Systems of Operation

I have used both Mac OSX and Windows extensively for the lifespans of both projects. Although with Vista I signed back into the Mac OS and have been doing my best to get into Bash/Linux, I do think that both systems from an interface point of view have a lot of strengths and weaknesses.

All things considered equal

A caveat here -- as I have jumped ship before windows -- I do have a Vista box, but use it primarily for gaming -- my Windows comments are based on XP/2000 interfaces. And I am not going to go in to issues of stability or speed here, or for that matter, chrome and graphic attractiveness.Also: all comments herein has to do with the interface that is standard for the operating systems. Any application -- and just about every game -- has its own interface styles that override the OS style; of course the OS owners can't be held responsible for these, so they are nonissues.Lastly the quality or quantity of software offerings is also off the table.

Evil Twins

I'd like to offer a few list of differential features between the two OS's, and an acknowledgement: BOTH systems are FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME. Here is what MicrOSX has to offer the masses:

• They use adjustable window views
• They have desktops that are the back layer of their OSs
• They use a tree-based filesystem of files and folders. This is true at both the low-level/file system and the interface level. (i.e., an item can only have one parent, and a folder cannot be contained by any folder it contains.)
• Files are keyed to applications -- through resources in OSX, and extensions in Windows.
• They both have proprietary web browsers that are inferior to Firefox which they both (thank god) offer.
• They both have the same edit schemses for text
• They use the same scrolling mechanism, and their windows in general behave the same
• They are both resting on the same chipset.
• They both have the same file saving mechanism. (for an alternative, check out About Face 3.0.
• They both have a "task bar" or persistant list of active processes.

This is not a flow nor something to be especially proud of -- both organizations have been inspiring each other from day one.

But I would like to look at the kind of thing you notice when converting from one system to the other: functional differences that really jump out, and features I miss from the other half. And while my current home may be MacOSX, I do think its fair to say that Microsoft has done a lot of things I miss.

Dialogs

One of the things I have started to miss is that in Windows, when you have a file related dialog open (save, new, open) you can do a lot of things to the listed files -- rename, move, or even delete them. A dialog is basically just a mini-desktop. Also, a lot of Mac dialogs are not floating -- I can't tell you how many times the "fixed style" dialog covers useful information about what I am saving or where I am saving it.

Menus

The mac has only one type of menu -- the one that is fixed on the top of the screen. The Windows OS allows for fixed window-top menus and windows based menus. They both accept heirarchical menus (dropdowns) but the Mac allows you to click and release which is much easier on the carpal tunnels.

Mice

The Mac OS has a religous ban on the context (right) mouse button which is baffling as they do have context menus; I have off-Mac brand mice whose context menu works, so its really just a matter of the Apple people yet again losing money for no good reason.

Status Menu

The taskbar of Microsoft and the Dock of the Mac are both functionally identical but their implementations are different enough to merit discussion. The Mac's Doc is application centric This sets a much lower limit to the maximum number of items it needs to display to be useful. The Windows taskbar grows linearly with each open file, though the Vista implementation of this here is more app-centric. The other difference of course is the "Fishbowl" magnifier effect which is quite useful, and the lack of text on the Dock which is debatable. It should be noted that the Mac's Dock obviates the need for a "start" menu; what the dock and desktop can't do is done through the file explorer.

Installing and Launching Applications

Many Mac OS applications can be simply dragged into the file system as a single file. Both systems have install wizards and seperate preference and resource trees which are largely hidden from the causal users. While this may seem more structural than interface related, the relative simplicity of standard Mac applications to load and unload makes a significant difference to user experience.

Console

The fact that OSX is built on a Unix platform that it keeps available means that there is a fully functioning console with a host of features you can't touch with the Windows' "faux DOS" shell. This is a feature that only a tiny slot of people can appreciate, but boy, do we.

Windows

The windows in both systems are essentially the same feature set. The Mac's "Stoplight" icons may be trendier, but I have to give props to the Windows' icons for being unmistakable.

Zoom-out Mode

You can't really compare the alt-tab of Windows (which the Mac has as well) with the mac's "Jigsaw" view of all open documents. It makes task-switching a lot easier.

Searching

This standard (spotlight) in MacOS is an add-on hack in Windows. I almost never fail to find what I want with the Spotlight -- findign the right thing might still be a piece of work when the filter is too broad.

Things I would like in any interface that neither have

I would like a "spreadsheet" style view of all open documents and applications. Both systems have many systems of displaying open files -- none of them give me the ability to, say, sort open files by name, or click-hide or click-show all open files by criteria, as with a file explorer. The bizarre thing -- for the mac, you can view files that are opened today, yesterday, this week.... but not right now! arrg.

The "Always Save" feature outlined in About Face would really be a nice add to either system.

Also, neither system has adopted true web applications as an OS standard. The ability to buy subscription based apps and exploit personal online storage space would be nice -- its long overdue. There are a lot of independant offerings in this sphere but without OS endorsement and integrations its not likely that any venture in this arena would succeed.

I've been waiting for a cool 3D integrated interface ever since the Wonderland (name coincidence) rumors around Sun emerged, and the Vista pre-launch noise kind of got my hopes up. I'm still not sure how well it would prove as a utilitarian thing, but the idea of having a true 3d "Room" for my fiiles instead of a boring 2d desktop sounds really cool.I am not sure how much more you could introduce the "video game experience" into workaday apps without losing functionality.

Also I have long since thought that scrollbards really eat up too much real-estate. Modal scrolling would be a vast improvement on the tiresome ornament. In fact, the whole title sprue on the open window can go, as far as I am concerned.

Lastly, the "one by one" method of looking at menus, and worse yet the modal menu, is truly an artifact of the last century that needs to go. I don't just want to drop ONE menu down with a click, I want to see ALL of them; I don't mind the idea of a rollover focus on one menu, but I want all my options to be visibile side by side.