Why is a Mac any better than Vista?

[track09]

"That's an opinion. Many people may find Vista is easier because they are used to the layout of XP for example."

 

Yep, I, for example dislike the dock compared to the taskbar.

 

"I think the system requirements between the two speak for themselves. OS X is a better coded os and vista is just another hog. My G3 runs tiger fine and doesn't have a 256 meg video card like Vista requires."

 

But Leopard, the OS which is going to be the main competitor to Vista for the next two years, does not run on a G3. Even on Vista, most Apps will work if Aero is disabled. God forbid your graphics card doesn't have QE or CI, well you're crippled. (Hello G4 mac minis which were sold under two years ago). You're intentionally overexaggerating simply to support macs. Like them better, fine, but don't spread lies and FUD. Before Vista, Macs were far worse on resource usage. Vista wasn't meant to run on older machines, and OS X does not run that well either, despite what you say.

 

"The layout of Vista is nothing like that of XP. I was actually anticipating the release of Vista when MS claimed they were redesigning it from the ground up.... They lied."

 

Wrong and wrong, the "rewrite" as it's called, was already said that it would be versions away in 1999, and Vista was never intended for that. Interface, it's still simiar to Windows, and far easier to go from Xp to Vista, whether you fanboys like it or not.

 

" Mac OS X is absolutely different with Vista from where the code built.

UNIX BSD based, XNU kernel adopted from Steve's NeXT OS

Pure object-oriented operating system, only the successful one which gone commercial,

another OO OS still on the Labs, experimental, or just prototipe"

 

No. I'm glad to see you ran a search and copied and pasted a bunch of {censored}. BSD, yes, it took BSD, parly so from Steve's NeXT project. The next "OO OS", is not in the Labs, there's been commercial linux for years. Windows' NT kernel is faster than mach_kernel, which OS X uses, so, stop talking of which you know not.

 

" Vi$ta is using BIOS -same with another OSs out there-, Mac is using EFI"

First, grow the {censored} up with the use of a dollar sign. Second, I'm glad to see you're now reading right off Apple's site. Despite what you may think, this point is really moot right now, and the most it does is agrivate those who dual boot. There are advantages to EFI, but they're not really utilized now. BIOS is exactly that, a Basic Input Output System, which really works fine and does all it needs. I'd prefer it not to have Apple be able to control my PC from boot. My Gateway actually has EFI, but still uses a CSM boot string, no big deal, because it lets me run many more BIOS based OSes. Vista will soon support EFI when the time is right, right now, it's pretty useless, and it's no big deal.

 

"Mac was optimized with QuartzExtreme and CoreImage then it affect on faster

graphics renderer, even if only uses OpenGL - no DirectX on Mac"

Yes, and if you actually used it, you'd know Vista uses WDDM(Aero Accelerator), which is basically QE and CI combined. The two are almost the same technology, which was a principle, not neccisarily an invention. And no, OpenGL is not good, DirectX 10 takes a {censored} on OpenGL.

 

"Vi$ta claimed that it is now had a better graphics interface, but what the hell?

it needs min. 512mb RAM (recommended 1 GB) and graphic cards with VRAM 256mb"

 

Yes, have you run OS X on 512? It's pretty tied down. And once again, the lying exageration about VRAM, the req. is only 128MB, and it still runs fine without aero, just on GDI+. Oh, and the "$$" big clue you're a fanboy talking out your ass.

 

"Vi$ta do not do innovation, it just COPYING (spotlight, window shade, ...)"

First, I don't care who has it first, what matters is who does it better in my opinion. Second, Window shade, that's really a thing that wasn't apple's. Xp had it.

 

Spotlight, indexing search was in betas of Longhorn before it was in any Tiger beta. While Apple did get it to the MARKET first, they were not the first to make it, and certainly not the first to invent it.

 

"It's a clone of the world's greatest Operating System"

Probably from someone who claims to but never actually has used it.

 

"And a mac can run Windows apps. I'm talking about the actual code base of the OS"

Only by running Windows, we're talking the OS here. (and DarWine Sucks).

