While most people bicker about which OS is best, the truth is much vaguer: what computer is sitting on your desk has more to do with your comfort level than intellectual choice.Everyone has a story. Mine goes something like this: in 1988, my sole computer experience revolved around DOS-based or other terminal-like environments, such as the popular WordPerfect for DOS. There, I was forced to learn key shortcuts that made the text different colours: red for italics, blue for bold, yellow for underline. Ctrl-F12. Ctrl-Alt-F13. Thank goodness for those paper templates that sat over the keyboard.
As a budding high-school writer, a computer was basically a glorified word processor to me, and there was no distincition between say, a TRS-80 (which I owned and tinkered with for a while), and a no-name dedicated word processing machine with a 5-inch amber monochrome display and built-in impact printer (which I also owned and used extensively). Except that the latter made a much better writing platform.
And then I met my first Mac: a Mac SE, the original-style beige box with the 9-inch, greyscale monitor. This was no text-only display. When I wrote, what I saw was what came out of a slick ImageWriter dot-matrix printer. This was a revelation, and let’s face it, I never looked back. Through Windows 95 and all its ilk, I was firmly in the Mac camp, and by God, there was no worse fate for me than having to use Windows. And let’s face it, in this world, I’m having to use Windows an awful lot.
You’ve got your own story for why you are using the computer you have today. If you’ve earned your geek credentials, chances are that story has a lot of meaning for you. And it was lately, while I was thinking of my story, that it occured to me: how much does my initial lasting impression mean for my computer choice?
Experiences such as my own have a way of hardening you against other platfoms. From my perspective, it was easy to heap scorn on DOS/Windows, and the very act of doing so deepens your resolve against the platform. When Windows 95 came along, it was interpreted as an attack on everything the Mac stood for. How could Microsoft’s supporters call the Mac a toy, and then rush to an OS that steals all its best ideas? Windows became the system I loved to hate.
These days, it seems even easier to mount an argument against Windows: although usability issues have been largely resolved, there is a financial and practical argument to be made: due to its smaller profile, the Mac is simply less expensive and less troublesome to operate.
Or is it? Like from the very beginning, am I just slamming the “other guy” because it’s not what I chose? Is my platform choice rational, or emotional?
Travel the forums on this and other sites, and you’ll think that computers are chosen for rational reasons alone. The Mac is the easiest to use, and the hardware is of the highest quality. Linux has fabulous geek appeal, and allows you to achieve spectacular productivity on the command line. Windows has every application you could possibly need.
But what if all the controversy, all the heated opinion, is all about comfort level? What if you don’t choose a computer based on having the best tool for the job? What if you choose it because there’s nothing more soothing than the pulsing flash of the cursor in a Bash shell; the counter-physiological mouse motion in the Windows Start menu (up-and-to-the-right); the everything-where-you-left-it layout of your Mac folders?
It becomes even more clear when you think about what you do with your computer. Set aside specific applications, and there is not a single thing you can do on one platform that can’t be done on any other. I say that from a high-level point of view: file management, word processing, Internet client tools… they’re all there.
Really, it’s all a matter of comfort, isn’t it? You chose Windows because By Gum, Windows Explorer just handles files more sensibly. What you really mean is, it handles files more easy for you.
So next time someone says “well my OS smells better than yours!”, remember, there are some cultures that find the smell of halitosis desireable.
Seriously.
I like the article, and I think there is a lot of truth to what you say, but I disagree. I have always had an attachement to trying different OS’s, but rarely a real attachment to any one OS until very recently. I have had triple and quadruple boot systems from time to time. Windows, a couple of linux distros, beos, maybe a second version of windows. It adds up. I find that there are SET pros and cons, not just what you are used to.
I’m now finally settling on something, and its OSX. The catch is the price for hardware. Its having my cake and eating it to. I have unix, but i can install Warcraft3 and Office and my multifunction without any real trouble.
I have used Mac’s before at school, but the way this sucker operates is DESPERATLY differnt from windows and GNU/Linux DE’s. The first thing is that its application based instead of window based. That was a huge change. alt-tab doesn’t go between ichat windows, it just goes from ichat to safari to word. and having to close apps through the menu, the red x just hides it. and the way the sys prefs panel works. its all so different. But I love it. It feels right.
So, I think you have a good idea, and one that is often true. But not a rule.
In my case, my first experience with a computer was with DOS, while the first GUI I used was System 7, much later. I must say that it was a huge step-up from the CLI for me, and windows 3.x which was out then seemed far pale in comparison.
When win 95 came out, I felt like they had shamelessly copied so much from system 7. Win95 was quite unstable, , however, with frequent crashes that needed a reboot, so it was not something I could tolerate using for a long time.
Having said all that however, when I was locked in to using Mac OS Classic 8.6 in my lab, I begin to loathe it. Crashes on that thing were about as frequent as those on Win98, and OS9 was not much better at it. Until OSX came to the rescue, there really was no way out of the mess.
Having used Windows NT, I had at least some idea that an OS could be less flaky than the one I was using. However, I feel like it had to do with the mere fact that I *had* to use it to control some of the instruments we were using, which caused greater stress than the OS itself.
Nowadays, its mostly XP for me, and I am somewhat satisfied with it’s stability. Sure, applications crash every now & then, but everything else keeps going, so I end up rebooting very infrequently. OSX is really nice, but since we have completely switched to PC-based hardware & controllers, there’s no justification for having a Mac in the lab any more.
In the end, I suppose forced use of any other environment than the one we are used to is going to evoke a strong sense of dislike for that environment. So I can completely empathize with the Mac user who is forced to use Windows at work.
While it is occasionally interesting to listen to geeks and their pontifications regarding platform/OS choice, in reality the vast majority of computer owners made their choice based on price.
For Mac OS X, it doesn’t matter what incremental style improvements Mac OS X offers — it is unaffordable by nearly 100% of the world. As everything and more that can be done on Mac can be done on Windows, most people go with Windows because it is often an order of magnitude cheaper. And that is not considering the vast Windows ecosystem which offers many benefits that are not available in the dinky Mac ecosystem.
For Linux, it doesn’t matter how flexible your system configuration is, how trustable your system is, or how much you can learn about computers using Linux — it is unusable by nearly 100% of the world. The fit and finish of Linux is just not there yet — and neither are the applications that many people need.
And that leaves us with the monopoly, Windows. Until Mac OS X is affordable or Linux is usable, there really is nothing for Microsoft to worry about. For the parts of the world that can afford Windows, Microsoft gets their billions. And for the rest of the world, Windows costs basically nothing due to rampant and quasi-legal counterfeiting/piracy.
Thus we see there really isn’t much choice today. The intersection of pricing models and usability models leaves only Windows as the practical and pragmatic choice for the bulk of people in the world.
“…in reality the vast majority of computer owners made their choice based on price…Until Mac OS X is affordable or Linux is usable, there really is nothing for Microsoft to worry about”
Umm if it is price, then where did linux usability come into it?
Or are you meaning that it is a cost/usability tradeoff?
Linux is cheap, but for alot of people unusable. OSX is really usable, but too pricey. And Windows is then the right fit, of usable, and cost effective.
Sounds like Microsoft has a monopoly because they deliver on what people want then, and the competition tries too hard.
The term “Good Enough Software” comes to mind.
As if comfort level and intellectual choice wouldn’t be thouroughly entangled…
…’thoroughly’ I mean.
b-slap-the-e, did you even read the article? You’re ‘100% this’ and ‘100% that’ BS is the type of subjective crap the article was trying to shine a light on.
“Linux is cheap, but for alot of people unusable. OSX is really usable, but too pricey. And Windows is then the right fit, of usable, and cost effective.”
License Windows XP familial edition: 288€
License MacosX Panther: 150€
I see that windows is the right fit and cheaper than macosx …
You’re forgetting that most people buy Windows as part of a system, which basically halves the cost for Windows, bringing it more in line with MacOS’s price. And don’t forget the vastly cheaper PC hardware – that makes all the difference for most people.
I don’t know what you’re all talking about but 95% of the people who use a computer have no choice. They buy a computer and it comes with Windows. So, that’s what they use. I’m already glad if I encounter someone who really knows what Linux is.
