Jump to content

Windows really does SUCK! Lets HEAR The RANTS! ! !


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1
RedSox

RedSox

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena/Hollyweird
Ok, here is one example:

I have MLB Mosaic which allows you to view MLB baseball online.
On the MAC, it takes about 4 seconds to install.
On windows XP, it has to install .NET FRAME Garbage, which took more than 10 minutes and added BLOATWARE.

Why is that? Because windows is BLOAT WARE LOADED with .dll hell.

Here is another:
Unreal 2004 Tournament Demo is 350+MB for windows.
For the MAC it is 56MB, geeeeee, why is the extra 199MB needed for windows?
.dd, directX, garbage that's why.

The only thing a tad bit better is sometimes the streaming works a bit faster than OSX.

Regarding Vista, don't even get me started. Half the programs don't work and DELL is now re-releasing LAPTOPS and DESKTOPS with XP.

I recently read in an article, OSX is about the "end user", whereas Windows Vista is about Microsoft and ITS security, not the end user. Just the fact that working in the audio business, Vista has trouble with ASIO drivers, plus all the DRM nightmares.

The more I use the same programs, the more I realize that even programs are so much more bloated than the Mac counter parts. And FWIW, I am starting to see windows programs named as x86 programs.

Maybe we can hope that developers someday go MAC ONLY and force M$FT to go UNIX/Linux and build a
better mousetrap.

Just my rant for the day!

#2
ResX

ResX

    InsanelyHack

  • Retired
  • 818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Art, Music, People, Macs
Well, as much as i hate windoze (lol), the size and time differences is because of the dlls that are installed and because it has to add the program to the program list so that if u go to add/remove programs, it can be easily removed. On macs, everything is self contained, except for a small pref file that the program makes to remember its settings. I prefer the latter, which is more convient to me because i am more likely to keep programs installed once they are.

#3
track09

track09

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts

I have MLB Mosaic which allows you to view MLB baseball online.
On the MAC, it takes about 4 seconds to install.
On windows XP, it has to install .NET FRAME Garbage, which took more than 10 minutes and added BLOATWARE.

The ".net Framework" is far from garbage and bloatware. It's a well written, lightweight API. And if you don't like the fact that this software is using it, then, blame the developer, they can make a simple C++ binary that works with no problem. It was the developer that chose to use .net, that's not Windows' fault.

Why is that? Because windows is BLOAT WARE LOADED with .dll hell.

Yes, that's right, let's resort to namecalling an OS based on an issue it had back in it's 2000 edition. In 2001, when Xp was released, the "dll hell" you and Bertrand Serlet speak of was corrected, entirely. Windows isn't bloatware, it's a fast OS, much faster than OS X (NT is proven faster than mach). It's poorly written 3rd party apps which slow it down at startup only. (Launching apps on Win is much faster). Don't like it, well, good luck getting all the "Mac equivalents"

Unreal 2004 Tournament Demo is 350+MB for windows.
For the MAC it is 56MB, geeeeee, why is the extra 199MB needed for windows?
.dd, directX, garbage that's why.

Hmm, directX garbage. Yes, that's exactly what it is. LOL! DirectX is a far superior gaming API to OpenGL, and those .dlls, yea, they're for the NT based OS running DirectX, which explains why the game gets far better framerates on Windows. (And don't give me your phony "it doesn't, it's better for me in OS X" {censored}, unless you post video evidence. Because all on the internet, there's tons of evidence to prove Windows is the superior gaming OS.

The only thing a tad bit better is sometimes the streaming works a bit faster than OSX.

That's strange. That really should be the same across the board.

Regarding Vista, don't even get me started. Half the programs don't work and DELL is now re-releasing LAPTOPS and DESKTOPS with XP.

Really? Half? Post me a link to a chart of all modern software, where it proves that only 50% of software works, then I'll believe you. Dell is keeping Xp around because Vista is a big change. They sold computers with 2000 when Xp came out, and had them around up until a few years ago. Some people have software that doesn't work on Vista yet. (Heh, remember OS 9 to 10.0, or 10.0 to 10.1, or 10.1 to....). Some people don't have the time or money to change software like that, which makes Mac that much worse of a choice.