[CiDhed]

I never said I like mac more. It would be nice if Microsoft actually had some competition so they would feel compelled to create a slight bit more optimized product.

 

I have 6 OS's currently running at my home.

 

OS X

XP

Server 2003

Ubuntu

Solaris

And a flavor of TaoLinux.

 

All serve their purpose.

[rollcage]

Wrong and wrong, the "rewrite" as it's called, was already said that it would be versions away in 1999, and Vista was never intended for that.

The original Longhorn project (the one based on XP's codebase) was the "rewrite" that most people had been waiting for. There wasn't an internal message about the code reset until August 26, 2004. Most of the features that have been pushed to Vienna were originally slated for Longhorn. "Vista" didn't become the "in-between" release it is now until then.

 

Only by running Windows, we're talking the OS here. (and DarWine Sucks).

DarWine doesn't run Windows. When I said that codebase, I meant that OSX being based on Unix adds many advantages, such as the system permissions.

 

DarWine Sucks

That's an opinion

 

No. I'm glad to see you ran a search and copied and pasted a bunch of {censored}. BSD, yes, it took BSD, parly so from Steve's NeXT project. The next "OO OS", is not in the Labs, there's been commercial linux for years. Windows' NT kernel is faster than mach_kernel, which OS X uses, so, stop talking of which you know not.

And OSX's kernel is more stable. Most drivers can be written to run in userspace, so if the driver crashes, it won't take down the whole kernel. Windows NT doesn't have that. Also to note, the Mach kernel allows the OS to host binaries for both Intel and PPC chips in the same file.

 

[Leopard] does not run on a G3

It's been done, I believe on this forum too.

 

God forbid your graphics card doesn't have QE or CI, well you're crippled.

32 mb video card required, compared to 128 mb for Vista.

 

Yes, have you run OS X on 512? It's pretty tied down.

Not nearly as bad as Vista was (ran both on the same machine for 6 months, Vista was SLOW, and while OSX wasn't lightning it was very usable. It still gave me a 10-15 second boot time. Vista was around 45 seconds.

[track09]

"The original Longhorn project (the one based on XP's codebase) was the "rewrite" that most people had been waiting for. There wasn't an internal message about the code reset until August 26, 2004. Most of the features that have been pushed to Vienna were originally slated for Longhorn. "Vista" didn't become the "in-between" release it is now until then."

 

See, this is where you're wrong. The "Code Reset", while stopping the use of technologies such as WinFX, added more kernel level code. The original longhorn builds had a standard GDI+ unaccelerated GUI, a small update to the Xp kernel, and these few odds and ends. When the redirection was announced, the kernel went under changes enough to make it considered 6.0, added the accelerated graphics and more. Please, read the wikipedia changelog.

 

"DarWine doesn't run Windows. When I said that codebase, I meant that OSX being based on Unix adds many advantages, such as the system permissions."

 

I know that darwine doesn't run windows, (although it does have the ability to use Microsoft system .dlls). OS X's unix base has it's advantages and disadvantages (most notably speed)

 

"That's an opinion"

 

Show me darwine doing anything decent in action (and not looking like {censored} if you can)

 

"And OSX's kernel is more stable. Most drivers can be written to run in userspace, so if the driver crashes, it won't take down the whole kernel"

 

Really, is that why when using a new beta kext, you still get kernel panics? Because, that philosophy doesn't seem to fly in action. And running drivers in the userspace may be one of the issues leading to the speed issue. NT is just as stable as OS X to me. Applications? OS X, I get occasional random quits, and occasional lockups on Windows.

 

"Also to note, the Mach kernel allows the OS to host binaries for both Intel and PPC chips in the same file."

 

This matters to me how. Microsoft just stuck with one thing all along. This is the type of thing that really doesn't matter, as Microsoft doesn't have these annoying "transitions" in hardware. So the point is moot, as NT never had to go cross processor platform.

 

"It's been done, I believe on this forum too"

 

You can probably get Vista running on lower specs too, but the matter of it is that Apple's business decision was not to include them. It's also noted that standard installing does not fly here, and it doesn't work perfectly or really well at all.

