Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 29th Nov 2005 08:43 UTC, submitted by Aparan
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y The second part of the comparison of Windows Vista beta and Mac OS X "Tiger" continues with an examination of the security, networking, and power management features in each system.
Thread beginning with comment 66355
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wow
by thavith_osn on Tue 29th Nov 2005 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
Member since:

Yes and no,

Vista is the next version of Windows, XP being the last. It's not a new OS and Mac is the "4th iteration", Vista is also a "nth iteration", in fact, much older than OS X in that reguard (unless you take into account NeXT).

The article is comparing Vista (-1 years old) with 10.4 (+0.5 years old), so there is a 1.5 year gap here (minus the latest patches to 10.4. They should really be comparing it with 10.5 (which of course they can't right now), so the point that they shouldn't compare them is very true, but your reasoning is a little off imho...

Also, the BeOS dude will say it had those features in 1996, followed by some Mac guying saying Apple was going to do that in 84 or NeXT had it in 89 :-) Then someone else will say that Xerox had it first anyway...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by Tom K on Tue 29th Nov 2005 16:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
Tom K Member since:

Yeah, but while Vista may be more or less complete underneath, I'm sure that most of the UI elements have not been completed. You still don't have access to some of Vista's advanced features through the UI because that simply hasn't been finished, whereas it's all spit-and-polished over in Tiger.

In either case, they shouldn't be comparing Vista to anything -- period. It's just not done.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by Tuishimi on Tue 29th Nov 2005 18:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
Tuishimi Member since:

Well, I am a Mac user... but the comment I did not agree with was the comment about NT NOT being designed with security in mind.

He is wrong to say that it was not. NT 3.1 (or whatever it was) had all the underpinnings (fs, network, etc) to be secure. Now, whether or not they implemented them to their fullest extent is another story. But NT could be just as secure as any system out there with a few tweaks.

Unfortunately Microsoft has simply hacked this, hacked that and opened some holes because of it, and they also want to make the computing experience as simple to the user as they can (modeled after Win 95 which has obviously been a smashing success (whether due to illegal practices by MS or not - said design has become ubiquitous)) - doing this can often lead to potential security holes.

Reply Parent Score: 1