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.'"

Comments

They submitter sould have saved themselves

[geekoid]

some effort if they just submitted:
"MS/Apple flamewar. Begin."

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Funkcikle]

Oh God. I hope nobody sees this article and gets all worked up. That would be awful.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[rblancarte]

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

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Funkcikle]

See, I don't think "articles" and "debates" like the one in TFA are even remotely targeted at you - the demographic is squarely those people who, for some reason or other, want to talk and fight (online) about a product. You are clearly too level-headed and sensible. Not once in your comment did you write "FFS MAC IS GAY" or "OMG XP SUCKS".

You probably shouldn't even be using a computer...

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[nonsequitor]

9 out of 10 homosexuals prefer MacOS!

The parent poster is hardly a troll, knowing many homosexuals, I think this is accurate, considering most are style conscious and/or artists, MacOS fits their needs.

What I think he meant to troll with was "9 out of 10 MacOS users prefer homosexuals," there, fixed it for you.

(This is gonna kill my karma)

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[TheRaven64]

Judging by the summary (which did nothing to encourage me to RTFA), this article is not for people who want to talk about the product, it's for people who are buying Vista because everyone else is (it must be true; the sales rep told them) and need to justify this choice.

I've only been using Macs for about three years and there are lots of things you could complain about with OS X, Apple hardware, and Apple's corporate policies. Having to enable AppleTalk or restore permissions are silly things to complain about. You only have to do the first if you want your computer to share files to other Macs, and it's one click; I'd prefer that to it running a load of services I may or may not use. Similarly, the second is just not something Mac users need to bother with. There's a button to do it in Disk Utility, but I've never needed to. As far as I can tell, it's just there in case you go a bit chmod-happy in the system folders.

If you want to bitch about OS X, try talking about the VM subsystem for a bit.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Sponge Bath]

... who uses the word "hip" anymore?

Mac users, and those who write about Mac users.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Omestes]

When? I haven't heard any refer to their computer as "hip", regardless the OS. But if we want to troll, lets at least troll fairly, Windows users call their boxes "1337", and Linux folk call their boxes "boxen", so there.

And yes, I've called my MacMini sexy before, and I called my XP box a whole large assortment of names, most of which aren't worth saying in polite company, but then again my iBook was just named "bitch", until I installed Ubuntu on it, now it is just Annie the Isolate, since it can't communicate with anything.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[mikewolf]

i've normally had windows machines, but over the holidays i added a mac mini to my collection of computers, and i've got to say that the initial set up of the machine was SO much easier than any computer i've ever set up that i was sold from the first minute. i plugged it in, hooked it up to my television, and turned it on, it then proceded to tell me i didn't have any input devices plugged it, and it would look for bluetooth devices. it recognized the bluetooth keyboard and mouse available in its area, and proceded to tell me how to sync the 2 devices. it then recognized my cell phone (which has blue tooth access as well), and synced up to that. It then found all of the wifi networks and asked me if i wanted to set up a connection to any of them. It was the fastest and easiest setup i've ever had with a computer. i'm still getting used to some of the interface differences between OSX and Windows, but i've got to say it is still the easiest computer to use that i've ever had. there is a lot of recognizable consistency in the OSX interface that windows is lacking. It is built for normal people to use and administer, while still allowing more technical users to be do advanced os management (which really helped me get started, b/c i hadn't used a unix box in 5 years, and only have minimal linux/bsd experience). anyways, i've got to say that the ease of use alone was enough for me to decide to use it as my main computer from now on.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Trillan]

Technically, AppleTalk isn't necessary to share files with other Macs, either, unless the Macs are running a really old version of Mac OS. File sharing between Macs has been done through TCP/IP for many years, and discovery has been done through Bonjour since Mac OS X 10.2 (roughly five years ago now). It's never even occurred to me to try to turn off Bonjour.

The VM subsystem is even becoming a hard thing to point a finger at. Prior to 10.3 it sucked incredibly harshly. A denial of service attack was only one stray write away. I don't really have any complaints about 10.4's VM subsystem. I haven't noticed it taking down my Mac yet.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[EastCoastSurfer]

At least you won't have to worry about any fanboy wars with game consoles.

LOL, should be the next slashdot pole.

