Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Versus Windows Vista, The Rematch
An anonymous reader writes "InformationWeek follows up its widely read review where Mac OS X beat out Windows Vista in a head-to-head comparison, with a reader debate on which is really the superior operating system. From the article: 'Mac users love venting about Windows... Any company that calls their techs "geniuses" thrive in forums like this. They think they are "cool" and "hip," they don't care about the fact that they have to reset the permissions and turn on Appletalk every five minutes. Windows Vista all the way. If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X? Last time I checked, Windows wasn't just a business operating system. Tons upon tons of people use it and like it.'"
Who the hell uses Appletalk any more?
Is this for printer or something?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
I've long hated and resented Microsoft for what they've done to the competitive tech market and how they've done it.
That said, the arguments about which OS is better seem specious. I've used XP for years now, and find it to be overall quite excellent. I suspect (and based on what I've read so far) Vista will be very good too. That doesn't change how I feel about Microsoft... they're basically an asswipe company with an "I don't have to care, I'm Microsoft" attitude.
I recently purchased my first OS X machine. I find it excellent too, but never having had used it before I did have to make adjustments. I still find many things about it quirky.
I sometimes wish the argument would be more open... the debate about which is the finer OS mostly splits semantic hairs. The underlying "allegiance" and loyalties about which is the better company seems to be more what this is all about.
Microsoft trampled the marketplace, so much so it eventually had a DOJ judgement against it and subsequent consent decree. The damage done to innovation (in my opinion) and continuing to be done is irreparable. (Why in the world would technology continue to have to fight the idiocy and unmanageability of logical drives these days -- I know, there's a way not to, but Microsoft in a competitive market would have had to fix this long ago.)
Apple misstepped early and seemingly never cared. They focused on the education market, and never offered price competitive products. If you were a Mac loyalist, you paid the premium. But I believe that pride by Apple cut them off from an even larger audience and potentially a competitive slice of the PC market. Today they seem to be looking more closely at that -- you still pay a premium for Apple, but it isn't as harsh as before.
Bottom line, both companies have faults. But comparing OS X and Vista is almost a silly game. Both OSes are very good. I can argue one and I can argue the other. The more interesting discussion is what Microsoft's and Apple's roles are in contributing to the overall landscape of computing. I know where I stand on that one.
(For the record, when it comes time to get some real work done, I go running for the nearest Unix terminal, be it Solaris, HP-UX, Linux... doesn't matter, that's the OS and environment I find put together in the smartest way.)
Too late.
Overall, as a PC user, I really like to see the benefits of OS-X. To the chagrin of some of my friends, I actually plan on adding a Mac to my computer inventory very soon. I really like the system and think it has a good look/feel to it. Though a lot of my friends have knocked Apple quality and their lack of pre-announcement of products, instead letting a user blow $2k on a new laptop that they don't know in a week will be lower in price or that the same $2k would get twice the system the next week.
That being said, I really like XP, and due to the underwhelming interest in Vista, I think I am going to be sticking with XP for a while. I just don't see the need to upgrade to Vista right now.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
today is spelling optional day.
If organic meals comprising all food groups, rich in fiber, vitamins and proteins are so much better, than why are more people eating at McDonald's?
Same deal.
You can't take the sky from me...
If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X?
If Hitler sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with him than with Asoka?
"Tons upon tons of people use it and like it."
The first part we are all aware of. The second part... on what basis did that come from? I can't think of a single person who "likes" Windows. They simply use Windows because they don't have a whole lot of choice: it's either all they know how to use, or the only OS that plays their games, or the only OS that runs on, etc.
You might even be able to convince me that people like Windows [i]more than[/i] alternatives, like OS X and Linux. I could easily see that. OS X has some really dumb design flaws and Linux is still a pain in the ass to use as soon as you want to run non-standard software (not even Debian packages *everything*, people). In a lot of ways, Windows is easier and it's quicker to get certain things done.
However, I still don't buy that there is a great number of people who "like Windows" entirely on its own merits. They might like it better than nothing, or better than alternatives, but that's isn't the same as liking Windows. It's like saying that I like having a broken arm because it's better than having no arm or having a frost-bitten arm.
Seriously, how many people are being "sold" a piece of software which is really only supposed to be the interface between your hardware and your applicaitons, and judging it based on a zillion other criteria?