Cant speak for UK or USA residents, but outside of English world, Windows have no concurrents. Most “cheap” hardware what can run MacOS X, is about $2000. Cheapest hardware what can run Windows XP, is about $200. All what you can buy for $500 ($70 for OEM copy of Windows XP included, already in your language) is pretty good for anything but video editing and hardcore 3D-actions. “Free” Linux cn be a substitute sometimes, but it have many problems with hardware and multi-national documents, what makes it unusable as everyday work environement for non-geeks.
i think what it all boils down to is that most people are sheep and are incapable of making a choice on their own…you know, the kind that requires brain power. That said, most people stick with Windows because it seems the “safe” choice.
I’m not saying smart people always choose Linux, Mac OS or something else. Only that most people choose what most other people like them choose: Windows.
It seems more and more that OSs are like sports teams
“License Windows XP familial edition: 288€
License MacosX Panther: 150€
I see that windows is the right fit and cheaper than macosx …”
BS argumentatation. For one, Windows upgrades are cheaper than that price. And even that doesn’t matter as most people buy machines with preinstalled OS, which is where PCs are cheaper than Macs.
Or do you want to tell me that I can run OS X on existing PC hardware and it’s only those 150eur I have to pay? Get real.
element wrote:
“I don’t know what you’re all talking about but 95% of the people who use a computer have no choice. They buy a computer and it comes with Windows. So, that’s what they use. I’m already glad if I encounter someone who really knows what Linux is.”
The bottom line is probably that until PC’s showed up, nobody had dealt with the abstract concept of ‘software’ needed to run a device.
That means that PC are fundamentally different from other devices we knew until then.
I think this difference and how it’s shaped is the major hurdle for many average PC users, making them vulnerable to eat just anything and not look further than what comes with their PC.
They sure know about software applications and about downloading, installing and deleting them, but the idea that an OS is in fact software too, is too much.
The article was about choice, to which each person prefers
I would never of learned windows if it didn’t come with the machine. I would never of learned Linux without being forced to use Unix, and found many features that windows still doesn’t have. I would never of learned Mac OS if it wasn’t for a cool labby in College.
We fight for an Operating system that is just a small part of the overall computer.
The only place Linux loses is specailty apps(games, CAD, etc)
The only place windows loses is in choice. They lock you into their screwed up versions of Open Standards.
The only place Macs lose is in intial hardware costs. Though they last longer the price today is all anyone cares about.
It does show that for a lot of people money isn’t the most important reason for choosing an OS, many will stick with windows because they use it at work, some will use Linux because they are confortable with unix.
What OS is best for you does depend on how you like to work.
“Cant speak for UK or USA residents, but outside of English world, Windows have no concurrents. Most “cheap” hardware what can run MacOS X, is about $2000. Cheapest hardware what can run Windows XP, is about $200. ”
And as you say, the Mac hardware is pretty expensive. The used Macs at retrobox.com run $200 to $900 currently, and the used x86 are far cheaper. You can get a brand new linux Linare or Microtel x86 box for $199 these days. I believe the mac peripherals will generally be more expensive, at least that is my experience.
“License Windows XP familial edition: 288€
License MacosX Panther: 150€”
XP home oem can be $55 to $90. The XP pro is a little more. But you save tons buying oem or getting it bundled with a comp. I think MacOSX runs around $125.
License Windows XP familial edition: 288€
License MacosX Panther: 150€
As many people have pointed out, this argument is bogus in a number of ways.
Windows XP Home Edition runs around $200 (US) for the full version, which few people actually need (since you usually get Windows with a computer). Upgrades run $100, and OEM versions (which you get with hardware and are the same as the full version) are $50-70. For XP Pro you add ~$100 to each of those prices.
OS X Panther runs around $130, but you can find it for less (~$110). However, any time you buy OS X it’s an upgrade version, because you have to have Apple hardware to run it, and you can’t buy Apple hardware without whatever version of Mac OS they’re selling at the time.
In both cases the price of the OS is different based on how you get it. Consider this, though:
If you bought a computer with OS X and a computer with Windows XP at the time that XP was released, and have kept both up to date, you’ll have spent another $200-300 on OS X updates, because 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 each cost another $130 over 10.0, while XP updates have not been sold at retail so far, in ~2.5 years running (with a 2nd service pack on the way, which will also be available for download).
Personally, I started with a TI 99-4/A when I was fairly young, and used Apple II clones for most of my young life. The first GUI I used extensively was on the Apple IIgs, and when my parents finally got a 4×86 when I was a teenager, I rarely used it for anything but WordPerfect and Doom (the latter of which required a boot disk).
In the end, when it came down to buying myself a computer, it was primarily for games and work. I learned programming on Linux computers, so for work the OS didn’t really matter, but the games mostly required DOS or Win95. So, I started buying parts and, 6 months later, installed DOS and win95 on it after building the thing myself. While I’d like to try OS X, the fact that I can’t build the computer to my needs really stops me cold. When considering buying a computer as a whole, my budget decreases significantly simply because I no longer buy anything on credit. If I could manage to save my spending money for 6 months (much like I bought parts over 6 months for my first computer), I could easily afford a fairly high-end Mac, but saving money’s something I’ve always had problems managing
MacosX is free when you buy a new computer. After, when you see how windows XP deals with generic memory, i want to see your computer at 200$ run with it ;p
The topic of this article is the OS not the hardware, so compare WinXP with Panther without the hardware price. Panther is less expensive, and i can easily say that an emac is a good compromise against priceless PC.
About the price of mac, how do you want to do better hardware with custom hardware than ingeneers that work on a single machine for an homogene hardware?
The quality has a price, i work now on Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/MacosX computers, and nobody will put me back to windows
I find Mac OS X attracts the Unix programmer type.
The type of professional programmer who knows how to write quality software. The programmer, not too lazy to match Every IF with an Else and handle every possible exception condition.
I find that Windows attracts the lazy hack,
because they feel at home in the “piece of Junk” environment.
Programmer’s who write quality code bitch and complain about Windows apps from the Os, to the Office suite to .Net.
Time and time again,
the Microsoft programmer has taken the short cut, instead of doing the quality work.
Now, this may be because of a management dictate because writting and testing the exception conditions can add 90% more time to the “true” completion of a project.
Because, for every IF you need to ask yourself what about the ELSE condition, and this takes time and is tedious work.
I can give lots of examples,
but, just think of IE for example.
The only HTML parser that accepts badly written html.
What was the programmer thinking?
– There’s no end tag for this <table> tag.
– I can “fix” it for the developer, and that will take only 1 line of code,
– or I can raise an exception and explain to the developer that he’s made an error, easily 20 lines of code.
So, you get the short cut from Microsoft.
This is fine until you have to process HTML pages in an Intranet and find you have to either get web developers to fix their pages OR attempt to write into your program every Parsing Hack that Microsoft wrote. Lot’s of fun.
Take an Oracle JDeveloper example.
JDeveloper lets you know about every damn error you make in your Java code, make’s you feel stupid at first.
But, get the project done and you’ve got a rock solid Java app.
The professionals move off to Linux or OS X or Unix because that’s where the quality work is done.
But, that’s just my opinion.
Not to be too nitpicky…but the Mac SE did not have a grayscale screen. The pixels were either black OR white. There was nothing in between! All of the early all-in-one Macs had this same kind of screen (Plus, SE, SE/30, Classic).
My loyalty to any one OS goes only as far as the apps that it runs. I’ve been running Windows for about 11 years, but give me an OS with superior apps (at least the ones I use), and I will switch tomorrow.
Same with apps, really. Used to use Internet Explorer for years. One day I gave Phoenix 0.5 a try and never went back.
I’ve used Linux, Solaris, windows and MacOSX.
Windows 3.1 and 95 where expanding fast when I started working. I did support for a software company providing to the banking industry. I couldn’t believe how unreliable windows was at the time. We used solaris as well but only for certain applications.
Then I got to work on a Solaris (sunos at the time) only system. Then I couldn’t believe that SUN didn’t push it on the desktop and file servers ! We could be 4 on a box costing twice (sparc 20) the price of a PC and the thing would hardly slow down. But the desktop was inexistent. I learned a lot of Unix stuff at that time, wondering when SUN would make the CDE look half decent and usable.
Then I got a Redhat 6.1 CD and I installed it on the almost unused home PC. Linux even then had the momentum that I felt Solaris was missing. There was Gnome, and plenty of graphical applications, still anything I got used to do in Unix (that was unavailble on windows) was also there !
Everything worked (always been the case for me, maybe I am lucky) and not rebooting after every install or config change was what I felt was the normal way.
