|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Your reviews are the reason I rarely write (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
computer reviews even if given the opportunity:) You know what I mean. Sort of why people don't review their treadmills!
There's no way I or most people know systems the way you do. It's great to have someone around with your kind of knowledge. I'm reading your reviews. Thanks for all this info. Well done. jo
|
Apr 23 '06
4:34 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: I have two Macs and three PCs at home (Reply to this comment)
by brad
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, Sir.
You spoke of Windows 3.0 and then you referenced Windows NT.
Obviously, both are derived of different sources.
Windows 3.0 indeed, and Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, and ME all evolved from a jacket that was put on DOS. This is well known.
Windows NT was a collaboration. It has a much more stable core. I can speak in vague terms all I want, but the truth is that neither is as stable or secure as Mac OS X.
Your cited research doesn't seem to be applicable here.
It doesn't really matter who uses what. Use the lowest common denominator. That would be the Windows 95 interface. It still dominates all versions of Windows. If you take Windows 95 and compare it to the latest iteration of Windows, XP, you can obviously see that Microsoft has done little to improve the graphical user interface.
Which brings us to Mac OS X.
OS X takes many cues from Mac OS Classic, but adds tremendous functionality, just from the GUI. And to that, underneath, is a core that is far more stable and secure than Windows NT. And that's what Windows XP and Windows Vista is. It's Windows NT, service pack, what, 10?
Microsoft continues to build upon the NT technology, which was great in 1994, but is quite obviously obsolete as of now.
Sure, Windows XP/Vista funtions. But does it make you more productive, efficient, and as secure as OS X?
Surely not. If you think so, you have blinders on.
Further, Apple will continue to release revisions of OS X that will add more functionality to its GUI while maintaining the stability of its core.
Mac OS X is a better operating system, from practicaly all angles. If you can't see that, then I think you are biased.
I use Windows XP at work on a regular basis. And of course, I use OS X at home and for my professional needs aside from 9-5. I think a person like me has as much insight as anyone.
I have to say, Mac OS X is best for any end user. If it weren't for enterprise applications exclusive to Windows, OS X would gain a lot of market share in a short time.
As is, it will gain share gradually over time. And i predict, that OS X will eventually take the crown.
Predictions are cheap. But the build of OS X and how it got where it is, was not cheap.
In spirit, Brad.
|
Mar 11 '06
9:04 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: I have two Macs and three PCs at home (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
It [Windows] was a hodge-podge, thrown-together system when it came out 15 years ago and Vista will be built right on top of that.
I don't believe this is a well-informed statement. Windows 3.0, a 16-bit graphical shell for DOS that came out in 1991 or so shares very little in common with the fully 32-bit, multitasking, memory-protected, VMS derived NT and its successors. Until Mach-derived OS X was introduced, MAC OS lagged behind the contemporary Windows versions in terms of protection and security (it was just targeted by fewer attackers.)
Where I also disagree with you is the point about superiority of Windows GUI over Mac's. I am a Windows and X user myself, but the Macintosh interface was shown over and over to be easier to use for people who have not been accustomed to the Windows GUI conventions - you can google Joel Spolsky, Bruce Tognazzini etc. to see these studies.
|
Mar 06 '06
8:38 am PST
|
|
. (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
I agree. MS has the resources to create a completely new OS independent of an old kernel. In fact they have done so before in the past. It's called NT. It was completely independent of DOS, and was considered more robust back in those days.
Intel also have also taken the "new platform" road with their Itatium. Both NT and Itatium started out in the server roles. Even Intel stated that the P4 would have been their last x86 platform.
Microsoft does not have an excuse to NOT go a completely different route. In fact, they have a good reason to now - the MacOS is coming to town!
AMD forced Intel back into the x86 game. The MacOSX should get MS to start thinking differently (just like the Apple campains, ironically).
|
Mar 05 '06
11:42 pm PST
|
|
Re: I have two Macs and three PCs at home (Reply to this comment)
by brad
You make an excellent point about Microsoft's need to support legacy systems. It is very true, but at some point, MS will need to decide to send a couple of its coding armies to an isolated location and start a new operating system from scratch.
Everybody makes the point about MS's bloated code in Windows. They can't possibly know what's all in there. It was a hodge-podge, thrown-together system when it came out 15 years ago and Vista will be built right on top of that. They can patch and patch all they want, but it's easy to see the fundamental problem.
Eventually, MS has to bite the bullet and make some serious changes. This upgrade business plan they have going with Windows is eventually going to die, albeit very slowly.
Heck, it isn't going to take long and Linux will be leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. Relatively speaking - a couple-three years.
|
Feb 04 '06
3:09 pm PST
|
|
I have two Macs and three PCs at home (Reply to this comment)
by jordango
I am strongly in the Mac camp, however, the reason why Apple is so far ahead of Micorosoft in the OS wars is because Apple isn't as concerned with legacy systems as Microsoft is (95% market share makes one feel very responsible) AND because Apple tightly controls the hardware that runs its operating system since all Macs are made by Apple. It's easier to design an operating system that is forward looking and is written for your own computers. Microsoft has a MUCH bigger challenge. They could start from scratch and leave hundreds of millions of PCs behind, or they could continue to add to a system that is getting more unwieldy with every release. Since they choose the latter, they are stuck with an OS that takes years to improve and that is now several years behind OS X.
I only own PCs because there are lots of applications that run better on a PC than a Mac (Quicken, Office and several others). If I could, I'd only use Macs.
|
Feb 03 '06
9:30 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.