/. in term of productivity loss - sure it's fun, but when you get down to it, it's really just a waste of time.
I don't do any "work" in the OS. It doesn't make me money. It doesn't (shouldn't) add anything. It is - and I'm going to get pedantic here - an Operating System. Can we just get over the whole OS as an application thing? Okay, I suppose in the era of GUIs, it's a windows manager, too. We, the "consumers" have apparently been duped in to thinking that the system that runs the basic computer system should also get us coffee and a handy when we're in the mood.
I read part of the article, and it's talking about constency and feel, and pretty gui widgets. I'm less and less impressed with how efficient these things might make us, to the point that I think much of the OS is actually getting in the way of getting work done. Heck, it's almost as bad has having
Who knows, maybe I'm a slackware guy after all. Or maybe I'd do better with OS-X. But in reality, the programs I run happen to run on x86 architure and rely on Windows componenets, so there isn't much choice. I'd just like to get back to the basics. For a windowed environment, I guess that's NT3.5(1). Man, I just feel old today.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I haven't read the article...but I'm hoping that the pro microsoft camp has better individuals at its desposal then the one quoted in the topic summary. What was that? A little bit of fud mixed with an irrelevant point (is appletalk even used anymore? And doesn't vista now require you to click through a ton of permissions crap to do anything as well?) followed by the "Its good because its more popular" arguement? I mean, I don't like Microsoft much but there's plenty of valid advantages that windows have...but that guy just falls back on the old personal attacks and half truths.
Look, I use it - have had every version of Windows and DOS since the first one - except for WindowsME.
...
But like it? That's going way too far.
Put up with it - much more accurate description
That said, though, in the end the only reason I still have a WinXP machine is so I can play Sims 2 on it. Seriously.
Everything else I have works on Linux or my Mac Mini with OS X.
And looking at WinVista requirements - I was finally enjoying paying $500 for a high speed 11b/g laptop - I don't want to shell out another $2000 to buy a computer that should be a commodity like a TV that sells for $300 to $500, just so I can run what appears to be mostly graphics upgrades to look pretty that would be far cheaper on a Mac. So, given they've jacked the OS price for Win Vista to double, unless some killer app comes out - I'm taking my Open Office and my Opera and my Firefox and migrating off of Windows forever when they kill WinXP support.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this decision.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Is it just me, or does anyone else see this statement as just a little ironic?
Microsoft was at the right place at the right time originally, that is why its OS is so dominant these days. Upgrades are usually taken because they are the path of least resistance.
Saying it is better because of its marketshare is just a logical fallacy based on popularity. It is like debating religion and saying one is right or wrong based on its "marketshare."
For me, simply, Microsoft is the inferior OS to BSD, Linux Distros, and Mac OS X simply because it is a security nightmare in so many ways - and I have to spend my time working, not running antispyware, anti-adware, or fixing other things about the OS (registry). I also find Microsoft asks me to push the "OK" button too often for crap, or nags me about updates (every 5 minutes after I initially say "no") when I just want the OS to shut up and stay out of the way. That is my metric, some people have different metrics (games, certain apps) and that makes Microsoft suitable to them.
(BTW, saying that an OS has certain exclusive apps does not make that OS inherently superior as 3rd party apps, by definition, aren't inherent to the OS. It is a reality we all have to live with, but I think it is disingenuine to say that the OS is innately superior because of this, rather than simply acknowledging that it might be more suitable because of said apps.)
...the popularity = quality correlation fallacy?
500 million people a year catch malaria. Wow! Sounds like the thing to do!
I switched to Mac in '00 and haven't looked back. In fact, the machine I purchased then, a dual-processor Power Mac G4, is still running great and is my primary machine at home.
Windows is rapidly catching up to OS X feature-wise, I'll admit. But each time I go home to visit family I end up fixing at least four Windows machines, despite the fact that I loaded them all up with AVG, Spybot, AdAware, and whatnot on my previous visit. A couple of years ago my sister told me that she needed a laptop for college. I told her I'd buy her one under one condition -- it had to be a Mac, since I didn't want to support Windows over the phone. Initially she was a bit reluctant, but quickly warmed to OS X and hasn't had one problem with her iBook.
