# Windows and Mac... Controversy?



## ZelostheWolf (Jun 17, 2010)

hmm.. Why exactly do People have huge arguements about Windows and Mac.. i mean each Os has it's own Pro's and Con's and they're own opinions.. but some things about them are proven Facts.. I'll list a little bit about each OS:

-Windows XP - Is at the Left end of the spectrum because, it runs extremely fast depending on the amount of RAM (Random Access Memory) you have. the only bad thing about it, it has over 55 to 60 programs running on start-up and it can cause overall system Slowdown, they have different things that can fix it.
-Windows Vista - Is at the far right end of the Spectrum which means it is the OVERALL slowest because it causes sooooooooo much Memory usage and is a plain-out memory Hog. The good things about Vista is that it has SOO Many features that other OS's do not and some things are able to run Much smoother.
-Mac Os X *Snow Leopard* - I'm not so sure about Mac's where they fall, but it's more than likely at the right end. since it's mac, it has very very few startup programs and and it doesn't have much to choose from, but it runs like Pure smoothness.
-Windows 7 - Is the new System that came out back in October of 2009, it has all the features of Vista but the running Capabilities of XP, it's towards the left end of the spectrum but if you have less GB of RAM it won't run very well.

hmm... it seems i began to ramble.. but then again i am a huge Computer Junky, if you ever have computer trouble just message me and I'll help you. :]


----------



## Joeyyy (Jun 17, 2010)

"im old or lazy and dont wanna re-learn a new computer"


----------



## Slyck (Jun 17, 2010)

One time I had a macbook.

My ego grew three sizes that day.


----------



## Syradact (Jun 17, 2010)

ZelostheWolf said:


> but some things about them are proven Facts opinions.. I'll list a little bit about each OS:
> 
> -Windows XP - Is at the Left end of the spectrum because, it runs extremely fast depending on the amount of RAM (Random Access Memory) you have. the only bad thing about it, it has over 55 to 60 programs running on start-up and it can cause overall system Slowdown, they have different things that can fix it.



This "spectrum" is imaginary, arbitrary, and has not been quantified/qualified by your post. No biggie. I kind of get what you're saying.
I'm on my Windows XP SP3 box right now, and with Firefox and Spybot's TeaTimer running, I have 28 processes. So I guess it's 27 at start-up. The computers with 55+ processes at start-up are usually bought pre-built from some major manufacturer like HP, Dell, Gateway, etc. and they're bogged down with a bunch of nonsense. Building your own computer and installing fresh is the best way to do it. Super fast, no bullshit, all the space you need.

I've been using Windows since 95, and XP was a great leap ahead as far as usability and stability. It really shows something when it was released in 2001 and a majority of internet users still use it in 2010. Wikipedia says 50%+. This is not to say it's foolproof. I used to get bluescreens occasionally with my old beast of a machine that ran SP1. But on this SP3? Never. The only problem I have had is sometimes it doesn't want to shut down and I have to do a hard shut-off or reset, but I think it was a process like TeaTimer being stupid.




ZelostheWolf said:


> -Windows Vista - Is at the far right end of the Spectrum which means it is the OVERALL slowest because it causes sooooooooo much Memory usage and is a plain-out memory Hog. The good things about Vista is that it has SOO Many features that other OS's do not and some things are able to run Much smoother.



My experience with Vista was not good. I bought a shitty low-end Dell laptop that had 1GB of RAM, and things were slow like molasses. What I DID like was the start menu search, but I think they copied that from Mac OSX's spotlight feature. I remember programs wouldn't run due to incompatibility, like Nero Burning Rom. Then that laptop basically melted itself with smoke and everything. It only lasted a year, lol. I didn't like the changes made to control panel, display options, etc.




ZelostheWolf said:


> -Mac Os X *Snow Leopard* - I'm not so sure about Mac's where they fall, but it's more than likely at the right end. since it's mac, it has very very few startup programs and and it doesn't have much to choose from, but it runs like Pure smoothness.



Last year I woke up one day and was like "I want a laptop again!" so I bought a Macbook Pro. My previous experience with Macs was biased against them; the school computers were all Macs OS9-OSX and prone to glitches and freezing. Later I learned that's because they were at a school, duh, and all the dumbass kids screwed them up. With this laptop I learned how to use OSX more effectively, and I really enjoy it. I have not been limited in any way when it comes to programs applications, and there are still plenty of open source options. Like my twin cousins said, "there are things I like about it and some things I don't like." I dislike searching for all the files to delete when needing to uninstall something, and the lack of cut and paste in Finder. But everything else makes up for it. And Apple has been giving me top-notch service as far as under-warranty repairs go.




