Why is a Mac any better than Vista?

[aliquis]

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.

I'm to lazy to answer it all but:

 

Who cares about boot time? Do you boot your OS often? I guess one should turn of the machine and in that case it do affect anything but just turn on the computer before anything else in the morning then, big deal.

 

On my athlon64 3000+, 1.5GB ram I would say OS X uses more resources than Win XP, not that I care, memory is meant to be used.

 

UNIX in itself isn't an advantage, I'd must rather have a new modern OS than something built from the 70ies, but atleast it's stable and works. I mostly see the kernel and userland bases for os x and convenient things to start from to get it done fast than something which makes it superior.

 

Windows also got file permissions and so on in NTFS so that's no extra advantage.

 

Regarding if the graphic things uses Direct X or OpenGL, who cares aslong as it works? What is so bad with it using Direct X?

 

And in the end no os is better than its applications, which have been proven over and over again, that is why Windows got so many users and amigaos, beos, skyos, syllable, .. got so few.

 

 

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.

I didn't said what was easier to code for, I don't know since I haven't used any of them (or well, very basic gui stuff in Windows in C (not .net).)

 

I think the recommendations says 256MB vram for if it was over 2.3 or 3mpx display, but I don't care and why whould anyone have less than that? Only stupid Apple which put 128MB vram in their pro line of laptops, which is why I didn't bought that of the last revision, hopefully we'll see 256MB vram in june.

[Neonkoala]

Windows to OS X is what Windows Mobile is to Palm OS (and Symbian if you like).

 

Windows Mobile is sold as a completely customisable OS that will work on a multitude of devices and takes drivers readily and is very sort of modular in its function; i.e. it allows users to have more flexibility in what they do application wise. Palm is designed to be user friendly, an all in one complete experience. It is meant to be easy and quick for the user to use. To sum up, Palm OS is user-friendly, simplicity orientated, Windows Mobile is customizable, advanced/more demanding user orientated. (That's from experience of using both devices.)

 

Think of Vista and OS X as the same, Windows has always be designed as a base from which people can work and then customize/tweak to their needs (hence it has the bulk fo software with it, although some is due to market share ratios of course), OS X is designed to be easy to use, mainly (please - I use this loosely beacuse I know it has a lot of advanced stuff too) aimed at the novice user as it is quick to learn how to use and everything works out of the box. A novice isnt going to want to deal with the technical side of a computer and just wants it to work, OS X is good for them then, a windows user is expected to know how the OS works (much like a Unix user). Of course, OS X being designed for novice users has become very stable to avoid problems and makes a good base for intensive users such as Video editors etc as they dont want something that is going to crash mid edit.

 

Overall, each is designed for different purposes so comparing directly isn't quite going to work!

[ssiu]

Let me give concrete examples rather than just simply "it just works".

 

1. The application installation packaging is far superior than Window's. Most of the applications come with a .dmg file that you just drag wherever you want. No messing with the anonying thing called 'Windows Registry'. You can remove the application just by dragging to the waste bin. How many times in Windows you can't uninstall an application because of some broken links or inconsistent installation scheme. Sometimes it is the faults of the application vendor but Windows is too lax about it.

 

2. MacOS X is less likely to have hard disk fragmentation, and fragmentation is the main reason why Windows slow down so much over the time. Mac's file system is almost maintainence-free.

 

3. The security control is much tighter in Mac OS X. Every operation requires root permission will prompt you the password. There is no such in Windows until the UAC of Vista which is over-reaching and flawed.

 

4. Mac OS X has less code bloat in the kernel and the operation system in general. Windows has more background services and thus occupying more memory, CPU resources and draining more battery power.

 

5. In Mac, the sleep, deep sleep and wake up functions not only just work, they are quick. The power management is still a sore point in Windows.

 

6. Mac OS X goes a long way to shield unnecessary system configuration details from the casual users but still allows power users to tweak the settings.

 

7. It has almost no virus attacking (for now). The constant attentions to Windows Update, virus scanning distracts you from productive work.

