XP vs Mac OS X

[Jon Yaeger]

I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they have,
they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.

For example, compared to OS X:

1. Microsoft products cost more at each new release. This is contrary to
other tech stuff (i.e. You get more for less over time). This is the
hallmark of a monopoly. OS X has always been $129 (Linux is free).

2. For the most part, the repair and recovery tools that Microsoft provides
are inadequate, poorly documented, or don't do anything useful (like fix a
busted install, with rare exceptions).

3. When you buy Microsoft OS you'll also need to buy Norton or M cAfee,
plus anti spyware, plus pop-up blockers, etc. I don't get pop-ups or
harmful viruses with OS X. This is a huge difference, in initial cost and
user experience.

4. Need to transfer or back up applications to another drive (with the
intention of actually using the app)? Can't do it with Microsoft. Simple
with Mac. Huge drawback!

5. System crashes typically take about 3-4X as long to resolve on Windows.
The registry concept is a kluge and a mousetrap.

6. XP's paranoia is really annoying. I was fixing a bad XP install and
after every time I changed the System registry keys the OS forced me to
re-register. It's a lot of fun calling some Indian fella and putting in 40
digits or whatever . . ..

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Troll,
We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.

There is always to option to stay with win2k which is
pretty stable

Rene

Jon Yaeger wrote:

I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they have,
they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.

For example, compared to OS X:

1. Microsoft products cost more at each new release. This is contrary to
other tech stuff (i.e. You get more for less over time). This is the
hallmark of a monopoly. OS X has always been $129 (Linux is free).

2. For the most part, the repair and recovery tools that Microsoft provides
are inadequate, poorly documented, or don't do anything useful (like fix a
busted install, with rare exceptions).

3. When you buy Microsoft OS you'll also need to buy Norton or M cAfee,
plus anti spyware, plus pop-up blockers, etc. I don't get pop-ups or
harmful viruses with OS X. This is a huge difference, in initial cost and
user experience.

4. Need to transfer or back up applications to another drive (with the
intention of actually using the app)? Can't do it with Microsoft. Simple
with Mac. Huge drawback!

5. System crashes typically take about 3-4X as long to resolve on Windows.
The registry concept is a kluge and a mousetrap.

6. XP's paranoia is really annoying. I was fixing a bad XP install and
after every time I changed the System registry keys the OS forced me to
re-register. It's a lot of fun calling some Indian fella and putting in 40
digits or whatever . . ..

 

[Oliver Hannaford-Day]

Hi,

We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.

Or Linux which has all of the above.

 

[martin griffith]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:06:31 +0100, in sci.electronics.design "Oliver
Hannaford-Day" <oli_hd@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

Hi,

We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.

Or Linux which has all of the above.

0123456789ABCDEF

^




martin

After the first death, there is no other.
(Dylan Thomas)

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Oliver Hannaford-Day wrote:

Hi,


We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.


Or Linux which has all of the above.

Really ?
Which compiler ?
which applications ?

BTW, I do have a linux machine.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Nico Coesel]

Jon Yaeger <jono_1@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they have,
they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.

For example, compared to OS X:

Wasn't it the Macintosh computer which still didn't had an MMU* when
all other proper computers did? Macintosh is still way behind. OS X is
just an attempt to keep up with the big boys.

* An MMU allows for protected mode which makes each application run
within its own memory area. If one application crashes, the OS can
take it down gracefully.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Jon Yaeger" <jono_1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BE8A7BB2.22C81%jono_1@bellsouth.net...

For example, compared to OS X:

1. Microsoft products cost more at each new release. This is contrary to
other tech stuff (i.e. You get more for less over time). This is the
hallmark of a monopoly. OS X has always been $129 (Linux is free).

XP Home reatails at $99 and XP Pro is $149 ***when purchased with hardware***.
I do agree that the "not purchased with hardware" prices are pretty absurd.
Still, it's probably a safe assumption that well over 90% of all copies of XP
sold either come with hardware.

2. For the most part, the repair and recovery tools that Microsoft provides
are inadequate, poorly documented, or don't do anything useful (like fix a
busted install, with rare exceptions).

Well, my usage of recovery tools with Microsoft has been use of the recovery
console and the "last known good profile." They've worked for me. I do agree
documentation on them is pretty sketchy, although there's a certain catch-22
here in that, if you system won't boot, you probably won't be able to access
the documentation anyway.