 

"32 mb video card required, compared to 128 mb for Vista"

 

Yes, that's the requirement, but Vista is far less crippled without Aero than OS X is without QE or even CI

 

"Not nearly as bad as Vista was (ran both on the same machine for 6 months, Vista was SLOW, and while OSX wasn't lightning it was very usable. It still gave me a 10-15 second boot time. Vista was around 45 seconds."

 

Proof? Specs? BIOS/EFI/OpenFirmware loading times?

 

On a side note, if I come off a little synical, it's because of my system of debating. I don't mean to personally offend you in any way, and I hope we can get along, I just am that way, and I'm enjoying a debate without the normal micro$hit gibberish poorly written that I can't decipher that I normally get from djpc. Anyway, for the record, I use Vista, OS X, and Ubuntu on a daily basis.

 

Cheers everyone.

[rollcage]

Proof? Specs? BIOS/EFI/OpenFirmware loading times?

 

Sorry, you'll have to take my word on this one, I'm not taking my mini apart and putting the old ram back in just to prove it. When I had the old stuff in, I timed from the time I hit the power button until the computer became usable. A few seconds of extra time for Vista may be the result of the EFI to BIOS switch, but OSX would still have booted considerably faster.

 

Show me darwine doing anything decent in action (and not looking like {censored} if you can)

 

 

It looks like Win98 to me. And I think running minesweeper is a feat in itself. CrossOver Mac would probably be a better example in that sense, it actually looks good.

 

On a side note, if I come off a little synical, it's because of my system of debating. I don't mean to personally offend you in any way, and I hope we can get along, I just am that way, and I'm enjoying a debate without the normal micro$hit gibberish poorly written that I can't decipher that I normally get from djpc. Anyway, for the record, I use Vista, OS X, and Ubuntu on a daily basis.

 

Cheers everyone.

I enjoy debates too, if nothing else you learn something in the process. I'm dual booting Vista and OSX right now. I used Ubuntu primarily for a month to give it a chance, I like some of the customization, but it's just not for me yet.

 

PS: But why are there so many topics about the same debate between Vista and OSX? There should be a ban against starting new ones from now on.

[Guest:]

Well my original question was "Why is Mac any better than Vista" in the sense that what can I do in one that can't be emulated in the other... and somehow this turned into a bash between Mac and Vista :\

[robotskip]

I think the system requirements between the two speak for themselves. OS X is a better coded os and vista is just another hog. My G3 runs tiger fine and doesn't have a 256 meg video card like Vista requires.

The layout of Vista is nothing like that of XP. I was actually anticipating the release of Vista when MS claimed they were redesigning it from the ground up.... They lied.

They lied ? You just lied; you claim that Vista requires a 256MB card when it doesn't. Also, how is the layout 'nothing' like XP ? The only real major difference is that the File menu is hidden by default on some apps.

 

So, how is the layout 'nothing' like XP ? I'd really like to hear an answer. Your logic is backwards too, you say that Vista is nothing like XP, layout wise and you were anticipating a redesign, yet you aren't pleased that it's [apparently] 'nothing' like XP ? I'm just curious, but were you drunk [or something] when you made that post ?

 

Also, where is this claim they made they were redesigning it from the ground up ? Post a source or are you making it up like how you made up the video card requirements ? Oh, and a resource hog ? Apparently not, see:

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=126

http://arstechnica.com/guides/tweaks/vintagevista.ars

[Ferret-Simpson]

You can run Unix applications on Vista.

I've yet to test it, and I have a nagging doubt that they've reintegrated POSIX into the kernel and X11 into the GUI - It will be under some form of mid to high level emulation or API, similar to Cygwin which allows you to run UNIX code on Windows XP, 2000, NT, Server 2003, etc already.

 

And after a certain threshold, what iLife provides is too limited for the advanced user to use.

And after almost any threshold, Solitaire, Notepad and Windows Movie Maker are too limited for even the home user to use which invalidates the point.