ZelostheWolf said:


> -Windows 7 - Is the new System that came out back in October of 2009, it has all the features of Vista but the running Capabilities of XP, it's towards the left end of the spectrum but if you have less GB of RAM it won't run very well.



My dad has Windows 7, and I don't like it. It's still slower than my XP box. I LOL at his start-up time. Reminds me too much of Vista. Last night I live-booted from CD to Fedora 12 Linux on his machine, and after restarting into Win7, it wouldn't eject the CD tray for ANYTHING. He raged hard. Hahaha. I changed the boot order in BIOS and for some reason it finally ejected on the next Windows boot. Conclusion: WINDOZE 7 HAET LUNIX 



ZelostheWolf said:


> if you ever have computer trouble just message me and I'll help you. :]



That's actually pretty kind of you. Most of the computer-minded folks I know get so sick of people asking them for computer help they don't advertise their knowledge.



ZelostheWolf said:


> hmm.. Why exactly do  People have huge arguements about Windows and Mac..


 
They just cannot comprehend having the best of both worlds. Also some need to justify their purchase by asking whose investment is a better choice. It's kind of like Sega Genesis vs. SNES battles in childhood...I never understood it, 'cuz I had both.  /spoiled

Apple has a different business strategy than Microsoft, too. Sure they both want to make loads of money. Apple wants control over the hardware their software can run on, and I think they're a bit "vertically-integrated." It makes things like drivers nothing to worry about, but they can also charge a premium for their computers. Microsoft let's Windows run on whatever you build, as long as you can find the drivers. Kind of like Linux, but even so, I bet those mega-nerds just create their own drivers.


----------



## Riv (Jun 17, 2010)

So... You admit to knowing absolutely nothing about OSX, and then you try and place it on an arbitrary, inconsistent, and useless spectrum. I don't mean to sound rude, but people shouldn't try to provide commentary on things they don't understand.

Basically, Windows is essentially only useful for;

1) Gaming (Many games can be emulated through programs like Wine, with varying success)
2) Very specific programs, like AutoCAD (which can be replaced by an equivalent cross-platform software)
3) Getting Viruses (There are forms of malware that can affect a mac that is not using up-to-date software, but as of today, there exists only one unpatched exploit)

I'm also quite upset with Microsoft's interactions with the open-source movement. They tried to kill openGL, and their OS is entirely proprietary. OSX does use proprietary higher-level API's, but the core is a free-BSD-based, UNIX-complient, system, which improves developer access. There's also Apple's track record with quality and repairs; the machines are usually built to the highest standards, and when they make a mistake, they're very quick to take responsibility and replace equipment free of charge.

The Windows OS as a whole makes for a grating experience, interface objects are placed in inefficient locations, and productivity suffers as a result of MS's lack of innovation. OSX, on the other hand, uses very intuitive interfaces, which give you many ways to do the same thing, allowing you to spend more time actually working and less time trying to work around limitations.


----------



## Slyck (Jun 17, 2010)

Holy fucking fonts, OP!


----------



## Syradact (Jun 17, 2010)

I think this "spectrum" the OP created is the amount of "bloat" and bloatware comparing each OS on a sort of continuum, with left being less bloated, and right more bloated.


----------



## Akro (Jun 17, 2010)

Shouldnt the better end of a 'spectrum' be on the right and not the left?


----------



## Aden (Jun 17, 2010)

I'm just here to be angry at OP for comic sans.


----------



## Syradact (Jun 17, 2010)

Akro said:


> Shouldnt the better end of a 'spectrum' be on the right and not the left?


 You didn't make the spectrum, the OP did. Make a competing continuum that performs better and you can have your right and left reversal.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 17, 2010)

Aden said:


> I'm just here to be angry at OP for comic sans.


 
In the absence of the "this" button...

This.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Jun 20, 2010)

This operating system spectrum makes about as much sense as the left/right political spectrum...

