"Earlier this month, when I found I could install Windows Vista Release Candidate 1 (RC1) on my MacBook Pro, I quickly took the plunge, practically chortling at the thought that my dual-core laptop could run Microsoft's next operating system. What better way to show that when you buy a Mac you get two computers in one? I've been using Vista off and on for a couple of weeks now, but I'm not chortling as much." More here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-02
Actually Windows 95 did preemptive multi-tasking running 32 bit applications, and switched to a hybrid form of cooperative multi-tasking to run 16 bit programs. This was carried through ME which was actually much better as an OS than its reputation, but got its bad name from gamers and uninformed users holding on to their older software for dear life. NT 4 was pretty stable, but application support issues kept most users and businesses running mixed systems, either dual booting on single machines or NT servers with 9X desktops. Userland was often a nightmare.
Mac OS 8.6 greatly improved Virtual Memory, but ultimately Mac OS was never going to get much better. Apple recommended turning off VM and installing more RAM, and systems would then run quite well, but certainly not rock solid stable. Contemporary Windows users suffered far more from lost files and a damaged OS than Mac users. Of course any knowlegable user in either case had little difficulty. The Mac zealots in those days often wrongly equated simply rebooting and getting back to work with a denial of the crash problems Mac OS did have.
Defective hardware is the most popular claim Windows Fanboys use when arguing their points. You know better than that, but you assumed as most of initially do, that I was writing from a single user point of view. I am a bit dissapointed with "... the SPs are around because of security problems, not stability issues" because I am sure you really do know better than that. We also really need to accept that security is also a factor with stability, and not forget that some security patches at times created stability issues.
I do not pretend that everyone copies from Apple. When ever a feature becomes popular, everyone is going to incorporate a version of this feature in their OS. Apple does a great job marketing "cool" features, and then the flame-wars begin. It is actually not a bad thing for everones business. What I truly find unfortunate is that MS is chasing the UI experience with greater emphasis than real security. With all the money and programming power at their finger tips, MS is not giving us anything really new.
Member since:2006-05-29
I'm afraid the only place realy new comes from in the foreseeable future will be from OSS scene and often not in the best forms of implementation.
I guess big companys have to be scared to try something realy new, because they are so dependant on making money.
On the stability of XP i have to say that i only know one person who had crashes in XP and it only took one look on his mainboard to see that the reason was that the elcos on his cheap-ass mainboard started to spit their guts out. Of course security issues are tied to stability, but those can be avoided with common sense.
But again, i'm not critizing OS X in favor of Windows. I do use Windows relatively often, since i have to develop software for the OS our customers want, but i'm very neutral towards it. Private, i prefer Linux and partly Solaris.
Member since:
2006-05-29
"Gentleman, start your Photocopiers" is a line from an Apple ad for the latest OS X version.
>Invention and innovation are never simply one man, one concept.
That's exactly what i was trying to say. Apple did take what was already there. None of the features that the almighty OS X has and Vista copied from OS X were invented by Apple. Everything was around before. I would even go so far to say that Apple didn't even improved them.
>The awesome advanced technology that MS had over Apple, which was one of the primary reasons for Windows BSOD fame.
Preemptive Multitasking was around in Windows NT, which run very stable. Win 9x only had cooperative Multitasking and no memory protecttion. I wasn't getting at Microsoft here though. Amiga had preemptive Multitasking in 1985, as had various other operating systems.
>Of course Macs would crash under Systems 7,8, and 9, just not as often...
That heavily contradicts my experience. The Virtual Memory system in pre OS X was so incredibly crappy that we had stuffed our OS 8 Macs so full of Ram that they never needed to page out, because they would crash very often if they did.
>Stability was in no way a reality for Windows until XP SP2 (what year was that?)
That's not true. You probably had defect hardware, but on normal Working hardware XP runs very stable without any SPs... the SPs are around because of security problems, not stability issues. Even Win 2000 was running extremly stable if you worked with it. It only had stability issues when running games. That was because the Graphicsdrivers could pretty much bypass everything. Windows NT 4.0 already was quite rock-solid... and that was mid 90s.
Speaking as a programer, the minimum i expect from an os is memory protection. Without memory protection every error you do with pointers or direct handling of memory leads to an os crash (and you make such mistakes from time to time if you are not an alien), instead of an app crash. So pre OS X Macos was completly crap from a programmers point of view which is of course true for the 9x branch of Windows as well. Thank god there where some decent operating systems around that time as well.
>Now what real innovations will we have when Vista is finally released
Probably none. I didn't state there where new, innovative features in Vista. But that is also true for OS X. Nothing it has to offer wasn't around before it, not even the tiny idea of the color flashing Window buttons. Much of those new features are obvious ideas and much have been around for years. Just stop pretending that everyone copys from Apple. How do you know they don't steal the same places as Apple does?