Then Mandrake 7.2 came along and there was no coming back. I now run Libranet.
I now own a Powerbook, and the confort zone thingy hit me : I like it, but I am used to work with KDE and a number of config files, rpm and deb packages and graphical set-up utilities and I feel a bit uneasy. It’s nice but I’ve come to consider Linux to be the OS for me. I guess 95% of PC users feel that way about Windows.
But we have to remember that most people don’t know that Windows is an OS and that it could be removed to run something else !
That is a really interesting statement. I own a Mac running OS X Panther. I paid $35 for the machine it is a Beige G3 MT, then I got a used 400mhz G4 upgrade for $50. After that I added a Radeon 7200 video card that I paid $30 for and a usb card for $19.It came with 384 Megs of RAM and I put a used 10 gig hard disk in it that I already had. I downloaded Xpostfacto and very easily installed OSX Panther. So I got a total hardware investment of about $135 and panther runs very well. So you need to revise that to the cheapest hardware you can run OSX on is $135 and Windows XP $200. Now Linux I can run on a $25 486.
i use suse linux personally. 2000 xp redhat for work. sometimes freebsd for fun.
i like os x but it just meet my need for living&work. reason: vmware and windows gaming
I think that bias definitely does come into play when evaluating OS choice. It seems to be more of a problem with those users of minority operating systems. Its as if they have to defend their choice because its a personal reflection upon themselves. Then again, there are many that choose an OS simply because few people use it. Mac users in general seem to be irrationally attatched to their choices and seem to argue longer than they probely should. I think the author’s example of the pc users that derided macs as toys before win 95, shows that many “fans” of operating systems are not experts and usually don’t know what they are talking about or what they really want. So use whats familar and more comfortable, but don’t be afraid of trying something new.
So you need to revise that to the cheapest hardware you can run OSX on is $135 and Windows XP $200. Now Linux I can run on a $25 486.
Well, they were talking about new hardware. Used macs might be easy to find in the US, but here in Sweden it’s a bit harder, especially at that price. It would be much easier to find a five year old x86 box to run Windows on and it would probably cost me about $50-100.
Most people just don’t have the time or knowledge to buy used computers/parts like that. Especially since new x86 boxes are as cheap as they are now.
The programmer, not too lazy to match Every IF with an Else and handle every possible exception condition.
Sometimes there’s just no need for a matching ‘else’. Or do you think that else {do nothing;} improves the quality of the app?
you know what is funny?
it is the windows users that seem to be the ones who start the arguments. they enter a thread about mac, and begin to bash comments about how a person likes the mac and why.
then the battles start.
if you go into any mac article, there is always a flame war about it and it is always started by a windows or Linux user who decided to bash the mac platform.
if you go into the windows boards and stories, you almost NEVER see a flame ware over platform choice. and in the Linux forums, I would say that the only people that flame in there are the super trolls who know nothing about computers in the first place and think Linux is going to turn the world communist.
so, how about, Bill, you and your friends stop sticking your nose in a mac forum and antagonizing the posters? To me, it seems that the only reason some one would do such an activity in the first place is to validate their choice or non choice to run windows or linux, which, in my opinion, is extremely irrational.
basically it comes down to maturity. most mac users do not bother the users of other platforms, but many of the users of another platform bother mac users.
MacosX is free when you buy a new computer. After, when you see how windows XP deals with generic memory, i want to see your computer at 200$ run with it ;p
Neither Mac OS X nor Windows is free when you buy a computer, the price is simply hidden from you. As for how Windows XP deals with generic memory, I’ve never run anything buy generic RAM in a system, and XP is rock-solid on my home computer, but then I’m not claiming to run $200 PCs (even generic RAM can cost $200 a stick).
The topic of this article is the OS not the hardware, so compare WinXP with Panther without the hardware price. Panther is less expensive, and i can easily say that an emac is a good compromise against priceless PC.
I already did that, pointing out that if you bought an OS X machine and a Windows XP machine at the same time, you’d have to have paid at least $200 to keep OS X up to date, and nothing to keep XP up to date. On the other hand, if you bought a Windows PC and an OS X PC at the time that OS X was released, you would’ve had to buy the Windows XP upgrade for $50-200 (depending on version and whether or not you went with the OEM deals), and 3 OS X ugrades at $100-120 a piece ($300-360 total).
About the price of mac, how do you want to do better hardware with custom hardware than ingeneers that work on a single machine for an homogene hardware?
The homogenous hardware advantage coming from Mac engineers has to do with the limitation of the hardware supported by the OS. It’s perfectly possible, if the parts were made available, to build a computer to spec that is just as good, for my needs, and still fully up to the standards of a Mac bought off the shelf. I absolutely do not buy inferior parts for my PCs (in fact, I’d say that the average off-the-shelf PC has inferior parts to what sits in my office at home), and I would not do so for a Mac. Unfortunately, not all of the parts required to get a Mac up and running are available seperately. The primary point is that a Mac comes with a great deal of hardware, which I have to pay for, which I will never use. The OS is tied to the hardware, and the hardware is my primary barrier to using the OS.
The quality has a price, i work now on Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/MacosX computers, and nobody will put me back to windows
That’s fine with me. I can run 3 out of 4 of those systems perfectly fine on the boxes I own that run Windows, and have (or do) at several points in time. As I said before, I run Windows for games and the occasional items at work or school that require a Windows-based application. My primary interest in OS X comes from what I’ve heard of it’s programming environment, though I’m slightly disheartened at the limitations on the languages available for working with Cocoa (still, Objective C as available on OS X gives basically full access to C and C++, with possibly some hoops to jump through when calling Cocoa APIs). Certainly no modern well-known platform really stops me from doing anything in particular on my systems.
“The homogenous hardware advantage coming from Mac engineers has to do with the limitation of the hardware supported by the OS”
I think they build the OS for the hardware they choose, so no problem for that
“you’d have to have paid at least $200 to keep OS X up to date, and nothing to keep XP up to date.”
I have nothing to pay for keep OS X up to date, because 10.2 and 10.3 or not the same version of OS X. There is always new update for 10.2 and they are free as for 10.3.
When you pay for OS X, you pay for the new features that come with, you are not oblige to pay. The difference is that microsoft make update for delete the mistakes they do on windows, and Apple make update to improve the operating system (and you pay for).
The difference is that microsoft make update for delete the mistakes they do on windows, and Apple make update to improve the operating system (and you pay for).
So in other words. MacOSX is bugfree.
right…
Most users have ended up using windows for the simple fact that they use it at the office every day. The average user never considers an alternative – this is what I have at work so at home I have the same thing. Nothing new to learn, no compatablity problems, etc. Thats why I think Apple should have a some sort of corporate strategy. The few people I know that have Macs at the office (graphic artists and a lawyer) also have Macs at home…
what about amiga?????? it was the best os for me at the time but it faded away for so many reasons. i think it was years ahead of the competition.
but now I like OS X and Linux. Linux is powerful but OS X is more simple to use, I guess.
i want to see Amiga back again someday.
– 2501
i want to see Amiga back again someday.
Well I gave up on that idea in the mid 90’s and started using a BeOS instead. BeOS feels in many ways similar to AmigaOS, but it’s a bit more modern.
Whenever I feel nostalgic I fire up Amithlon though
It would seem to me that the vast majority of the posters here are either on MS’s payroll or very uncomfortable with any non-MS OS. I can understand why many “IT Professionals” choose MS-Windows, because it takes very little skill to administer and at times it is cheaper than other commercial offerings. But come on lets face it all Operating Systems, be it AmigaOS or Xenix, have their strenghts and weaknesses. In the end it comes down to what you, or your employer, is most comfortable with.
By the way the GNU/Linux usability crap is really a not that valid, my older sister and two younger brothers use GNU/Linux without much hassle. My older sister is a Psychology major and my two younger brothers are in grade school. GNU/Linux isn’t Windows/Mac OS like any other OS it just takes some time to get a hang off.
Just some thoughts. Oh and as the plate right behind me says “UNIX Live free or die.”
I’m sick of the entire notion that computers should be 100% always totally at every second as cheap as humanly possible.
No one complains that a Lexus or Audi or Acura is more expensive than a Toyota/Volkswagen/Honda.
