Windows Vista

[joe75]

And it does nothing for you, I can assure you.

 

I'm never out of memory and I have no performance issues and I have no complaints with XP

[xtraa]

But putting the pagefile on a second drive does make sense, could be a little faster,

simply because if Windows works on the system drive, it can swap parallel to the

readwrite operations.

Edited January 4, 2007 by xtraa

[br0adband]

But putting the pagefile on a second drive does make it faster, simply because if

Windows works on the system drive, it can swap parallel to the readwrite operations.

 

But only if condition #1 above is met. IDE drives on the same cable cannot be accessed at the same time, hence the major performance hit if you try to do that. However, if you have your Primary Master drive as the system drive, and you put a second hard drive on the Secondary Master or Secondary Slave - meaning it's on a different cable - then yes, you improve performance because Windows can read from the system drive and write to the second drive, or vice versa.

 

Just having a second drive with a pagefile on it does not automagically improve performance until condition 2 is met - you must have a pagefile on both drives so that Windows can use the one that's available. Obviously, if Windows is reading the system drive for data purposes, it can't write data to the pagefile on the same drive at the same time but it can write to that second pagefile.

 

In essence, Windows would be multitasking the pagefiles, using the one that is currently available for read/write operations while the other drive is busy.

 

You're on the right track, just leaning a bit to one side...

 

bb

[pyrates]

Yanno, up till this moment I had a lot of respect for you, pyrates...

 

The "clear out the prefetch folder" to improve performance thing is a myth, it always has been. And now that last posting with suggestion of turning off the pagefile... ugh. You can't disable the pagefile in Windows; it's a native part of the OS itself, and even though you can seemingly tell Windows not to create one (either by using that "0" setting or the other one that "disables" it completely), Windows will still create one for itself because that's how it works.

 

People associated "pagefile" with "Virtual Memory" and while there are some similar respects, they are not one and the same. The pagefile is just one component of the Virtual Memory subsystem in Windows, it always has been ever since the 386 processor enabled that ability to "swap out" data from physical chip RAM to the hard drive and simulate "virtual memory." It's not something you can just "throw a switch" or click a button and turn off, no matter how many people, websites, FAQs, tuners, tweakers, optimizers, useless software, etc. tries to make you believe you can.

 

It only hurts performance in the long run by tinkering with the pagefile settings in Windows, period.

 

Next thing I know you'll be telling people that 'SuperPrefetch' exists in XP just because some people either saw the key there or decided to add it under XP. Neither of those two tips will have any lasting performance benefits to a Windows XP machine, sorry.

 

bb

 

Correction, virtual memory was only in their because of the lack of RAM in people's PC's at the time. He said he had 4 GB of RAM available. There is absolutely no reason for a pagefile to exist. The pagefile is purely put their in case all of the RAM that is in use by windows runs out. That is all it is their for. And I am aware that when an application launches, it requests more RAM then it will use initially. And this is because they think they might need more RAM. But if they don't use it, they don't use it. That is why if you disable the pagefile, your RAM usage doubles. It's all those windows applications that when they launch request more RAM then they need just in case you know. And normally this would get stored on the hard drive, but the part that gets slowed down is when that is paged back into RAM, you'll notice the slowdown. Disabling the pagefile avoids this and this was always a pet peve of mine. Plus at the same time, you put less wear on the hard drive as well. So since you got 4 GB of RAM available, you might as well turn it off and give it a try. I've tried it myself and found it was great. Never did turn it back on until Vista that is, with that I plan on getting 4 GB of RAM for it instead of just 2 GB of RAM.

 

But putting the pagefile on a second drive does make sense, could be a little faster,

simply because if Windows works on the system drive, it can swap parallel to the

readwrite operations.

 

But if it's disabled entirely, which you can in windows xp, you get even better performance because of the time you gotta wait for the memory that is stored in the page file is now being moved to the RAM. I don't know about anyone here but I prefer to have my pagefile disabled in Windows XP and not experience those slow downs. Here's an example, minimize firefox and wait a few hours, come back and watch it slowly restore itself. That is with the pagefile enabled. If it's disabled when you try to restore firefox's window from its minimized state, no delay, it's restored instantly.

 

I suggest everyone here running windows xp that has 2 GB of RAM have their page file disabled. I've run adobe photoshop and it has never complained even though br0adband here might say it needs the pagefile enabled. Plus in all the time I've had the pagefile disabled, adobe photoshop has never complained to me about it being disabled. And I've never seen it been recreated on my hard drive.

[br0adband]

"Some things are true whether you believe them or not."

 

You can't disable the pagefile, and you can't disable the virtual memory subsystem in Windows. Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean it ain't there, and it works just as if you'd never touched the settings at all.

 

This is akin to the $485 wooden volume knob that automagically makes stuff sound better just because someone told you so... snake oil, from a technological perspective, nothing more.

 

But you go right on believing it...

 

bb

[xtraa]

@Br0adband and @pyrates:

 

I did not expected to say that in this thread but yea you are right and I absolutely agree with you

[joe75]

If you click the box that says No Pagefile, will there still be a pagefile?

[pyrates]

"Some things are true whether you believe them or not."

 

You can't disable the pagefile, and you can't disable the virtual memory subsystem in Windows. Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean it ain't there, and it works just as if you'd never touched the settings at all.

 

This is akin to the $485 wooden volume knob that automagically makes stuff sound better just because someone told you so... snake oil, from a technological perspective, nothing more.

 

But you go right on believing it...

 

bb

 

Well where does the pagefile reside then if it is no where to be found on the hard drive? Could it be in the RAM then? Cause that is exactly what happens when the pagefile is disabled on the hard drive.

[br0adband]

If you click the box that says No Pagefile, will there still be a pagefile?

 

Windows will create a pagefile as required, meaning "Yes" and it happens without your knowledge in the background as most every other Windows process does. It might be a small one, it might be a large one, but it'll be dynamically created on-the-fly as Windows requires - and the downside to this is that it takes longer to create an on-the-fly pagefile than if you had simply left the damned thing alone in the first place.

 

If you were to talk to some of the most knowledgeable people on the planet about the underpinnings of Windows - hell, at the moment you are - they'd all say the same thing: leave the pagefile and virtual memory settings in Windows alone. It knows what it's doing just fine.

 

bb

[pyrates]

Ballmer would give his left egg if MS would be so good at marketing, too. Look how they try to

get people atm with their faked zune fanblogs and viral PR. The whole concept of the zune

Package is now like Apple. They even wrote "Hello from Seattle" on it, like the well known

"Designed in Cupertino California".