I recently read in an article, OSX is about the "end user", whereas Windows Vista is about Microsoft and ITS security, not the end user. Just the fact that working in the audio business, Vista has trouble with ASIO drivers, plus all the DRM nightmares.


Yea, I'd like to see this article from AppleInsider or wherever you got it. Vista is giving me one of the best end user experiences I've had. OS X also gives a great experience. OS X has a lot of candy that makes it sell and people go wow. But when they realize the blog they made in iWeb, and the movie from iMove get no hits, they realize this "creative" stuff is a waste of their time.

The audio drivers? Vista has the most superior sound stack currently available right now. They reworked the system (RE: NOT WARMED OVER XP), and the system is different. Again, not the fault of Windows, a fault of the developers who've had access to Vista for years, and many months of it in it's RTM state before it went public.

DRM nightmares? Another rumor I'm tired of. Point me to these nightmares that you have in your head. All the DRM I know of is to allow it to playback HD-DVD and Blu-ray, legally, using HDCP hardware. At least it can do this, OS X cannot. And Apple will need to include DRM to do this, because the MPAA won't let them do differently.

The more I use the same programs, the more I realize that even programs are so much more bloated than the Mac counter parts. And FWIW, I am starting to see windows programs named as x86 programs.

Yes, quite. What is your definition of bloated? File Size? Because those universal binaries sure are huge. Or is it performance? Because last time I ran a Mac Firefox Build I almost fell asleep waiting for it. Show me SOLID proof of this "bloat" or it doesn't exist.

Maybe we can hope that developers someday go MAC ONLY and force M$FT to go UNIX/Linux and build a
better mousetrap.

Yes, developers will start making software for only 3% of the market, down from 96%, and expect that to sustain them. UNIX/LINUX is only more secure. The current Windows codebase is quite well written, and has much greater performance.

Just my rant for the day!

No, just your way of getting attention in an Apple forum, so that all the zealots can come in and say how bad Windows is, how great Apple is, how Apple is elegant, and how their experiences are 1bX better than on Windows. So you can make up facts about Vista's system requirements, and say how bloated it is, and how your whole multinational corporation suddenly switched to Apple's proprietary hardware system completely.

And so the little idiot trolls can register just to say.

"OSX is elegant.
Vista is {censored} bloat and slow"

Signed,
A 4 Mac and 2 Windows machine owner.

#4
ResX

ResX

    InsanelyHack

  • Retired
  • 818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Art, Music, People, Macs
Ah, track, your inner fanboyism is showing. As much he made a call for attention, you tend to just fuel it even more with your own opinions about directx and how creativity goes unappreciated if its not viewed.

#5
track09

track09

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Ah, track, your inner fanboyism is showing. As much he made a call for attention, you tend to just fuel it even more with your own opinions about directx and how creativity goes unappreciated if its not viewed.



No, all i did was make clear points of the truth. How is what he says normal, when he says "it's teh bloat" without giving any facts, yet when I tell him to damn google about DirectX, and he'll find it's superior, that's fanboyism? I think your fanboyism shows in your lack of judgement.

#6
EFI

EFI

    Photoshop CS3 Elite

  • Retired
  • 629 posts
  • Location:A galaxy far, far away...(Canada)
Members like RedSox, are the exact type of individuals who give us Mac users a bad name. This thread is just plain stupid and unecessary. I dont see how someone could possibly garner more attention than this. Geez.

#7
apowerr

apowerr

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Retired
  • 1,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Florida
RedSox your a fool, Vista has issues, but your just trying to start a flame war.
If you really want to make a valid argument against vista or for os x get your facts straight.

#8
Colonel

Colonel

    11 Herbs & Spices

  • Retired
  • 4,157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:KFC
I like Windows. :P

#9
Soündless

Soündless

    InsanelyMac Deity

  • Donators
  • 2,318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hick-land (A.K.A indiana)
  • Interests:surfing, macs, skating, scheming
i like mac, but i will use windows if nesisarry. even tho it bugs the {censored} out of me

#10
asap18

asap18

    O RLY?

  • Donators
  • 1,423 posts
You are either against Windows or against "us" *cough* Colonel *cough*.

gentoo ftw.