Which has the worst fanboy wars?

a)consoles
b)OSs
c)editors (vi vs. emacs)
d)cowboy neal
e)gentoo vs. every other linux

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Bega]

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.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Em Adespoton]

No offense, but just because you don't see a list of services, does not mean OSX is not running a ton of system processes under the hood.

If you are using the internet, that is a networking 'service', you are using the Apple GUI, that is a 'service'...

These are the same things, just different terms, and OSX is filled with them just as much as Vista or any other OS out there...

I think you've misunderstood him, or else are just trying to simplify the argument.

When he says "service" I assumed he was comparing service processes on Windows to similar processes on OS X. Having to administer both systems, I can assure you that OS X doesn't come pre-configured with a bunch of extraneous background processes, such as MS has done with XP. That being said, there are definitely a few processes that could do with some refinement. For me, the Dashboard implementation falls into this category. However, I doubt he would consider the WM for either Windows or OS X to be a service he may not use. Things like RealPlayer, iPod service, Windows Messenger (not MSN Messenger), miscellaneous svchost processes, etc. are what he's talking about. By default, the only one of those OS X has on by default is an equivalent to the iPod service (Apple, are you listening? this is ONLY needed if the USB or Firewire drivers have detected an iPod! Create a SHARED LIBRARY, not a background process!).

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[hxnwix]

If you are using the internet, that is a networking 'service' Would you care to elaborate on that? It sounds as if Microsoft (mis)nomenclature has you all mixed up.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[hxnwix]

Indeed, Mac users generally aren't afraid to admit that they want what they want and go with it. While Mark Foleys of the world use Windows, their hearts crave the forbidden fruit, and there's no denying it.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[TheNetAvenger]

I would be highly interested in knowing what useless processes are in Vista that i can safely turn off.


There are a few in Vista, just as there are some in OSX and other OSes, but nothing as bad as XP.

They tend to be personally subjective in Vista, rather than what people saw as non-sense in XP. UPnP was big one people that was goofy in XP, and for the timeframe it was, but now that most routers and home networking devices utilize it, it is no longer something you would want to turn off, since using UPnP applications can easily access router for applications like bittorrent.

If you don't need defender, you can kill it (but don't recommend for novice users) as it is the final defense against spyware if the user is stupid enought to fully click through to allow a bad application to run.

You can also kill the TS server if you don't ever have more than one person logged in or plan on remote log in, but again, this is a feature most families and geeks use.

There is also stuff like the DNS cache like in XP, but this means it has to grab the DNS from your server each time, and also considering it is about 16K of space used in System RAM, it is not a big service. (Many of even the 'extra' XP services were quite lite that many people would go around turning off, all less than 128K combined.)

You could also kill the Search system, but since it has almost no utilization on the system once the system is indexed, it would be a waste to lose its functionality.

Of course you can turn off the themes manager or DWM, however by turning off DWM and AERO, you actually lose a lot of performance on application screen redrawing, and even if you are using Vista Basic the DWM uses DirectX7 Video card to accelerate GDI and WPF application drawing that you lose with this turned off.

There are a few other services that people will tell you can live without, as they are supporting new specifications and new technologies that are NOT widely used, however when you do start using these technologies on your computer or network, you will want to get them turned back on, and again, they are under 512K in total RAM usage and sit dormate until used.

Vista has more 'sense' to the services installed and turned on than XP, but again this is really subjective. For example XP installed a disabled Telnet Server and active client, and people complained, yet in Vista this is not installed by default, and guess what, people are complaining...

I find it highly crazy that people think Windows is the only OS with lots of underlying process/services when that is what makes up all OSes, whether they are apparently visible or not...

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[dangitman]

• classical music
• rap music
• wine
• WWII history
• films
• cars
• power tools
• science fiction
• A plane that is sitting on an infinitely long conveyor belt which precisely matches the speed of its wheels in the opposite direction.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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'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.

Drag your applications folder (or any folder for that matter) into the dock, Then when you right click on it, the contents of that folder are displayed in a menu, instant Start Menu. No third party software ... it's built into the mac.

Re:They submitter sould have saved themselves

[redheaded_stepchild]

Having heard of this 'vi vs. emacs' fanboy war, I have yet to really see it. All I know is, I use vi, and some blowhards seem to think I am 'teh 5ux0r' - whatever the hell that is. Seriously, is that what happens if you use emacs? All your words become garbled nonsense? No wonder there are so many bugs in software.

All in one page

[VGPowerlord]

All in one page for those of us who hate ad-spammy articles.

Appletalk?

[AltGrendel]

Serious question.

Who the hell uses Appletalk any more?

Is this for printer or something?

Re:Appletalk?

[Golias]

I kind of wondered about that, too. It's like his only real experience with the Mac comes from back in the System 7 days or something.

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

Reset the permissions? I've been running multiple OS X systems since 10.0, and I've never had to "reset the permissions" even once. I'm not even sure I know where to look to do something like that. WTF is he talking about?

I would like to get all riled up over his flamebait... but I mostly just feel sorry for the poor, confused person writing this nonsense.

Re:Appletalk?

[oncee]

The only reason to use Appletalk would be because you have an extremely old printer that didn't do TCP/IP. Appletalk is pretty much dead after OS X came around.

Re:Appletalk?

[drinkypoo]

Reset the permissions? I've been running multiple OS X systems since 10.0, and I've never had to "reset the permissions" even once. I'm not even sure I know where to look to do something like that. WTF is he talking about?

I'm using 10.3.something on a dual G5 and I had a problem (forget what it even was now) that was fixed by using the disk repair tool to "repair permissions" on the volume. I suspect that is what he is talking about. Apple claims that problems like that come up only seldom but anecdotal evidence out there suggests that is bullshit if you are a power user. Why perms get mangled is beyond me, I don't seem to have that problem on my Linux systems...

Re:Appletalk?

[ElephanTS]

No, just about no one uses Appletalk anymore. It's still in OSX and I use it on one of the networks I run so an old printer can work. It's very stable but has been superceded by TCP/IP and rendezvous/bonjour. It's such a great trollish comment because it's about 10 years out of date as a criticism. Bit like me saying," Windows BSODs every 5 minutes".

It doesn't (it's up to 15 now I hear. Relax keyboard commandos - I'm joking 8-)

Re:Appletalk?

[sokoban]

Another guy says "Windows doesn't have font issues, changing permissions on the fly". What the fuck does he mean by "changing permissions of the fly"? chmod? And what "font issues" are he talking about? I sure as hell haven't ever had any, though I've only been using Mac OS since 6.0.8.

Also, there's the guy who talks about Windows being "IT's 'Dream'" because there are a lot of people who have jobs just supporting Windows. Is the fact that Windows requires a lot of technical support supposed to be a good thing?

Most people I know who read Information Week are IT folks of the A+/MCSE variety, so I guess this giant steaming load of an article really does reflect that.

Re:Appletalk?

[happyemoticon]

I was listening to an episode of LUG Radio where they were doing some evaluation of OS X (predictably, some loved it, others not so much, and one guy hated it just because it was proprietary.

Many of the criticisms of OS X they struck off as irrelevant or persnickety went like this: "Why is the CD Eject button on the keyboard? That's clearly inferior to having a button on the actual drive."

Well, hardly, because if we lived in a strange alternate universe were Apple ruled the market people would be criticizing IBM clones for having the button on the drive. Most people's complaints about OS X fall under this category. Now, if you were to make some criticisms of Finder (my pet peeves are the network disconnects, its overly-glam and non-utilitarian appearance, and its occasional sluggishness and inconsistency as it attempts to combine the worst of a relational and non-relational browsers) you might have something, and you're out of luck if you want to play any cutting edge games aside from WoW. But if you're going to carry on about how it's an inferior OS because you don't like that shade of gray, then you're a certified fanboy.

Re:Appletalk?

[soft_guy]

I am glad that Windows tech support guys didn't become physicians - their idea of drumming up business would be to break people's kneecaps with a hammer.

Re:Appletalk?

[toadlife]

A general rule is that people who participate in OS bashing tend to know little about the OS they are bashing. This applies to all sides.

Re:Appletalk?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in a support department and we're up to 20% of our users on OSX (mostly 10.4 but we have a few 10.2 and 10.3 users still). One of the first things we do on any Mac that comes in for work is repair permissions. It's easy and fast, and about 10% of the time it fixes whatever is wrong. It seems like the Macs with the most broken permissions are those which have had lots of random things installed on them - I don't know what causes the permissions issues but for this reason I suspect it is poorly written installers. Probably about 75% of the Macs we work on get some permissions repaired when we run the repair permissions program - usually its just a few obscure things that get fixed and there is no noticeable change in how the Mac operates.