 

And all of the advanced applications are available to both windows and mac.

No they're not. The most popular advanced applications such as Logic and Final cut are Apple products for the Mac alone. You must be thinking of Microsoft Office and Photoshop.

 

And as for your point of Windows Media Centre being the equivalent of iLife? That's garbage. Flat out garbage. Windows Media Centre is at best the equivalent of Front Row - and the Media Remote is the Apple Remote. I won't contest as to which set are better, I've never tried any of them.

 

Reverting to your original point of emulating easily, (Like Darwine and cygwin respectively.)

 

Emulation does not provide the performance of native support. Not by far. You could theoretically emulate Mac OS X on PC DOS 7, but with all the various additional compatibility layers it'd be slow as hell - even on the latest hardware.

 

Mac OS X has the advantages over Vista that it is integrated, accelerated and fast - with excellent native peripheral support. It runs on a Stable, Open (Until 10.4.9 :/) UNIX core based around the XNU kernel, derived from Mach 3 mklinux and FreeBSD 5.

 

Vista has the advantage of being Windows - It's familiar to users, (A different thing from easy to use) and it has a wide range of application support.

 

 

Mac OS X has the disadvantage of being often inflexible without low level modification (Although this doesn't tend to be more than a plist) and that it does not execute imperfectly native acceleration as efficiently as Windows does. (Vista is the opposite - it's Aero system requirements are horrific because of it's code inefficiency yet games and other external applications run beautifully.)

 

Vista has the disadvantages of a closed system that is based on well maintained but initially unreliable code. It is not feature complete by default and its applications are piecemeal and lack standard or interconnection. It's native hardware support is not far short of abysmal and its creator and fanboys have LASER beam eyes that will Fn0rd1n9 Pwn (7M) Google

 

Oh, and a resource hog ? Apparently not, see:

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=126

http://arstechnica.com/guides/tweaks/vintagevista.ars

 

I'm sorry - Minimum of 1GB RAM? 4200 notebook drive not enough? a 128MB graphics card just to run the full operating system? Sounds resource hog hoggity to me!

 

Again, to bring it back to the ol' G3: My iBook has 16MB ram. Runs Tiger Fully accelerated no trouble. Yeah. has 256MB ram too, and a 4200rpm HDD. Only the CPU is an issue, and for light work it's fine - even for DVD's etc. It's only "Heavy" processing such as DIVX decoding which cause an issue.

 

 

And as for the "Ground Up" comment, in the original design briefs and spec sheets for vista it was going to have about 10 or so major features, including an entirely new filing system that ould revolutionise the way we work with computers. I don't see it.

[Lactobacillus P]

The Macintosh GUI uses a more consistent representation of the file structures and hardware underneath. It´s simple and clean. Highly configurable. The GUI makes things easier, not more complicated.

The Windows GUI uses a less consistent representation of the file structures and hardware underneath. With Vista it has even become a little more inconsistent. I never got the fact that you can change the same settings in so many different ways on Windows. This might be perceived as more user friendly than only being able to do it in one place like OSX does, but it actually does make things more complicated that way. Software companies utilizing that nature of Windows, being able to do the same thing in a multitude of vastly different ways, makes programs running on Windows less consistent and unique beasts that are controlled in vastly different ways.

Another example of plain wierdness is the Win95/XP start button that you need to use for just about anything even to shut down the system has been transformed into a Windows button in Vista, which I think is better. Sure the Vista screens look great but also very busy. Simply navigating around the system is actually harder to do in Vista, especially if you use multiple partitions. It is a good thing Microsoft has included a plethora of assistants and the option to do things the old fashioned way. In a lot of ways the XP GUI is more simple and isn´t such a hassle. Allow or Deny.....

 

Of course Apple has it´s weird quirks as it has never felt ok to eject a disc by putting it in the trash. Thank god for right mouse clicking that was introduced with OS 8.x. And powering up my Ipod mini by pressing menu and shutting it down by continuously pressing play still is a mystery to me.....

[CiDhed]

They lied ? You just lied; you claim that Vista requires a 256MB card when it doesn't.