#11
erbic

erbic

    I am the Mighty Finder.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middle of nowhere
Mac OS X happens to be my favorite OS.. However, I have Windows Vista and Kubuntu Feisty triple-booting on the same hard drive (well, almost...), because each have qualities/features/stuff I like.

Windows is for the stuff I can't run on Mac, and overall there's nothing particularly wrong with it. I'd have no problem using Vista as an everyday OS if I couldn't use my Mac.

(Kubuntu is just for experimenting with stuff, and doesn't matter in this argument.)

Does this make me a bad person? ZOMG I'M NOT A FANBOY LET'S ALL GO AND FLAME ME!!!!111one

Why does anyone give a :P about what OS someone prefers? I consider Mac OS X to be a very well-designed OS, but Windows has many merits as well.

People like RedSox almost make me ashamed to be from Boston.

ok, not really, but whatever.

#12
trav1085

trav1085

    ハーカー

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Computers, hacking, system security, programming, apache, webserver, macs, pc, osx86, vista, dos...

Unreal 2004 Tournament Demo is 350+MB for windows.
For the MAC it is 56MB, geeeeee, why is the extra 199MB needed for windows?
.dd, directX, garbage that's why.


Many hard drives are 200GB+. You can easily get a hd that size for $130.

I favour Windows over Mac, and Linux over Windows. My computer is a lower end model and it supports Vista with no problems. A little slow using Aero (although it's unsupported for that) but it runs games a little slower than XP.

#13
GBK.Xscape

GBK.Xscape

    Carpe Deim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, California
windows isnt bad its just not as good as Mac OSX, thats the way i look at it as......

#14
siddharth

siddharth

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mumbai, India
Because of the UNIX base, Mac tends to be more secure. It's easier to do things on OS X than it would be on say Vista and that's because Mac is written in a way which would allow even a dumb user to do what he wants. As far as Windows is concerned, performance is much better and since most developers write for windows, it's much more widespread. (That's also because of the cost of Mac OS X along with the Apple Hardware)

#15
U.C.

U.C.

    The Leopard Roars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:God's Green Earth
  • Interests:Everything Apple, Computers, Movies
This thread is nothing but a flame war. All it does is crowd the forum. Close it already.

#16
hecker

hecker

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts
  • Gender:Male

Signed,
A 4 Mac and 2 Windows machine owner.

I think this line says it all.

hecker

#17
track09

track09

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Because of the UNIX base, Mac tends to be more secure. It's easier to do things on OS X than it would be on say Vista and that's because Mac is written in a way which would allow even a dumb user to do what he wants. As far as Windows is concerned, performance is much better and since most developers write for windows, it's much more widespread. (That's also because of the cost of Mac OS X along with the Apple Hardware)



These are the idiotic posts I'm talking about. People who cite the "UNIX" base, right off the Apple website, without understanding it or explaining it. Yes, it is secure though, but yes, you're Apple's little troll. As for the interface, that's a matter of opinion. I feel explorer is more productive, but that's just me. I do like the user file system strucuture of macs, and how clicking Macintosh HD has all of the folders you need (Videos, Music), right on the side. That shows it's a media/user centric design (a good thing). I just think the dock is clunky, and finder navigation is clunky. Widespread has nothing to do with it. Developers have nothing to do with the speed of the OS. Windows is simply faster in performance because of the NT kernel is faster than mach, that's it really. Games? Well, besides DirectX being superior to OpenGL, the biggest thing is that Windows lets GPU makers create their own drivers. These drivers can sometimes be unstable, but Apple likes to keep all the OS X drivers native and stable. (If they keep this ideal, it's also a benefit).

I think this line says it all.

hecker

Why? I prefer Macs in a lot of ways over PCs. I just have more important things to spend my money on than Apple computers unfortunately.

#18
hecker

hecker

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts
  • Gender:Male

Why? I prefer Macs in a lot of ways over PCs. I just have more important things to spend my money on than Apple computers unfortunately.

Sure you do, bro. Sure you do. Maybe one day you will realize that the actual little troll was just you after all.

EDIT: And that you love OSX :whistle:

hecker

#19
EFI

EFI

    Photoshop CS3 Elite

  • Retired
  • 629 posts
  • Location:A galaxy far, far away...(Canada)

Windows is simply faster in performance because of the NT kernel is faster than mach, that's it really.