 

You're right. Microsoft just isn't as good at marketing compared to Apple. How shameful of me. But this was to be expected because their first generation of any new product is always a flop. By the third generation they get it right most of the time.

 

Guess why they have no fanboys? First you can't compare a hardware company with a software

company. Microsoft did a good job for Apple when they started with Office for Mac

 

But do remember that marketing is never entirely truthful either. And having fan boys preaching it to everyone else regardless of what the truth is helps the company. Word Of Mouth is the best marketing tool any company has got. And Apple uses that to it's full advantage.

 

Now where is your response to that Apple fanboy trying to pass off the quicktime javascript exploit that is being used on myspace? Why did you avoid specifically commenting on that? Could it be because then it shows that Apple isn't perfect?

 

But they don't know {censored} about hardware. I have never seen the Tablet-PC boom, the Origami, the fun experience

with the MS Sidewinder drivers in XP... After all of their gifts I wonder why there are no fanboys.

The market has its own rules, and so are people. Just because they made the lucky deal of their

life with placing DOS on IBM, it just don't mean that they make outstanding products. Most of the

folks here are on OSX because they are so damn pissed about this company and the behaviour of

their products. I mean they even failed to make an import export function between their own mail-

software clients.

 

So you're saying that Apple never failed at anything and Microsoft does all the time? Can anyone say the Apple Newton?

 

I do acknowledge that Microsoft has failed in the past and what company hasn't? But to say they fail all the time and that Apple never failed really is just biasness on your part.

 

Now why is that? I think the reason is because Microsoft was never forced to act like a normal

business because of their moneyprinting machine, the deal from the past. They are on every PC

today, but not because their product is so outstanding, but because they were a lucky bunch of nerds.

Right place, right time.

 

Every company has a right place right time where they got big. Apple did after all and so did Microsoft. Get use to the fact that the PC Market took over and that Apple lost that market a long time ago.

 

Err.. in OSX? no it won't.

 

What are the permissions for the applications folder you are referring to? I'm talking about the one under the root directory at /Applications/, not the one in your home folder. The program files directory is equivalent to the applications folder in the root directory. That is what it is comparable to.

 

Running OSX Tiger on a G3 does work, nice speed. Runs a little faster then Panther, isn't it ironic.

 

But what about Vista with well - I give you that - even deactivated Aero on a compared PC from 1998?

 

Would be the Pentium II then? Ymmd.

 

Was OS X out in 1998? No? Was XP out then? No. OS X wasn't out until 2001, same with XP. And here we are with Vista coming out in less then a month so why are you comparing the 2? Why even bother running Vista on it? It's a Oh just to make the Mac look good I see. And the speed of a G3 at the time was 233 MHz. A Pentium II at the time was at 300 MHz. And you can run windows xp on that computer with enough RAM of course, but it will run. Just like OS X will run on a G3. But these are the bottom of the barrel computers here.

 

Wiki: Dashboard has been widely compared to Konfabulator as a copy of it, due to the similarities between

their graphical aspects and that they both use the term “widgets”.... Although Konfabulator was released

before Dashboard, Dashboard is alleged to be based on Apple’s Desk Accessories, first released in 1984

with the original Macintosh....whereas Konfabulator uses XML and JavaScript to generate Widgets,

Dashboard uses HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and Objective C.

 

Nice cut out of that quote. Too bad you left out the most important part:

 

Both claims were refuted by this article. The author of the article points out that none of the Konfabulator developers hold any patents on Konfabulator's implementation. Neither was the idea of an "accessory" application; it had been around for quite some time and has taken on several forms, from the widgets discussed here to full-fledged software applications.

 

See here for what I'm talking about.

 

The calendar is standalone now. Good decision from microsoft, I wonder who came up with this after all the

years of Outlook integrated calendars.

 

If you want to put it that way, then Apple copied Microsoft's Calendar in Outlook and decided to make it a stand alone app. Microsoft saw that other companies were creating calendar applications then like mozilla and google and did the same thing.

 

And to spotlight, yes there has been a search technology around. But the art is how to integrate it in the gui.

Microsoft made a cute little search dog. Apple made Spotlight. See the difference?

 

The cute little dog was the PREVIOUS search method. The new search method was instant search that I was referring to. Nice deliberate attempt to try to shift the attention away from the fact that the only thing Apple did was get it to market first even though Microsoft did announce the idea and had technology previews of it being shown as demos. But you continue to believe that Windows XP's method of search is what Microsoft was referring to. Ignorance is bliss works really well for you.

 

I think every MBA would agree that Vista is not a mee-too product, but of course microsoft had to react

to the only second commercial consumer OS out there, even if it is just 2 percent marketshare (lol) And

for that they of course made some things like OS X, and they of course copied them. This is business rules,

every company would have done so.

 

Microsoft reacts to every company out their it considers to be a competitor. You don't expect them to do that? Every company does that. It has to. Just like with how they reacted to Linux. Yes that was ugly how they first reacted to it and still react to it, but they do acknowledge they are a competitor and they have to react to them.

 

I don't get why the Vista addicted just don't accept this. I mean look at it. It is 1 on 1. Who cares, but stop

complaining that they must have had some spiritual experience that made parts of Vista accidentally look the

same like osx.

 

As I've said before, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But do remember that it's never a blatant copy, there is improvements made their and even some mac users who've tried the instant search in Windows Vista say it is better then the one that OS X has.

[br0adband]

Just for {censored} and giggles...

 

XP Myths

 

All excellent information, all verifiable, and all valuable for the XP user.

 

bb

[pyrates]

Windows will create a pagefile as required, meaning "Yes" and it happens without your knowledge in the background as most every other Windows process does. It might be a small one, it might be a large one, but it'll be dynamically created on-the-fly as Windows requires - and the downside to this is that it takes longer to create an on-the-fly pagefile than if you had simply left the damned thing alone in the first place.

 

If you were to talk to some of the most knowledgeable people on the planet about the underpinnings of Windows - hell, at the moment you are - they'd all say the same thing: leave the pagefile and virtual memory settings in Windows alone. It knows what it's doing just fine.

 

bb

 

From Microsoft's own knowledge base @ here

 

There can be a large number of processes each with its own 2 GB of private virtual address space. When the memory in use by all the existing processes exceeds the amount of RAM available, the operating system will move pages (4 KB pieces) of one or more virtual address spaces to the computer’s hard disk, thus freeing that RAM frame for other uses.