Re:Appletalk?

[Cerebus]

"Why perms get mangled is beyond me, I don't seem to have that problem on my Linux systems..."

Mostly this is because some developers insist on using brain-dead installers, even when a proper appdir is all that's needed. I even had one installer that did a chmod 0777 on /System/Library/StartupItems...*not* a good idea.

Re:Appletalk?

[TheRaven64]

I presumed when he said AppleTalk, he was talking about AFP (the filesharing protocol that was part of the AppleTalk stack and now runs over IP). I use this periodically, because it exports the underlying filesystem's ability to use resource forks and other metadata without having to use the dot-files hack invented for FAT.

The fixing permissions is something that you can do in Disk Utility. If you mess up the permissions of system files, it will fix them. Generally, you only have to do this if you do something really stupid involving chmod or chown.

Re:Appletalk?

[russotto]

What he says is "Windows doesn't have font issues, changing permissions on the fly, and disk errors every so often."

Methinks our Windows-loving genius doesn't have three problems with his Mac, but rather one. Disk errors? Only time I've seen disk errors is when the disk was physically failing.

Re:Appletalk?

[Gr8Apes]

Naah. I bash Windows regularly. I'm also a long time user, admin, programmer, and system/enterprise architect at one time. I'm rather familiar with it, and know at least something about a large number of shortcomings. I've also used DOS, DRDOS, VMS, Irix, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux (various flavors), OS/2, OSX among others with some more in-depth and many across multiple versions.

In my experience, people who bash windows typically have a reason to bash it. Even the proponents acknowledge there are problems with it. Everything from the GDI being moved into the kernel, the monolithic kernel design itself, the time-slicing approach, the inconsistent GUI, the inherently fragmenting filesystem, the horrible APIs, the bad networking stack, the poor power efficiency performance, the sleep/hibernate issues, etc are all solid reasons to bash it since others don't seem to have those problems even on the same hardware.

Re:Appletalk?

[alanQuatermain]

AFP is a component of AppleTalk.

Nope. It's a separate protocol which historically used AppleTalk (ATP) as its transmission protocol. Now it uses TCP.

Back in the day, an AppleTalk installation was a whole software stack which included AppleTalk and all sorts of other things. For instasnce, following the example of AFP circa 1990, we see the following stack, each item using the services published by the item directly below:

• AppleTalk Filing Protocol (AFP)
• AppleTalk Session Protocol (ASP)
• AppleTalk Transaction Protocol (ATP)
• Datagram Delivery Protocol (DDP)

Off to the side of this (above DDP) is Name Binding Protocol (NBP) which is used to look up services by name (this is what ZeroConf/Bonjour is implementing over IP).

Since sometime in System 7 or Mac OS 8 (a good ten years, IIRC), AFP has also had another optional equivalent stack available to it:

• Apple Filing Protocol (AFP)
• Data Stream Interface (DSI)
• Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
• Internet Protocol (IP)

The TCP & IP items there you'll recognise, but DSI is a new one -- it essentially implements a 16-byte header similar to the one used by ASP back in the day, which AFP then uses to indicate whether it's asking for a new connection, closing a connection, whether a packet is a request or a reply, which packet ID it has (or is replying to), the length of thje AFP command following, and any error code returned from the server. The AFP packet format itself is unchanged, except that TCP/IP allows larger packet/datagram sizes than AppleTalk, so the WriteContinue ASP command has been done away with, since the whole lot can be sent via TCP/IP in a single (potentially massive) DSI/AFP packet.

In Mac OS X, AppleTalk is there, but usually not enabled by default (go to System Preferences->Network->[Device]->AppleTalk -- you'll see the checkbox is likely unchecked, at least if this is a recent installation rather than an upgrade from c. OS X 10.2). AFP will work over AppleTalk if it has to (talking to old machines that don't do AFP over TCP), although it will always prefer TCP/IP. In point of fact, on Mac OS X it'll likely be using IPv6 for local-area networking, since all OS X machines sort out link-local IPv6 addresses for themselves, and all OS X AFP server process advertise those addresses too.

Also:

Can't go wrong with using SMB for your local network.

Yes you can. I've spoken to people at large institutions who have their Macs mounting network home folders. Frequently when those home folders are mounted using SMB, they find that applications such as Microsoft Office can have trouble auto-saving (in some cases, any sort of saving) to those volumes. There are incompatibilities, because Mac apps tend to assume that all the Mac filesystem metadata exists, and is atomically writable along with the file itself (not stored in a separate hidden file elsewhere). Some of these apps then try to be too clever when locking/updating/unlocking files, and run into trouble.

Long story short: If you're using Macs, share using AFP wherever possible. AFP supports everything HFS supports. SMB doesn't. SMB support on the Mac is mostly there to facilititate moving files between Macs & Windows machines. You can use NFS for Linux/Unix if you want, and you can (and should) use AFP for Mac-to-Mac networking. Things will go more smoothly if you do.

-Q

Re:Appletalk?

[gobbo]

And I suspect I would get used to it eventually and not mind it any longer if I used Macs routinely. Heck, maybe there's a good reason to be unable to maximize a window as I'm used to doing. I grant that the user paradigm is different, and that I don't know it well at all.

You've hit it exactly, it's a different paradigm. Since Mac applications only run one instance, windows are attached to the application. The green button isn't a maximize button, as the windows on a Mac are supposed to interleave, as part of a system-wide integration that allows for things like truly useful drag-n-drop. The green button 'zooms,' using a a snap-to-fit-content approach, and toggling with a user-defined setting. In other words, if you want to maximize a window, just size it manually, then it should remember that--but you lose some of the aforementioned integration. Personally, snap-to-content makes a hell of a lot of sense to me, when it works (depends on the quality of app: MS products are notoriously bad at this, e.g.). You know you're really using a Mac to good effect when you're moving stuff effortlessly from window to window, app to app, and treating windows like children of parent applications.

But it sure did make me uncomfortable back when I did occasionally have to use a Mac at work. Especially as this was back in the "circular hockey puck mouse" days.

That puck is the worst mouse ever made. The first thing I do to a new Mac (dozens or hundreds since '90), is get a real 3+ button mouse or trackball on it--contextual clicking is reasonably well integrated into the OS. The second thing is to set up proper keyboard powers, through Keyquencer in the old days (I miss that app) and Quicksilver and Automater now.

RULE: never trust a computer as it comes from the factory, it isn't finished and it is commercially sabotaged.

well,

[macadamia_harold]

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.

Appletalk?

[NoName Studios]

Do people still use Appletalk?

I have two Macs at home and I can not remember using it.

We may *use* windows, but like it?

[pdboddy]

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.

Re:We may *use* windows, but like it?

[soft_guy]

No one on Slashdot is female. Anyone claiming to be female is lying.

Re:We may *use* windows, but like it?

[cmburns69]

> Windows sucks ass

Shouldn't that be "Windows grabs ass"?

Re:We may *use* windows, but like it?

[euxneks]

No one on Slashdot is female. Anyone claiming to be female is lying.

I'm a lying female.

Oh this will end well....

[snoozerdss]

Tandy DeskMate 3.69 kicks all ass! ;)

informal tone

[otacon]

If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X? How am I supposed to take this person's opinion seriously when they speak in a 13 year old's tone?

Re:informal tone

[cpu_fusion]

> How am I supposed to take this person's opinion seriously
> when they speak in a 13 year old's tone?

Hell, I'd even excuse the tone if it wasn't also 13 year old logic.... ;-)

Didn't we have a whole trial on this?

[Dark Paladin]

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.

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.

Re:Didn't we have a whole trial on this?

[Qzukk]

if Apple had made an operating system for the PC.

Remember BeOS? Be was going to bring all the cool, hip video and audio work from Apple back to the PC with its amazing multitasking support. So they went around and tried to get companies to ship their OS on hardware, but wait! Microsoft was banning PC makers from shipping computers without Windows if they wanted to sell a single PC with it. So they went around and tried to convince companies to sell machines that could dual boot, but that was a no-go too, Microsoft didn't allow anyone to sell a PC with a modified boot loader. Be offered a desktop icon and a program that the user could click, that would repartition the drive, install BeOS, and set up dual booting, but MS said "no, only approved partners' icons can appear on the desktop".

