OSX/Win2K Deathmatch

Michael Paci sent us linkage to a pretty good article on CNet where win2k and OSX duke it out on a variety of categories like ease of installation, UI, and hardware support. It's an interesting report and better written then most of the stuff that you'll see like this.

Comments

Win2k Installation

[larien]

I've done a few W2k installs, and I have to say it's the worst MS installer I've ever seen.

The process took me 45 minutes on a fairly decent machine (AMD600MHz, 128MB Ram, ATA/66 disk), almost none of which was me having to think about questions or read help. That wouldn't be so bad, but the installer litters questions through the install process so you can't just leave it alone for a while to do the install; you have to be there for those 45 minutes (or more; an install time of an hour isn't unheard of), mostly twiddling your thumbs.

What would have been far better would have been an installer that saved all the questions for the start or end of the install process (ie, at the start it asks for disk partitioning and install options; at the end you configure things like admin password).
--

Combine 'em.

[Syberghost]

Let's combine 'em and call it OS/2K.

Or would that be too warped?

-

Re:Good post on Ars

[Porfiry]

This is laughable as well. Every single thing the guy listed for OSX, Win2k Pro comes with.

Apparently you're not aware that Win2K is crippled as a web server platform. First, Win2K professional DOESN'T come with Apache. Even if you install it, you are limited to a fixed number of incoming TCP connections (something in the range of 10) that make it utterly useless as a web server. Unlike Microsoft, Apple is not selling you a crippled OS.

Re:Debates like this are pointless

[RevAaron]

Who cares what your Athlon box costs? You still have to put up with the same old PC rubbish. Sure, it runs games hella faster than my G4/400, but that's irrelevant to me, because I use my computer primarily for work, not games. But that's fine if you play a lot of games. That's what you use it for. For me, I just want to get stuff done, and it's not worth my time to have to putz with Linux and/or (I pray not) Windows.

Flaws in the Analysis?

[cqnn]

Round 1: Installation

OSX has to deal with a much smaller supported hardware set (Macs) than
Windows 2000 (or Linux, BSD, and BeOS for that matter). Taking
this into account, one might see where Apple's OS developers could
spend more time on the front end of the install, instead of needed
more effort put into the supportive foundations of the hardware detection.

OSX still wins here, but its racing on its own track.

Round 2: Interface

OSX takes the lead for now in the cool GUI department, but those who
accuse MS of stealing ideas from Aqua are overlooking a key point in
the embrace and extend philosophy. Like Win95, 98, and ME before it;
Windows XP will not only adopt new interface ideas, but those ideas
will actually be tested for usuability and integration with existing
user practices.

Apple seems to design on "Make it look cool, and they will come"

MS seems to design on "Make it look cool, and work with the stuff that
didn't look as cool in the last rev, and they will upgrade"

Round 3: Software compatibility

Windows 2000 is the better example of what both companies needed to do
to insure future growth and legacy compatiblity. It wins the match, but
the real winner overall is GNU/ the Open Source Movement.

I'm not saying that to be a Slashdot shill, because it is not the "free"
aspect I'm looking at. It's that OSS is for the most part designed with
portability in mind that it has held to the best ideas for software compatibility,
despite the forks in the roads of OSS history.

Round 4: Hardware compatibility

Same point as in Round 1, OSX deals with its hardware better, but it
has a much more limited range of configurations that it has to deal with.

Round 5: Internet support

OSX is more compatible with the existing Internet infrastucture; because
it is based on much of the same ideas/technology.

Microsoft's flaws were in targeting Windows 2000 more for the Intranet and
plain vanilla business use, than for the space beyond the corporate proxy.

Harder than it sounds

[Lozzer]

OS X simply maximizes the convenience of the Internet. Its connection wizards make connecting to the Net as easy as thawing a hot dog

Damn, I was about to go out and but a Mac, but I've never thawed a hot dog and I don't fancy learning now

A more interesting deathmatch...

[zombieking]

...would be "Psycho" Steve Jobbs vs. "Battlin'" Bill Gates in a last-man-standing no-holds-barred steel cage match. I'd pay to see that one on pay per view...

-----

Re:Depends on the applications

[Placido]

Quote from the article:

"Before you use our death match as a reason to run out and buy a new dual-processor G4, though, let us remind you that this matchup is all in good fun. If you're making decisions about operating systems and even entire platforms--especially for your business--you should do your research. Check out CNET's reviews of both Windows 2000 and Mac OS X and decide for yourself."

Nuff said.


Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"

Interesting point and funny ending

[wmulvihillDxR]

From the article:

What's more, the OS X installer automatically finds your hardware and recognizes it. No driver problems (what's a driver?), no hardware conflicts, nada. Don't be fooled by its fancy core; just as it did in previous Mac OS incarnations, Apple designed OS X for your Mac hardware. OS X is even better than OS 9 at recognizing hardware, and it even configures USB printers--no "plug and pray" here.

Well I know I've lost some hardware. I have a beige G3 and I no longer have the built-in SCSI port. My CD burner doesn't work either and it did work in 9.1. So I can't say I have had no hardware problems.

I like the "plug and pray" shot though.

Re:Depends on the applications

[American AC in Paris]

Why can't you just choose the one that works best for YOU and accept that what is best for you may not be best for all other users. MacOS is good for Desktop Publishing and Graphic design. Linux is good for those who value their freedom (speech and beer), and Win2k is good for compatibility and for it's ease of use. x-BSD...Well, I've never used it, but I'm sure it's good for something. The point is, find something that works for you and accept that your solution might not work for everyone.

...it's important to consider, though, that while MacOS has historically been the niche player for desktop publishing and graphic design, OS X is one huge departure from the classic MacOS. I'll be the first to admit that it's still a tad early to say exactly what niches OS X will fill, but I don't think it's an overstatement to say that OS X stands an excellent chance of breaking out of the dp/design niche and filling far larger shoes. After all, we're looking at a first in the industry--a BSD system that your grandmother can use without batting an eyelid. That, if nothing else, shows a great deal of promise...

Microsoft's response

[jsse]

Dear CNet,

CNET's decision: Mac OS X

What do you mean by that?
I thought we are always friends. I know you've taken efforts to make us win on "Interfaces" part.

But I'm not satisfied. You know that.

Can't you be more unethical?

You can kiss my future first-hand Microsoft news goodbye, sucker.

Yours master,
Bill G.