 

So that means that unless you don't got alot of RAM, that you can go right ahead and disable that pagefile and if it happens to be needed, it'll be created. But if you got 4 GB of RAM, there is no point in making a page file when your OS can only access 4 GB of RAM.

 

It saves me disk cycles.

 

One more thing, windows likes to swap out idle memory that programs have been using into the pagefile. The result of this is that when you try to go back to that program you gotta wait a bit for the memory to go back into RAM before you can use it and that is one thing I always find very annoying.

 

And from an article that is linked at as a source of the XP Myths page:

 

A computer's RAM consists of two sections. The first section, the non-paged area, stores core OS information that's never moved to the pagefile. The second section, the paged area, contains program code, data, and inactive file system cache information that the OS can write to the pagefile if needed.

 

The link is here by the way.

 

So what that means is that when I disable the pagefile, all I'm doing is keeping the part of the RAM that can do pages into the pagefile in RAM all the time instead of being paged out.

Edited January 4, 2007 by pyrates

[xtraa]

Now where is your response to that Apple fanboy trying to pass off the quicktime javascript exploit that is being used on myspace? Why did you avoid specifically commenting on that? Could it be because then it shows that Apple isn't perfect?

So you're saying that Apple never failed at anything and Microsoft does all the time? Can anyone say the Apple Newton?

 

Of course, there are such fanboys. These folks try to trivialize every exploit that stands in any

connection to OS X. I think what they do is contraproductive. There is no perfect OS and there

never will be any. It is just a little more difficult to compromize OS X but of course this is possible.

 

And the Newton... man I loved that thing. Sure it was definitely a flop, (far too early for a PDA)

but it really was a nice gadget.

 

I do acknowledge that Microsoft has failed in the past and what company hasn't? But to say they fail all the time and that Apple never failed really is just biasness on your part.

 

Wait wait wait Don't try to put me into something here. I really hated Apple before OS X

was out. The whole OS was {censored} to me, networking, Floppy eject and the missing rightclick...

 

Every company has a right place right time where they got big. Apple did after all and so did Microsoft. Get use to the fact that the PC Market took over and that Apple lost that market a long time ago.

 

Yes... I know that fact since my first IBM compatible Amstrad computer.

 

What are the permissions for the applications folder you are referring to? I'm talking about the one under the root directory at /Applications/, not the one in your home folder. The program files directory is equivalent to the applications folder in the root directory. That is what it is comparable to.

 

Hmm, yea... still no difference. No log in required, and I am not logged in as root.

 

Was OS X out in 1998? No? Was XP out then? No. OS X wasn't out until 2001, same with XP. And here we are with Vista coming out in less then a month so why are you comparing the 2? Why even bother running Vista on it? It's a Oh just to make the Mac look good I see. And the speed of a G3 at the time was 233 MHz. A Pentium II at the time was at 300 MHz. And you can run windows xp on that computer with enough RAM of course, but it will run. Just like OS X will run on a G3. But these are the bottom of the barrel computers here.

 

I did not made my point clear. I was referring to the G3 because it still can be used with the actual OS X.

So there is no need to disable a GUI like Aero. Aero (or Vista in common even without Aero) needs far more

ressources than OS X. You wrote thatit is not possible to disable the GUI in OSX . Right. But there is no need for it

as we can see.

 

 

Nice cut out of that quote. Too bad you left out the most important part:

 

Both claims were refuted by this article. The author of the article points out that none of the Konfabulator developers hold any patents on Konfabulator's implementation. Neither was the idea of an "accessory" application; it had been around for quite some time and has taken on several forms, from the widgets discussed here to full-fledged software applications.

See here for what I'm talking about.

 

Good link. For me, the main feature of Dashboard is that it applies as a second skin over the desktop so that the

Widgets don't take away space. maybe they copied that from konfabulator, too, I don't know. But it would have

been nice, if Vista would have done the same second-skin-trick. Instead, they are taking space on the desk.

 

If you want to put it that way, then Apple copied Microsoft's Calendar in Outlook and decided to make it a stand alone app. Microsoft saw that other companies were creating calendar applications then like mozilla and google and did the same thing.

 

Yes, like mozilla and google and apple.

 

The cute little dog was the PREVIOUS search method. The new search method was instant search that I was referring to. Nice deliberate attempt to try to shift the attention away from the fact that the only thing Apple did was get it to market first even though Microsoft did announce the idea and had technology previews of it being shown as demos. But you continue to believe that Windows XP's method of search is what Microsoft was referring to. Ignorance is bliss works really well for you.

 

If Microsoft came up with the technology, I have no problem with that. I just said that there are two

different things: To have a technology is one part. To integrate it in a GUI so that it makes sense and

is highly comftable for the enduser, is the second part. And the way Google or Apple (dunno who was

first) did this was absolutely brilliant.

 

Microsoft reacts to every company out their it considers to be a competitor. You don't expect them to do that? Every company does that. It has to. Just like with how they reacted to Linux. Yes that was ugly how they first reacted to it and still react to it, but they do acknowledge they are a competitor and they have to react to them.

 

As I already wrote, every company would have done the same thing. So is Microsoft, and I am

absolutely fine with that.

 

As I've said before, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But do remember that it's never a blatant copy, there is improvements made their and even some mac users who've tried the instant search in Windows Vista say it is better then the one that OS X has.

 

Do you have an example where the Vista search is better?

Edited January 4, 2007 by xtraa

[bwhsh8r]

its a bloated xp install but seriously... im getting it for free, why wouldnt i upgrade? as soon as its released ill post my experience on it here.... for now im using a brazillian copy in vmware.... its..... emmm... in spanish witch i hate with a passion! so i guess thats no good.

 

and osx vs vista, its impossible... cause everyone has PERSONAL PREFERENCE! that and they are so different, they do everything differently, and they both have their ups and downs (such as windows registry... and osx's... well hardware pickyness, among many many other flaws... for BOTH)

[pyrates]

Of course, there are such fanboys. These folks try to trivialize every exploit that stands in any

connection to OS X. I think what they do is contraproductive. There is no perfect OS and there

never will be any. It is just a little more difficult to compromize OS X but of course this is possible.

 

And the Newton... man I loved that thing. Sure it was definitely a flop, (far too early for a PDA)

but it really was a nice gadget.

 

Im just glad you're not one of them

 

Wait wait wait Don't try to put me into something here. I really hated Apple before OS X

was out. The whole OS was {censored} to me, networking, Floppy eject and the missing rightclick...

Yes... I know that fact since my first IBM compatible Amstrad computer.