You are right. I jsut checked and it requires 128. My mistake.

 

Also, how is the layout 'nothing' like XP ? The only real major difference is that the File menu is hidden by default on some apps.So, how is the layout 'nothing' like XP ? I'd really like to hear an answer.

 

The breadcrumb bar for one is completely different then any other version of windows. UAC is another thing that has changed. Sorry, I should have said the layout has 'Changed' from XP

 

 

Your logic is backwards too, you say that Vista is nothing like XP, layout wise and you were anticipating a redesign, yet you aren't pleased that it's [apparently] 'nothing' like XP ?

I am talking about system files and other parts of windows below the new 'pretty' GUI.

 

I'm just curious, but were you drunk [or something] when you made that post ?

Dont think I was. Just not good at putting thought into word I'd reckon.

 

Also, where is this claim they made they were redesigning it from the ground up ? Post a source or are you making it up like how you made up the video card requirements ? Oh, and a resource hog ? Apparently not, see:

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...ista/index.html

 

Without tweaks its slower then XP.

 

Microsoft needs to dump compatiblity with previous versions of Windows. Windows would be alot lighter and efficent.

[ParkAvenger]

What's the biggest reason that Vista sucks enormously? Not the insane system requirements, not the shameless cloning of Mac OS X, but the "premium content protection."

 

Read this.

 

Vista is as un-user-friendly as an operating system can be. What kind of OS disables content that COULD be pirated just to get a check from the content providers? This is why I would never, EVER support Vista. Never mind the fact that my computer works just fine on XP (well, as well as anything can work with Windoze installed ). When someone has to HACK the operating system to make it usable for listening to music, watching movies, etc., it's not a good OS.

 

Plus, I wanna be able to use SLI on my PC. Can't do that with Vista either. Worthless pile of anti-user {censored}, if you ask me.

[Guest:]

And after almost any threshold, Solitaire, Notepad and Windows Movie Maker are too limited for even the home user to use which invalidates the point.

 

Ugh.. way to miss the point...? I am asking what does a Mac have that makes it better than what Vista has that Vista can't emulate through 3rd-party software. Telling me that the basic applications for both systems are useless after a certain point doesn't prove anything. I was pointing out that after the basic user level, most softwares can be easily emulated in Mac and Vista.

 

 

No they're not. The most popular advanced applications such as Logic and Final cut are Apple products for the Mac alone. You must be thinking of Microsoft Office and Photoshop.

 

Final Cut Pro is not yet industry standard. AVID is, which is available to both Macs and PCs. As for Logic, Nuendo/Cubase has most of its features, if not more.

 

What's the biggest reason that Vista sucks enormously? Not the insane system requirements, not the shameless cloning of Mac OS X, but the "premium content protection."

 

Read this.

 

Vista is as un-user-friendly as an operating system can be. What kind of OS disables content that COULD be pirated just to get a check from the content providers? This is why I would never, EVER support Vista. Never mind the fact that my computer works just fine on XP (well, as well as anything can work with Windoze installed ). When someone has to HACK the operating system to make it usable for listening to music, watching movies, etc., it's not a good OS.

 

Plus, I wanna be able to use SLI on my PC. Can't do that with Vista either. Worthless pile of anti-user {censored}, if you ask me.

 

http://www.nvidia.com/object/vista_driver_news_030207.html

 

You are right. I jsut checked and it requires 128. My mistake.

 

Not meaning to join your guy's argument, but I would like to point out: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...quirements.mspx

 

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

* 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

* 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

* Support for Super VGA graphics

* CD-ROM drive

 

Of course, for many of the features you will need the 128.

[non sequitur]

Why the hell would anyone run vista on an 800mHz processor with a 20GB drive? My p3 1ghz came with 256 ram, so these machines cant be common.

 

OS X is just so easy to use, and it is very simple. If one truly wanted to emulate OS X on vista, then they should just install OS X by use of torrentz or buy a mac. Use vista for vista, dont try to make it something its not. it will fail horribly.

