say no, given Microsoft's design philosophy.
Will Windows ever get better?
Yes, but only when they teeter on the edge of losing a significant percentage of installation. Probably when they drop below 60% of the market (This is kind of a guess as I don't really know what Windows installed base is).
Yes, but only when they teeter on the edge of losing a significant percentage of installation. Probably when they drop below 60% of the market (This is kind of a guess as I don't really know what Windows installed base is).
The Windows Registry is what makes the Windows experience so poor so unless the next version of Windows is rid of the Registry (which I highly doubt since it's basically the DNA of Windows) Windows really is not going to get "better".
This is the main reason why Mac OS X has been so successful because Apple completely changed the DNA from OS 9 to OS X and it's made the Mac experience rock solid with nice eye candy to go along with it.
Microsoft needs to stop copying and start innovating in order for Windows to get better but in a way it really doesn't matter people will buy Windows good or bad just like the OP.
This is the main reason why Mac OS X has been so successful because Apple completely changed the DNA from OS 9 to OS X and it's made the Mac experience rock solid with nice eye candy to go along with it.
Microsoft needs to stop copying and start innovating in order for Windows to get better but in a way it really doesn't matter people will buy Windows good or bad just like the OP.
As a follow up to this point - I finally got rid of Vista (now a Vista-free home
) by removing it from my Dell D820 and installing Windows Server 2008 instead. It's a little tricky to get going initially and you have to turn a lot of stuff on which is disabled by default (this is a v. good thing) but it's far superior to the current Vista offering.