If a windows-running PC can be had for 300 dollars, then whoever needs a computer costing 300 dollars will end up buying that computer. If I need *a* car, and I have little money, I will buy a Saturn or a small Toyota. Whoever wants a computer costing about 2000 dollars (for, say, a desktop system that is Current, not no longer ‘made’ by the company) can buy a PC or a Macintosh and will get surprisingly equal capability and hardware.
If I want a small, compact business-class laptop I could buy a 12″ powerbook or a Dell Latitude D600. If you set them up equivalently (sans CPU speed, which is hard to compare cross-platform), you’ll see that surprisingly there’s little to no price difference. Yes, Dell sells sub-900 dollar laptops. So, using that logic, why does anyone spend 2,000 dollars on a D600? They should all buy the cheapest ones and laugh at Apple for selling more expensive hardware. If someone laughed at me for buying a more expensive car when I could have bought an Echo, I’d smack them upside the head. This whole debate is the Ford vs GM vs Chrysler vs Foreign car battle that US carowners are probably familiar with.
Why do people find it so fun to scream about how evil Company A is for not making the ‘uber cheap super tiny little HTPC thing that runs Leeeeenux!’ that they want? Everything is good at certain things and bad at other things. I personally like Apple and the Macintosh platform. I’ve been growing to like it more and more and more, but right now I’m using a PC at work.
i agree with the article, it’s not rational it’s all about feeling.
I’ve been a dos user first, then started using windows from 95 to win2000 then started playing with linux and settled on both Gentoo and Debian.
I’ve just bought an iBook because the hardware is cool and i thought os x was the best os, well after a week i’m installing Gentoo ppc on this beast because os feels “bad” to me since it hides too many parts of the system from me, the only thing i really like is the way apps are handled on the mac, averything sits in it’s folder, i don’t know how it works but i think that thei are statically linked right? (in fact an irc client is about 3Mb…)
I’m running OS X 10.2.8, and nobody has forced me to “UPDATE”.
Windows and Mac are two different camps with two different meanings for the word”UPDATE”.
I update my OS all the time, but I don’t need to buy a new OS.
I ran OS 8.6 for 5 years. I spent Zero on “UPDATES”.
OS 9 had come and gone, and OS X was out for a while before I decided to “UPDATE” my computer and OS.
I started w/ a teletype machine connected to a PDP-11, went from there to punchcards on a mainframe, then Apple II in the late 70’s.
I looked into DOS when it came out and concluded it was too expensive (IBM PC), no more powerful (despite 4.77 X the clock speed!) and really had nothing extra to offer. Windows 3.1 was even worse than DOS when stability was considered. I ran the other way.
I went Mac in ’86 and stayed with it. I’ve tried Windows / Linux / Be, etc, and never found a combination that did everything I needed to do as well.
Mac’s do cost a bit more (mainly because it’s a smaller market and you can’t buy stripped down junk), but it’s paid for itself a hundred times over. I’ve written a LOT of Windows software, and I firmly believe that the Windows UI slows me down more than any CPU can compensate. Windows is a job, Mac is fun; Windows is cooking over a smoky campfire (admittedly fun once in a while), Mac is a Jenn Aire.
Thanks for the great link at the end of the article, very interesting read 🙂
I find Mac OS X attracts the Unix programmer type. The type of professional programmer who knows how to write quality software
I wouldn’t exactly call Unix a bastion of quality software. A lot of people have this misconception that Unix is some sort of be-all height of computing. It is not! If your software was so high quality, why do you need memory protection?! Why does X run SO SLOWLY? </flame>
Heheh.
I can give lots of examples, but, just think of IE for example. The only HTML parser that accepts badly written html.
I think nearly all browsers accept broken HTML. If they didn’t, then a lot of web-pages would simply not work.
Heck I’ll give my story. Started with Acorn Electron with BASIC in ROM, waiting for cassette tapes most of the time. Used RISC OS 3 at school, very nice, NEVER CRASHED ONCE, for me at least. Good software. Very snappy. Cute file manager. But it is not practical these days.
Then DOS, soonafter Win 3.1, 95, 98, Me, XP… XP is good enough for me. Stable. All the software I need. Games! A bit slow, but it can be lived with. Most open-source stuff I use has a Windows port.
And well, I’m using Linux at this moment. I could give you an uninteresting history of that too, but it would sound like so many of those boring reviews. Works for me, most of the time. Rock solid 🙂
And well, I work a bit on my own standalone Forth system. I would like to run entirely from within my own system eventually, get away from all these silly operating systems; not yet though. It is hard to get to a level of usefulness. My only driver is for the PS/2 keyboard. I want to write a Lisp on top of it. And an RDBMS, with which I will index my picture and music collection. Out of my league at the moment; eventually…
There are lots of good ideas from the past that are ignored; I don’t intend mucking about in Windows, Linux or Mac OS with PC hardware ten years from now. Well maybe Linux, if it keeps advancing and changing. Look for the next direction. Hopefully there will be better choices that fit our future needs than one-size-fits-all operating systems.
For example a personal server would be a nice system to have. Plug it in, and it works. You could query its database and it would send you stuff very fast over Gigabit Ethernet. It would be dedicated to that only, with a special purpose software, and special features for easy backing up, mirroring. But the CPU would probably be quite slow.
Then you would simplify your other computers, because they do not have to manage discs. This may sound like a classic client/server system, but the difference is there aren’t any general purpose OSs. Your data server has no Unix-style processes, and is interrupt/DMA driven. It does not need memory protection, because it only runs one program that fits in a ROM chip. It does not need PCI, keyboard, VGA, etc, just Ethernet and IDE on-chip. Maybe RS232 for local administration. Very simple.
The homogenous hardware advantage coming from Mac engineers has to do with the limitation of the hardware supported by the OS”
I think they build the OS for the hardware they choose, so no problem for that
Yeah, that’s one way to put it. The point, though, was that even if I were able to build my own OS X box, I’d be working under the same limitations the engineers at Apple are working under. When I talk about wanting to build my own computer, I’m not talking about wanting to use cheap hardware, I’m simply talking about wanting to choose the hardware in the system. I don’t need a wide variety of choices when I know the OS has specific hardware limitations (I wouldn’t build a machine for Linux or FreeBSD the same as a machine for WindowsXP any more than I would use the same machine for Windows XP that was built for Windows 95), it’s simply a matter of being able to make some choices without having certain hardware forced on me, even if some of that hardware is relatively low cost (ie keyboard, mouse, dial-up modem, etc).
I have nothing to pay for keep OS X up to date, because 10.2 and 10.3 or not the same version of OS X. There is always new update for 10.2 and they are free as for 10.3.
10.3 fixed problems in 10.2 that were not patched in 10.2. At best, problems in 10.2 were fixed after people complained that they would have to pay for 10.3 to get those fixes. The majority of 10.3 is not new features, but rather bug fixes.
When you pay for OS X, you pay for the new features that come with, you are not oblige to pay. The difference is that microsoft make update for delete the mistakes they do on windows, and Apple make update to improve the operating system (and you pay for).
Of course you are not obliged to pay, just as you are not obliged to pay for Windows. There are plenty of people running Windows 98 (and probably Windows 95), just as I am running Windows 2000 at work. The question, though, is how many bug fixes you won’t be getting, and when they’ll stop providing any fixes. Additionally, there are changes in 10.3 that mean that new software will be produced (or already has been) which will not run on earlier versions of OS X.
In any case, I also provided the upgrade path on Windows from the time of the OS X release, as Windows 2000 and Windows XP still have the same major version number (5.0 and 5.1) as well, and did have an upgrade cost ($50-200, depending on version and method of purchase). No one is ever forced to upgrade, I was simply providing the data for those that do upgrade.
You got ebay don’t you? Thats where I got everything. I wanted to learn OSX and didn’t want to spend a lot to get my feet wet.
Speaking of subjectivity I don’t think that any one person’s idea of how what criteria people use to select their computer can be applied to everyone. We all have our own unique individual style, preference and grounds upon which we choose a system. I don’t think you can exchange the criteria given in this article for other criteria such as a price basis and really expect to be saying anything different. The truth is that everyone’s choices are different and entirely individual based on their circumstances, beliefs, ideals, and many factors that we just don’t know about. We can’t just make a sweeping statement that everyone is in it for the same reasons, or even objectify that everyone is or isn’t in it for the same reasons. Some people are in it for the same reason, while some people aren’t. There is no hard and fast rule.
