Reply to comment

Sure, you expect long-running Mac-focused media like TidBits to offer accurate info on all things Apple. It wouldn't be fair to ask non-Mac outlets to clear that same high-jump bar – yet why do big-name tech media trip over the scantest of hurdles?

Computerworld's Preston Gralla compares the new Snow Leopard and the soon-to-be-released Windows 7 in OS deathmatch: Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7. Despite the lack of anything in the low-detail, cursory comparison to warrant the "deathmatch" title, things go smoothly throughout much of the article. Well, there is the immediate problem that its testing runs Windows 7 on a PC with a slower processor than the Mac and half the RAM. (Fortunately, it doesn't go on to make serious comparisons of OS performance.) Then there's the bizarre first item test in the competition: Operating system name, for which Snow Leopard is handed the medal. (Gee, that meaningful category won't lead anyone to dispute the final tally of wins, will it?) And that's followed by the claim that Tiger users must buy the $169 Mac Box Set to use Leopard, which multiple sources have confirmed isn't so. (Although Computerworld should have clarified the matter, we won't hold this against them much; Apple itself does suggest the need for Mac Box Set, and the truth is that Tiger users do need it – though that's only to stay in compliance with the licensing fine print, not for any technological reason.) 

Those are quibbles over the article's procedures, not its actual content. But that was only the first page. The Snow Leopard errors begin from the next page, in the inevitable Dock vs taskbar comparison: 

The taskbar's implementation is superior to the Dock's. The taskbar displays the number of windows open in an application because it shows a stack of icons -- the Dock has no visual clues like that. In addition, when you scroll through each thumbnail in Windows 7, you see a full preview of the window on your desktop, making it easier to determine which window you want to switch to. The Dock doesn't do this.

No visual clues to the number of an application's windows? Wrong. Aside from the obvious count provided by Exposé (by showing the actual windows), a right-click on the application's Dock icon displays a list of all windows. But you'll see in a minute why Computerworld missed that. 

No full preview of Exposé thumbnails? Wrong again. It's my impression that Apple doesn't play this up as much as it should, but Exposé is now integrated with Quick Look, which means the Dock is now effectively integrated with Quick Look as well. They all play together nicely. Try this: Activate thumbnails in Exposé, whether all windows or a single application's windows. Now with your pointer over a window, activate Quick Look via the space bar, just as you would in the Finder. Voilá: Full preview of the window. Want to see something even cooler? With Quick Look still active, start moving the pointer around. Full previews zoom in and out, as the pointer passes over each Exposé thumbnail's positions. Awesome. 

The article follows the above misunderstanding with a legitimate Exposé shortcoming: Snow Leopard doesn't separate tabbed windows (such as those in Safari or Firefox) into thumbnails, while Windows 7 reportedly does. I know it can be difficult to relocate a Safari tab lost somewhere among dozens of others, and Exposé doesn't help find it (though then again, I'm not sure I want Exposé showing me 60 or 80 thumbnails at once, per my typical tabbed browser usage). But one wishes Computerworld were as accurate on Exposé's strengths as it is on the weaknesses. 

The Windows 7 taskbar has something else that Snow Leopard doesn't: Jump Lists. When you right-click an application's icon in the taskbar in Windows 7, you get a menu offering various actions and tasks associated with that application. The list varies according to the application -- so when you right-click Microsoft Word, for example, you see a list of recently opened files, but when you click Internet Explorer, you see a list of your most frequently visited sites.

Huh? Computerworld appears to have no idea that from its birth, the OS X Dock has offered the same sort of right-click contextual menu for its application icons. From that simple right-click, I can hide, show, or quit the application, or show it in the Finder, or set whether it stays in the Dock, or set whether it automatically opens upon login. Further, those right-click menus offer many per-application tasks, as described for Windows 7: I can control iTunes' playback, create a new Mail message, open a new Safari message, or jump to a specific panel within System Preferences, among many more available tasks. 

Do the Dock's contextual menu offerings still fall short of the taskbar's "Jump Lists"? If so, Computerworld doesn't tell us how, instead suggesting that the Dock's handy menus simply don't exist. 

Of course, both OSes have other ways to switch from one task to another: Snow Leopard has Exposé, while Windows 7 uses the Alt-Tab key combination. Here it's more of a toss-up over which is superior.

Snow Leopard also has the equivalent of Alt-Tab switching, via Command-Tab. And that feature offers a number of handy added tricks (like application quitting). But once again, rather than comparing a Snow Leopard feature to a similar Windows 7 one, Computerworld suggests that the former doesn't exist. (It's also odd that the paragraph would call Exposé another way to switch tasks, when that use of Exposé is what the article just finished discussing!)

Computerworld hands Windows 7's taskbar the win over the Dock and Exposé. Yet given the article's confusion over those features, who can tell whether that's valid?

Overall, it's not a cringe-inducing ignorant look at the two operating systems. The quibbles are in pretty minor details, yet it's too bad that these cast doubt on the entire article. Not to fear, though; even if this Computerworld article wasn't up to the task, the media is certain to unleash a deluge of Snow Leopard vs Windows 7 articles as fast as scribes can churn them out. Let's hope some of those writers put a little more time into uncovering the details!