My office runs mostly Windows. We have a few Mac PowerBooks, a few iMacs, a couple of new MacBooks. Everything else is Windows. For the past two days I had an opportunity to work for a couple of hours with Windows Vista. It makes Mac OS X look tired, old, and sad.

This isn’t intended to be a feature-for-feature comparison of OS X vs. Vista, and I’m not ragging on my delightful 17-inch MacBook Pro. I’m not switching back to Windows.

After my first hour of using Windows Vista, exploring here and there, checking out the Gadgets, running through Excel, Word, and PowerPoint in Office 2007, I’ll admit that I was impressed.

The PC was an utterly forgettable HP model of some sort, running Core 2 Duo, so roughly comparable to the latest iMacs.

Vista ran smoothly and with no hiccups on the HP. The same for Office, Internet Explorer, and Mail, all of which worked flawlessly. Office, however, has many menu changes and will take time to make a transition, even for Windows users.

What struck me right away, of course, was the colorful similarities between Vista and Mac OS X, particularly, Gadgets vs. Widgets. That’s about it.

What also struck me in the first hour is the feeling I had back in 1995 when Windows ‘95 first hit the streets and was compared to Mac OS. I don’t remember which Mac OS version was hot back then, but I remember it was essentially black and white and shades of gray, not even Platinum.

Compared to Windows ‘95 back then, Mac OS looked old, tired, sad, and woefully ancient. Windows ‘95 had a similar look and feel, but was more colorful and friendly.

The rest is history. Apple’s fortunes were to nosedive for a few years, while Microsoft’s first decent incarnation of Windows became a big success, and spawned future versions. Remember the improved Windows ‘95, the hideous Windows ME? Or, the security plagued Windows XP?

Windows ‘95 and Apple’s miscues nearly destroyed the Mac back then. Today Apple is doing well, Microsoft is copying the Mac OS. Again. Things are different, right?

Well, yes and no. My first hour of using Vista was revealing, not so much for what was new, because there’s not much at first glance, but for how Vista looks when compared to Mac OS X Tiger. Tiger is tired. Vista is shiny and new.

Since most people in the computer-using world don’t know squat about Mac OS X, Windows Vista, despite whatever shortcomings may exist, will sell very well. Adoption may be slower in the business community, but most of the hundreds of millions of PCs shipped in future years will run Vista.

Did you catch that first impression? Mac OS X Tiger looks old, tired, slow when compared to the shiny, colorful, animated Windows Vista. That’s just like what I saw back in 1995 when Windows ‘95 hit the streets.

Vista’s improved firewall will reduce some of Windows security problems. In time, drivers for peripherals will be updated. In our office we still couldn’t print with Vista.

Mac OS X Tiger comes with a jumbled mess of battleship gray spread hither and yon-- brushed aluminum appplications, gray scale applications, platinum plastic applications.

Windows Vista shines. Seriously. Buttons, menu bars, Gadgets, all shine as if designed and built for the Jetsons of the future, while Mac OS X looks more like something from Green Acres or Petticoat Junction.

It’s that shiny newness that will continue to attract buyers who know not of Mac OS X’s stability, dependability, and security superiority.

I have no doubt that Apple is biding time, waiting for the initial noise created by Vista’s launch dies down-- then Leopard will pounce. When it does, look for a dramatic change to how Leopard looks, because it needs to look better than Tiger. Eye candy sells. So will Vista.

Have you seen Vista? How does it compare to Mac OS X Tiger? How would you compare the two?

Jack D. Miller - 02 February 2007 02:27 PM

Vista ran smoothly and with no hiccups on the HP. The same for Office, Internet Explorer, and Mail, all of which worked flawlessly. Office, however, has many menu changes and will take time to make a transition, even for Windows users.

What struck me right away, of course, was the colorful similarities between Vista and Mac OS X, particularly, Gadgets vs. Widgets. That’s about it.

What also struck me in the first hour is the feeling I had back in 1995 when Windows ‘95 first hit the streets and was compared to Mac OS. I don’t remember which Mac OS version was hot back then, but I remember it was essentially black and white and shades of gray, not even Platinum.

Compared to Windows ‘95 back then, Mac OS looked old, tired, sad, and woefully ancient. Windows ‘95 had a similar look and feel, but was more colorful and friendly.

I’m inclined to agree.

