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.'"
some effort if they just submitted:
"MS/Apple flamewar. Begin."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
All in one page for those of us who hate ad-spammy articles.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
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
InformationWeek follows up its widely read review where Mac OS X beat out Windows Vista in a head-to-head comparison
If I remember correctly, that "comparison" was mostly based on the author's personal preferences. That's more of an editorial.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Do people still use Appletalk?
I have two Macs at home and I can not remember using it.
Hah, use it? Yes. Like it? Nooooo. Tolerate it like a drunk uncle grabbing your ass at a wedding. Windows sucks ass.
But it's where the games are. First of Linux or Apple OS to get all the games Windows gets, and I'd change in a heartbeat.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
Tandy DeskMate 3.69 kicks all ass! ;)
Snoozer.
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.)
I seem to recall a lawsuit regarding Microsoft's predatory practices by making it financially difficult for vendors to sell any operations system other than Dos and Windows - then there's the code stealing (Doublespace), the intential breaking (DR DOS), and other practices that, over time, have helped to lead to not just Microsoft's and Windows domination, but also the discouragement of any other operating systems from gaining hold.
I thought there was a whole court case about this, Microsoft being found guilty or something. But since there was no punishment, I must be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Now, there are four states of being in the Apple, or Mac OS X, society: Cool, Groovy, Hip, and Square. The square is seldom if ever cool. He is not "with it," that is, he doesn't know "what's happening." But if he manages to figure it out, he moves up a notch to "hip."
And if he can bring himself to approve of what is happening, he becomes "groovy." After that, with much luck and perseverance, he can rise to the rank of "cool." A "cool guy"...
today is spelling optional day.
If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X?
Because when they get a computer it has windows on it. There first computer is usually really cheap so it has windows on it. When they need more all their software is for windows so they get a windows PC. Windows will always have more market share then OS X Because OS X Requires you to get a Mac. Even if 20 years ago Macs are like Macs now and PCs were like PCs then, and prices were the same. DOS Will still win because people felt more comfortable with choices.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That's another way of saying "sanctionned flamewar", right ?
I guess there's a market for that kind of thing.
:wq
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?
"-Reliability: Windows
-User interface: Windows
Cost: Windows (MacOS has to be updated every year"
What? Come on now I know you need to lie to make Windows look better, but come on you have more blatant lies then Tony Snow. Mac OS has much better reliability then Windows everybody knows that. Windows Vista is just as bad as XP I have been using Vista at work for a month now and it crashes all the time. Also, that last part. What the Hell are you talking about? Mac Os $129 Windows "199 to $399. Its every two years by the way. I wish you people would get you facts straight before you come out on forums.
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.)
Tons upon tons of people use [Windows] and like it.
Huh? In my experience, almost all Windows users hate it. They use it because they have no idea that there's a choice. They didn't buy "windows", they bought "a computer", and that mysterious thing called "Windows" came with it. From the name, they understand that "Windows" is the thing that draws the windows on the screen. All computers do that, so they all have "Windows", right? Even those who have heard of Apple tend to think that Macs run Windows, because you can look at the screen and see the windows.
An important reason for all this is that Microsoft has an advertising budget larger than the budgets of all their competitors combined. This simple situation is all you need to understand MS's market dominance. (Though their ability to lock out competitors via their contracts with retailers also helps.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
There was also a time when the vast majority of people thougth that the world was flat...that didn't work out so well, either.
Is anyone else here thinking they don't give a shit too?
I mean, this whole thing pretty much boils down to "which one do you prefer?" - how scientific is that?!
Give me a real debate ffs; better default security, faster networking, better f/s, better app-support, better memory management....anything! Anything but "which one's better?"!
Christ, it's Friday night, everyone's going out and I'm on slashdot. Good evening everyone, the beers are calling.
throw new NoSignatureException();
... how come so many more people, billions infact, are non Nobel Laureates, eh?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
...the popularity = quality correlation fallacy?
500 million people a year catch malaria. Wow! Sounds like the thing to do!