 

Yes I know those pains too as I was one of the system admins at my high school who had to look after the macs. Man were they a pain using system 7.5 and system 8.

 

Hmm, yea... still no difference. No log in required, and I am not logged in as root.

 

Maybe not for you, but it did ask me when I tried copying an app into the applications folder under root. Let's ask everyone here to do that and see what the result is. I just remember it did ask me this when I was using the beta of 10.4.3. Perhaps I could be wrong though.

 

I did not made my point clear. I was referring to the G3 because it still can be used with the actual OS X.

So there is no need to disable a GUI like Aero. Aero (or Vista in common even without Aero) needs far more

ressources than OS X. You wrote thatit is not possible to disable the GUI in OSX . Right. But there is no need for it

as we can see.

 

Well lets have a fair comparison then atleast. Generally it is 10.5 versus Vista. And since 10.5 isn't out, and we don't know the minimum requirements for that, can't really compare that against Vista. Let's compare 10.4 versus Windows XP. And as you can see, XP runs just fine on a PC from that era. Just like 10.4 does on an equally equipped Mac from that era. But we do know the minimum requirements of Vista. And until 10.5 is out and the minimum requirements for it are known, can't compare the 2.

 

Good link. For me, the main feature of Dashboard is that it applies as a second skin over the desktop so that the

Widgets don't take away space. maybe they copied that from konfabulator, too, I don't know. But it would have

been nice, if Vista would have done the same second-skin-trick. Instead, they are taking space on the desk.

Yes, like mozilla and google and apple.

 

Sure you can. Just right click on the side and close sidebar. You can get it back by right clicking the side bar icon and selecting bring gadgets to front. So it does behave the same way.

 

If Microsoft came up with the technology, I have no problem with that. I just said that there are two

different things: To have a technology is one part. To integrate it in a GUI so that it makes sense and

is highly comftable for the enduser, is the second part. And the way Google or Apple (dunno who was

first) did this was absolutely brilliant.

 

See the link here to see what Microsoft did with Instant Search and how it was expanded beyond what Apple offered with Spotlight.

 

As I already wrote, every company would have done the same thing. So is Microsoft, and I am

absolutely fine with that.

Do you have an example where the Vista search is better?

 

See my above link for how it is better. It is under Instant Search.

[Nic Paillard]

Looks like the debate is turning to "which OS is the best"!

 

Obviously it's OS X for several reasons but that doesn't make it the most usable OS, I mean that a lot of USEFUL programs are made for Windoze only.

 

To answer the inital question, MS had to make that move, but I think that they made it half-way, they didn't gave up old legacy hardware for a more "conceptual" OS. They are always tied to old hardware stuff for X reasons. They have access to the machines to emulate everything, or they could simply sell an OS with two OS included, a revised XP for legacy support with a new fine High Tech OS with a real virtualisation mechanism. But no, they don't.

 

So Vista (for VIrus, Spyware, Trojan, Adware) will sell well, bring income to MS, be buggy, ask for a big hardware system that will be underused and will also ask for a lot of security update. If a Unix-based OS like OS X can be targeted by hackers, Vista will also be, and with it's size (a colossal OS thinked for compatibility), it will be hard to miss.

 

For my part I like to read all this fuzz about OS X vs Windoze. I used the two because I need to, but if all my programm were ported to mac, then Windoze would only be a nightmare to me.

 

 

 

In the spirit of this thread, I will try to compare OS X 10.4 with Win XP to illustrate why I like OS X more than Win XP, I expect things to remain the same between 10.5 vs Vista

 

 

OS X

I can install my program as root user and deny access to every single critical OS file to other users in a simple and efficient way. (apple + I to change access to dir/file, Syst. Pref. to give or take admin privilege to users)

 

Win XP

In windows, things are a little bit more complicated and less intuitive (I don't say impossible)

 

 

OS X

Stability... nothing more to say

 

Win XP

Lack of stability... nothing more to say

 

 

OS X

To install or remove a program, it's F***ing easy, drag (in or out) and drop. Less messing with annoying rebootings (still there are some on bad install or less well integrated apps). In other words, the apps are not (well less for some) messing with OS specific files. To make a link with the first point I stated, if an app was not installed by the book, you just have to log as admin and fix it, then no user can scrap your app, and if you have forgotten to do it as admin, you can change it with apple + I, simple enough?

 

Win XP

Often in front of a booting computer while installing. What the hell an App for word processing needs to change to the system files? Be serious, your OS should not be tampered by any third party software, by then you're not using a standard anymore because there will be a million different configuration end exponentialy more compatibility problems.

 

 

OS X

It's less flashy, very sober and at the same time very colourful interface. Not a big bunch of eye candy, everything is quite effective in what it is doing while still beautiful. Exposé, Dock, the customizable navigations side bar for every folders (not the holy 5's of MS), customization of the appearance of the desktop and every folder with apple + J, etc.

 

Win XP

A lot of colour, a lot of buttons, a lot of options. Buttons are squared! Every single thing looks like 1970 art in concrete. You must be aware of the Start button + D to clear the desktop, it's not said somewhere near for the average user. Nearly every programs have it's own set of keyboard shortcuts, thanks that ctrl + X,C,V are standards.

 

 

OS X

My programs are both less dependant and more integrated (Ex.: Mail, iCal and Adress Book) iTunes is very fun and easy to use. Safari and widgets, iLife, taking digital photos from my camera...

 

Win XP

Everything is tied to Explorer, the biggest hole for hackers to mess with your system. Believe it or not, your Browser can change (or give access to another program) your registry, the "everything" file on your computer (system boot, hardware manager, program install file, with access to your most personnal info, etc.), so be careful when you go to "dark internet spaces". When a site ask "anything I can imagine" in a pop up menu to ask a yes or no question, the text is written by them, it's not a REAL description of what your answer will do! So clicking yes to answer "Get rid of all pop up on this site" can have actually granted access to Explorer to the registry to install something BAD for you. It's illlegal, yes, but a net criminal don't do legal thing generally! This is why I use Opera and like the UNaccess of non-MS program to the registry or critical sections of my computer.

 

 

OS X

Less room for virus and the like. (It could be still be forced, but it's like a safe, not impossible but harder to pick things in than in a basket)

 

Win XP

Well, I use Zonealarm and Norton which suck a precious CPU time from my processor and they are still not full proof. Just in that, you have a reason to buy a Mac.