I work at a university and my department has about 60 Macs ranging from iMac G3s to dual G5s to Core Duo Mac Minis. Most of them are used by students and they are not locked down at all aside from the OS X administrative password. I have zero problems with spyware, viruses, unauthorized programs or anything like that. All I do is run Software Update a few times a semester and they pretty much take care of themselves.
-Reliability: Windows
Are you shitting me? I have NEVER YET seen a Kernel Panic in Mac OS X. Yet I have seen Windows 2000 "STOP Error" once or twice, and even more times with Windows XP. And of course, WinDOwS 3.11/95/98/ME would bluescreen at the drop of a hat.
Hell, I have even seen Linux do a reset on X.Org due to a bad crash with the application Audacity! Actually I've never seen Linux do a true Kernel Panic that wasn't directly linked up to trying to use it on really funky hardware. Since Apple makes fairly sane hardware (fairly, they've pulled some boners occasionally) the record still stands.
-User interface: Windows
Sweet Jesus no. Windows UI, XP and later, is ugly and sucky and makes me want to replace it with KDE. Yes, you can turn off the "Themes" service and get something that is somewhat like the "Classic" Windows 2000 interface. But it's only SOMEWHAT like it. It's just different enough to make me want to punch someone at times.
The Mac OS X interface had a bit of a learning curve in that I hate GNOME and GNOME and Mac OS X remind me of each other. But once I got used to it I don't mind it terribly. In fact, stuff like "Expose" and widgets actually come in handy on a Mac that has the cojones to do it right. I got that revelation when I started running on my MacBook with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM.
-Cost: Windows (MacOS has to be updated every year)
My older Macs have settled in with Panther and they are fine staying with it. Panther is going to get security updates for quite sometime to come. My MacBook is purring with the Tiger (or would that be Chuffing?) and is hungry for the upcoming Leopard release which will be 64 bit native and make my MacBook fly.
A Mac OS X "point release" is more like a version upgrade, since every version is 10.x.x and Roman Numeral X is the trademark for the OS. You have to pay to upgrade from Windows98 to Windows 2000 to Windows XP to Windows Vista. That's what the difference between Cheetah (10.0), Puma(10.1), Jag-wire (10.2), Panther(10.3) and Tiger(10.4) have been like. Cheetah and Puma are like Windows 95 and Windows 98 -- barely usable. Jag-wire was like Windows NT4. Panther is the first fully-drinkable vintage of X, sort of the 2K of the bunch. However, unlike Windows, Apple just keeps right on improving X rather than adding cruft like MS does with Windows. Think of Tiger and Leopard as what would have happened if MS had continued on the path of 2K, but made it leaner and meaner and more security conscious and faster with every release.
-Compatibility: Windows (15 years old programs still work fine)
Yes, but do those old DOS programs run WELL, or are they crashing you? Are they forcing you to run as administrator to make them work? Did you know that Windows XP runs those old programs in a buggy emulation mode? Did you know that emulators that will allow you to run ancient Mac OS 9 and below programs exist? Please.
-Open architecture: Windows (Millions of applications are available)
Ain't nothing more open than FreeBSD. Except for Linux. And Mac OS X is basically FreeBSD (well, actually Darwin/FreeBSD) under the hood now. If you add in the X11 layer you can run any F/OSS xNIX proggie you like with a recompile. And now with MacIntel you don't even have to recompile. And the big kick in the teeth with MacIntel too is that you can run Windows on top of it, using Parallels, which takes advantage of Intel Vanderpool hardware VT to make it as fast as running Mac OS X. Most Windows apps now run happily this way. And those that don't (Games) can be rebooted with Boot Camp into Windows XP SP2. Which kind of defeats the purpose of this next thing you mention...
-Vulnerability: MacOS (more viruses on Windows)
You can't do the kind of spectacularly evil, easily caught malware on Mac OS X that you can do on Windows. Why? Be
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Any company that calls their techs "geniuses" thrive in forums like this. They think they are "cool" and "hip," they don't care about the fact that they have to reset the permissions and turn on Appletalk every five minutes.
Since having switched to OS X and Linux (from Linux and Windows) as my desktop OSes six years ago, the thing that I've found the most amusing about my new life on the other side of the fence has been the multitude of comments like the above that I'm now noticing.