 

The list goes on and on. By and large, working on Mac is more productive as you spend less time on OS and more time on using applications.

 

 

I've used Windows since 3.1. I switched to Mac OS X and will never go back.

 

In my opinion, Windows still holds the ground because of three categories: Microsoft Office(Word, Excel, Exchange Outlook), Active Directory and more support to application developers.

 

-stan

[Alessandro17]

OS X (and Linux) are a hell more stable than Vista, and less resource hungry.

A few days ago I tried to reinstall Vista. It crashed because I tried to install a few extra apps (Firefox, Avast, TweakNow RegCleaner)

The following day I installed it again and installed just the Windows updates. That made it crash beyond recovery!!!

 

I will refuse to help people who have Vista installed. I will suggest them XP 64 instead (if they have a compatible CPU, of course).

[track09]

OS X (and Linux) are a hell more stable than Vista, and less resource hungry.

A few days ago I tried to reinstall Vista. It crashed because I tried to install a few extra apps (Firefox, Avast, TweakNow RegCleaner)

The following day I installed it again and installed just the Windows updates. That made it crash beyond recovery!!!

 

I will refuse to help people who have Vista installed. I will suggest them XP 64 instead (if they have a compatible CPU, of course).

 

 

You're full of {censored}. I've installed all updates and all of those apps with no problem. Chances are it was unsupported hardware, and Mac OS X... o right, it only works on Mac hardware. Buy a new PC from an OEM, and such problems will not occur.

[Ferret-Simpson]

On the ".net is easiest to code for" comment, I have to start getting irritated.

 

.net is easy to code for. It runs correctly on 4 versions of Windows. Java is not much harder to code, and works on anything. I use the same Jarnal binary on any system I use.. iBook, Hacbook, Linux workstation, Solaris workstation, Mother's Win2K TabletPC. I'm having a little trouble with PDA's, but IBM and Microsofts journal programs suck.

 

 

Next retarded statement. WM versus PalmOS.

Ok, PalmOS Pre-5 has been pretty limited multimedia wise, but the number of applications available for it is stunning. Point in note, I can play gameboy colour games (albeit in black and white) on my PalmOS 4 wristwatch. Garnet adds in all the more modern bits PalmOS has been lacking and moves it to the up to date ARM platform. It outperforms WM5. It's more reliable than WM5.

 

I have a Universal (O2 XDA, Orange SPV M5000, iMate Jasjer etc) - incredibly fast hardware, you should see that baby on Linux 2.6 - phew. But Windows Mobile kills it. It takes up to 5 seconds to rotate the display, more if the phone is ringing (Which is the main time you want it to rotate in a hurry) These days I have to blind answer the phone. If I open the lid to see who'se calling, it freezes until they hang up. Programs are slow to load - and of the built in windows components, the released Wireless Modem driver wasn't even out of testing! Plug a WM 5 phone into a mac with Wireless Modem running and go to the USB info pane. It works on Windows (If driver uninstalled) too. Some message reminding the dev to modify the dev/vend ID's before release. WM 5 is typical windows. Unreliable, buggy, shoddy and resource hogging.

 

Aero requires MINIMUM 128mb vram. The Apple GUI acceleration (QE - CI is unimportant) runs on 16mb. Doesn't seem that technically inferior to me. Any limitations are overborne by the fact that it will run efficiently on even ancient Mac's.

 

Windows packaging does have one bonus over mac: You can easily uninstall.

 

To the complete SMEGHEAD above saying that boot times were irrelevant: Anyone who uses a notebook needs to turn the machine on and off to save battery. FACT. Those people almost always care to a certain extent how long it takes to get to a running system. Just because you run your desktop 24/7 doesn't mean everyone else works the same way. I haven't used any of my desktops in months.

 

Aliquis - you did have one sensible point in that drawl. UNIX is old. It's FNORDING ANCIENT! And yes, thirty years later there SHOULD be a stable, fast, modern replacement. There have been, and Microsoft have destroyed them every time.