Anyway...  mac OS boots much faster than windows, runs very smoothly...  but apple has been slow to adopt new hardware lately, slow to adopt new versions of OpenGL, and doesn't support DirectX...  so as far as PC gamers are concerned, macs aren't an option as a gaming rig.

Steam was the only program i've ever had on a mac that by default opens on startup, and that was quickly changed after portal stopped working...  (MOST of my games are console games.  I do play a few PC games...  but not enough to justify a gaming dedicated machine.)

As for lack of software...  i've never had any problem finding a program that does whatever I need...  and there's a free version of almost everything...



OMG I'M SO SAD I CAN'T GET THESE NEW EMOTICONS COZ I'M ON A MAC



Runefox said:


> In the absence of the "this" button...
> 
> This.


 I'd this that too.  In the immortal words of John Stossel: "Never use this typeface." [referring to comic sans]


----------



## Lobar (Jun 20, 2010)

Comic Sans is for faggots.  Stop that.

Apple was just the "alternative" to the evil Microsoft empire, and secured themselves a small but rabid fanbase, who now can't see that Apple has become every bit as evil as Microsoft was.  Linux is the only digital "force of good" now.

If, god forbid, the music industry ever goes the path of mandatory subscription service contracts to play your mp3s, it will first be implemented on an iPod.  I guarantee it.

The only users I can see for whom a Mac is actually a good, informed choice are Photoshop artists who never play games.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 20, 2010)

Because Star Trek is better than Star Wars, DUH!


----------



## Runefox (Jun 20, 2010)

Re Macs + games: Even desktop Macs tend to come with laptop hardware unless they're the insanely expensive Mac Pro. They come with low-end, last-generation graphics cards, chosen mainly because anything much more powerful would cause heat issues in the cramped quarters of an iMac case. In fact, the most powerful graphics card available on a Mac is the Radeon HD 4850, a card I bought two years ago and is showing its age (the other options are a GeForce 9400M and Radeon HD 4670). Hell, even the CPU's are still running the Core 2 series for the iMacs except on the top tier, and even then it's just an i5 (and they want $2.1k for it). Games are an afterthought, or not even a thought at all, for Apple - At least, up to now.


----------



## Aden (Jun 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Games are an afterthought, or not even a thought at all, for Apple - At least, up to now.


 
Hopefully that'll change with Steam making the leap over, though. OS X 10.7 is going to actually have a focus on updating graphics drivers.


----------



## Hyena (Jun 24, 2010)

Actually Vista and 7 are a bit faster than XP because of something called "superfetch" the reason they use more ram is because they load programs that you commonly use into the ram as the computer starts up. so in your case sure xp might be faster to load up, but if you open firefox in vista/7 versus XP you'll find XP will/might take quite a bit longer. at least that's been my experience. 

Now when you're talking OS X ... there is a bit of a game changer, because for someone like me a iMac/Mac Book/ Mac Book Pro or a mac Mini are all not powerful enough for the things that I do. Here is another problem, the only mac that is really powerful enough brand new is going to cost me $2400 which would be the Mac Pro. And another problem is that the mac pro's just aren't even as powerful as my $1,000 "gaming" computer. I'm just about to upgrade to a AMD 6 core procesor, something a Mac doesn't even offer and the applications that matter like Avid Media Composer as well as quite a few others can't be bothered to code for Hyperthreading so best you're going to get out of that $2,400 mac is a 4 core machine that you paid $1,400 more for. 

Granted another thing this is more apple vs my own custom built PC, but every part in my machine aside from my case has a 5 year or lifetime warrenty on. With a mac I believe you get a 1 year warrenty then you have to pay yearly for AppleCare I believe or that's how it was when I had my MacPro's. But this is coming from a person whom uses the hell out of their machines, I've gone through two dual G5 mac pro's as well as 2 intel xeon macs. they were always replaced through my apple care, in the end probably cost Apple around $5,000 just to keep replacing their stuff that broke on me. My AMD machine however has only ever toasted one part which was a 8800GT that I let get too hot by rendering two 24v films on at the same time. woops. but it's now coming up on a year and a half old, still no issues and I use this harder than my macs of the past. 

In the end it's just going to come down to user preference. OS X is really nice but so is Windows. I haven't really seen the point of OS X 10.6 as it kinda more or less seems like 10.5 interested to see what 10.7 offers. If Steve Jobs weren't such an asshat I might buy an iMac or something and *just* use it for chatting and web browsing. But I dunno. I kinda wish to get OS X you didn't really have to have a Mac. I've made a hakintosh before but it was a bit second rate. 