I think that subjectivity in computing really is an area that has not been looked at ANYWHERE NEAR enough. In my opinion, every person is subjective, and objectivity is just the illusion of two subjective people agreeing to the same subjective viewpoint. In my book, objectivity is the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately in more computer software and platforms this is not taken into account since people are in love with the idea of an objective world view. In my opinion we are all completely unique and there are no two people completely alike, not even if they were cloned. Catering to the subjectivity of the user is a very big area for growth in the future of computing.
“When you pay for OS X, you pay for the new features that come with, you are not oblige to pay. The difference is that microsoft make update for delete the mistakes they do on windows, and Apple make update to improve the operating system (and you pay for). ”
I like Mac, but I think you may find that argument failing. Yes, Microsoft has some disgusting tactics to force you to upgrade your OS (like cutting support for it, or changing the API’s around to make sure apps aren’t developed for it, or not updating it to work with new hardware), but that seems to be standard practice. Can you install System 8 on a new Dual G5? I doubt Apple has released drivers for that, although if they have please do tell me. Apple is gonna push for you to upgrade eventually too, but you may also consider that Mac OS X is cheaper than Windows XP (Windows XP Professional upgrade $197, $137 for full OEM on sale at Newegg; OS X 10.3 retail is $115 on newegg).
I agree with the author on this. Although I think the author has forgotten a key aspect of comfort. A lot of it is social. Many people buy a Windows computer because their friends use Windows; so they feel comfortable following their friends. On the same right, you see a large group of English teachers in colleges, and teachers in general, who will use Apple no matter where Apple is at. They use it because their friends use Apple; and they know Mac Applications. You will see Geeks lean towards Linux/BSD because, for one it’s free and what self respecting geek pays for what he can build himself, and another reason is because the geeks friends use linux/BSD.
I was a long time Windows user and my reason for switching was eye candy. I didn’t want to pay for Windows eye candy, and Linux had free eye candy. After switching I discovered other things: tons of development tools, better work environments, greater kernel stability/less interference with my applications. So, I kept with it. I like with hardware support being less than perfect because this whole Linux thing just rocks, especially watching applications mature at levels you don’t get to see in proprietary software.
I would reccommend Linux to people who don’t know a computer well too though. And the main reason is the slow down I see in Windows over time. It still happens in Windows XP. And the other reason I would recommend it is that I find issues easier to debug in Linux (because their is more error output AFAIK).
Peragrin,
RE:”The only place Linux loses is specailty apps(games, CAD, etc)”
I use commercial distros SuSE and Redhat for freelancing at home and at work. There are apps such as Maya Unlimited, Shake and Smoke among many other professional apps ported to Linux. There are also lots of apps ported to Linux that are Open Source such as Jashaka, Cinelerra and even CAD programs ( http://www.freshmeat.net/ ). As for games I’ve never experienced any issues running games like Splinter Cell or Need for Speed using WineX on SuSE.
RE:”The only place windows loses is in choice. They lock you into their screwed up versions of Open Standards.”
I think there is choice when it comes to using Windows and reason why Microsoft has maintained such a grip on the market share. Most software and hardware companies make their first port to Windows and second to other OS. I think Apple is more the one to lock a consumer in since OSX Panther can only run on their hardware, not on Intel or AMD 32/64-bit procs.
RE:”The only place Macs lose is in intial hardware costs. Though they last longer the price today is all anyone cares about.”
Well not only do they lose with locking you in to their specific hardware as I mentioned before but you are also limited on certain software. Such as a lot of professional software used in the film industry is not yet available on OSX. Those are two of the key reasons why I haven’t switched to Apple and why I don’t think it’s used in a lot of production studios.
As for cost Apple has lowered their prices trying to compete with other companies but I still find them expensive for what is offered. Their 17″ laptop for example is more costly than what can be found on the market with Windows or Linux installed. There is also still no professional graphics cards offered on either their G5 or 17″ laptop which are available for Windows and Linux systems.
Most people want a smooth transition to using computers no matter what platform. Offering a wide variety of applications and hardware, while being easy to use, stable and secure. Really it all depends on what you need and want the computer to be capable of doing. Myself I prefer SuSE Linux since it offers the stability and security of Linux while running my apps in a friendly GUI. The Terminal (Command Window) is a power tool if I need it but I’ve found certain Linux distros actually getting better at doing things with out it. Linux may not suit everyone but it works great for me.
You got ebay don’t you?
Although there’s a swedish ebay no-one here is using it. But there are other popular auction sites. I did a search for G3 and only one ad came up, for a G3 iBook.
You know, there’s a lot less people here than in the US, the mac market is also smaller. So getting used macs at a decent price is rather difficult.
Most people on US ebay will not ship over sea, and even if they do the shipping would be pretty expensive.
Finding old fairly rare computers here is pretty much impossible. But if I search ebay I find a lot of them… in the US. I’m almost thinking about moving there for a year or so just to collect a lot of stuff
How very perceptive of you. As with most things in life, most people do, or don’t do, things based on familiarity, not on what is actually best. Congratulations on figuring this out. Most people never do.
I think people just get too attached to their chosen hardware. It would be better if we could be hardware agnostic. I don’t care if I’m using sparc, x86, ppc, whatever. In fact the more exposure I have to different things, the more it helps my career (CEng).
I have used x86 for years, recently got myself a powerbook at home. I get grief from people that have no right telling me that my computer sucks because its a mac. Don’t you think that someone that studies and works in computers would have at least a half decect idea as to what is good hardware/software? I like my computer, I can get my work done quickly and easily.
You know, I liked XP mostly. It had some things I didn’t like. I like OS X, it has some things I don’t like. I like many of the Linux distros, with kde and gnome. There are some things I don’t like., They’re all different, they all have different strengths and weaknesses. No one is inherently better than the other, they all get the job done.
As for price, yes, Apple’s are more expensive, but in many cases, it’s not a huge different. Assuming totally legit user purchasing all their software, I quickly compared low end dells with Apple computers, and gave them equivalent hardware and software (of course not comparing processors).
eMac: $1049, Dell Dimension 2400 w/ flat 17″ CRT: $872.
iMac: $1749, Dell Dimension 2400 w/ 15″ LCD: $1161.
14″ iBook: $1699, Dell Inspiron 1150: $1250.
Note that the dells all had shared memory. They all include an OS (add $150 to the PCs if you want XP Professional). All prices are CDN.
The iMac has the largest difference, but you can blame that on the design of it I imagine
But basically, not a huge different, and I would say you’re getting better low end mac hardware than low end pc hardware.
It’s not cheaper if you pirate your software though. The lack of hardware choices can be annoying, yes.
No platform is perfect, and use is largely dicated by personal preferences rather. I don’t play games, I don’t miss quake on the PC. I like having unix to do stuff in, but I like not having to configure every little thing to get my hardware working. This suits me.
Just quit telling people what they should use. You don’t like Mac for the hardware choice, hardware itself, the operating system or higher initial cost, find, that’s great. Same for Linux and Windows. Why does everyone have to be a platform evangelist?!
Just wanted to throw out the possibility that one just might choose their platform on principle–the principle of Freedom. That’s what GNU/Linux and many Open Source projects are about. So, my software does “smell better”, doesn’t it?
“So in other words. MacOSX is bugfree.
right…”
no but macosX patch are free as under windows, it is just what a say, and when you paid for panther 10.3, you paid for new features, not for security fix
>Just some thoughts. Oh and as the plate right behind me says “UNIX Live >free or die.”
Right, it is for this, that MacOS X is free (OpenDarwin)…
I started using Linux cause I bought this “hip pocket guide to Unix” when I wanted to learn how to crack. Then I realized I’d need a shell or my own little *nix box. So I converted my 486 into a linux system — after I matured I realized how powerful it was. My 486 was my server (Web, SSH, SMTP, NFS, POP3, FTP, you name it I had it) up until about 8 months ago.
In terms of desktop usage, I quickly came to realize that Linux fit me there aswell. I have Windows installed for select few games and boot it maybe once eveyr two or three months (I’m not a big game). The reason I use Linux, I’ve only recently realized, is because of it’s open nature. I’m aware there are other open OSs, but Linux is what I started with and what I’m most familiar with in terms of them. The minute I boot Windows or even use OS X on my brother’s Mac I feel like I’m completely isolated in what I can do. OS X of course is a bit better than windows — but they’ve broken a lot of legacy stuff. The filesystem hierarchy differs to a point where I’m not even sure compiling software with –prefix=/usr will make it fall in my path. On the windows side… well… I guess I just don’t know what to do with windows. I tend to dislike most if not all software for it (except OSS counterparts ported to it) — this includes commercial software by the way. It just all feels way too overdone. Linux has offered me simplicity, configurability, and general openness.
simplicity and configurability are not mutually exclusive.
you are either very simple or very configurable, not very simple and very configurable.
those are extremes, and windows and OS X fall in the middle some where.