Starting with the "cool and hip" stereotype, I have to wonder why people make such a big deal of this. If I had to hazard a guess, it's that it really comes from discontent with the historical crappiness of the asthetic aspects of most PC manufacturers' industrial design. I'm pretty sure it doesn't come from Apple users themselves, most the ones I know (myself included) are pretty geeky - which makes sense, given that geeks, being more confident with computers, would naturally be more comfortable with switching platforms, and I'm sure that at this point a strong majority of Mac users are converts who switched over after Apple finally canned that accursed classic Mac OS. It certainly doesn't come from Apple users' chatter; almost the entirety of pro-Apple and anti-Microsoft comments that come from Mac users are made on technical grounds.
As for fixing permissions and restarting AppleTalk, well, I'll grant that they might have last used an old version of OS X where disk permissions did have to be repaired fairly often, but AppleTalk???? I didn't know there was anyone who even remembers AppleTalk anymore, let alone actually uses it. While we're at it, let's criticize Thinkpads based on the crappiness of token ring networking.
It's much of the reason why I stay out of the Mac vs. PC debates for the most part. What's the point of talking to someone who's surrounded by such a strong reality distortion field (yeah, I said it) that they think they're an expert on the merits of OS X when really they haven't spent more than an hour of their lives using it, and at the same time assume I don't know a damn thing about computers because I'm a Mac user, when really I'm a software engineer and spent a hefty amount of time programming native apps on both platforms.
I wish some of these folks would come back down to earth and admit that the only real reason they don't like Macs very much is that there isn't a version of Half-Life 2 for OS X.
-Reliability - I ran my G4 DPP 1 gig MDD running OSX 10.2 - 3 for over 4 years 24/7 without a reboot, save updates or upgrades with no kernel crashes, memory issues, etc. Before that, I ran an iMac 400 AV for 5 yrs under the same conditions (started with OS 8, I think, upgraded to 9 then OS X) with similar results. The only times I had kernel crashes were under 10.1. Those are long gone. I now run my G4 in my bedroom, and since it was called the Windtunnel for good reason, I turn it off at nite now.
I work for a Federal Agency, and we need the machines (IBM ThinkCenters running XP Pro) left on at nite for push updates. We tell the users to reboot before going home. Why? Stability reasons. Even XP eventually has memory issues if left running for too long, and a regular reboot keeps thing running smooth.
So much for reliability.
User Interface: Personal preference. I know as many folks that have a personal preference for Windows as for Macs. They like it cause they are comfortable with it. However, ALL the people I know that have switched actually do prefer the Mac. But it is still a personal preference thing.
Cost - $129 OS X - $199 - $399 Vista. Mac OS X gets updated to a new version every 18 months or so. It's not Apple's fault that Microsoft can't update theirs more often than 7 years apart.
Apple only charges for the major point versions. There are 9 or 10 updates to each of those before a new point version is released for sale. XP is on, what? SP TWO? In how many years?
Compatability - Mac OS - I have numerous files from the late 80's and early 90's created under old versions of MacWrite and Excel. I could open the MacWrite files using the original program as late as 4 yrs ago, using my old iMac, running Classic and system 9. That computer can still open them. The Excel files can open on my new Intel MacBook using NeoOffice.
Actually, that category is a stupid one to use to compare the two - both systems have a mixed record in using old programs or opening old files. Neither wins here.
Open architecture - this is also stupid. Microsoft is famous for having a closed system, failing to adhere to open standards, taking such standards and altering them and releasing them as Microsoft standards and forcing them on the industry using their monopoly power. Apple is also closed, but OS X adheres to open standards such as TCP/IP, Java, etc., much better than Microsoft. It is widely known in networking circles that Windows doesn't even adhere properly to the ubiquitous TCP/IP standards. Apple wins here, too. (open architecture has nothing to do with the number of apps available. I can buy an app for OS X for any purpose I need.)
Vulnerabilities: You are right, Apple wins.
Bugs - Stupid here, too. It isn't just a tie, but all software has bugs. Some are vulnerabilities, some cause instability, some cause crashes. Narrow it down to make any sense at all.
Total: Apple is winning. Apple's sales are growing at three times the rate of any other PC manufacturer in the market. It is the only one with a growing market share. In the last year, 50% of all Mac sales at all venues, were new Mac users, that had never bought a Mac before. That means they were either new to the computer market, or switchers from other systems.