The day that Apple offers a decent $999.99 - $1,499.99 desktop tower with *air cooling* then I might be interested, for now though I'm content sitting here doing every single thing on my windows 7 AMD machine that I ever did on my mac. Granted I kinda miss iChat but ohh well. 

In my opinion from least to best it would have to go. 
Windows XP
OS X 10.4
Windows Vista
OS X 10.5/6
Gnome baised Linux (my experience is with Ubuntu and xubuntu)
Windows 7


----------



## Hendikins (Jun 25, 2010)

All hardware sucks, all software sucks.

Can I grab a pitchfork and join the anti Comic Sans crew now?


----------



## Ookami221 (Jun 25, 2010)

ITS ALL BOUT THE LUNIX


----------



## Nollix (Jun 25, 2010)

That was one of the most ignorant things I've read all week. Thanks for making me dumber, "junky".


----------



## ToeClaws (Jun 25, 2010)

Arguing OS's is like arguing religion.  Only ends in "Bwwaaaaa"

Every OS has it's strengths and weaknesses - go with the one you like, and stop wondering about why people don't agree with you.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 25, 2010)

ITT:  OP makes somewhat even analysis of Mac & PC, many people fairly contribute, Mac-tard sweeps is away with "Lol PC sucks just go Mac it do everything but game and get Virus'".  Par the course for typical Mac & PC thread, will continue to be par the course if by next page a half-dozen Mac users claim this thread is an attempt to jump on Mac users for their poor innocent OS (Notice that when PC's are insulted people tend to have snarky responses, but when Macs are insulted it's like you pissed on a mother's grave?).


----------



## Oovie (Jun 26, 2010)

Windows vs Mac reminds me of your Xbox vs PlayStation arguments. I like how they clearly leave Linux/PC out of them as they're far better than the two.


----------



## Nollix (Jun 27, 2010)

Oovie said:


> Windows vs Mac reminds me of your Xbox vs PlayStation arguments. I like how they clearly leave Linux/PC out of them as they're far better than the two.


 
Better for srs business, maybe. For gaming, nope.


----------



## Aleu (Jun 27, 2010)

why do people fucking care? It's a damn computer. Use it how you need to use it and leave other people the fuck alone about how they use theirs.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jun 27, 2010)

But where the fuck does "controversy" come into this?

I would actually like to use OSX if I wouldn't have to pay out the ass just because you're forced to run it only on Apple's shitty hardware.

Also, just run msconfig, OP. Just stop shit from starting when Windows starts. It's not hard.


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 27, 2010)

Aden said:


> I'm just here to be angry at OP for comic sans.


 
If the button was still here I'd "This" that so hard it would turn into crystallised hate


----------



## Riv (Jun 27, 2010)

Oovie said:


> Windows vs Mac reminds me of your Xbox vs PlayStation arguments. I like how they clearly leave Linux/PC out of them as they're far better than the two.


 
Linux is nice, and I presume I will start using it rather than osX in the near future, but it's still a bit under-featured for my tastes. I really like how it's completely open, but there are many instances where I'd like to get straight to work using a tight, neat, precompiled package, and sometimes Linux just can't do that for you.

But osX _is_ UNIX certified, after all, so it's close enough for my tastes.



Vaelarsa said:


> I would actually like to use OSX if I wouldn't have to pay out the ass just because you're forced to run it only on Apple's shitty hardware.


 
Trust me... it's honestly worth that much money just so you don't have to run Windows. You can technically run osx on a crapbox (or even a netbook, *vomits*), but without using Apple certified hardware you're going to be missing out on so many benefits, and have to do so much work to keep it running, that you might as well just use linux with an OSX theme.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jun 27, 2010)

Riv said:


> Trust me... it's honestly worth that much money just so you don't have to run Windows. You can technically run osx on a crapbox (or even a netbook, *vomits*), but without using Apple certified hardware you're going to be missing out on so many benefits, and have to do so much work to keep it running, that you might as well just use linux with an OSX theme.


It's not even close to worth the money, IMO.
I'd rather just go without a computer completely than pay the thousand-dollar prices Apple is asking, because I have better things to do with my money than try to make up for lost penis length through elitism of being able to shit wads of cash.