Linux for simple stuff like WP, and internet activity is kinda simple and not super configurable.
hardware support of consumer devices is very configurable and not simple.
” The minute I boot Windows or even use OS X on my brother’s Mac I feel like I’m completely isolated in what I can do. OS X of course is a bit better than windows — but they’ve broken a lot of legacy stuff. The filesystem hierarchy differs to a point where I’m not even sure compiling software with –prefix=/usr will make it fall in my path. On the windows side… well… I guess I just don’t know what to do with windows. I tend to dislike most if not all software for it (except OSS counterparts ported to it) — this includes commercial software by the way. It just all feels way too overdone. Linux has offered me simplicity, configurability, and general openness.”
I have macosX and i compile every software on macosx with source that come from linux. The filesystem hierarchy isn’t different of other unix, they add their directory and when you know them, it is like another unix.
I do not know if anyone noticed this, but if you guys run your mouse over the word “productivity” in the article on the following sentence, you will see an advertisement for MS Office…
“Linux has fabulous geek appeal, and allows you to achieve spectacular productivity on the command line”
I fisrt got into computers when I was about 5 or 6. I mosty used DOS and eventually Win3.1 and since then I’ve used every version of Windows except 2k3. I also started playing with Linux a lot around the RedHat5 time period. Then I feel in love with OS X. It was perfect. I mean I could run Linux apps with Fink and Windows apps that I needed under Virtual PC. On top of that I got all the great programs that Apple had.
Really I see no reason to use another OS, everything can be done on my Mac. I don’t really play games, I have consoles for that so everything I could ever want runs on my computer. At this point I hardly ever use Virtual PC anymore because there is usually a native OS X app that does the job.
PS about the cost of OS X, don’t forget all the development tools that Apple throws in at no extra cost, I’ve never seen MS do that.
You do know that GNU/Linux does not support UFS, by default. You’ll have to recompile your kernel if you wish to mount UFS partions. If I remember correctly FreeBSD supports EXT2/3 partitions, I could be wrong there though.
“You do know that GNU/Linux does not support UFS, by default. You’ll have to recompile your kernel if you wish to mount UFS partions. If I remember correctly FreeBSD supports EXT2/3 partitions, I could be wrong there though.”
Yeah I’m pretty sure FBSD can mount ext2 and 3. But the other way around might be difficult. I didn’t see UFS support last time I recompiled 2.4 or 2.6.
It’s easiest just to have a FAT partition for file sharing.
“It would seem to me that the vast majority of the posters here are either on MS’s payroll or very uncomfortable with any non-MS OS.”
No, most may just have a sense of economics. Why blow loads of money on a Mac as an office machine when a cheap Celeron running Windows does the job? And in case you are not aware of it, that is the main use of computers around the world today. Just as MS Office is the standard with MS not going away anytime soon unlike your XY-Linux-Distributor. I saw far too many of them fold over the years. No company in it’s right mind would bet their money and well being on service contracts with companies who might not be around anymore two years from now.
Face the facts, on the large scale either OS X or Linux make sense. I’m running FreeBSD here by the way, just to short stop any rabid “MS lover” replies.
Face the facts, on the large scale either OS X or Linux make sense.
s/either/neither
I’ve tried countelss different OSs, and I honestly have to say that I find modern Macs to be the best. They have an open source core, a complete library of BSD, GNU and Unix software, can run damned near every Mac application ever written, have a large number of popular commercial programs for almost any purpose imaginable (Microsoft Office, Windows Media Player, several very handy bioinformatics packages etc.).
It’s stable, it’s secure, and it’s also a nice, simple system to learn how to use, that comes complete with all the power of a Unix-like operating system for those who want or need it. It’s updated frequently, with no more pressure to upgrade than any other commercial OS, and tends to have cool new abilities before they are widely adopted by other software producers.
My next few computers will most definately be Macs, and I fully recomend it to nearly everybody I know when they go looking for new computers as I’ve found so few needs that can’t be met by Apple.
Uhm. The Linux kernel has had UFSv1 read support for ages. I don’t know about UFSv2 though. The Linux kernel also has write support, but it is flagged “DANGEROUS” and test by me from a few years ago indeed had to agree on that: the data got fucked after some while of usage. Luckily, it was just a test.
You might have to load ufs.o in your kernel as module, which is something different than recompiling the kernel. FreeBSD also has kernel module support. Btw, if some distribution doesn’t allow these functionalities either by giving a module or putting it in the kernel (i prefer module) i think that’s a Bad Move. Debian GNU/Linux (Woody, Sarge, Sid, etc; Linux kernel 2.6 can do this even better) for example gives you a small kernel, with as much as possible as modules.
I think the point was that there is no real read, write support for UFS (of any kind) under Linux, whereas under every BSD there is full read, write support for ext2/3.
BTW, ext2/3 support is loaded as a module by default by the BSDs in order to prevent tainting their kernels (the ext2/3 code is GPL’ed after all).
Look up a few posts to the argument about UFS support on linux. ^^^^^
Both linux and BSD have pros and cons, I’m really sick of hearing from BSD users that they use THE PERFECT OS and that Linux is just a silly toy for script kiddies. I’ve used both, I like both and I’m really tired of hearing about every single deficiency of Linux. If I thought it was perfect I’d know to stay away from it since I KNOW nothing is perfect. A group of people get to together and devote millions of man hours freely and produce something quick and stable that has pretty wide support for things. And people turn around and slam it in their face over every deficiency.
Does Windows have UFS support?! Did Microsoft write it? If they do that’s pretty cool
.
Is there a good reason why Linux *NEEDS* UFS support? Is it so you can plug in Knoppix to fix your BSD install when you mess it up to where it can’t boot?
If you ever say.. “this _____ OS is the best” you are full of shit. Really because there is no ultimate OS, if there was.. there would be no OS development. It is even difficult to say that one OS is better than another. You have to weigh the pros and cons of each and choose what you like. I’m sure if you use linux there is a good reason you chose it, it looks good, its comfortable, you feel it. If you chose *BSD then it is the same thing. I personally tried BSD after linux and it was hard for me to adjust because there were just certain things that I was used to, but given enough time I(and you) can adjust to any OS.
Windows is really a special case. It was in there at a very good time when PC sales were beginning to boom. It is almost hypnotic in a way, because you see things from the MS viewpoint and so your definition of what an os should do and the type of services it could offer are defined and redefining them by changing to another OS is wierd. Windows has always been a mac ripoff so this all applies to mac os.
I would like to see wide Linux distribution and adoption, but I really don’t think it will happen unless linux gets friendlier.. sorry to say.. since we are later in the market after everybody has gotten used to Windowses and OSXs et al i think it would be dumb to try to force on the public what we have now.. you have to dumb it down and provide a very easy to use interface.. everything must be graphical and easy to use.. this is already in the process(i’m working on it as well).
“I think the point was that there is no real read, write support for UFS (of any kind) under Linux, whereas under every BSD there is full read, write support for ext2/3.”
That’s true. And given Windows also supports Ext2/3FS read/write it is one of the best supported filesystems, much like FAT32 is (3 has journaling in contrast to FAT32). Perfect to host MP3 on in combination with a multiboot system.
Here are my two cents about this interesting subject.
For over 17 years I’m in computers; 7 years as my professional R&D job full-time. I’ve been on OS/2, Windows and for more then a year’n’half on Redhat Linux. My job is to code module, softwars and stuff very complicated; debugging, coding, learning you know it’s headache-enough 40 hours a week.
I always been a pc/windows/dos user at home; from dos 5.1 to windows xp pro. And the first thing I don’t wanna know is to push in the back of my OS at home.
We are all here to argue for a reason; and it is that if Microsoft had done the job right from the beginning nobody would be there. No Apple, No Linux no nothing. Because there is unsatisfied windows users, other OS have a chance to grow.