The tools could be better, I grant you -- I've seen people saved by the likes
of Symantec's "GoBack," for instance, which is a lot easier for the average
user to apply.

I don't know what recovery tools OS X has, although I doubt it's anything
comparable to GoBack.

3. When you buy Microsoft OS you'll also need to buy Norton or M cAfee,
plus anti spyware, plus pop-up blockers, etc. I don't get pop-ups or
harmful viruses with OS X. This is a huge difference, in initial cost and
user experience.

XP with service pack 2 comes with pop-up blocking, firewalls, etc. all
built-in, and free pop-up blockers have been around for years.

Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible benefit.

4. Need to transfer or back up applications to another drive (with the
intention of actually using the app)? Can't do it with Microsoft. Simple
with Mac. Huge drawback!

Nice feature. Realistically not something that people commonly want to do.
(I'd bet you that >90% of all PC installations only have a single partition,
and while we'd probably both agree multiple partitions are useful, your
typical user just doesn't want to wrap their mind around it.)

I take it OS X is like traditional UNIX where all the physical drives end up
as one monolithic directory structure, so by using a soft link you can easily
re-point an application to a different physical drive? I think the reason
that Windows uses the somewhat lame "shortcut" approach is that FAT and FAT32
don't HAVE directory links (NTFS does, though), and Windows had to work on
older systems.

5. System crashes typically take about 3-4X as long to resolve on Windows.

I wouldn't know, the XP/Win2K machines I use crash, I dunno, maybe a couple
times a year when I've been installing new software?

The registry concept is a kluge and a mousetrap.

I sort of used to think so and well, but I've read the design philosophy
behind it and these days think it's actually not so bad. The idea is to have
one central repository where applications can keep their settings for both
global program install options as well as individual user settings. The
alternative is something nasty like a bunch of .ini or .rc files in some
system directory or individual user directories -- what a mess. With Windows,
..ini files never had more than a "two tier" hierarchy (sections and fields),
so anyone wishing more depth than this had to role their own parser --
something always true in the case of UNIX-style .rc configuration files.

You could convince me that Windows ought to add the ability to import and
export registry contents as XML files, though.

6. XP's paranoia is really annoying. I was fixing a bad XP install and
after every time I changed the System registry keys the OS forced me to
re-register. It's a lot of fun calling some Indian fella and putting in 40
digits or whatever . . ..

If you're troubleshooting a system and break the activation, you've still got
15 days of troubleshooting before you're forced to re-activate the product. I
agree it is slightly annoying (it really does suck!), but whether or not
software should be copy protected is some huge debate that's never going to be
settled.

Oh, and as all the pirates immediately figured out, if you use the "corporate
install" versions of XP, it doesn't have any of the activation nonsense
anyway. :-(

---Joel

 

[Jon Yaeger]

in article 42651bcf$0$1145$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch, Rene Tschaggelar at
none@none.net wrote on 4/19/05 10:55 AM:

Troll,
We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.

There is always to option to stay with win2k which is
pretty stable

Rene

Butt-munch,

So let me get this straight. When I voice an informed opinion I'm a troll.
But if you do, you're enlightening mankind?

Jon

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article 42651bcf$0$1145$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch, Rene Tschaggelar at
none@none.net wrote on 4/19/05 10:55 AM:


Troll,
We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.

There is always to option to stay with win2k which is
pretty stable

Butt-munch,

So let me get this straight. When I voice an informed opinion I'm a troll.
But if you do, you're enlightening mankind?

No certainly not. But the mention of PC vs MAC is
considered trolling. There are billions of these
posts already. And none helps much. Mine neither,
also posted many times. Never mind, just forget my
post.

Rene

 

[Jon Yaeger]

in article 426554c0$0$1163$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch, Rene Tschaggelar at
none@none.net wrote on 4/19/05 2:58 PM:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article 42651bcf$0$1145$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch, Rene Tschaggelar at
none@none.net wrote on 4/19/05 10:55 AM:


Troll,
We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.

There is always to option to stay with win2k which is
pretty stable

Butt-munch,

So let me get this straight. When I voice an informed opinion I'm a troll.
But if you do, you're enlightening mankind?