I don't think Vista's market share will grow as fast as you think.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
No, his claim is that (and this is a matter of public record) Microsoft used predatory practices to BECOME a monopoly, and used such practices since to kill competition and stifle innovation that would successfully compete with them.
To the parent, yes there was such a court case, and there was a consent decree that settled it. That is where all this is publicly recorded.
Windows may be YOUR choice because YOU don't want to "be forced" to buy the hardware and software from the same company.
Most consumers, not being geeks that know how to mix and match their own components (like you), just want to go to the store and buy a computer with an OS pre-installed. For that reason, Microsoft's predatory monopolistic practices have stifled any possible competitors, save one that makes their own OS, so MS couldn't prevent the sale of their OS.
If MS had had to compete in an open, competitive market, there's no telling how many operating systems now might be on the market.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
it would also filter about 90% of the stupid ones.
Blocking Zonk articles is like a lameness filter for the main page
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
As a matter of fact, I just wrote about this in a blog, on the topic of Windows vs OSX;
There's one thing annoys the hell out of me with Windows. It's not Windows per se -- but it's the constant brainfarts I feel that Microsoft made when designing their product. That's actually one reason why I switched over to Apple, because when I'm OSX, it can take days before the OS itself has something to tell me, or I notice the OS itself. I know, these are some incredibly small things and many people might think that I shouldn't be using a computer at all , but for me, some of these things are really frustrating and they make the user experience worse.
Now, I don't mean to start the traditional Windows vs OS X war, but here are a few points I have noticed with my somewhat long experience with working in Windows -- the most recent one that I came to think about is how XP for instance is nagging about cleaning up your desktop icons, *even when they're hidden*. I know for one thing that I usually use the desktop for alot of stuff, and hide the icons because I rarely have to use it anyway, and this is something that I feel that Windows is screwing up with; it doesn't take into account the things you have done, e.g. hid your desktop icons.
Then, let's take another thing -- dialogs. The thing that strikes me with the dialog boxes in Windows is that they rarely tell you in a coherent way what the dialog does. Of course, you have the usual "The text in the file X has changed. Do you want to save changes?" dialog box -- with Yes, No and Cancel buttons. This is just normal, right? Usually, the normal user would just click the button that they think is the right choice -- and I think anybody who has worked as computer support knows, that when people work a little bit longer with computers, they stop reading the dialogs and go with routine -- and this usually ends up in something being lost; "I clicked that one button and it disappeared". Another example of stupid dialog boxes is the WinXP Safe Mode prompt, when you get to choose whether you want to go to Safe Mode or System Recovery; "Press Yes to continue to Safe Mode, No to go to System Recovery", followed with a dialog box filled with a lot of text. What I do like, is the OSX way of dialog boxes; they have the same text, usually, but instead of having a generic Yes/No/Cancel-selection of buttons, the buttons themselves are captioned by what they do when you press them -- e.g. "Save/Don't Save/Cancel".
As with Vista, the user access control is another nice feature, that I'm puzzled over what it's supposed to do. Sure, it's supposed to have your attention when a program wants to do something what the program isn't supposed to do. I've grown a bit tired in "authenticating" -- or to put it more accurately -- "approving" the actions programs want to take. I'll go to the Task Manager, start up the Resource Monitor - I get to click the approve button there already once. I wish to install Firefox? Sure, after I approve.
Of course -- after the initial installation, I'm being bombarded with tips, tricks, tutorials and balloon tips what I can and can't do. There isn't even a checkbox anywhere, that I have the possibility to tell the System that "Yes, I have used Windows before and I would not like to receive any notification [about new features]." This is the thing that frustrates me -- the System is so in my face the whole time, that it distracts me from the work I'm supposed to do, instead of babysitting the computer.
But this is just me. I'm sure there are somebody who agrees with these things and some others that think that maybe I should stop using computers. Maybe I should -- because with the current usability and frustration, I think we'd be better off.
THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
I like Windows... I wouldn't go as far as saying I love it - but it does exactly what I want it to. I'm a pretty casual computer user. Sure I do some coding here and there, and I try my hand at website design, and Windows doesn't hinder me one bit. So why should I change?