 

 

OS X

My girlfriend can use the computer without shouting (Nick! come here, everything seems jammed!) Tonight she alone installed Skype, she downloaded the .dmg, opened it, dragged the app on her desktop without messing with the application folder, she created her own shortcut and everything went smoothly. We could talk on skype without the installation being made in the state of art and without compromising the safety or the stability of the system. I will get to the house later this week and fix everything in order (Skype will then belong to the admin user, will be placed in the app folder, I will change the shortcut and I will be able to keep her skype log in settings unharmed, all in less than in 30 second, do that on Win XP!).

 

Win XP

I was (am still) always trying to fix a thing or another. Installing is sometime a pain in the a**, uninstalling is more often a pain in the a**.

 

 

OS X

I use my 10.4 system since a long time, it's still snappy (as a G3 can be). When I want to get rid of a program, I just drag and drop in the bin. My file system DON'T get fragmented, I didn't believed it in the first place, but some utilities check your fragmentation, and I was conviced. The last time I checked, I had around 25 files fragmented (all over 20 MB files, but it's still less than 0,01% of my files) for a 1 year install without any defragmentation.

 

Win XP

I reinstall every year (or more often) because the system slows over time. You reinstall from scratch with the same programs and setting, and MAGIC, everything's faster.... hummm there's maybe room for improvement? Also, when you uninstall, some traces of the program are left behind (in the registry for example). Strange, I thought that it was an UNinstall procedure... Also your system WILL fragments, it's fragmenting at a blinding fast rate (proportionaly inverse to the speed of your disk access). Try to leave your system undefragmented for one year and check the fragmentation percentage...

 

 

OS X

The terminal is VERY powerful, you can use it to do a LOT of things with the OS-included programs. Disk utility is near perfect.

 

Win XP

DOS is only a shadow of itself. You still must buy program (if these can still be found!) to do powerful thing. But GUI admin programs are good.

 

 

OS X

Compatibility in files system: HFS (every flavour), UFS, FAT32, NTFS (read only so avoid this format), CD, 10.5 -> ZFS

I use OS X and Win XP on another system, and OS X can access all my file on the Win XP partitions.

 

Win XP

NTFS + FAT32

Win XP is blind of my OS X's partitions.

 

 

There are others but minor reasons.

 

Nevertheless, MS is there to last because it's BIG. I would compare MS with a GIANT slug, slow, uneffective, leaving a trail of glue everywhere but slugs where there millions of years ago and are here to last like Windoze should be. OS X is more evoluated kind of OS, with (I hope) a future.

 

I pray that some game company will see what is the potential of OS X, thus driving the competition to another step between the near monpoly of MS and the small (but growing) market share of Mac. This would force MS to offer a better product, maybe imposing stricts standards on the hardware, to the best of everyone. If MS become a better OS, I will be very glad, not because I like MS, but this will force Apple to offer still better products and the same will occur to MS. Competition could end up to very fine OSs for everyone. That's a real goal, Mac over MS or the reverse will do no good to anybody, this will be the end of good OSs and the start of a real monopoly, not a good situation in any case.

 

 

 

 

 

Also to answer the "paging problem" of br0adband, Installing your paging file in another partition speeds your system. When you specify no paging file and reboot, the paging file you see on your computer (pagefile.sys) can be deleted, so the system isn't using it. Having a contiguous paging file speeds your system. With a paging file of 2 GB, I don't have any memory troubles. Windoze poorly uses the system ressources, sometimes it looks like behaving randomly in optimizing your performances (ex.: slowing of your systems perf. over the time).

 

Personnaly, I always create a 2,2 MB partition for my paging file on the start of the disk, I format the drive and put the paging file (fixed to 2 GB) on a blank space (no fragmenting) and everything is smoother than before using this technique. I do the same with OS X (use Xupport 3.3, you can set the drive but you can't set the VM size, OS X will manage it alone) and it's perfect.

 

Nick

Edited January 10, 2007 by Nic Paillard

[BreakTheChains]

Sucks bottom line. . But really, it's a better OS than XP and maybe even the current version of OS X but when X.5 comes out Vista will be blown away. I think almost everyone here can agree on that.

[pyrates]

Looks like the debate is turning to "which OS is the best"!

 

Obviously it's OS X for several reasons but that doesn't make it the most usable OS, I mean that a lot of USEFUL programs are made for Windoze only.

 

To answer the inital question, MS had to make that move, but I think that they made it half-way, they didn't gave up old legacy hardware for a more "conceptual" OS. They are always tied to old hardware stuff for X reasons. They have access to the machines to emulate everything, or they could simply sell an OS with two OS included, a revised XP for legacy support with a new fine High Tech OS with a real virtualisation mechanism. But no, they don't.

 

You are correct. But Apple doesn't have legacy and old hardware because it can dump old hardware and not get as much trouble for it. Took them around 18 months to switch to intel didn't it? OS 9 is around the same age as windows 9x/me and both aren't supported. Yet we don't see any stories out there of Apple being blamed because it drops support for OS 9, just Microsoft.

 

So Vista (for VIrus, Spyware, Trojan, Adware) will sell well, bring income to MS, be buggy, ask for a big hardware system that will be underused and will also ask for a lot of security update. If a Unix-based OS like OS X can be targeted by hackers, Vista will also be, and with it's size (a colossal OS thinked for compatibility), it will be hard to miss.

 

For my part I like to read all this fuzz about OS X vs Windoze. I used the two because I need to, but if all my programm were ported to mac, then Windoze would only be a nightmare to me.

In the spirit of this thread, I will try to compare OS X 10.4 with Win XP to illustrate why I like OS X more than Win XP, I expect things to remain the same between 10.5 vs Vista

 

You're making alot of assumptions on your part of windows vista there I notice. Have you tried it yet or did you just assume it will be buggy? So does that mean OS X 10.5 will be perfect or will that be buggy too?

 

OS X

I can install my program as root user and deny access to every single critical OS file to other users in a simple and efficient way. (apple + I to change access to dir/file, Syst. Pref. to give or take admin privilege to users)

Win XP

In windows, things are a little bit more complicated and less intuitive (I don't say impossible)

 

Yes in windows xp you needed admin privaleges to install programs because they're all stored in the same place for all the users of the system, hence admin access is needed. As for most versions of windows xp that comes with oem computers, they don't even allow you to change privaleges and the average user has no idea about permissions so MS thought why even show them and hid them configuring them in a way that was sensible.

 

OS X

Stability... nothing more to say

Win XP

Lack of stability... nothing more to say

 

Gee, you don't sound bias at all now do you? Where is your proof that windows xp is less stable then OS X? Right now all we got here is opinion and not any facts.

 

OS X

To install or remove a program, it's F***ing easy, drag (in or out) and drop. Less messing with annoying rebootings (still there are some on bad install or less well integrated apps). In other words, the apps are not (well less for some) messing with OS specific files. To make a link with the first point I stated, if an app was not installed by the book, you just have to log as admin and fix it, then no user can scrap your app, and if you have forgotten to do it as admin, you can change it with apple + I, simple enough?

Win XP

Often in front of a booting computer while installing. What the hell an App for word processing needs to change to the system files? Be serious, your OS should not be tampered by any third party software, by then you're not using a standard anymore because there will be a million different configuration end exponentialy more compatibility problems.

 

Well considering it is as stable, and yes it is, to be able to work with that many different hardware configurations, shows how good a job Microsoft did. And there are some settings in an application that need system access when its installing because it needs to install some system library that the OS didn't include. But I like competition way better then one company making the product only. If Apple was the only computer maker, their prices would be alot higher. And there are some applications like iTunes that need admin access on both OS X and Windows XP when they are installing. I know because I've installed iTunes on OS X before. It is not a drag and drop install. So installing is about the same to me on both Windows XP and Mac OS X.

 

OS X

It's less flashy, very sober and at the same time very colourful interface. Not a big bunch of eye candy, everything is quite effective in what it is doing while still beautiful. Exposé, Dock, the customizable navigations side bar for every folders (not the holy 5's of MS), customization of the appearance of the desktop and every folder with apple + J, etc.

Win XP

A lot of colour, a lot of buttons, a lot of options. Buttons are squared! Every single thing looks like 1970 art in concrete. You must be aware of the Start button + D to clear the desktop, it's not said somewhere near for the average user. Nearly every programs have it's own set of keyboard shortcuts, thanks that ctrl + X,C,V are standards.

 

You're telling me that OS X does not have alot of eye candy? Of course it does. But atleast Windows XP doesn't go overboard with it. If you don't like it all, you can turn it off and go back to the old plain windows 2000 look.

 

OS X

My programs are both less dependant and more integrated (Ex.: Mail, iCal and Adress Book) iTunes is very fun and easy to use. Safari and widgets, iLife, taking digital photos from my camera...

Win XP

Everything is tied to Explorer, the biggest hole for hackers to mess with your system. Believe it or not, your Browser can change (or give access to another program) your registry, the "everything" file on your computer (system boot, hardware manager, program install file, with access to your most personnal info, etc.), so be careful when you go to "dark internet spaces". When a site ask "anything I can imagine" in a pop up menu to ask a yes or no question, the text is written by them, it's not a REAL description of what your answer will do! So clicking yes to answer "Get rid of all pop up on this site" can have actually granted access to Explorer to the registry to install something BAD for you. It's illlegal, yes, but a net criminal don't do legal thing generally! This is why I use Opera and like the UNaccess of non-MS program to the registry or critical sections of my computer.

 

So because popups can be made to look like Windows XP's default style of windows that makes it a flaw? They can be made to look like OS X too, but 5% of the market just isn't worth it to them. And less dependant and more integrated? You just said 2 things that mean the complete opposite you know. And you don't have to use IE on windows xp. You can use firefox, I do. And no popup can be granted access to your registry unless they use a previous security hole that wasn't patched yet. But your explanation of it is quite amusing as you don't explain it all too well. But I suggest you try out the program dropmyrights. You might like it.

 

OS X

Less room for virus and the like. (It could be still be forced, but it's like a safe, not impossible but harder to pick things in than in a basket)

Win XP

Well, I use Zonealarm and Norton which suck a precious CPU time from my processor and they are still not full proof. Just in that, you have a reason to buy a Mac.

 

Any OS can have viruses because they are nothing but programs that are designed to attach themselves onto other programs so that when those programs are run they are run as well. Every OS is capable of this. It's the security capabilities that prevent it from actually doing what it wants to do.

 

And you lost all seriousness to me when you said you use zone alarm and norton. You couldn't have picked 2 more bloated programs that cause more trouble then they fix. Try the built in windows xp firewall and nod32. Much better and they won't hog all your resources either.

 

OS X

My girlfriend can use the computer without shouting (Nick! come here, everything seems jammed!) Tonight she alone installed Skype, she downloaded the .dmg, opened it, dragged the app on her desktop without messing with the application folder, she created her own shortcut and everything went smoothly. We could talk on skype without the installation being made in the state of art and without compromising the safety or the stability of the system. I will get to the house later this week and fix everything in order (Skype will then belong to the admin user, will be placed in the app folder, I will change the shortcut and I will be able to keep her skype log in settings unharmed, all in less than in 30 second, do that on Win XP!).

Win XP

I was (am still) always trying to fix a thing or another. Installing is sometime a pain in the a**, uninstalling is more often a pain in the a**.

 

How is installing and uninstalling something hard in windows xp? They lead you through a wizard where you click next, next, ok, done, etc. It's all quite easy to do and Skype was just as easy to do. It even sets up all your shortcuts for you and when you uninstall it, it removes them as well. I don't like the manual install approach, the automated one is much better to me.

 

OS X

I use my 10.4 system since a long time, it's still snappy (as a G3 can be). When I want to get rid of a program, I just drag and drop in the bin. My file system DON'T get fragmented, I didn't believed it in the first place, but some utilities check your fragmentation, and I was conviced. The last time I checked, I had around 25 files fragmented (all over 20 MB files, but it's still less than 0,01% of my files) for a 1 year install without any defragmentation.

Win XP

I reinstall every year (or more often) because the system slows over time. You reinstall from scratch with the same programs and setting, and MAGIC, everything's faster.... hummm there's maybe room for improvement? Also, when you uninstall, some traces of the program are left behind (in the registry for example). Strange, I thought that it was an UNinstall procedure... Also your system WILL fragments, it's fragmenting at a blinding fast rate (proportionaly inverse to the speed of your disk access). Try to leave your system undefragmented for one year and check the fragmentation percentage...

 

If you want to enable background defragging, as OS X does, just go here. If that doesn't work, just let me know. As for reinstalling every year, if you're trying out alot of apps, then yes that will be necessary. But if not, it should be fine. I suggest you use dropmyrights to help you in keeping spyware/adware off your system then.

 

OS X

The terminal is VERY powerful, you can use it to do a LOT of things with the OS-included programs. Disk utility is near perfect.

Win XP

DOS is only a shadow of itself. You still must buy program (if these can still be found!) to do powerful thing. But GUI admin programs are good.

 

When Windows Vista is available, try out the powershell addon. You might like it. It isn't included by default because Microsoft found that not a large percentage of its users would be using it, so they left it as an addon.

 

OS X

Compatibility in files system: HFS (every flavour), UFS, FAT32, NTFS (read only so avoid this format), CD, 10.5 -> ZFS

I use OS X and Win XP on another system, and OS X can access all my file on the Win XP partitions.

Win XP

NTFS + FAT32

Win XP is blind of my OS X's partitions.

There are others but minor reasons.

 

It's a microsoft world and other OS's need to make sure they can work with Windows, not the other way around. If you really want an OS that can read alot of file systems, try linux. It has tons that it can read and write to. Does that then make linux better then OS X? It must be because you used that same reasoning to say OS X is better then Windows XP.

 

Nevertheless, MS is there to last because it's BIG. I would compare MS with a GIANT slug, slow, uneffective, leaving a trail of glue everywhere but slugs where there millions of years ago and are here to last like Windoze should be. OS X is more evoluated kind of OS, with (I hope) a future.

 

Microsoft hopes OS X has a future too. They need it so that they can show they have competition. Thus OS X will always be around, unless Apple does something stupid.

 

I pray that some game company will see what is the potential of OS X, thus driving the competition to another step between the near monpoly of MS and the small (but growing) market share of Mac. This would force MS to offer a better product, maybe imposing stricts standards on the hardware, to the best of everyone. If MS become a better OS, I will be very glad, not because I like MS, but this will force Apple to offer still better products and the same will occur to MS. Competition could end up to very fine OSs for everyone. That's a real goal, Mac over MS or the reverse will do no good to anybody, this will be the end of good OSs and the start of a real monopoly, not a good situation in any case.

 

If you didn't see the keynote Microsoft gave on Sunday Night, there is 200 million pc gamers. There are video cards made that compete for higher and higher frame rates and graphical detail. There is now DX 10 in Windows Vista. Apple does not encourage gaming at all in OS X and never will. There is a vibrant market for pc gaming. Where is the gaming machines for OS X? Except for their workstation ones, they don't have any. They don't include $700 graphics card in any Mac out there. Only on the PC side because of the huge market that is PC Gaming. So if you're thinking Apple wants to go into this market? It won't. And it won't let any other hardware maker to get into it because Apple likes to build Mac's themselves and get the profit, not other companies.

 

As for the growing market share of mac's, it's only returning to what it was 10 years ago. Mac's have always had a small market share. If you look at the world market share, it is 2-3% even though Apple ships millions of computers. It's still that small.

 

Also to answer the "paging problem" of br0adband, Installing your paging file in another partition speeds your system. When you specify no paging file and reboot, the paging file you see on your computer (pagefile.sys) can be deleted, so the system isn't using it. Having a contiguous paging file speeds your system. With a paging file of 2 GB, I don't have any memory troubles. Windoze poorly uses the system ressources, sometimes it looks like behaving randomly in optimizing your performances (ex.: slowing of your systems perf. over the time).

Personnaly, I always create a 2,2 MB partition for my paging file on the start of the disk, I format the drive and put the paging file (fixed to 2 GB) on a blank space (no fragmenting) and everything is smoother than before using this technique. I do the same with OS X (use Xupport 3.3, you can set the drive but you can't set the VM size, OS X will manage it alone) and it's perfect.

 

Nick

 

I think you mean a 2.2 GB partition for your paging file their And if it works for you, great. Go and use it. But I'll continue to use PC's because anyone can build a PC, whether that be an individual or a company that OEM's them. And that means competition and lower prices. The architecture is open, unlike with the Mac. Where now the only thing that is still closed is the equivalent to the bios on pc's. But soon enough, that which mac's use PC's will use too. We just take longer because of the legacy nature. But we do get their.

 

Sucks bottom line. . But really, it's a better OS than XP and maybe even the current version of OS X but when X.5 comes out Vista will be blown away. I think almost everyone here can agree on that.

 

Again, it's yours and a small but vocal group of people, known as apple fan boys, opinion that is all that your post indicates. Until it is out, then you can't say for certain whether it will be better then Vista. After it's out, then you can say how better it is all you want. Until then, don't assume just because it's made by Apple that it will beat Windows Vista.

[Nic Paillard]

Dear Pyrates,

 

I want to say that nothing in my post was a personnal quote to anybody, your post seem sometime the opposite with the occasionnal sarcasm style. Maybe I didn't read your post perfectly (I'm a french speaking guy) so don't get upset if it wasn't the case.

 

But to be simple, I was pointing that OS X was far more easy to use for anybody who don't know how to manage perfectly a computer (which I am not!). It is certain that my knowledge of the various Windoze app that can do the best to your computer is not the best knowledge, but with a 12+ years of MS use (and not intensive use) I came up with some tricks to avoid pitfalls of the MS computing. These tricks are not the best, I know it, but they seems to make my computer works.

 

But with a tiny 1 1/2 years of real mac use (owning one to be precise, using them at school long before) I found myself more at ease and more able to secure things in a minute.

 

About the "Conceptual" OS vs Legacy OS, I can point that OS X is platform independent, it's what I mean by "conceptual".

 

When I say that OS X is more stable, it's because I run the two OS, yes I have facts to support my claim. You could say that it's because my hardware don't support Win XP the right way, you may be right, be I'm equally right when I say that this doesn't happen often on OS X.

 

Even OS X is buggy at the release, but less that windoze, why, because of a tight control of the hardware, not because of a Apple Inc. kind of magic, everything is in planning. Being free to use every hardware component on Windoze is a freedom, but freedom has it's cost, problems in compatibility. It's not the fault of MS, it's only a fact. Saying that that africans are in general poorer than the average american is not stating the supremacy of the americans, it's just a fact.

 

Also, even if an install on win XP is all automated, you can't generaly install it without tampering with the registry, the foundation of your OS. It's like if every time I was to put a piece of furniture in my home, I had to change the basement to fit, ridiculous. In my exemple I was pointing out that even if a user uses a program, your OS is not compromised. If it has to touch to the foundations of OS X, admin privilege will be asked.

 

When you talk about iTunes and the mandatory reboot, it's an exemple of a less (or too tightly) integrated app. I don't like that either, but this is one exemple, there are other on OS X, but less than on MS.

 

Yes there are eye candy on OS, but they serve a purpose, or I like to believe it. On the MS line of product, the style is too and less epurated. Too, by this concrete like color everywhere, the squared buttons, the "legacy" hourglass, old style icons... In resumé, it looks dull.