No certainly not. But the mention of PC vs MAC is
considered trolling. There are billions of these
posts already. And none helps much. Mine neither,
also posted many times. Never mind, just forget my
post.

Rene

I'll forget yours in you forget mine . . ;-)

Jon

 

[Bob Eldred]

"Jon Yaeger" <jono_1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BE8A7BB2.22C81%jono_1@bellsouth.net...

I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they
have,
they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.

For example, compared to OS X:

1. Microsoft products cost more at each new release. This is contrary to
other tech stuff (i.e. You get more for less over time). This is the
hallmark of a monopoly. OS X has always been $129 (Linux is free).

2. For the most part, the repair and recovery tools that Microsoft
provides
are inadequate, poorly documented, or don't do anything useful (like fix a
busted install, with rare exceptions).

3. When you buy Microsoft OS you'll also need to buy Norton or M cAfee,
plus anti spyware, plus pop-up blockers, etc. I don't get pop-ups or
harmful viruses with OS X. This is a huge difference, in initial cost and
user experience.

4. Need to transfer or back up applications to another drive (with the
intention of actually using the app)? Can't do it with Microsoft. Simple
with Mac. Huge drawback!

5. System crashes typically take about 3-4X as long to resolve on
Windows.
The registry concept is a kluge and a mousetrap.

6. XP's paranoia is really annoying. I was fixing a bad XP install and
after every time I changed the System registry keys the OS forced me to
re-register. It's a lot of fun calling some Indian fella and putting in
40
digits or whatever . . ..

While we can agree about how crappy XP is especially it vulnerability to
attack, spy ware and the like, most of the software I use is not available
on the MAC or under Linux either for that matter. Apple missed the boat in
not coding a version of the MAC OS for Intel and AMD machines. At one time
they were talking of doing that and had they done so, they could have been a
contender. That would have given us all multiple choices and may have
spurred Gates toward better software. Furthermore, it could have given
developers reason to develop for the MAC OS. As it is Apple's decision to
stay away from 95% of the hardware has relegated them to less than 5% of the
business, a real dumb move IMO. If their operating system is really
superior, they could have ruled the roost but that is not to be. I've been
hoping Linux would assume that position since Apple has abrogated the throne
but I don't see much activity there either. Few of the programs I deal with
are available in Linux. So, what the hell are we supposed to do? Like it or
not we are stuck with Bill Gates.
Bob

 

In <e84e7$42655f2f$42a7d082$21595@msgid.meganewsservers.com>, on 04/19/05
at 12:42 PM, "Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> said:

activity there either. Few of the programs I deal with are available in
Linux. So, what the hell are we supposed to do? Like it or not we are
stuck with Bill Gates.

Yes, but in addition to all the very good, and totally valid points you
raised, let's be stuck with it, but never forget the illegal and unethical
business practices that he employed, the companies that he trampled and
either bought and destroyed, or that he absconded with in order to build
his illegal monopoly.

Apple has 5% of the market because bill gates stole his way to the top,
and walked away with impunity. Could Apple has gotten a bigger share? No
one knows, but we did learn from the trial that they really didn't get a
fair shot at it.

The arguments for and against, are old and tired, and heck, even I have to
use win2000 to make a $, but that doesn't mean we should ever forget how
this all came to be. I don't loose sleep over it, and I don't obsess about
it, but I cannot forget it.

Its one thing to have it forced upon us, but its another to ignore all the
facts. This is not life and death, of course, but as they say in High
Schools, "those who don't remember their history are going to have to
repeat it" It would be way cool if we never forget all that bill gates did
to the industry in order to get us to this point in time. For those who
would say we owe our PCs to bill gates, I will say, 'yes' and he ought to
be taken out for a long afternoon of electroshock therapy to show him our
gratitude.

JB

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:36:51 +0200, Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

Oliver Hannaford-Day wrote:

Hi,


We all know that XP is crap. However a MAC is not an option.
First, all our software runs on Windows.
Second, our compilers are for windows.
Third, additional hardware plugs into a PC.


Or Linux which has all of the above.

Really ?
Which compiler ?

Here are a few:
http://www.idiom.com/free-compilers/

which applications ?

Which applications do you want? Gimp for graphics? Koffice, OpenOffice,
TclSpice? Three differend pdf viewers? A handful or more of paint programs,
games, web browsers, newsreaders,

BTW, I do have a linux machine.

