Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard: Which features should be compared? (Updated)

Interesting idea. Perhaps the feedback provided for both OSes will fill in some blanks and result in a balanced view of each - and most probably reveal that for many users just how similar the two OSes are. That's unfortunate, because the effort may mask how the two OSes are used. Far too much emphasis is placed on the single user experience absent the critically important work-flows that exist in even the smallest of companies. It's much the same as your perspective opposite which communications platform is best - Google's offerings clearly work for you well, but they ignore how small groups of professionals work and benefit from Exchange and its related server and desktop members. That's no fault of yours, but rather reflects your perspective, which does not reflect how many professions use software. I'm not suggesting that all companies deploy and maintain an Exchange - clearly numerous hosted Exchange services are available, but I am using it as an examples of what I mean. It is true that most people who use computers use them within work-flows that involve many internal and external parties. The bidding process as executed by small construction companies, or the engineering around wireless tower servicing come to mind as well as the specialty financial services firms that work with legal teams - each depends upon complex work-flows that reveal how an OS is used as part of a broader communications system. Not until an OS is assessed in this context can its strengths be understood and candidly, Windows (any flavor) is very hard to appreciate without reviewing how it is actually used. Again, even the smallest of companies with 5 to 10 people depend upon Windows, because it fits better within the work-flows that they and external parties MUST execute against. Windows has evolved around this reality, where OS X seems to ignore it - much as Google's offerings do. Where for example, can a provider create and apply unique policy based objects relevant to only one company's retention policies? How does any client on OS X report it adherence to them? While seemingly minor, I can assure you it is not and it only hints at the requirements faced by even tiny firms. This is the kind of very difficult to appreciate stuff that Gates used to refer to when he'd sat things like: "Thank goodness that businesses provide the subsidy allowing for consumer oriented features at all." It's time we examined our OSes in their larger context and most candidly, OS X/*nix ability to connect to shares and or Exchange is not enough... they have to be managed and even in tiny shops where small providers like ourselves leverage the entire ecosystem to create and apply very granular policies as part of appropriate business solutions.

Can you go over how you do an upgrade with both? Can you do a clean install with the new OSX $29 10.6 upgrade CD. I realize none of this is out yet.

Perhaps if you don't believe that Paul can do it unbiased perhaps co-authored with Leo Laporte then? If he has the time of course...

How about the dock and Expose' vs. the start menu bar and Aero Peak/Flip.

I don't get it. Win 7 is to Vista what Snow Leopard is to Leopard. A performance rewrite of the basic operating system with minor UI tweeks. MS gets the 2 fingers and its product is called Vista 2 (not that I have anyhting against Vista, been running it 2 years and never had a problem, besides some minor driver issues), whilst Snow Leopard is hailed as the holy grail of the future. I watched the Apple keynote and some french dude was rambling on about a new type of thread technology and that it was revolutionary. As if MS doesn't have got anything similar. In my experience, if you take a similarly specced Mac and a custombuilt Win machine with a Core2Duo, then Mac OSX runs slower. I run advanced modelling programmes and I've run the same instructions on a Macbook Pro running Vista and then on Leopard (its a Bootcamp machine) and it was a lot slower on the Mac OS. Leopard looks nice and stuff, but at the end of the day an OS should interface between my hardware and software running on it, not be the main objective of the PC.

Options (commercial and free) for running applications from other OS's applications (think needing to test IE6). Window management, specifically with respect to OS X dock enhancements and Win7 taskbar changes. Integrated search capabilities: performance, quality of results, ability to customize, "intelligent" features (i.e. definitions, integrated web search). Integrated previews when browsing the file system: support for thumbnails for various video codecs, ability to preview common commercial file types i.e. PDF, PSD, etc without needing to load full app, etc. Real world performance for extremely common tasks, i.e. quickly playing a video, reading a PDF, copying folders to external storage, and e-mailing documents/images from file explorer.

Instead of feature by feature, could you compare tasks? For instance some common things I use the OS for: organizing files, searching for files (by attributes and contents), applying patches, home networking (sharing files, streaming media between computers)...

This might be the hardest way to compare, but the most effective - top 10 user scenerios for an OS. Like music/video playbakc, internet browsing, file management, note taking, photo sharing, automated backup...etc. You definately want to compare windows live vs iLife as well for both upgraders and new users.