I don't know why everyone throws a shit fit about Windows.
As long as you know what you're doing, it's actually a pretty good system. You just have to know how to tweak it right to fit your needs.
I'm interested in OSx for its visual scheme more than anything else. It's shinier. But shinier isn't worth the price of Apple hardware.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 27, 2010)

Riv said:


> Linux is nice, and I presume I will start using it rather than osX in the near future, but it's still a bit under-featured for my tastes. I really like how it's completely open, but there are many instances where I'd like to get straight to work using a tight, neat, precompiled package, and sometimes Linux just can't do that for you.


Really? I haven't really had that kind of problem, unless you mean something a little different by "tight, neat, precompiled". There are options for most of the stuff you can do in Mac OS X in Linux, and the really slick variants like Ubuntu make it pretty simple to do.



> Trust me... it's honestly worth that much money just so you don't have to run Windows.


...? Windows isn't THAT bad, and for that matter, on a PC, you're far from forced to run Windows. If Apple had their way, that'd be the case with Macs and OS X, though.



> ...but without using Apple certified hardware you're going to be missing out on so many benefits


"Apple certified hardware"? You do realize that the guts of an Apple machine are for all intents and purposes identical to a run of the mill PC, right? Hitachi hard drives, Rendition (I believe? Kingston, too, I think) RAM, Intel chipsets and CPU's, Atheros chipsets (I think? Once upon a time they were) for their AirPorts... About the only things Apple does differently are the case design, battery (Macbooks) and BIOS (non-existent; Replaced with EFI. This is happening in the PC world soon since Vista and 7 are compatible with EFI and OEM's are beginning to push for it). In fact, the only real convenience factor is not having to worry about there not being drivers for a particular set of hardware, but someone who knows about that up front can build or buy a machine around that.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 27, 2010)

Riv said:


> I'd like to get straight to work using a tight, neat, precompiled package, and sometimes Linux just can't do that for you.


Synaptic? Debian package manager blows anything Windows and Mac have out of the water. Granted, not everyone produces Linux packages. But not any more Linux's fault than it's Apple's fault for having so few games.



Riv said:


> but without using Apple certified hardware you're going to be missing out on so many benefits


What benefits?



Riv said:


> have to do so much work to keep it running


Like what? (Well, if we're talking hackintoshes, yeah. Apple actively sabotages the efforts of hackintosh users.)


----------



## Xenke (Jun 27, 2010)

Lemme just say that some things are changeable in Macs (as long as you don't have one of the stupid new MBPs... you really can't do shit with that). The hard drive is fairly easy to replace once you out grow it. The RAM is changeable. But you are stuck with most of what you get. Personally, I prefer the level of support you get with an Apple computer.

That being said, I would like Windows much better if it wasn't quite so finicky. Seems like if I don't take care of it and baby it that it starts to go to shit within a couple years, while OSX deteriorates much slower.

The real reason I like OSX better though is because it's more intuitive of and OS (for me). If there's some sort of error in OSX I don't really need to look up how to fix it, I can just figure it out. Not to mention settings and properties of specific things I'm looking for aren't hidden in obscure places in Mac.

And the nice shiny interface is a bonus. 

Really though, I'm not the best person to take a side, I don't think I could survive with just one or the other on my computer (dual-boot). >>


----------



## Oasus (Jun 27, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Really? I haven't really had that kind of problem, unless you mean something a little different by "tight, neat, precompiled". There are options for most of the stuff you can do in Mac OS X in Linux, and the really slick variants like Ubuntu make it pretty simple to do.
> 
> 
> ...? Windows isn't THAT bad, and for that matter, on a PC, you're far from forced to run Windows. If Apple had their way, that'd be the case with Macs and OS X, though.
> ...


 
I never [THIS]'d this hard at something in my life.


----------



## Riv (Jun 27, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Really? I haven't really had that kind of problem, unless you mean something a little different by "tight, neat, precompiled". There are options for most of the stuff you can do in Mac OS X in Linux, and the really slick variants like Ubuntu make it pretty simple to do.


 
Synaptic is alright, but the software in there is not as nice as what's available for macs. Nothing beats mac Grapher for a free approximating graphing calc. Nothing beats iTunes for music management. iMovie is epic for simple video editing. iChat is better than Pidgin, and Preview is better than Image Preview. And since osx and Linux are both UNIX-like systems, it's fairly easy to port software, and all the best software has been (wxMaxima, OpenOffice.org, FFMpeg, Blender, the GIMP, and Audacity, as examples that I use all the time).