 

AmigaOS

Acorn RiscOS

 

Fast, low profile OS's - needed proprietary hardware and ran from ROM chips. AmigaOS still exists for special PPC machines, and the AROS open source replacement is nearing maturity now. Acorn boxes are still sold. (Iyonix RiscPC)

 

BeOS - POSIX compliant OS for easy porting of UNIX software, incredible multimedia power - could run 10 simultaneous Quicktime streams on a P3. Not even Apple computers could do that. Unfortunately, no hardware companies took interest, and BeOS died of hardware incompatibility disease, although it still exists today under a different name and ownership - Palm own the rights to the Be Inc name. An open source replacement is in Alpha, called Haiku.

 

Mac OS Classic - Good OS, but technical limitations of the low level code caused Apple to eventually revert to a UNIX based kernel: mklinux' Mach 3.

 

Windows. There have been several promising releases - all Corporate/Server versions. Notably NT4 and Windows 2000. They just can't get home versions to run properly. The open source ReactOS is early days, but looking hopeful.

 

What's bad about using DirectX, aliquis: Is the same reason why using .net (C#) is bad. It ties you down to windows, and windows alone. It is also an inferior product, despite it's ever increasing instruction set. Which is why no other company ever tried to bother being compatible. Wine/ReactOS do, but only because they aim to be Windows Replacement.

 

I've had enough of being irritated for tonight, I'm going back to my bed, and drivers.

[elvira]

The claim was made earlier that Final Cut Pro is not an industry standard. I don't believe that's true. I'm not an editing professional (just tinker) but I spend a lot of time on the Final Cut boards at Apple. These people make their living with Macs and Final Cut. People are switching all the time to Macs just for Final Cut. Major feature films are edited with Final Cut. Some (probably many) film schools use Final Cut heavily or exclusively. Sure, Avid is the top dog, but Final Cut knowledge is a marketable skill, there is absolutely no question about that.

 

I'd like to further explore the iLife apps again. And I'm honestly, truly asking for equally user-friendly, inexpensive Windows equivalents with similar features. I'd love to be able to have an equivalent to iMovie and Garageband on my Windows XP PC for the same price as iLife. I'd love this (equally inexpensive, user-friendly, equal featured) Garageband-like app to have at least 1 GB of professional quality loops included (since Garageband offers that). I'd also love this (equally inexpensive, user-friendly, equal featured) equivalent to iMovie to have markers (I love markers) and all the various templates and special effects (as well as access to fabulous plug-ins) as iMovie has. Any takers? Remember, I'm looking for something on the Windows side that is equally inexpensive, equally user (read newbie) friendly, and has as many features. (Please note: Do NOT mention Windows Movie Maker as an equivalent to iMovie, because I will start to sputter and titter. )

 

I haven't used Vista yet (I did take a peek at it in the store the other day). There's something . . . ugly about it. Or not quite as elegant as Mac OS X. Just an observation, completely meaningless really. I have been curious about Vista and was chomping at the bit to get it for my PC (which has a 128 MB video card) but my PC guru friend has advised me against it, saying that it'll run slower under Vista than under XP.

 

Also, a friend of mine (fellow amateur video enthusiast) was so excited to get a new computer with Vista. But she's having a horrible time getting her video editing app (Ulead VideoStudio) to work as it did before, even after installing a Vista update. Some of her editing methods require using MOV files. They won't work under Vista. For her, Vista is a step back in usability.

 

Until recently, I had a G4 1.25 GHz Mac Mini with its 32 MB video card, and 1 GB of RAM. It worked slowish on apps like Final Cut Studio and Photoshop, but I got everything done that I needed to get done. Tiger ran great on my little Mac Mini. (I've now upgraded to an Intel Mac Mini! ) My PC (with 1.4 GHz CPU, 128 MB video card, 1 GB of RAM) always was somehow s-l-o-w-e-r than my Mac Mini. My PC guru friend proclaimed this to be "Inconcievable!" (echoing that guy from "Princess Bride") but it's the truth. I often transferred video files to my Mac Mini for H.264 or XviD encoding, because the PC took too long.