[A Nonny Moose]

I haven't used Vista (and won't) so my opinion is to be entirely based on Win XP. This may or may not invalidate the entire argument I have.

 

To me, the user experience on the Mac is completely different than those same experiences on Windows. Mac OS X doesn't scream at me like a three-year-old nearly as much as Windows XP does. When it does scream, it's usually for something important, like a password. Also, the Mac has some better video editing software (never mind that it's made by Apple themselves, but it is only available on the Mac) that makes it a very hard choice to choose Windows for major video editing.

 

In addition, OS X decided to not support legacy code when it did OS X, because the Classic OS is done through emulation. This essentially negated viruses if you're running OS X only. Windows XP (and seemingly Vista also) just never got that point--legacy code only creates trouble. Did it {censored} people off when the newer versions of Office wouldn't run in OS 9? It sure did. Did it make a more secure system when this kind of thing happened? Based on the facts of multiple years without a credible threat, I would say yes (others will disagree).

[bryanfury]

Excellent work. Easy to understand.

[Vertigo50]

Simple answer to the original question:

 

Macs are just better. It should be obvious that they're the best computing platform by the fact that they have 2.4% of the market. So they MUST be the best!

 

[EFI]

The one thing that actually surprised me when I switched to a Mac recently (or even shocked me for that matter) besides the hands-down awesome OS X experience was the number of quality applications thats readlily avaliable on the Macintosh platform, when compared to windows. The problem is that although there are literally countless apps for Windows, only probably a mere 10% of them are actually trully innovative and "worth it" in my opinon. This percentage I would say is probably about 80% for the Macintosh platform, which is truly impressive. I thought for sure other than Adobe's products (I'm a heavy Photoshop user), the propreitory mac apps (for me predominantly iTunes and Quicktime come to my mind first), it would be a little difficult in finding softwares that suit my personal as well as academic needs, but I was flat straight out wrong. There is a whole side of the internet for mac apps that I failed to see (again, other than iTunes) when I was using windows, which I believe made my switch a very, very smooth experience to say the least.

 

Another thing that I found that differentiates Windows PC's from Macs is the stability and ease of use. I didnt want to approach OS X with this whole hype mentality and more importantly think of using it in the way im used to using Windows (XP, and for a 1 month Vista), becuase I knew that would (as it almost always does in any scenario) lead to failure; instead I approached it with a open mind, with a new view and told my self that I was seeing a completely different and new operating system and and make the best use of it, and I believe that is what made me realize how much more better OS X is to Windows XP/Vista. The Mac community is also a lot more creative and helpful to other Mac users (who've just switched or otherwise). In windows this is not the case, becuase most often than not the user has no idea of their computer's true potential, due to the numerous hardware configs, bloated softwares that eat up productivity, etc. Just all in all I find the Mac community more enthuisastic, and much easier to work with.

 

Finally I would like to say that its one thing that you can do it...but its how you do it that matters, and this is where OS X truly shines.

[robotskip]

I haven't used Vista (and won't) so my opinion is to be entirely based on Win XP. This may or may not invalidate the entire argument I have.

 

To me, the user experience on the Mac is completely different than those same experiences on Windows. Mac OS X doesn't scream at me like a three-year-old nearly as much as Windows XP does. When it does scream, it's usually for something important, like a password. Also, the Mac has some better video editing software (never mind that it's made by Apple themselves, but it is only available on the Mac) that makes it a very hard choice to choose Windows for major video editing.

 

In addition, OS X decided to not support legacy code when it did OS X, because the Classic OS is done through emulation. This essentially negated viruses if you're running OS X only. Windows XP (and seemingly Vista also) just never got that point--legacy code only creates trouble. Did it {censored} people off when the newer versions of Office wouldn't run in OS 9? It sure did. Did it make a more secure system when this kind of thing happened? Based on the facts of multiple years without a credible threat, I would say yes (others will disagree).

Of course it invalidates the entire argument you have; if you haven't actually used Vista, your opinion in why Mac OS is better than Vista simply doesn't matter and you can't really have a valid opinion if you haven't used it.