If windows was perfect… ah! Try to imagine the perfect windows xp (no bugs, fast&quick, virus proof, the dream thing you know). Why go Mac, why go Linux, why go QNX or whatever else? Voila it’s not the case you’ll say.
If we all take a look at ms windows for the rought last 10 years. The story seems to repeat itself and let’s face it.
cause after all, it concerns all the windows users; gamers, programmers or even dummy.
Microsoft and IBM work together on a UI OS
They split-> OS/2 is born and windows 1.0 too
win 3.1 -> boaf unstable remember trumpet winsock horrors
win95 -> UI upgraded but still buggy
win nt 4.0 -> 6 criticals fixpacks later
win 98 -> a very popular version zillions of updates
win me _> this wasn’t a good version; almost unknown
win 2000 -> ok now you are talking a bit more seriously
win xp ->better UI and the more stable of them 3 fixpacks 23 critical updates
win 2003 -> dont know this one yet
You see, there is a certain progression.
Over the years, ms should have a very huge background with all the users around the world. They should known what is a bug. But NOoooo this is not what we see; think red code, think about the 10e565 virus out there, think IE unstopable popups, think IE windows unclosable! think outlook buffer underrun errors! Think about media player security holes! remeber all the terminal servers issues, the MSN issues, the drivers issues, remember win95 asking rebooting after detecting your monitor, think about all the security exploits of win2000 and xp, breachs and flaws, holes and bugs that you don’t have enough digits on a standard calculator to count (it should display ‘E’).
MS Office with a game. A game (I think that’s a race car game)wow this is serious. Add licensing fees, Office fees to the whole plate.
Small business can’t afford doing so much mistake.
Are the MS programmer team browsing the net with IE? I mean are they using their products? How many times a year the MS programmer need to reinstall their workstation? Every 3 months? Why does the Gartner group claimed that windows XP was unsafe for business? How can you explain a such low learning curb from ms over 10 years?
Now imagine what’s beyond the corner waiting for us! The ‘what-we-don’t-know-yet’ stuff.
I don’t want to start a paranoia but if we look at the past, there’s no and realy *NO* reason to believe that the windows product is gonna be a definitive solution. Better of course no doubt but more secure, safe, bugs free pffft that’s BS.
I’m ain’t saying that windows is crap that’s wrong I don’t believe it at all. I am just disapointed to see that’s the whole MS business ain’t serious and takes his consumers stupid for a monopole situation.
For more then 10 years I’m on windows. Personal use is dvd playback, music and some gaming. Great UI, very quick, clean look and you know it’s windows after all.
Now for three weeks I am thinking about switching mac. I mean, it can’t be worse than that I guess. Why not thinking different? I have witnessed 10 years of ms evolution to see that the company ain’t serious at all. Yes it does great thing but it ain’t enough for me.
Someone higher in this discussion compare computers to cars and I like it. But overall, what we all have to focus is that the computer is suppose to be a tool between you and your ideas.
The more the tool take place/time/thinking the less you can concentrate on your idea. It’s pure logic; Are you in front of your pc trying to make it work or because you want TO DO something?
You are a gamer; you need the new top level gear. You work in cinema with video editting? choose well. You just surf over the net and emails? many options are right for you. The concept is that it’s only a tool;
When I use to buy a screwdriver, first I have a warranty and second it work 100%. If not, I buy another one. Should our tool named PC work the same way? It only takes the right tool to do the right job; choice is yours.
Take a good example that just did happen writing this.
The first time I wrote this, I use IE on XP. Push the submit comment and BANG an error occur (I forgot the subject). Push my back button and BAM!!! gone was my 30 minutes text! I didn’t believe it! how can Ms let this happen? Un-be-lie-va-ble. Truely. I mean wow.
Voila.
🙂
Paul
<>
Yes, Microsoft has some disgusting tactics to force you to upgrade your OS (like cutting support for it, or changing the API’s around to make sure apps aren’t developed for it, or not updating it to work with new hardware), but that seems to be standard practice.
I always shake my head when I see people say stuff like this, because Microsoft are no worse than any other company and most of the time, significantly better.
like cutting support for it
Microsoft supports its OSes for a *long* time. Windows 98, IIRC, recently had its EOL date extended and it’s 6 years old now. That’s for a *consumer* OS. Apple sure as heck don’t support MacOS 8.5 anymore and I’m pretty sure they don’t even support OS X 10.0, a mere 3 years after release. Redhat only guarantee 5 years of support.
or changing the API’s around to make sure apps aren’t developed for it
Say what ?
not updating it to work with new hardware
This is the hardware vendor’s job, not Microsoft’s.
no but macosX patch are free as under windows, it is just what a say, and when you paid for panther 10.3, you paid for new features, not for security fix
As you do with Windows – your point ?
If we all take a look at ms windows for the rought last 10 years. The story seems to repeat itself and let’s face it.
cause after all, it concerns all the windows users; gamers, programmers or even dummy.
Your timeline is a bit off. For a start, it lists events from twenty years ago, not ten. To continue, some of the stuff is waaayyy out of order.
Microsoft and IBM work together on a UI OS
They split-> OS/2 is born and windows 1.0 too
I presume you mean “GUI”. OS/2 was created long before the IBM/MS split, (both with and without a GUI). So was Windows 1.0.
IBM and Microsoft split about a year after the Windows 3.0 release, ca. 1990-1991. This was before OS/2 2.0 appeared, although after versions with a GUI were released.
win 3.1 -> boaf unstable remember trumpet winsock horrors
Windows 3.0 was the release that started it all. Windows 3.1 was a major update. They were the first versions of Windows that were reasonably useful and reasonably quick.
win95 -> UI upgraded but still buggy
win nt 4.0 -> 6 criticals fixpacks later
These two happened fairly close together (mid-late 1995 and 1996 respectively). NT 4 was the first version of NT with the Explorer interface and was *very* popular. Large numbers of businesses and enterprises are still relying on it.
(NT4 was the version of Windows that converted me from OS/2)
win 98 -> a very popular version zillions of updates
win me _> this wasn’t a good version; almost unknown
Interestingly, if you go back to the roadmaps of the early/mid 90s, both of these updates to Windows 95 were never supposed to happen. NT4 was supposed to be the transition from DOS to NT based Windows that finally seems to be happening in Windows XP.
win 2000 -> ok now you are talking a bit more seriously
win xp ->better UI and the more stable of them 3 fixpacks 23 critical updates
Win2k has also become very popular. Lots of people seem to prefer it to XP even though XP is faster (although that might require turning off the flashy skin on older machines), has some good UI improvements, supports much more hardware out of the box and has much better legacy support. While I can understand platform standardisation from a business perspective, I don’t get why so many non-business users prefer Win2k.
win 2003 -> dont know this one yet
Win2k3 is shaping up to be a winner I think. Lots of people still running NT4 setups are transitioning straight over to Win2k3.
Being only released as a server OS, it’s never going to reach the same levels of popularity as other versions listed here.
Over the years, ms should have a very huge background with all the users around the world.
They do. That’s one of the biggest reasons they are so popular – they listen to what people say they want and provide “good enough” software that provides it.
They should known what is a bug. But NOoooo this is not what we see; think red code, think about the 10e565 virus out there, think IE unstopable popups, think IE windows unclosable! think outlook buffer underrun errors! Think about media player security holes! remeber all the terminal servers issues, the MSN issues, the drivers issues, remember win95 asking rebooting after detecting your monitor, think about all the security exploits of win2000 and xp, breachs and flaws, holes and bugs that you don’t have enough digits on a standard calculator to count (it should display ‘E’).
Firstly, this is hardly a list of things exclusive to Microsoft.
Secondly, Windows and Office are *massive* products used very widely on incredibly diverse ranges of hardware. Personally I think they do ok. Indeed, when you read about some of the stuff Microsoft had to do to make Windows 9x have such good legacy support, it’s amazing that it worked at all, let alone as well as it did.
MS Office with a game. A game (I think that’s a race car game)wow this is serious.
It’s a sort of flight sim and I doubt it either a) takes up much space or b) was developed on company time.
Add licensing fees, Office fees to the whole plate.
Which are fairly standard, out in the real world.
Small business can’t afford doing so much mistake.
Clearly they can, because most of them are using Microsoft software.
Are the MS programmer team browsing the net with IE? I mean are they using their products?
Microsoft are famous for “eating their own dog food”. OTOH, they’re also well known for having a flexible work environment. I’d say developers are browsing with whatever they want to browse with.