Windows is pretty terrible. Roughly half the time I've spent with Windows was spent dealing with some issue. I don't know why you think that about Apple... They've never made any efforts to ban other systems from their hardware, and since the jump to Intel, they've made it incredibly easy to install Windows.

When I say "Apple Certified Hardware," I'm referring to the whole package. Everything from the Nehalem processor and nVidia 330m to the motherboard and the battery, along with the motion and ambient light sensors, and all the connections in between. Also, all MacBooks and iMacs are energy star compliant, another fine benefit.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 27, 2010)

Riv said:


> Synaptic is alright, but the software in there is not as nice as what's available for macs. Nothing beats mac Grapher for a free approximating graphing calc. Nothing beats iTunes for music management. iMovie is epic for simple video editing. iChat is better than Pidgin, and Preview is better than Image Preview. And since osx and Linux are both UNIX-like systems, it's fairly easy to port software, and all the best software has been (wxMaxima, OpenOffice.org, FFMpeg, Blender, the GIMP, and Audacity, as examples that I use all the time)


I beg to differ regarding iTunes - It's a bloated, proprietary piece of software that only supports a few file formats (albeit major ones) that frankly I can't ever acclimate myself to. I've never used them, but I know that graphing calculator applications exist on Linux, and I also know that AmaroK is (was) a much better media manager than iTunes. As for Pidgin vs iChat? It only supports a few protocols. Pidgin, with plugins, supports a huge swath of them, along with other functionality you won't find in iChat. It doesn't do webcam/voice under Windows, but it does under Linux, and frankly, I find the interface much more appealing - Much less wasted space.



> Windows is pretty terrible. Roughly half the time I've spent with Windows was spent dealing with some issue.


Greater than 90% of the time I spend with Windows is doing whatever I have to or want to do. Sounds like you've had some crappy computers in the past.



> I don't know why you think that about Apple... They've never made any efforts to ban other systems from their hardware


Oh, but they certainly do ban other hardware manufacturers from using their software, and if the iPhone and iPad are any indication of how Apple sees the market, it shouldn't be too great a step for them to lock down the OS and their machines as well to only what they want to sell you. Not saying Microsoft wouldn't do the same if they had the chance, but Apple could and probably would do that, and their rabid fanbase would lap it up.



> and since the jump to Intel, they've made it incredibly easy to install Windows.


Versus not being able to install at all, yeah, that's pretty big. But considering their business practices, I wonder how long that will last?



> When I say "Apple Certified Hardware," I'm referring to the whole package. Everything from the Nehalem processor and nVidia 330m to the motherboard and the battery, along with the motion and ambient light sensors, and all the connections in between. Also, *all MacBooks and iMacs are energy star compliant*, another fine benefit.


In other words, you're talking about the bits and pieces that Apple actually does themselves (motion/ambient light/etc), which some companies also do. Talking about the chipset and the processor... No. Just no. And Energy Star? Dude, my Pentium 166 was Energy Star compliant.


----------



## Riv (Jun 27, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Greater than 90% of the time I spend with Windows is doing whatever I have to or want to do. Sounds like you've had some crappy computers in the past.



Do keep in mind that you actually know what you're doing; most people don't have that benefit. Apple caters to those people, while still leaving plenty of room for people who understand what they're doing to operate at a higher level.



Runefox said:


> Oh, but they certainly do ban other hardware manufacturers from using their software, and if the iPhone and iPad are any indication of how Apple sees the market, it shouldn't be too great a step for them to lock down the OS and their machines as well to only what they want to sell you. Not saying Microsoft wouldn't do the same if they had the chance, but Apple could and probably would do that, and their rabid fanbase would lap it up.



True, but it's to make the osx experience consistent, fluid, and dependable, and spend resources properly beta testing their software, instead of wasting time making sure it barely runs on 5000 different hardware configurations. And that's nonsense. If Apple made osx like an iPhone, I'd (along with many other users) drop them on their ass in a second, going straight to Linux. Besides, they couldn't do it even if they wanted. They're too far in.



Runefox said:


> Versus not being able to install at all, yeah, that's pretty big. But considering their business practices, I wonder how long that will last?