"I don't hate Microsoft because of Windows. I hate Microsoft because they made mediocre software the standard."
I think that about sums it up. Microsoft has been great at getting out a lot of products that its customers have asked for, the only problem is that they aren't always finished when they are released. Apple on the other hand usually releases fairly stable software or they at least keep working on it until it becomes stable, but on the down side they don't release as many products as Microsoft does.
Behold the mighty monochrome sig.
I, too, became a first-time Mac user this week (well, with one exception; 9 years ago I briefly used a Mac with OS 7.6.1 at a job, and it sucked horribly. Crashed numerous times every day and was just a general PITA. Windows 95 *was* better than that thing), when I started a new job and was issued a brand new Macbook Pro with a Core 2 Duo and 10.4.8. I'd never used OS X before and haven't touched a Mac in 9 years, so there were some things to learn, but it has generally been a very positive experience. The hardware quality is excellent, and the OS and apps are also very good. I'm primarily a Linux user and in a number of areas still prefer KDE to Mac, but I don't find myself sitting here and constantly wishing I had a Linux machine, something I would be doing if I were using XP. Still, I'm probably going to wind up doing a lot of my work in a Linux VM in Parallels :)
Two things I did find lacking were a virtual desktop manager (now using VirtueDesktop; it has some stability issues and b/c it's a hack, doesn't work as well as virtual desktops in X, but it's usable), and after a week I still think a Start menu would be a good thing to have. There's a reason why KDE, GNOME, Windows, XFCE, and most other desktop environments and window managers use one, and it isn't just to be different from Apple. I'm glad Leopard will have a native virtual desktop manager, thus leaving Vista as the only modern OS without one, but it would be nice if they would provide an optional start menu, too. I've learned how to find apps in Finder and launch them, and while I can get along that way, it's not as good as having a start menu.
However, those quibbles aside, I am very impressed with this Mac for the quality of the hardware, the superiority to Windows in almost all aspects, and the superiority even to Linux in some. This really confirms what I tell people who ask my opinion about what computer to get: if you like to tinker with stuff, get under the hood and see how it works, heavily customize things, etc., then you should take a good look at Linux. If that's not you, and you just want your computer to work, get a Mac. If you have some must-use software that is Windows-only, you can run a copy of Windows in Parallels and it will be well integrated with OS X (I have parallels on this machine, and if I'm running IE in Windows, IE appears in the dock; pretty cool). Either way, I wouldn't recommend to anyone that they buy a Windows machine unless they are a hardcore gamer (in which case they've already got one and wouldn't be asking my advice anyway).
I'm a former employee of Microsoft and would say that Vista does have its good points, but honestly, it's game, set, and match to Mac. XP doesn't measure up to OS X, and while Vista comes closer, it doesn't make the cut either.
I'm extremely suspect of this blurb as the AppleTalk quote isn't from the article.
That's a quote from reader comments made by someone who is so far out of touch with OS X it isn't even funny.
Is this really how stupid Window-Fanboyism has gotten that the complaints are over OS X services that aren't even turned on out of the box? I've got two Macs running OS X and I didn't even know they were still capable of using AppleTalk until I started poking around in System Preferences to see how to turn the service on. Sure, it works and it's easy to set up zones but why anyone would use AppleTalk to try to talk between Macs and peripherals these days is beyond me.
Bonjour makes discovery extremely easy and the negotiation happens automagically.
And this reset permissions crap? I'm lost. Really. I have no clue what that guy is talking about. The only time I ever reset permissions on anything was when I wanted to move some GarageBand Loops to a place the system owned without adding them to GB through drag-and-drop. The only reason I had to take ownership of the directory was because I wasn't using sudo from the terminal.
The submission is pure flamebait. Slashdot moderators need to go back to moderator school.
The majority of these same people either don't know there are alternatives, or aren't in a position to change. They don't 'like' it, they just put up with it.
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
MacOS X may be superior, but the difference between Windows XP and MacOS X is not that great, and certainly not so big as in the days of Windows 3.1/MacOS 7. With Windows XP, one can do many tasks with very little problems.
As for Vista, I do not know why I have to have them. XP with SP2, Firefox and Thunderbird, Antivirus and Firewall works extremely well. Shiny icons and transparencies will not make me reformat my hard disk.