We have a few machines in Atlanta which are up and running on Windows Vista no and I’ll admit that the eye candy is attractive and makes OS X look a little dated, especially with the jumbled of interfaces that float around in Tiger.

If your point is that Windows 95 was colorful and attractive vs. the old Mac OS ‘black and white and gray’ look, then you’re spot on with a comparison of Tiger vs Vista.

I love the little animation’s as feedback in Vista. One of my complaints with XP was that some screen windows popped up so fast that you didn’t really know something had changed. That little animated wiggle when a window hits the screen is nice visual feedback.

There’s no doubt that Windows Vista will be a success and is an improvement over XP. The real question is, ”what does Apple do with OS X Leopard to raise the bar?”

Back from CompUSA and half an hour of banging around on Windows Vista. You call it eye candy? I call it more sales. Vista comes with almost every PC already so there’s no doubt that over the next year to four years it well sell in big numbers. I don’t know if it makes Tiger look as old as Window 95 did to the old Mac OS. That was a long time ago. Vista is colorful and visually attracts the eye. You’re right. Tiger’s use of gray everywhere makes it look older and not modern at all. Leopard should be interesting.

Jack and I had the same impression. Vista just swarms in color and vibrancy, while Tiger is looking, well, pretty grey around the edges. I haven’t had a chance to mess with Office 2007, so I’ll take Jack’s word that it’s attractive, but it’s my understanding that there’s a learning curve associated with the new version, and files are no easily backwards compatible.

It’s funny how all eyes are now turning to Apple to see what’s next for OS X. I hope it comes soon.

I trust we will not get too carried away with Vista’s shiny new front end. Remember, “all that glitters is not gold,” right?

Everything I have read about Vista says it is an incremental improvement over Windows XP, not a major advancement of any kind. Security will remain an issue and even Microsoft says users should have virus, spyware, and malware protection of some kind. There’s none of that on the Mac.

And, a colorful eye candy comparison does nothing to address the differences in productivity and ease of use on the Mac. Vista is just XP with more color and depth. Nothing new. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Vista’s actual user-experience is bad, but I do agree that Aqua needs an update. Would be nice if 10.5 had built-in theme support.

“What also struck me in the first hour is the feeling I had back in 1995 when Windows ‘95 first hit the streets and was compared to Mac OS. I don’t remember which Mac OS version was hot back then, but I remember it was essentially black and white and shades of gray, not even Platinum.”

not sure what world you live in but Apple had color widely available in 1987.
Dugg down interesting article but factually incorrect.

NotBorg - 02 February 2007 06:16 PM

“What also struck me in the first hour is the feeling I had back in 1995 when Windows ‘95 first hit the streets and was compared to Mac OS. I don’t remember which Mac OS version was hot back then, but I remember it was essentially black and white and shades of gray, not even Platinum.”

not sure what world you live in but Apple had color widely available in 1987.
Dugg down interesting article but factually incorrect.

This is the problem when people don’t RTFA, or English is not the native language. The quote is about Mac OS being essentially black, white, gray vs. the color of Windows 95, and Mac OS X Tiger being multi-shades of gray vs. Windows Vista’s shiny glowing colors.

The article makes no mention of color capability in ‘Apple’ or DOS or Windows. It’s about the look and feel of the OS.

Hence the article is ‘factually’ accurate, which NotBorg clearly didn’t understand. Sounds like a newbie troll to me. Or, a Borg who doesn’t wannabe.

‘Old’, ‘tired’, ‘shiny’ are repeated over and over--without comparison or examples given to make your case.  Your subjective ramblings sound like you’re bored, or that Vista is just the latest novelty to turn you on.

Nothing wrong with being bored, but there’s more than just Mac OS X’s widgets that make it more valuable over Vista:  Expose.  Drag-and-drop everywhere.  Consistent Finder and file browsing navigation.  Dashboard.  The Dock.  Spell-checker everywhere.  Easy network connectivity.  Easy printer connectivity.  Bonjour iChat.  Bonjour Web services.  Bonjour iTunes.  Easy file sharing through HTTP, AFP, SSH, FTP, SMB.  Stability.

I too hope for more from Leopard.  But not just the eye-candy, although that does give pleasure.  I expect the GUI to improve productivity.  So I’m expecting more from the way the GUI will help applications interact with each other to enhance my ability to work better.

jolohaga - 02 February 2007 07:01 PM

‘Old’, ‘tired’, ‘shiny’ are repeated over and over--without comparison or examples given to make your case.  Your subjective ramblings sound like you’re bored, or that Vista is just the latest novelty to turn you on.