The inability to install present previously was from a lack of effort on anyone's part to do so... No sane mac user would have dual booted Windows 2000 and os9. The jump to Intel made it much easier.



Runefox said:


> In other words, you're talking about the bits and pieces that Apple actually does themselves (motion/ambient light/etc), which some companies also do. Talking about the chipset and the processor... No. Just no. And Energy Star? Dude, my Pentium 166 was Energy Star compliant.


 
No, I'm talking about the careful and thoughtful way that all the parts are put together, without any processing bottlenecks, feature incompatibility, or other wasteful flaws.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 27, 2010)

Riv said:


> The inability to install present previously was from a lack of effort on anyone's part to do so... No sane mac user would have dual booted Windows 2000 and os9. The jump to Intel made it much easier.


While technically true, it was more due to architectural differences rather than plain lack of effort. Microsoft had a dwindling market share of the relatively unpopulated PowerPC sector, and in around the time of Windows 2000, they dropped support for Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC (Macs of the time, though I believe Windows still would have been incompatible with the Mac BIOS of the day - Don't quote me on that, though, I have no experience with that), opting for an Intel-only approach via x86 and Itanium. Software support would additionally have been very low by comparison, as well, since the vast majority of applications for Windows were and are built for x86/x86-64. In fact, one of the major reasons Itanium didn't take off in any major way (aside from being a rather poor design for its release period versus its originally-intended release) was its lack of compatibility with x86 applications, which would have sunk a PowerPC-based Windows just as much.



> No, I'm talking about the careful and thoughtful way that all the parts are put together, without any processing bottlenecks, feature incompatibility, or other wasteful flaws.


I think it's best I not touch that one.


----------



## yangwatanabe (Jun 28, 2010)

I currently work with PCs and Macs (ego=75%), fuck off Apple, thanks for making me re-learn a new computer and forget about the left click on PC }:T


----------



## Aden (Jun 28, 2010)

yangwatanabe said:


> fuck off Apple, thanks for making me re-learn a new computer and forget about the left click on PC }:T


 
uh what


----------



## Xenke (Jun 28, 2010)

yangwatanabe said:


> I currently work with PCs and Macs (ego=75%), fuck off Apple, thanks for making me re-learn a new computer and forget about the left click on PC }:T


 
ok, so. 

Apple Desktop: you should have a mouse with two buttons.
Apple Laptop: put to fingers on the trackpad and click.
Result for both: Right-click


----------



## Runefox (Jun 28, 2010)

To add to the "wtf", you can also use virtually any USB mouse on a Mac, and the right mouse button (gasp) right-clicks.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 28, 2010)

Runefox said:


> To add to the "wtf", you can also use virtually any USB mouse on a Mac, and the right mouse button (gasp) right-clicks.


 
But but, which if I need the port to connect the printer! ?


----------



## Hendikins (Jul 1, 2010)

Runefox said:


> While technically true, it was more due to architectural differences rather than plain lack of effort. Microsoft had a dwindling market share of the relatively unpopulated PowerPC sector, and in around the time of Windows 2000, they dropped support for Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC (Macs of the time, though I believe Windows still would have been incompatible with the Mac BIOS of the day - Don't quote me on that, though, I have no experience with that)


 
Windows NT PowerPC never ran on the Macintosh. Support for platforms other than x86 and Alpha never made it past NT 4.0, Alpha was dropped at Windows 2000 Release Candidate 2. On a more recent note, Itanium has been dropped too.

The issue of platform compatibility is quite an interesting one. x86 is what basically killed IA64. It is incredibly difficult to break the stranglehold of x86 when you can't run legacy software in any meaningful way (the hardware x86 emulation was so bad on the original Itanium CPUs that it was faster to replace it with software, and woefully inadequate compared to even low end x86 kit at the time) - particularly after AMD64 hit the market with the ability to run x86 code natively at full speed. The chains of legacy software are very hard to break in the real world. The only non-x86 architecture that would have had a chance would be Alpha - had it not been for the demise of it. FX!32 is worth reading about.

Apple has always been in its own little world. The shift to Intel wouldn't have had anything to do with x86 compatibility, that was more of a bonus than anything else. Indeed, it is not cited as a reason for it - it mainly relates to lack of progress with the PowerPC architecture.


----------



## Riv (Jul 1, 2010)

Hendikins said:


> it mainly relates to lack of progress with the PowerPC architecture.