 

Guys, I've -never- owned a BMW or Mercedes but boy-oh-boy, that Mercedes sure does suck, the BMW is like totally better. /giggles \end sarcasm

[track09]

I haven't used Vista (and won't) so my opinion is to be entirely based on Win XP. This may or may not invalidate the entire argument I have.

 

To me, the user experience on the Mac is completely different than those same experiences on Windows. Mac OS X doesn't scream at me like a three-year-old nearly as much as Windows XP does. When it does scream, it's usually for something important, like a password. Also, the Mac has some better video editing software (never mind that it's made by Apple themselves, but it is only available on the Mac) that makes it a very hard choice to choose Windows for major video editing.

 

In addition, OS X decided to not support legacy code when it did OS X, because the Classic OS is done through emulation. This essentially negated viruses if you're running OS X only. Windows XP (and seemingly Vista also) just never got that point--legacy code only creates trouble. Did it {censored} people off when the newer versions of Office wouldn't run in OS 9? It sure did. Did it make a more secure system when this kind of thing happened? Based on the facts of multiple years without a credible threat, I would say yes (others will disagree).

 

Exactly, you're right, you haven't used Vista, so you're point is moot when compared to Vista.

[alexrocksyerface]

For me this is more of a hardware issue than software. I can't DIY a mac system and i'm talking an actual Mac I can however DIY a windows machine and customize the way I want exactly without limited options. i'm playing with osx JaS release but until apple lets me install their OS offically and not a hacked version its not worth the cost. I installed vista ultimate btw not a single problem for me had to disable the security but its not a problem I couldn't overcome I had a similar problem getting my nvidia network card to work on my osx but it works now. Oh and I switched to vista a week ago and it runs fine for me.

[orta]

As a developer programming on OS X and Vista, OS X is a far more pleasant experience. It is in general also easier to do some pretty complex stuff that leaves more time to add polish.

[track09]

As a developer programming on OS X and Vista, OS X is a far more pleasant experience. It is in general also easier to do some pretty complex stuff that leaves more time to add polish.

Ridiculous, absolutely. Windows has faster compile times, and almost all developers will agree, Visual studio is far superior to Xcode.

[aliquis]

Ridiculous, absolutely. Windows has faster compile times, and almost all developers will agree, Visual studio is far superior to Xcode.

I think he meant more convenient apis and so on and not faster compile times.

Who the {censored} whould decide which os/toolkit/.. is easier to code for based on compile times?

 

 

I think the system requirements between the two speak for themselves. OS X is a better coded os and vista is just another hog. My G3 runs tiger fine and doesn't have a 256 meg video card like Vista requires.

The layout of Vista is nothing like that of XP. I was actually anticipating the release of Vista when MS claimed they were redesigning it from the ground up.... They lied.

Vista requires 256MB graphics card with aero 3d and over 3 mpx display, but only 64MB on what you probably have on your G3.

[track09]

I think he meant more convenient apis and so on and not faster compile times.

Who the {censored} whould decide which os/toolkit/.. is easier to code for based on compile times?

 

 

Vista requires 256MB graphics card with aero 3d and over 3 mpx display, but only 64MB on what you probably have on your G3.

 

No, .net is the easiest to code for. And Aero only requires 128mb of graphics memory. Stop being such a tool. Remember, Aero is superior to QE, but it's requirements are on par with Core Image pretty much, as is the functionality.

[orta]

It's the API's and the tools that count and whilst it took me quite a while to get used to XCode coming from Visual Studios, I find it quite bloated now.

I mean, there's nothing quite like Core Data for a quick prototype, and to be honest I wouldn't have a problem using it in an actual product, and a lot of indie devs are saying very good things about Leopards Core Data.

My friend today was showing me how XAML works and the ease at which he could have floating 3d interfaces, with gradients that move around everywhere which is pretty cool, but Core Animation excites, and more importantly inspires me personally a lot more.

(Most developers would agree that VS is better then XCode, because they've never used it. I'm sure another amount would prefer to only use makefiles.)