Since I went from Windows XP to Mac OS X and almost did not look back, I would like to see if the reasons why I changed look differently two mayor upgrades later in Windows. Most important for me is how easy and quick the User Interface is. I find myself using less time on OS related configuring in Mac OS X and I have less friend calling me for advice (after they also changed OS on my recommendation). Has Win7 got rid of the numerous and ignoring alert boxes popping up all the time? I don't value the security that much, because the way I noticed my non-techsaavy friends is, that if they do not understand why an alert has arrived, they just say yes. So security comparation should focus on the OS's way of handling and not depend on the user. Has it become as easy to install appz as in mac os x? Has the startup time from sleep become as fast as mac os x? Has the system settings menu become as easy to manage as mac os x, so I can tell my grandmother to change her desktop image by herself? Has it become as easy as mac os x to install printers? Has the installation of the OS become as userfriendly and non-technical as mac os x? Has windows search become as good as Spotlight? On the contrary, I do miss some features from Windows: Has the multiple ways of access to app-features come to Snow Leopard? (like right-click menues and so on) Has snow leopard implemented maximizing of windows as good as windows? Some thing that I find badly implemented on both OS: How do the OS handle external HD in different formats? (i.e. NTFS in mac os x and HFS in Windows (and windows home editions failure of reading dynamic formatted disks)) How easy is it to set up sharing between computers on a network? What has the OS done to not be held down the first 10 minutes of startup by numerous background applications fighting for cpu? All these questions are minded on the ordinary users I know (i.e. students at my university, musician friends etc.). My tech-saavy friends are skilled enough to set up both OS's the way they like it. The real question for me is if an ordinary user can use it from day one, without help from a tech-saavy friend. Until now I have only seen that to be true with Mac OS X.

@LuxZg - compare deploying updates in medium sized managed network (WSUS or similar) - remote connection - Active Directory and Group Policy - automatic driver downloads/ suggestions/ troubleshooting Apple does not have an easy way to do autoupates in OS X. You can set it so it downloads the updates but it wont installed unless you tell it too by: Loging in to computer Using ARD (apple remote desktop) Both methods are bad, I never run updates like this The other way is: have a computer/s to run updates and install apps. Create an image, and set it up to netboot using server: Now you can push this image to computers by: going one by one and holding N key as it turns on use ARD to change the boot disk and reboot computers or take a portable hard drive with the image and use CCC or disk utility Like I said this sucks if you dont have a os X server, if you do than makeing the image takes a long time but after you easily re-image macs. You can do similiar things on the PC, but I think windows xp, vista and 7 have better tools for managing updates/drivers. The other nice thing is that without having a windows server the defautl is set to auto-update machines with critical updates. The negative is that sometimes it does update when you need to use it.

Compare network printing and set up, formating disc capabilities and reading different formats. Home network creation. Better not compare price, though.

Another thing that came to mind as I was walking is upgrade cost: OK only a small numbers of intel computers were sold with 10.4. Are these custumers that have 10.4 not 10.5 (even do I know most of them did buy 10.5 update) able to buy 10.6 for $29? (without buying 10.5 for $99 or what ever it costs) Same for windows if you bought a computer with xp that can run vista and windows 7. Can you buy update version of windows 7 without paying more than you would have from vista? Also when you compare prices please compare OEM costs when you buy a new computer Last note you might want to run windows 7 and 10.6 on your macbook to test things like speed and so on. Same machine

Here's one Paul, while a lot of the differences and similarities in both OS's can all really come down to user preference, the security of each OS is a tangible benefit. Why not point out what Apple and Microsoft have done to make their respective operating systems even more secure. Please touch on Min Win, Kernel Patch protection, Address space randomization and what ever else both systems have in place to protect their users. Many here will argue over UI preferences, but security is a very clear subject to tackle.

Here are some ideas: Command line environments for both -- Terminal.app vs. cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell, taking a look at terminal features like tabs, split screens, cut/copy/paste, etc., as well as job control, integration with the OS (ability to get or set options, e.g. via ifconfig, netsh, or Get-WmiObject for network settings), included utilities, shell features such as command completion, etc. Multiple-monitor support (how easy is it to set up, how well does it work, what sort of preferences), and multiple-desktop support (Spaces on OS X, not sure if Windows 7 has anything similar???) A comparison of network filesystem support (CIFS/SMB/SMB2, NFS) as both client or server would be helpful. How do the firewalls compare, from ease of use and security standpoints? Are both equally customizable? A comparison of the included web servers might be useful interesting, but I'm not sure (???) if anything is changing significantly with either. Secure remote access options, client and server (ssh, remote desktop, etc.) Process management? (Activity Monitor vs. Task Manager) A comparison of accessibility features. How complete and consistent are keyboard shortcuts, and which system is easier to navigate using primarily [or only] a keyboard?

"You can do similiar things on the PC, but I think windows xp, vista and 7 have better tools for managing updates/drivers." ???? How much simpler is Apple makes the hardware and the OS? Apple update pretty much does it for you. Unless you are specifically talking about third party hardware. Then its up to the maker of the hardware and both Windows and OS X are at the mercy of the hardware maker.

Time machine works great with an external USB drive, or even a second drive in a Mac. There is no need for a NAS.

rr0de74@live.com "???? How much simpler is Apple makes the hardware and the OS? Apple update pretty much does it for you." My point is is is not an auto system, you have to manually run it ans an administrator. You can also set it to download and install updates but it is not the defualt and it is on a per user basis. So if you set it up in your admin account it will not download and installed updates in your guest account. On a windows xp sp2 machine, vista, or windows 7 auto updates are setup to run and installed automaticly with out you haiving to do anything. Any user that logs on to the machine will still get updates and they will install. The only complain that I have is that sometimes updates come in at at times when you are using your computer and it will promp you to restart. My main point was to answer LuxZG's coments on a medium size network. Windows users have more tools at hand for managing auto updates. For example you can set things up so that all updates install in all of your machines except for windows media player 10 or IE 8.