Note Quite, infact just because the kernel is fast doesnt mean the OS should also be fast, thats not true at all. It would be like saying a Hyundai with a Ferrari engine would be as aerodynamically fast as an actual Ferrari. The NT kernel is faster yes, but the memory management is what ultimately makes the operating system faster, and this is handled in a seperate low level adress aside the actual function of the kernel.


...Well, besides DirectX being superior to OpenGL


Actually, contrary to popular belief that Direct X is more superior than OpenGL, it is not true at all. OpenGL is actually more advanced than Direct3D (Direct X), and let me explain why OpenGL is infact theoretically, and from technical standpoint more advanced than Direct 3D. Firstly though, one has to realize that both of these API's work completely differently all the way down to the kernel level. Direct 3D depends on hardware support in order to work, due to the way in which it is designed (more on that below). OpenGL on the other hand, has all the function sets built in, and merely uses the hardware as a source of acceleration, and that's all. It does not "rely" so to speak on the hardware features in order to work. Direct 3D is also much harder to code in (C++), and has many function/transform calls that take multiple steps to perform, that OpenGL could do in a single call.

An example, would be in creating an alpha blend, in a game for example. (the following example was taken from Wikipedia) In Direct3D, you would first have to create an execute buffer, then lock it in, then fill it with the correct opcodes (portion of an instruction in an API call function), unlock it, and finally send it to the driver for execution. This exact same function can be done in OpenGL, in one single call, by stating "glEnable(GL_BLEND);." This is one example of how much more efficient OpenGL is when compared to Direct 3D. Another reason why OpenGl is more advanced is in the performance arena, and this is explicitly determined by the communication between the API (OpenGL and Direct3D), and the hardware driver, which would be the graphics driver, and the communication stack between the two is determined by the IHV driver. There are two types of sub-driver within this category, and that is the kernel mode driver, and the user mode driver.

For Direct X, the kernel mode drivers are actually designed into the Windows operating system, and the user mode driver is handled by the Direct X engine. Now here is where it gets a bit confusing. Under OpenGL however, the IHV driver is broken into two parts: a user-mode portion that implements the OpenGL Engine, and a kernel-mode driver that is called by the user-mode portion (source Wikipedia). As a result, under Direct X, if you want to access kernel mode calls from user mode, you would need a CPU switch to kernel mode, and this is slow and time consuming, and the CPU wont be able to do anything else during this process, and since this has to happen many times because it has to reach kernel level switch to communicate with the API, this becomes largely inefficient, and pushes out more vertices, or triangles on the screen at any given pass. OpenGL's drivers on the other hand, have a user-mode component to them, IHVs have the ability to implement marshalling, thus improving performance. There is still kernel-mode switching, but the theoretical maximum number of switches under OpenGL implementations is simply equal to the Direct3D standard behavior. (source wikipedia).

This is why you would never see Direct X as a viable API in the professional graphics (motion/3D design/animation, game design studios/movie studios), where the industry standard is in fact OpenGL. Moreover, OpenGL is cross platform, and is so because of its relatively level interface, which are easy to port to many different platforms, which include OS X, Linux, BSD, Windwos, etc, etc.

Now although the above paragraphs describe OpenGl's superiority, sadly it is this very same superiority that causes it to loose market in the gaming industry as well. Long story short; because OpenGl stores all the graphical functions and call in its API, and merely uses the graphics card for acceleration, simply updating the graphics card driver could cause a game to completely not work at all, due to OpenGL' s own hardware call implementations. Therfore, many game developers did not want to deal with this, and so the other option of course was DirectX, who's engine relied on the hardware to make the calls, and to merely take advantage of their functions, hence why DirectX is popular in the gaming industry, and OpenGL in the Professional graphics industry. This is also the very same reason why Aero, is slower than Quartz extreme, because of the way each API (OpenGl & Direct X) address the kernel mode and user mode functions. Aero is a prime example of what happens when you use Direct X where OpenGL should be, and games like Doom 3, and Quake 4, are examples of where Direct X should have been used instead of OpenGL.

:P

#20
hecker

hecker

    InsanelyMacaholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
Great post.
Thanks for sealing the deal, EFI. :plane:

hecker





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2017 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy