Mac OS or Microsoft?

linux not 3rd option?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

+ being tied to an expensive platform + with crappy selection of software.

I can't really find any compelling reason to use the Mac OS. XP is as stable and has, IMO, a more productive and intuitive UI. At first I thought it was because I used to windows, but after using them a while I still find it clunky and bland. Of KDE/Xwin, XP and Mac, the mac is still the hardest to use. Panther needs a start button, program list type thing and needs to nuke the fucking dock. If you are trying to find a program on it and you don't recognise the icon, you have to play hover search. And the coloured max, min buttons? Any UI designer would tell you this is a no-no. I liked the 7.6 that ran on my powerbook 100. <i>That</i> was a pleasure to use. In summary: nice under the hood stuff, but I don't care because the UI makes me psychotic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you like rebooting your computer because of a computer crash, by all means go for windows, but since mac has never crashed once (since os x came out) mac is a better option. anyways, if you want windows, get a mac and run virtual pc, at least that way when windows crashes you don't have to restart the computer, all you have to do is restart the windows system runing on your comuter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really an option, given the performance.

XP generally doesn't require a restart when something crashes. It does exactly what OS X does: Kills the program and keeps running. I find that OS X crashes atleast as much as XP, especially when you are using classic aps.

 

As someone who has a G4 running 10.2.8 and a PC running XP I can assure you that this is 100% grade A rubbish

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Windows XP is as stable as hell. In fact, my PC has been on for about 2 months without rebooting. And when windows XP crashes, ctrl+alt+delete and restart explorer.exe and everything runs normal again. I've had a few gamecrashes but that doesn't make a big problem. I know this guy on the uni which also uses MAC and he keeps swearing about it and hes gonna buy a Windows comp.

Windows XP runs the games and that's enough of a reason for me to use windows XP.

And Windows XP is much more user friendly.

Windows XP is therefore much better for novice PC users and as an advanced PC user I also like Windows XP better (we have MACs at the uni for testing)

 

Sorry i was in a hurry

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I voted OS X.
Initial investment is often more for the hardware when looking at the low-end, but if you compare on a spec level (ie, match specs on a Dell and on a G4/5 Apple system, and you notice a very similar price). Macs have, on average, a longer life than Intel PC's (I still ocationally see Mac SE/30's in use at public libraries for card catalogs, and my college campus had some in use until last year for public email).

PC graphics cards are cheaper.
Windows has tons more boxed software available in stores.(online is another story)
Windows has more games.
Windows did not (up until SP2) check for buffer overruns as SOP, and has suffered the viruses for it.
Windows still uses drive letters, DOS, and a single point of failure (the registry) for holding application data.

Windows serves the needs of most people. However, from its basic design, it is a problem waiting to happen. I have seen too many "Cannot find C:\ drive." boot errors in my day to trust any data I care about to a windows machine if I can help it.
It has certain technological advantages (most owing to marketshare), and OS X has it's share of problems (FTFF, damnit!), but I don't see it as a contest when the question is "What's the best OS". That's a question based on technology.

If the question were "What's the best OS for playing games?" or "What's the best OS to develop a desktop application for?", then Windows wins. If the question is "what's the best OS for someone who knows how to fix hardware related problems, and doesn't play tons of games", then linux on ahome-built box.
I see Apple as the current leader in "What's the best OS for people who enjoy the geekier side of computing, but overall simply want to get work done, and not tinker with the system." It's got a hair of a lead in "What's the best OS for websurfing and email for the grandma who has never used a computer before", as well, IMO. But Windows XP provided MS with a huge advance there. Combining NT stability with 98 UI meant alot to most computer users in the world.

A big loss right now for OSX and web browsing. Flash/Shockwave content.
OSX people out there. Go to a Flash animation that taxes your system. Now, hold the mouse button down, anyware on the screen. Notice that the frame-rate of the animation doubles, simply because the button is down? Now email Macromedia and tell them to fix this obvious bug! The app is obviously polling for mouse imput, on an event-driven OS. There is no excuse for this.


PS: if you want a start menu in OS X, Drag your applications folder to the Dock. right-click or control click on it. There you go.
Even better, create a folder and dump aliases of anything you want, then drag *that* folder to the dock. A user-customisable Start Menu with both applications and documents, however you want.
And install Drag-Thing. Shortcut key combos to launch apps is the best invention since multiple desktops. Command-option-z to launch Mozilla, command-option-x to launch Xchat IRC....

edit: I disagree with this on a most basic level.