[Alessandro17]

The claim was made earlier that Final Cut Pro is not an industry standard. I don't believe that's true. I'm not an editing professional (just tinker) but I spend a lot of time on the Final Cut boards at Apple. These people make their living with Macs and Final Cut. People are switching all the time to Macs just for Final Cut. Major feature films are edited with Final Cut. Some (probably many) film schools use Final Cut heavily or exclusively. Sure, Avid is the top dog, but Final Cut knowledge is a marketable skill, there is absolutely no question about that.

 

I have a friend who uses Final Cut Pro professionally. I have seen some of his work, absolutely amazing.

[rollcage]

Whenever I install the update for my wifi card through Windows Update I get BSODs (driver boolean less or equal). I also can't get WL OneCare to install (using Avast now) and media center will no longer work with my 360 (tries to connect but informs that an app is going to launch a UI?).

[Ferret-Simpson]

Allesandro, Track.

 

YOU ARE BOTH AT FAULT HERE.

 

You are BOTH encouraging this discussion to degenerate into mindless trolling and flaming. This is NOT appropriate. Can we please have a little more sensibility and maturity from both of you?

 

Rollcage: Valid point. Windows is expandable and configurable for many platforms, but even the "Windows Digital Signing" is not a good proof of driver quality. This is not a fault with windows in itself - more a fault with the whole Microsoft model of operation. Fully closed source drivers can not have their quality verified. The Apple software model allows the easy creation of open source drivers for any hardware, through xcode and iokit. And on that note - I can't stand Visual Studio. Xcode is most definately imperfect, since it's heavily tied to Apple Computers and OS, but it is still the best Graphical Integrated Development Environment I have ever used.

[htdefiant]

I agree. And track09, generally speaking, no matter the level of experience or hardware, Linux and Unix tend to be more stable then MS-DOS. Also, I feel that XP is far more stable then Vista at this point. Since it runs blazing fast on my Mac, I'm keeping it for a while.

[track09]

I agree. And track09, generally speaking, no matter the level of experience or hardware, Linux and Unix tend to be more stable then MS-DOS. Also, I feel that XP is far more stable then Vista at this point. Since it runs blazing fast on my Mac, I'm keeping it for a while.

Yes, and MS abandoned MS-DOS years ago, last os to use it was Windows Me.

[glassJAw]

Cancel or Allow?

[rollcage]

It's quite easy for a program to cause BSODs. When they are installed, the registry can be corrupted, and ruin the whole OS install. It doesn't happen too often but when it does the effects are quite irritating. The independent app packages in OSX keep that from happening.

[elvira]

Alessandro17 was relating a personal experience. It's pretty rude to proclaim that he's a liar. He's talking about his personal experience, dude. If you weren't there with him in his room when he had the experience, then you have no idea whether he lied or not. To accuse him of lying anyway is pretty impolite.

 

It just stands to reason . . .

[track09]

But Windows updates crash beyond recovery? Unless there's a bad device or a bad driver, that's ridiculous.

[EFI]

Well, I know a member from another forum who was one of the first one to purchase Vista...and I'm pretty sure he regretts it, because of all the BSOD's he's been getting lately...for doing absolutely nothing. Here is the error report:

 

A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer.

 

IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

 

If this is the first time you've seen this Stop error screen, restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps:

 

Check to make sure any new hardware or software is properly installed.

If this is a new installation, ask your hardware of software manufacturer for any Windows updates you might need.

 

If problems continue, disable or remove any newly installed hardware or software. Disable BIOS memory options such as caching or shadowing.

If you need to use Safe Mode to remove or disable components, restart your computer, press F8 to select Advanced Startup Options, and then select Safe Mode.

 

Technical information:

 

***STOP: 0x0000000A (0x9BBFFFF6, 0x00000002, 0x00000000, 0x81C6D78B)

 

 

 

Collectign data for crash dump . . .

Initializing disk for crash dump . . .

Beginning dump of physical memory.