How many times a year the MS programmer need to reinstall their workstation? Every 3 months?
Highly doubtful – why would they ?
Why does the Gartner group claimed that windows XP was unsafe for business?
I don’t know – why do they ?
How can you explain a such low learning curb from ms over 10 years?
You don’t need to because there isn’t. For the size and complexity of the products, Windows and Office are no buggier than one would expect. They deliver the functionality the bulk of customers ask for, are stable (on decent hardwre) and they are constantly improving.
I don’t want to start a paranoia but if we look at the past, there’s no and realy *NO* reason to believe that the windows product is gonna be a definitive solution. Better of course no doubt but more secure, safe, bugs free pffft that’s BS.
If you’re looking for a provably secure, bug free piece of software you won’t find it outside of highly specialised projects that cost mucho $$$$$.
I’m ain’t saying that windows is crap that’s wrong I don’t believe it at all. I am just disapointed to see that’s the whole MS business ain’t serious and takes his consumers stupid for a monopole situation.
Microsoft’s corporate culture takes their customers *extremely* seriously. That’s why they still play the game so hard, even though they’re practically unchallengeable (at least in the short term).
Now for three weeks I am thinking about switching mac. I mean, it can’t be worse than that I guess. Why not thinking different? I have witnessed 10 years of ms evolution to see that the company ain’t serious at all.
Uh, it’s not like Apple is any better. It took them 3 tries to deliver their first “modern” OS – nearly a decade later than Microsoft – and even then they had to purchase and/or “take” most of it from outside sources.
Apple pander to a niche market and have for quite some time – and they don’t appear to be in any hurry to change that.
Someone higher in this discussion compare computers to cars and I like it.
You shouldn’t. Cars are an old, well understood product that are functionally fairly simple. They are created from established, well understood and highly refined methodologies. They don’t compare well to computers and/or software at all.
The first time I wrote this, I use IE on XP. Push the submit comment and BANG an error occur (I forgot the subject). Push my back button and BAM!!! gone was my 30 minutes text! I didn’t believe it! how can Ms let this happen? Un-be-lie-va-ble. Truely. I mean wow.
It happens with Mozilla as well, you might like to know.
“Yes, Microsoft has some disgusting tactics to force you to upgrade your OS (like cutting support for it, or changing the API’s around to make sure apps aren’t developed for it, or not updating it to work with new hardware), but that seems to be standard practice.
I always shake my head when I see people say stuff like this, because Microsoft are no worse than any other company and most of the time, significantly better.”
Better than who? and how so?
“Uh, it’s not like Apple is any better. It took them 3 tries to deliver their first “modern” OS”
How many versions of Windows did it take before it was stable? Is it more stable now than OS X?
“nearly a decade later than Microsoft”
Not sure what you mean here. Was MacOs not up and running before Windows ever left the lab?
“and even then they had to purchase and/or “take” most of it from outside sources.”
Windows is different? Did they not get the idea from Xerox just like Apple? Did they not hire engineers away from Xerox and Apple to build it? Did they make it look as much like MacOs as possible?
I think he’s talking about preemptive multitasking and protected process memory spaces. MacOS, pre-X could compete very favorably with Windows 9X since these windows did not have memory protection. MacOS didn’t get it until OS X, though they’d been trying to build it throughout the mid-90s. They have it now, and clearly OS X is a very stable system. I have not seen one of these machines crash. Then again, my XP system doesn’t crash either, so I don’t think it’s at all useful to compare the stabilities of systems for normal desktop use. For modern OSs, you really have to try hard to make them crash (or be a zealot for an opposing OS). Linux has been an exception for me, but I suppose recompiling the kernel to use ALSA without properly changing things higher in the stack is pushing things hard, and it’s not a problem that I’ve had outside of Gentoo.
Better than who? and how so?
Apple, for one. Microsoft support their products for longer and put much more effort into supporting legacy hardware and software.
How many versions of Windows did it take before it was stable? Is it more stable now than OS X?
NT was stable from the start, relatively to its contemporaries. Arguably NT4 was the first version to be competitive to MacOS in terms of UI.
IME Win2k, XP and Win2k3 are more stable than OS X (I’ve seen more kernel panics on my Macs than I have blue screens on my PCs).
Not sure what you mean here. Was MacOs not up and running before Windows ever left the lab?
Microsoft did their “next generation modern OS” with Windows NT released ca. 1992 – 1993. Apple had a few false starts with Copland and Rhapsody and finally managed to ship the first (pretty rough) release of OS X Server ca. 1999 – 2000. The first “real” release of OS X was 10.0, about a year and half later.
Windows is different?
Yes. NT was designed and developed in-house at Microsoft.
Did they not get the idea from Xerox just like Apple?
You are talking about the wrong generation.
Did they not hire engineers away from Xerox and Apple to build it?
Hiring engineers that then work for you is substantially different to buying wholesale bits of an OS.
Did they make it look as much like MacOs as possible?
Uh, not really. Windows and MacOS have never had more than very broad similarities (that they also share with nearly every other GUI out there). I really don’t understand why people say they are so similar.
MacOS, pre-X could compete very favorably with Windows 9X since these windows did not have memory protection.
Actually they did, along with pre-emptive multitasking. It wasn’t a “complete” implementation (like NT’s) because of sacrifices that had to be made to guarantee backwards compatibility, but they were significantly better – technically and practically – than the MacOS of the time.
Windows 9x, running all 32 bit applications and on fully supported hardware, is more stable and multitasks *much* better than MacOS Classic of the same era.
The author describes how people become biased in their experience. This is extremely interesting for marketing purposes especially when people who have something in common are analyzed (for example 65+ old, network admins, etc).
It is also interesting to take it into futher extend. Ask yourself, how did i get this opinion? What did i experience? What drove me to it? These things are purely a part of self reflection. You can apply this on anything, including non-computer related subjects.
IMO it is fascinating. I also tend to apply this scheme in order to research how a certain law was created [in the Netherlands, for now].
If applied properly, a lot of understanding can be found. But also arguments why something was a bad decision or should be [according to your analysis] currently withdrawn.
“PS about the cost of OS X, don’t forget all the development tools that Apple throws in at no extra cost, I’ve never seen MS do that.”
Except that both the commandline compilers and debuggers for windows are free for download. Not to mention the various SDK’s, DDK’s and various other goodies you get off MSDN….and then of course there’s MSDN itself, the mighty developer resource which is sofar unmatched for any Free or otherwise OS out there. Oops, another argument right out the door.
I’m primarily a Linux user, but I’m informed enough about “that other OS” to at least pick the right arguments to bash it 🙂 Lack of (free) development tools isn’t one of them.
yeah, and you have to pay for all that. you pay for all the RAD development tools from MS, where apple gives them to you.
you pay for MSDN, apple’s developers connection is pretty darn good and free.
Apple gives you more for free, MS has really good development resources for anyone who wants to buy them.
http://msdn.microsoft.com, check it out sometimes. It’s free for all, and has pretty much the same content as the paid MSDN. Except it’s online, and not on a shitload of CDs. The MSDN you’re thinking of is the version which comes with a single user, single computer license for *every* goddamn MS product on the market, in every conceivable language. Yes, that costs, but do you really need it to develop a Windows application?
Ahah, so you want a RAD tool. Well, yeah, that’s buckware. But then again, there are few really good RAD tools available for free for any OS, to be honest. so why expect Visual Studio to be free?
What about Interface builder and XCode on the Mac, both come with Panther, does MS offer something else similar for free? I don’t have experience with MS development tools, I am just wondering.
I’m thinking that if all of you were in a room together that you would probably kill eachother! I have 5 PC’s, for each they run the following…
FREEBSD
SOLARIS 9
MANDRAKE 10
WINDOWS 2003
SUSE 9.0 ( on my laptop )
}
}
The point I’m trying to make is… there is NO better operating system! We have something to learn from each of them!
}
Reply with something mature and nice so I’ll know that you “UNIVERSALY” understand the concept that every OS has
something to offer.
};
};
cygen out
What can I say, the bottom line is that Mac hardware is good quality and worth so much more in resale than generic PC hardware, that’s why it’s more expensive.
As for operating systems, use whatever is needed to run the applications you need. I started with MTS on mainframes before moving via VMS to unix. My first experience with windows lack of multitasking was realizing that the PC wasn’t collecting experimental data while I was playing prince of persia! and that was back with win v2.