Please explain why.
My first point of contention: HIG for Error dialogs. Why use "Yes/No" when you could use "Save/Don't Save". One is much more intuitive and descriptive, but MS doesn't push this with their developers nearly enough.
Here's a question for XP users. Create a document, select save. In the Save Dialog, create a new folder. Rename the folder, then hit "Open". do you get an error saying "An item with the name 'Untitled Folder' could not be found"? That has pissed me off for years. OF COURSE NOT! I just renamed it!!!!
Also, is it possible to take an HD out of a failed Windows machine, plug it into another machine and boot yet? I like having this as an option in case of a failed motherboard, etc; something which has been available on the Mac side for a decade, at least.
I'll stop here, as I'm starting to wander into trollish territory.

 

Look i just asked what you liked best i didnt need your life story, sheez

 

OS-X of course *IS* Linux . . . a PC OS. The CPU in Apples now? Made by IBM. Everything from the motherboards fundamental technologys to the OS now is from mostly PC company technology. And, there is nothing wrong with that - people have taken ideas from Apple and used it on the PC platform before too.

XP now seems about as stable as OS-X, but you know - even if its not, thats understandable. More complexity, more options, more choices, more customability = more likelyhood of error as well. Controlling and dictating all of the details about available hardware and OS options for a platform - does indeed result in more compatibility and stability - but also higher cost and WAY lower choices. PC's basically represent, for good and bad, unfettered captialism. The control that Apple excerts over their platform, and choice limits they dictate represent more of a Socialist model. And hey, for things like education and healthcare - I think we NEED more Socialism in some aspects of our world. But not in my computers.

If money is no object, and a Mac does what you need it to do -- cool. For many of us, its simply not an option.

 

I didn't vote. I can't vote. Even if you put all linux distros and all unix flavors up there I still can't vote and I'll tell you why:

Apples and PC's were intended for similar but different things. I guarantee you anyone can build a home or office work station that I can make crash or lockup when I put my mind to it. And when I say crash I mean fatal kernel error and all not this out of virutal memory or a program hang bullshit.

Hardware also plays a role in whether or not a system will be stable or not. I don't care who makes it. Anything that is manufactured will result in a defect now and again. I've seen bad modems make windows go berzerk and start opening and closing programs...but this is not indicitive to all hardware made by one manufacturer.

To me asking which is better is like asking which toilet paper is better Charmin or Northern....who cares. If it gets the job done that is all that matters.

 

I assume you meant to say "nobody" can make a computer you ''can't'' crash or lockup?

If so, is this a boast about your amazing computer skills (I'm sure) or a comment on the instability of said systems?

 

It means that no o/s is infallible. And really you don't have to have mad skillz to make one go belly up.

Sorry I haven't had enough caffeine this afternoon but yes I meant "nobody" and notice I said home or office workstation. It is though, harder for me to make OS X lockup than a pc but then again. I cheifly work with PC's.

 

from slashdot.org

from slashdot.org

Linux: Yellow Dog Linux v4.0 Released
Posted by michael on Monday October 04, @12:00PM
from the here-boy dept.
worm eater writes "On September 29, Terra Soft Solutions delivered the final release of Yellow Dog Linux v4.0 to their CD manufacturer. It is currently available for download by ydl.net subscribers. Yellow Dog Linux v4.0 is built upon Fedora Core 2, offering both KDE 3.3 and GNOME 2.6.0 desktops with an all new presentation for both the Installer and post-installed desktop environment. Expanded USB support includes many cameras, printers, adapters, and storage devices. FireWire support is now built-in with bootable FireWire made possible through manual configuration. Mac-On-Linux offers the ability to run Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X and now offers automatic network configuration."

http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/news/2004/2004-09-29.shtml
http://www.ydl.net/

 

Linux first choice!

 

Shouldn't it be listed as "Windows," not "Microsoft?" Microsoft owns a lot of Apple, so technically wouldn't choosing "Mac OS" be like choosing 40% Microsoft, and choosing Microsoft would be like choosing a percent of Apple? Also, linux should definitely be an option; its usage has surpassed Mac OS' (source).