Well, then you should already know.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:42:54 -0700, Bob Eldred wrote:

While we can agree about how crappy XP is especially it vulnerability to
attack, spy ware and the like, most of the software I use is not available
on the MAC or under Linux either for that matter. Apple missed the boat in
not coding a version of the MAC OS for Intel and AMD machines. At one time
they were talking of doing that and had they done so, they could have been a
contender. That would have given us all multiple choices and may have
spurred Gates toward better software. Furthermore, it could have given
developers reason to develop for the MAC OS. As it is Apple's decision to
stay away from 95% of the hardware has relegated them to less than 5% of the
business, a real dumb move IMO. If their operating system is really
superior, they could have ruled the roost but that is not to be. I've been
hoping Linux would assume that position since Apple has abrogated the throne
but I don't see much activity there either. Few of the programs I deal with
are available in Linux. So, what the hell are we supposed to do? Like it or
not we are stuck with Bill Gates.

It seems that they're going the opposite direcion here:
http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/

And what apps do you need? Just compile from source!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible benefit.

No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Adrian Tuddenham" <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gvacp5.1nr71c31hfpbk0N%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid...

Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible
benefit.
No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).

A simple Google search shows this to be false.

It also shows that there are numerous anti-virus programs available for the
Mac, so unless these folks are defrauding their customers, there must be a few
virii running around...

 

Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible
benefit.
No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).

Uh oh........ :-(

 

[Bob Eldred]

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.19.21.46.57.684937@example.net...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:42:54 -0700, Bob Eldred wrote:

While we can agree about how crappy XP is especially it vulnerability to
attack, spy ware and the like, most of the software I use is not
available
on the MAC or under Linux either for that matter. Apple missed the boat
in
not coding a version of the MAC OS for Intel and AMD machines. At one
time
they were talking of doing that and had they done so, they could have
been a
contender. That would have given us all multiple choices and may have
spurred Gates toward better software. Furthermore, it could have given
developers reason to develop for the MAC OS. As it is Apple's decision
to
stay away from 95% of the hardware has relegated them to less than 5% of
the
business, a real dumb move IMO. If their operating system is really
superior, they could have ruled the roost but that is not to be. I've
been
hoping Linux would assume that position since Apple has abrogated the
throne
but I don't see much activity there either. Few of the programs I deal
with
are available in Linux. So, what the hell are we supposed to do? Like it
or
not we are stuck with Bill Gates.

It seems that they're going the opposite direcion here:
http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/

And what apps do you need? Just compile from source!

Cheers!
Rich

Oh goodie! you're going to supply me with the source code for SolidWorks so
that I can Compile it myself in Linux, Yeah right! Why didn't I think of
that?
Bob

 

In <nzh9e.944$Xb4.908@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, on 04/20/05
at 12:41 AM, "Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> said:

And what apps do you need? Just compile from source!

Cheers!
Rich

Oh goodie! you're going to supply me with the source code for SolidWorks
so that I can Compile it myself in Linux, Yeah right! Why didn't I think
of that?
Bob

Put me down for Pads PCB and SCH stuff, and the PIC microcontroller MPLAB.

I will pay you via paypal

JB

 

[Jon Yaeger]

in article 116b00nsjuggib0@corp.supernews.com, Joel Kolstad at
JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com wrote on 4/19/05 6:02 PM:

"Adrian Tuddenham" <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gvacp5.1nr71c31hfpbk0N%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid...
Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does OS X come with anti-virus protection? That would be a tangible
benefit.
No it doesn't because there aren't any OSX viruses (there haven't been
any viruses on any Mac OS for many many years).

A simple Google search shows this to be false.

It also shows that there are numerous anti-virus programs available for the
Mac, so unless these folks are defrauding their customers, there must be a few
virii running around...

I haven't personally seen any examples of OS X viruses. Nonetheless, Macs
can be infected by viruses that are attached to documents and the like. As
a previous poster pointed out, they don't propagate. But you can forward a
(Windows) infected document or virus to others from a Mac.

For OS 9 and earlier it is a different matter. Viruses exist and they are
harmful and can disable an OS 9 install.

Yes, there are anti-virus programs for OS X, such as Norton AntiVirus.
Except for finding stuff that can infect Windows PCs and OS 9 viruses, they
seem pretty useless to me. . . .