 
Exactly right. If I remember correctly, the g3 was approximately 3x faster than the intel chipset available at the time. And then, all of a sudden, duocore. Apple had to convert or die.


----------



## Hendikins (Jul 1, 2010)

Riv said:


> Exactly right. If I remember correctly, the g3 was approximately 3x faster than the intel chipset available at the time. And then, all of a sudden, duocore. Apple had to convert or die.


 
Cherry picked benchmarks are not particularly meaningful. As I recall Apple picked a new set of them to show the Intel gear as being faster to sell more kit after the transition...

Edit: Take this article for instance, the 1.9GHz G5 has nowhere near a 3x gain over a 1.83GHz EMT64 CPU running with one core disabled. In fact, it can even be slower.


----------



## Riv (Jul 1, 2010)

I wasn't talking about g5, I was talking about g3. Which would be properly pitted against a Pentium II or III. I already know that coreduo is faster than g5.

Some relevant benchmarks and info here.


----------



## Hendikins (Jul 1, 2010)

Riv said:


> I wasn't talking about g5, I was talking about g3. Which would be properly pitted against a Pentium II or III. I already know that coreduo is faster than g5.


 
Oddly enough, I can easily dig up numbers to say it wasn't nearly 3x in real world use (particularly when SSE was taken in to account, PIII 450 and up) - with about two seconds of Googling. Unfortunately G3 vs K7 is a little harder to get numbers for. Benchmarks are quite frankly trivially easy to manipulate to serve a purpose.


----------



## Riv (Jul 1, 2010)

Hendikins said:


> it wasn't nearly 3x in real world use ... about two seconds of Googling


 


Riv said:


> If I remember correctly.


 
I never said it was accurate. First sentence was a disclaimer. Right direction, wrong magnitude.


----------



## Hendikins (Jul 1, 2010)

Riv said:


> I never said it was accurate. First sentence was a disclaimer. Right direction, wrong magnitude.


 
The numbers match marketing, just not real world performance. Hence my comments about benchmarks.

Edit: Oddly enough, I don't actually take sides on this issue. I haven't used Windows on my desktop since 2001, and I have an x86 Mac that I use for a few specific tasks. My desktop machine is actually an 8 core AMD box running Linux...


----------



## Siburca (Jul 8, 2010)

I worked with 20-30 operating systems (including different versions, and no Linux), text- and GUI-based and I can definetively say that Mac OS X is the best operation system in the world today.

But the most Mac users don't know its full potential. I'm using for nearly all graphics works the inbuilt picture-viewer! The Disk Utility can be used for much more than only partitioning hard drives. That's a Lion King DVD I created only with the Finder and the Disk Utility: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/c4q7-y.jpg

Scar's headphone at the botton left is a well placed icon! I always like to optimze and pimp my systems, already on the C64 and the Amiga, and this works very well on the Mac. This is my folder for MS-DOS-Games, they can be run very easily using Boxer by a simple double-click: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/c4q7-o.png

For the Mac users: Did you notice the drive icons in the sidebar? Although the drives on the Desktop seem to look normal, the sidebar icons are individual. I made 34 special versions with different 16x16-pixel icons for this purpose. If anyone is interested, I can upload them. I also have them as black glass verions for my Black Mac Hack: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/c4q7-u.png

It's very easy to modify OS X, this is my 'About my Mac' logo: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/c4q7-v.png
You only need Preview and Finder for this modification. As you see, it's an OSx86 machine based on an AMD Opteron. I've got 4 AMD-based OSx86-systems, an iBook G4 and an Powerbook G4 (HiRes-Model) which should run MorphOS when it's out.


----------



## AlpineLupine (Jul 9, 2010)

Siburca said:


> I worked with 20-30 operating systems (including different versions, and no Linux), text- and GUI-based and I can definetively say that Mac OS X is the best operation system in the world today.
> 
> But the most Mac users don't know its full potential. I'm using for nearly all graphics works the inbuilt picture-viewer! The Disk Utility can be used for much more than only partitioning hard drives. That's a Lion King DVD I created only with the Finder and the Disk Utility: http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/big/c4q7-y.jpg
> 
> ...


 
Wow - thanks for reminding me why I went mac in the first place. And congrats on the discs they look beautiful! It's a shame they won't look like that on windows though. . .


----------