Those are valid questions. However: "Should Paul call out multi-touch support in Windows 7 since no Macintosh has the hardware to support it or is that precisely the thing a comparison should call out?" This is not true. From http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html#sy... "All Mac notebooks with Multi-Touch trackpads now support three- and four-finger gestures."

@Mike most of your points are valid. Paul should pick either to do a consumer view point, since his site is 90% consumer stuff. Or do two comparisons, consumer and then one where OS X gets its arse handed to it in a corporate environment. Medium to large environment that is.

@mikegalos Looking back on past work from Paul on vistaVS10.5 and so on, as well as others that have tried, I can say that I admire that they tried. It is a really hard thing to do and you are right where do you draw the line. Unless Paul is looking into writing another book on the subject I don't think that it is possible to cover a detail comparison of all faetures in SL or Windows 7. I do agree with many of your points

Darksages I suspect Paul will do an admirable job on an impossible task. I just want people to realise first off that it really is impossible and second to realize how their own biases control which comparisons they want to see and which they'd prefer not be mentioned.

In my job, I'm creating PDFs all the time. I'd like to see these systems will handle PDF creation.

rr0de74@live.com It's more than just consumer vs corporate. There's also things like small business support and netbook support and media center support and several others. And it's not even that easy in the consumer market, The real key is to not say, "whatever Apple includes in OS X (as the smaller player) is worth comparing and whatever they decided not to include should be skipped" as a means of determining what is and isn't "consumer" support. The key is to come up with real world comparisons of features that address all or at least many of the real markets. Remember that if we say about a Windows feature "hey, Paul can skip that one since it's only used by maybe 5% of Windows users" that's saying to ignore a feature that's used by more people than the entire Macintosh user base. The trick is to compare the two operating systems capabilities and not to say "who builds a better OS X".

Be sure to include this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nep/273721740/

Mike, "I suspect Paul will do an admirable job on an impossible task. I just want people to realise first off that it really is impossible and second to realize how their own biases control which comparisons they want to see and which they'd prefer not be mentioned." I agree that it is impossible, however I think the outcome is already known, based on Paul's expertise (Windows) and bias against Apple, which comes through so very well in nearly everything he writes about the company. Examples are so numerous as to be unnecessary here. However, on a meta-level again, some suggestions: 1. Don't write or think about the COMPANIES, just the PRODUCTS. I abhor Microsoft for what I think are very good reasons; you and Paul have similar feelings about Apple. I suggest that, to the extent possible, these must be set aside. 2. Try, really try, to take a gestalt approach. What we do NOT need is an enormous "feature table", a la the Windows 7 versions table (and let's not go there again....). The user experience is not about which product has more tweaky bells and whistles, it is about how the whole thing works. 3. There is no unique point of view to use. The review must consider novice, intermediate, and expert users, and----although I doubt this can be done by Paul---an honest look at how switchers would view these systems. 4. I'm tempted to say that pricing is irrelevant, but that isn't so. People will buy something that is clearly inferior if it is cheap enough. Some people just don't care once a product meets a certain minimum standard, others will pay a lot more for various reasons. I don't know how to address this. 5. Gestalt again: Apple doesn't sell OS X randomly, they sell it only on their own hardware. I don't know how you get a level playing field here. The usual pattern (see "Laptop Hunters") is to compare the cheapest PC hardware with Macs and reach pretend conclusions. In fairness Apple has exaggerated the dual vendor issue in their own ads. There ARE many well-known issues of dual vendor support problems (drivers, etc) when one company makes the OS and another the hardware. The counterpoint is that, if Apple doesn't make what you want, tough. It is a major difference and I don't know how to deal with this, but it can't be left out. 6. What you lose by using one system as opposed to the other. Macs now -are- PCs, either through dual boot or Virtual machines. In my view, that makes Macs a superset of any Windows machine. Not sure if there is any rebuttal to that from the PC point of view. However, there are costs to switching in either direction; that's an important consideration. 7. If we go into user interface issues, try for a few objective criteria. Fitts Law. Click counting. Not sure what else. I think the Windows UI fails in fundamental ways, but if I don't explain that via something like Fitts law, no one will listen. If the review mentions UI, it must have objective grounding, not just what you're "used to". 8. Standards compliance. That can be (must be, I think) browser performance, but also integration into the world. It must (points for Windows here) include integration into the corporate world of Microsoft Office, and Exchange. 9. Dealing with digital media. Standards compliance again, plus performance. Both companies, with Zune and iPod, are trying to tie you to their own systems. This isn't a good thing, so that's an important part of the review. 10. Future prospects. Which system is likely to be more usable in the future? Which appears to be most cognizant of current technical trends? Which will scale better on a 64 core chip, etc? Which takes better advantage of GPU processing? Which integrates better with smartphones on a 3G (or 4G) wireless network? Some of these answers aren't at all clear, because we don't know, for example, if the iPhone or WinMobile or some dark horse will predominate in the mobile world. That's plenty. Again, I don't think the important part of this review is the specific issues addressed. I also doubt that it is going to move many users one way or another....certainly not in this group.