I think they eventually managed to convince some company to ship it despite all this, and there might be a few hundred BeOS installs still out there, buried in progra~1, waiting for their owner to discover and install them.

Anyway, explain why you believe Apple for the PC would have been different?

Re:Didn't we have a whole trial on this?

[bedouin]

BeOS was the first OS to really make me enthusiastic about alternative operating systems and also enjoy using my computer again. It was a real breath of fresh air, and for the most part it had few hiccups (assuming you fed it all the right hardware). It was speedy (post to desktop in 10 seconds on an AMD k6 266), stable, had a POSIX compliant CLI, and I could have 15 MP3s playing at once with no skipping :) It took the best aspects of Amiga, MacOS, Windows, and to some extent UNIX and rolled it all into one.

OS X is the closest I've gotten to what BeOS was, and in many respects it's excelled far beyond BeOS. I still miss the leanness that was BeOS though. If Haiku would take off, perhaps I'd buy a PC just to run it.

Fear and Loathing in OS Wars

[Erik Fish]

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"...

Market Share != Quality

[jellomizer]

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.

"Reader debate"

[Etyenne]

That's another way of saying "sanctionned flamewar", right ?

I guess there's a market for that kind of thing.

Popularity != quality

[Scrameustache]

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.

Great arguments

[melikamp]

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?

Use *and* Like?

[DreadSpoon]

"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.

Tons of people use it and like it?

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Irony

[greysky]

From the article:

I can't wait until the first Mac Virus hits... I want to see how cool Mac OS X is then.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see this statement as just a little ironic?

Re:New results: Windows Wins!

[ebev]

"-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.

At the right place at the right time

[rolfwind]

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.)

Who loves Windows?

[jc42]

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.)

Indeed...and Anatole France summed up such logic:

[rootrot]

"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.

If Nobel Laureates are so smart ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

... how come so many more people, billions infact, are non Nobel Laureates, eh?

Re:the underlying argument (between the enemy line

[Guy Harris]

(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.)

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.)

My experience...

[adrew]

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.

Sorry, it's Mac OS X for teh win...

[MsGeek]

-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

True Story

[4iedBandit]

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.

Re:How did they get into such a position?

[rahrens]

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.

Re:the underlying argument (between the enemy line

[nine-times]

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.

• It's Unix-y. I can use bash scripts, rsync, ssh, etc. I don't have to install anything to get that functionality.
• Apple remote desktop. It's really good, and very simple. I've tried various things, and I haven't found anything all-in-one remote administration application for Windows that is even as close to being as simple and useful. Sure, you can cobble together various things in Windows to achieve the same functionality, but it isn't as utterly simple to deal with.
• Imaging. Seriously. I've tried various imaging solutions for Windows, and they're all a PITA. In the best case scenario, you'll have to buy a corporate license to avoid activation, and still need to deal with driver issues, unless you're imaging a bunch of identical machines. Meanwhile, you easily install OSX to an external hard drive and use that as an imagining/diagnostic tool. There's freeware for imaging. The same image can be used for *any* Apple computer using the same architecture (Intel/PPC). The resulting disk images can be opened by OSX, and in many cases you can install/upgrade software on those images directly in the image file, without applying it to a machine first.

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.

Wait a minute!

[StarKruzr]

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.)

Re:Wait a minute!

[TheRaven64]

Also, in all seriousness, I would love to know why OSX's VM is of questionable quality. Well, the simplest way of demonstrating this is to write some code that runs in a tight loop allocating and freeing memory. Then watch the system responsiveness die to such an extent that you can't even kill the process.

As I understand it, the problem comes from the fact that the VM subsystem is in the Mach layer. This means that every VM operation (e.g. mapping or unmapping a page) has to go through two layers of indirection, the second of which is incredibly slow.

I wrote some code recently that mmap'd a large data structure (a few GBs). Actually, there were a few back-ends, one used mmap, one used POSIX AIO. On FreeBSD, they were both roughly the same speed. On OS X, the mmap back end was not just an order of magnitude slower than AIO, it was an order of magnitude slower than a userspace demand-paging approach (no pre-fetching). To me, this says something is seriously wrong with the VM subsystem. I should have had more overhead from all the extra system calls and extra copies doing the demand paging myself than the kernel would have had.

Appletalk? APPLETALK? What the hell? Flamebait!

[screeble]

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.