Why do you feel a need to insult the topic or the poster? Looks like another newbie online…

I don’t know as though many examples are required for a rather obvious visual difference. Vista is shiny and colorful as an operating system, far more so than MacOS X Tiger which is, well, uh, um… just plain old grey. Yes, there’s brushed aluminum (grey), and there’s that plastic-like platinum look (grey), and something in between (grey), but it should be obvious to anyone in just minutes that Tiger looks grey, and Vista looks bright, colorful, youthful, shiny, new. Tiger does not.

The OS is personified by what we see. Safari as a browser is wrapped in a cloak of brushed aluminum (grey). Mail, on the other hand, is wrapped in some kind softer pastel “grey.” Don’t get me started on the Finder, which has become an ancient, creaking mess of, well, grey.

Those are just a few examples of what the average user will see when comparing Vista to Tiger. Vista is colorful and bright, Tiger is “grey.” Grey to us Brits, even living in the US, means ”dull and nondescript; without interest or character.”

Yep. Except for the occasional Aqua slider bar, that describes Tiger. Grey equals old.

Let’s see what Leopard brings…

jolohaga - 02 February 2007 07:01 PM

‘Old’, ‘tired’, ‘shiny’ are repeated over and over--without comparison or examples given to make your case.  Your subjective ramblings sound like you’re bored, or that Vista is just the latest novelty to turn you on.

What problem did you have with the examples and comparisons that were given in the post? How about the other examples above?

This whole post is about a first impression of an area where Vista admittedly shines, and the Mac does not. I didn’t find an “attack” anywhere. Lighten up.

“Mac OS X Tiger comes with a jumbled mess of battleship gray spread hither and yon-- brushed aluminum appplications, gray scale applications, platinum plastic applications.

Windows Vista shines. Seriously. Buttons, menu bars, Gadgets, all shine as if designed and built for the Jetsons of the future, while Mac OS X looks more like something from Green Acres or Petticoat Junction.”

That seems like a rather straightforward comparison that’s rather accurate-- rather than a subjective rambling from someone who’s bored.

Are you one of those Maczealots that Windows users talk about? The Mac is great. OS X is great. Neither are perfect. Right now, Windows has something that the Mac lacks, and most computer buyers will be attracted to Vista, partly because of the eye candy which Tiger does not possess.

Admit it.

Haven’t seen Vista in action yet, and in my company, it may be YEARS before it’s installed on our machines.

My question, though, is this: has anyone installed Vista onto an Intel Mac yet? Will it run on a Mac?

Jack, I think the onus is on you to investigate that question!

Tom Coppinger - 02 February 2007 08:07 PM

My question, though, is this: has anyone installed Vista onto an Intel Mac yet? Will it run on a Mac?

Jack, I think the onus is on you to investigate that question!

Why do I have to be the guy who messes up a perfectly good Mac by installing Windows?

I don’t have a link handy but I’ve read reports of Vista already being installed, either as a Boot Camp install, or via Parallels. There’s some question regarding licensing as the low end version of Vista apparently isn’t allowed to install on a virtual system, such as VMware or Parallels, but is OK for a Boot Camp install.

Still, why would I want to mess up my Mac to do that? Eye candy is one thing, aggravation and fear is something else.

Jack, I grew up in Manchester and Frontenac.  Anyway, I do agree that the look of OS X needs refreshening big time.  I don’t like the platinum look.  Aqua was very fresh when it came out.  But the mix the gray and the Aqua made the overall look too inconsistent.  I predict that Leopard will be something new.  There will be more black, I think.  Just look at the latest Front Row and iPhone GUIs, the latter of which as you know was just revealed.  That gives us a clue as to what to expect.  I trust that Steve Jobs kept things close to the vest because he didn’t want Vista to steal the latest Mac OS look.  M$ is counting on most consumers out there to buy Vista simply because it looks fresher than the old Fisher Price look of XP.  Unfortunately that often drives sales, and those ignorant consumers do not realize that it’s what’s underneath that counts.

Since when was flashy color a good thing in an interface? Does anyone else remember when XP came around and it was considered “gaudy” with it’s cheap looking plasticolor buttons?

Do you want the UI to draw attention away from you content? I don’t.

Two words, baby:

Core Animation.