I work on OSX every day, I develop software for both OSX and Windows, and reliability-wise, OSX is not that much better than Windows. It's not the uncrashable behemoth that Mac fanboys would like to pretend it is, though I do find that as a general non-scientific statement it crashes less than Windows. This is due to a lot of factors, not the least of which is the fact that your hardware configs are limited, so driver conflicts that bring Windows to its knees simply do not have an opportunity to manifest itself on a Mac.
On the other hand, the user doesn't care *why* their machine doesn't work, just that it doesn't. Reliability-wise I would say OSX wins, but only by a slim margin.
Agreed on the UI though, Windows' UI has always been obfuscated to me, and I find OSX much more intuitive. I've convinced many people to switch to Mac, and other than the 2-week "OMG I CANT TO ANYTHING!" break-in period, all now prefer OSX to Windows.
Also agreed on cost. Windows costs an ass-load. OSX costs $100 every couple years. All in all I see the whole cost argument as pretty moot: nobody says you have to buy Vista and/or Leopard. Tiger/XP runs just fine, why is cost a factor in the OS wars at all?
Same here. Of course, the terminal I usually go running for is called Terminal. :-) (I.e., most of my Unix work these days is on OS X.)
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.
In home entertainment news...
...because more people use them
Standard televisions are superior to HDTVs, because more people use it
In automotive news...
Gasoline is superior to Diesel and Electric, because more people use it*
In scientific news...
Imperial measurements are superior to Metric, because more people use it*
In Technology news...
MS Paint is the superior graphics editor...
IE6 is the superior web browser...
notepad is the superior text editor...
I now invite all slashdotters to post their own satirical "news" based on appeals to popularity, the only true way to gauge quality.
(* May be isolated to the USA, but I'm guessing the submitter is also isolated to the USA, so the satire still works).
http://www.mhall119.com
-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.
This happened just last week.
My company has a policy where by all purchase orders must be submitted using a form in Outlook. Forms are the one thing my Mac can't do because Microsoft dosen't want Macs to have Outlook. (Run OS 9 to get Outlook? Get real, I haven't run "classic" Mac OS in over 6 years. It's not even installed on any of my Macs.)
So I fire up my PC. Outlook is hosed. No problem, just uninstall and reinstall from the company file server. Connect to the VPN, go out to the file server and AUTHENTICATION DENIED.
WTF? Try several times, on the phone with company tech support. They check my permissions in the domain, still can't get in. Finally I say, "Hang on, let me try something."
I close the VPN tunnel on the PC. Connect to the VPN on my Mac. Go straight to the file server and login without a problem using the same domain credentials. Download the Outlook installer and then map a drive letter on my PC to my Mac to get the software to my PC.
Ironic isn't it? Windows would not authenticate with a Windows file server in a Windows Active Directory Domain. But my Mac just waltzed right in and got what I needed.
I don't hate Microsoft because of Windows. I hate Microsoft because they made mediocre software the standard.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
Right click on the app's icon in the dock. Viola. Further, I know Apple has released the Darwin OS as open-source while maintaining OSX separately. I think it'd be better if Apple opened the kernel for OSX and merged with with Darwin, and kept their proprietary fun and games confined to Aqua.
The OS X kernel is open-sourced, and it is the Darwin kernel. The rest of Darwin is the rest of the low layer levels of OS X. The proprietary stuff is exactly what you want it to be, the higher level layer like the GUI libraries, the windowing system, quicktime, et al.
None of which helps the kernel bug, because the NVidia driver isn't open source.
-Reliability: Windows Oh really? My last Mac crash was, um. I'll have to get back to you, I can't actually remember one. My last windows crash? Yesterday. So our experience differs. (you do _have_ experience with Mac, I assume?)
-User interface: Windows If you're finding it difficult to do something in MacOSX, it's quite likely that you are trying do do something in an un-needed complicated way.
-Cost: Windows (MacOS has to be updated every year) It does? This is news to me. Sure, you _can_ upgrade it every year or so when new version of the OS comes out, but nobody is forcing you to. Old versions still get support, patches, and all that. Nothing mandatory about upgrades. And unlike windows, OS upgrades tend to make the system run _faster_, rather than slower.