Dumping physical memory to disk: ##

 

Aparently, his computer goes into several boot loops. He once took it to Best Buy to repair it...came back...and the same thing happened again. Not good. And when he described the situation in the forum...all he did was just update his computer through Windows Update...and when his computer restarted, it BSOD'd.

[track09]

I'm only getting BSODs when I ejecty my iPod from iTunes.

[Ferret-Simpson]

Vista supposedly includes a POSIX emulation layer.

 

BeOS/Yellowbox/Haiku are the best non-UNIX Posix Operating system I've seen.

 

Track, Allessandro - my point was that in different posts, you were both at fault. Al, you replied to what you believe to be a personal attack with an equally hurtful reply.

 

What I'm saying, is that you both need to break it off, now.

 

============================================ (Etc)

 

 

RIGHT.

 

Track, you get BSOD's on itunes eject? Have you reported the bug?

[slumberjunkie]

After reading the back & forth flaming, I have to say its really sad anyone has time to blast back and forth at a fellow OSx Project members just because of their opinion of why one Os is better than the other. In my opinion OS'es are like artistic team presentations of what a good GUI should look & act like. Like art and music if you don't like what you experience in an OS then shut the up & DON'T USE IT. Theres way too many OS alternatives to get all bent out of shape on why one is better than the other. Furthermore if you're within the growing legions of people running Hackintosh setups there really shouldn't be this kind of friction on a forum especially if you might run OSX on pc hardware with a flav of Xp or Vista running in parallels 24/7.

[track09]

Vista supposedly includes a POSIX emulation layer.

 

BeOS/Yellowbox/Haiku are the best non-UNIX Posix Operating system I've seen.

 

Track, Allessandro - my point was that in different posts, you were both at fault. Al, you replied to what you believe to be a personal attack with an equally hurtful reply.

 

What I'm saying, is that you both need to break it off, now.

 

============================================ (Etc)

 

 

RIGHT.

 

Track, you get BSOD's on itunes eject? Have you reported the bug?

 

 

No, I actually disabled the error reporting service to speed up Vista. Anyway, yes, Vista Ultimate, and Ultimate only, includes a POSIX "Unix Compatibility Layer", not to sure how it works.

 

Anyway, I wish to formally apologize to Alessandro. I'm not going to go into details, I was at fault for my share, and I want him to know that I like OS X and Vista. I want to get along here, and hopefully get past this. Cheers.

[Alessandro17]

Anyway, I wish to formally apologize to Alessandro. I'm not going to go into details, I was at fault for my share, and I want him to know that I like OS X and Vista. I want to get along here, and hopefully get past this. Cheers.

 

 

OK, I always accept sincere apologies, of course

I also apologize if I went over the top.

[RedSox]

It has been said many times that vista is Microsoft's attempt at Mac OS X - and in some way's it's true. There's a lot less of a gap between them that between Tiger and XP. Why? Things Microsoft have "borrowed" from OS X in Vista.

 

Accelerated GUI,

"Widgets",

The minimalistic display style.

To a certain extent, Finder. I think Windows Explorer has now surpassed it, but it's what they seem to have based it on.

 

I just started reading this so someone probably anwsered this.

Widgets was stolen from Kabulation or something to that effect.

Spot light was taken from Micro soft but were the first to implement it.

 

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.

 

 

True. Case point, Unreal 2004 demo WINDOWS 200MB or more.

OSX 56 MB.

 

Vista is very bloated and also takes a very long time to boot up, very very long time.

[track09]

True. Case point, Unreal 2004 demo WINDOWS 200MB or more.

OSX 56 MB.

 

Vista is very bloated and also takes a very long time to boot up, very very long time.

 

I don't play unreal, so I don't know about that, but I do know about the Vista startup times. Sidebar really slows it down, but even without it, it's a lot slower than OSX startup.

 

Actually, some of the "desklets" I think they were called, in the Apple Lisa were the first to impliment "Widget-like behavior". I'll dig up a video where they were demoed.

[Colonel Ingus]

Here's 20 reasons why OS X is better than vista. Enjoy