Less epurated is when I think of all the functions displayed at the same time, or in too different places when it should be integrated in on place. Take the conf. panel, every icon is a different app. In each app, you can change a lot of things and sometime, it's rather obscure how you get to a specific control if you're not familiar with the control. On mac, it's far easier. But this is mostly a personnal point of view, so anybody can argue anything on that point, I shouldn't have written it in my first post.

 

When speaking of pop ups, you don't get my point, I'm saying that the default browser on Mac (Safari) is unable to change the OS by default. On MS, IE is a doorway to your system because it's easier for the user to add functions and app this way, but doing this, you loose the security. The average Joe will not look for Firefox, Opera or the like, he will use the default browser. So I think my point is still good, by default, OS X is safer for browsing.

 

As I said earlier, I'm not an intensive user, I would rather say an aware user, so I'm not flawless, and if my way to avoid pitfalls on MS (Norton and Zonealarm) doesn't seems adequate, there are a lot of people out there that are worse than me. So if MS can be safer than OS X in some way that you can imagine, the average Joe is not doing it that way. Then on the average, MS is less secure than OS X. It's my point, and only that.

 

About compatibility, if Linux is more compatible than OS X, then on that point, it's a better OS. Also, on that point OS X is better than MS Windoze. That point is not the overall general rating, it's only a point among others.

 

I'm not a Mac zealot, it's not my religion and Steve Jobs is not my God. I think that Mac are costly. I think Mac users are sometime arrogant, which is very disappointing. But Apple do good computers, they are reliable and beautiful. I have a G4 Lamp (1,600$ CAD) at the school (I'm a teacher and the admin bought me that computer ), it's beautiful, silent and efficient. Didn't crashed once! I have a PC at home, 1,200$ CAD in 2001, it's ugly, noisy and more that 1 time, I lost 10-15 minutes of text writing on Word because the app crashed (thanks to the automated save feature, they knew that it crashed often!). My games quit also very often (NWN, NWN2, others...)

 

Then I would say that i'm not a zealot, but a user, I look for the best OS for my need with the less effort on my part. If MS would do the best OS, I would say that it's the best OS and that OS X is less adequate. Because I'm a user, I don't take firm side, I point what looks like the winner to me, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure of my guess.

 

Also, note that I hope that both OS (and more) will get in the market with strong OS, competition is good and forces us to get better, it's the adaptation logic.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Nic Paillard

[wow]

XP is stable so long as you use certified drivers. If you buy some hongkong card what shappy drivers and do a force install then dont complain it become unstable. At work 2500 people we use only certified software and drivers and never a stabilty problem.

[Nic Paillard]

Wow, when I talked about my Hardware not following, it's because it's somewhat old, but it's quite standard (SIS chipset, P3, ATI 8500, Realtek nework...).

 

At work, that's sure that the systems are stable, there are sysop that designed the network, installed all the apps, check regulary for a good health of the systems. But at home, if you let your 8 years old kid mess up with IE, you may end up with some problems even with certified drivers. With my Mac, he doesn't create any problems.

 

Certification is a plus, that's sure, and as far as I know, Vista 64 will require Certified drivers everytime, maybe it's also the case with Vista 32. This would be a great step if the certification program is well done. If it's only a pay-and-get-certified program, I fear that some things not so good will come out of this. I'm saying that because MS changed it's certification politics, but I don't know how.

[pyrates]

Wow, when I talked about my Hardware not following, it's because it's somewhat old, but it's quite standard (SIS chipset, P3, ATI 8500, Realtek nework...).

 

At work, that's sure that the systems are stable, there are sysop that designed the network, installed all the apps, check regulary for a good health of the systems. But at home, if you let your 8 years old kid mess up with IE, you may end up with some problems even with certified drivers. With my Mac, he doesn't create any problems.

 

Certification is a plus, that's sure, and as far as I know, Vista 64 will require Certified drivers everytime, maybe it's also the case with Vista 32. This would be a great step if the certification program is well done. If it's only a pay-and-get-certified program, I fear that some things not so good will come out of this. I'm saying that because MS changed it's certification politics, but I don't know how.

 

Create a regular user account, not an admin account, for the kid to use and you should be just fine. There's no reason for him/her to have admin access.

[br0adband]

Wow... what a crock of {censored}. Where do I begin.

 

Nah, I won't go there. Besides, I don't have a ""paging problem"" (double quoted right back atcha); I'm well aware of Windows and how the entire virtual memory subsystem works, and the pagefile is just one component of the entire subsystem. Pagefile != the Virtual Memory subsystem, but I won't get into that again.

 

Suffice to say Windows knows best, and after almost 20 years of using Microsoft OSes, it's dawned on me that since our computers are still idle about 90% of the time or more - and running some damned idle process distributed computing software like Folding@Home or SETI@Home doesn't count here because I mean you sitting there actively using it - all that tweaking and dicking around with settings is a waste of time better served by using the computer instead of letting it idle.

 

You can eek a few percentage points out of the Virtual Memory subsystem if you follow a few specific guidelines and your hardware supports the necessary requirements. Aside from that, leave it alone.

 

That large ass post way up yonder reminds me of some of the ones that I've done around here before, but in the long run what jumped out at me was the sheer ignorance Nic perpetrated: he did that incredibly lengthy post about OSX 10.4 vs XP in a thread about Windows Vista and then has the nerve to say "I expect things to remain the same between 10.5 vs Vista."

 

I mean really, that's as reliable, informative, and substational as me saying "I expect Britney Spears makes a good lover because she's a female." There's nothing to base it on except the fact that she's a female, period. Same with the OSX vs XP comparison: I read most of it then just had to stop because it's rubbish, and if I was so inclined I could rebut pretty much everything said about both OSes, but again, I'm not going to get that involved.

 

It wasn't necessarily turning into a "which OS is best" thread until your megapost above. There is no "best" OS, period, at least not from personal perspectives. What works for you might cause me to puke my guts out all over your computer, who knows.

 

Besides, OSX is the OS it is because of BSD, not APPLE.

 

/me ducks...

 

bb

[br0adband]

Sucks bottom line. . But really, it's a better OS than XP and maybe even the current version of OS X but when X.5 comes out Vista will be blown away. I think almost everyone here can agree on that.

 

Uhmmm... no.

 

bb

[joe75]

There is no "best" OS, period

 

Besides, OSX is the OS it is because of BSD, not APPLE.

br0adband, you nail it every time, and Britney's a good lover because she wares no panties