-Compatibility: Windows (15 years old programs still work fine) Couple thoughts there... 1: Who cares? Are you telling me that you've got some mission critical software from 15 years ago, that nobody has ever improved and released for a modern OS? And, 2: How is that good? How much effort do you want your OS vendor to put into supporting old crap for people too lazy to upgrade every decade or so? At a certain point, backwards compatibility costs forward development. And, it could be argued that much of the problem with Windows is that they want to pretend to have backwards compatibility, so they keep horrible design flaws in place throughout versions. (and yet, today's MS Office can't read files made in MS Office 15 years ago...you have to find a windows-98'ish box to do an interim translation).
-Open architecture: Windows (Millions of applications are available) Nothing much more open than Unix...certainly not Windows with it's hidden APIs and closed source. And I have _yet_ to find a need I haven't been able to find an app for. Can I run Microsoft Flight Simulator? No. But there's 2 or 3 Mac ones that are at least as good. There's more beers out there than Bud and Miller too, you know?
-Vulnerability: MacOS (more viruses on Windows)
-Bugs: Tie Cite please? On what basis are you making this incredible claim? And are you counting bug counts, or weighting them somehow to compare them for severity, impact, security risk, and so on?
TOTAL: Windows wins.
Windows Vista is expected to have big market share than MacOS in just the next few months.
That's great. So tell us all what your actual experience is with Mac please. Because it seems that you are speaking out of ignorance and assumptions.
-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
Which is exactly why any self-respecting salon makes sure to use only Linux Haircare V05. Inferior products can leave your hair dry, unmanageable, and even mangled in the worst cases. Some people claim it's the hardware vendor's fault when perms get caught in a drive and mangled, but then why have we never heard about any such problems with Linux? Because Linux is the best for your hair! Some varieties even come with a money-back guarantee!
"Linux -- for no more mangled perms!"
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
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
Back in the 90's I was told by an Apple insider to learn MkLinux because that is the way the Mac OS is going. He also said that if MS is successful in killing Apple, everyone was going over to Linux.
/Applications/Utilities/Terminal.
When OSX hit the market I was ready and waiting for a chance to play around with the UNIX tools. I use Links, Scribus, GIMP, Pico, and Inkscape quite often. Those were the Linux apps I used the most. If you like playing in the UNIX/Linux world, OSX has a window into it right there in the
I am not a gamer, I am not a bean counter so Windows is not essential to me. I chose the OS with the most appealing interface and the company that seemed to be friendly to the creative arts. Mac OS just seems to demand less of me than Windows. The interface seemed more appealing to the eye. MS still hasn't learned to be subtle. Their look is cartoonish and angular. They really need someone with an artist's eye to design the look and feel of the interface.
That's what it comes down to: what suits you best.
photosMy Photostream
To be honest, I don't care very much about the operating system. Ultimately, I can switch between OSX and Windows without any problems or confusion, and pretty much everything I need to do, I can do on either. Whether it's the same for you, of course, depends on what you're using the computer for.
However, from an IT standpoint, I would much rather support OSX. I know, this runs contrary to what most of you might think, but there are a couple simple things that make me favor it so much.
Really, I've been administering Windows networks for years, and after administering a Mac network for a year and a half, I find it ridiculous how many headaches Windows still presents. After all these years, and with Vista requiring activation even in the corporate licensing, it's only gotten harder. Maybe there are issues across extremely large domains that are easier to manage with Windows, but I haven't run into those yet. But for a small/medium network, given the choice, OSX is much easier to admin.
If you want to bitch about OS X, try talking about the VM subsystem for a bit.
Are you actually calling for SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE?!?!
That's crazy talk!
Burn him! Burn him for a witch!!!!
(Also, in all seriousness, I would love to know why OSX's VM is of questionable quality.)
+++ATH0
While I'm not a big windows fan, windows is actually designed with central management in mind, that gets to ridiculously granular control of user's desktop experience.
OSX, it's a painful tack-on. You can't lock a desktop down particularly much (and I don't want to hear about 'with mac's you don't have to, users can't do bad things to themself,' you haven't met my users (grade school kids and worse, their teachers)). Everything is half centrally controlled, half hands on each machine.
I've moved on from that job, supporting PCs and Macs in a school district, so maybe opendirectory and Apple's management tools have grown, but somehow I doubt it.
CIA Industries - Running the world for fun and profit
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.