Macs soon to lose out to PC/Windows?

Icons can be resized on windows too can't they?

Infact MOst of the visual issues on all formats can be tweaked to please can't they?

 

They can indeed MO, but on the Mac you can tweak the icons to any size you like (within reason), and they will always look good. On Windows, the icons must be 16x16, 24x24, 32x32, 48x48 if they arent to look total shite. Moreover, a lot of XP icons still havent been written for the 48x48 tile view now supported. XP can support 64x64 and 128x128 pixel icons too, but you must download these yourself. So, yes, it is possible to make Windows look good, but it takes a lot of effort, and all it serves in doing is making the OS inconsistent (which most Windows users should be used to anyway )

This is one example of how windows *can* look....



Right click on the cross and click show picture if it doesnt work.

 

And errr .. if it still doesn't work ????

 

Not quite sure why the IMG link isn't working. Here's the URL:

http://images.deviantart.com/i/2003/38/a/1/metal_spectre.jpg

Paul - you think that looks good???? :chunder:

Michael.

 

OK, it was just a random one that seemed to look alright, and your link doesnt work either

 

No accounting for taste I suppose, but here is the top rated Windows screenshot @ deviantart....

http://www.deviantart.com/view/1075667/

 

haha, that would give you headache!

Looks good though!

 

well here I am, exactly one week into using XP.

The highlights of my week? well there wern't many. Word crashed quite a few times, but I am prepared to accept it might have been something specific with this system. each time it crahsed it instisted on sending some information to Microsoft which I found disconcerting, espcially as they were so keen to assure you it wouldn't be used for anything dodgy.

The configuration and preferences as an indivdual user were frankly appauling and might as well have been left out. For instance I could have icon, or like a button thing, which was exactly the same sized icon in a square box, well der.

I liked the information available in the desktop on each file, this was useful, although all the stuff on the side becomes tiresome, you could close information you didn't need, but a log out later and it all returned, so basically pointless.

And the good old multi application happened. I had at one point 2 copies of MSWord open. To date I have not understood how this could be in any way benificial, perhaps some one can explain?

I liked the speed of the system, word, excel and powerpoint are "bam" there, but this only applies to MS applications. Opening for instance Adobe Acrobat was painfully slow. And the most annoying 'feature' of this whole shbang came from Outlook. when you compose a new mail message, it opens word and makes you do it from there, and frankly its a mess.

All in all, XP is stable, and fast, but its just windows 98 jazzed up a little to look good, and no one will be able to argue different, there is nothing new here, nothing special, just 98 with a smoother 'task bar'

How I am thankful I never went the PC route. Although I can appriciate the speed on the MS applications.

 

garyi - a lot of your problems can be "cured":

- Word opening multiple times.
This was a "feature" of Word 2000. Basically, Microsoft usability studies found that many people were confused by the idea of one program editing multiple documents at the same time so every document now has its own 'instance' of Word and appears in the taskbar. The same happens by default for Excel. Fortunately, in Excel there's an easy option to switch this behaviour off. I thought there was for Word too but I don't seem to be able to find it

- MS Office applications load fast because MS deliberately pre-caches all the necessary libraries for them on Windows startup I have that feature disabled so my XP starts up quicker.

- Editing Outlook e-mail messages in Word is an option that can be turned off. It's the first thing I do when with any new installation of Outlook.

- not quite sure what you're referring to about the user configuration options. I have most of that junk disabled (so it behaves like Windows 2000) anyway.

- allthough it might look very similar to Windows 98, it's fundamentally different under the hood. It has a lot in common with Windows 2000 and Windows NT before it which never had anything to do with MS-DOS and the 16bit world and were designed as proper 32bit multi-tasking OSes from the start. Windows 98 (like 95 and 3.11 before it and also Windows Me, which came after 98) OTOH were still just a fancy shell running on top of MS-DOS

As with any new OS you work with, it takes a little time to know the little tricks that make life a lot easier. No doubt if I tried using a Mac for a week I'd have similar issues that are nothing for those in the know.

Michael.