Operating Systems > macOS
Alright Macheads, lets talk real deal here
solarismka:
quote:
Compare this to Windows? Win95, 98, and NT were real bad, depending on what hardware you ran.
--- End quote ---
Maby, but they are more usable and have less compatibility problems compared with the other M$ OS'es.
quote:
Win2k on the other hand was decent, and XP is mostly stable
--- End quote ---
Lets see. Win2k, 2k3 and XP is less usable, slow as shit, has just a mount of viruses, trojans and spyware pluse idiotic 'anti-piracy' shit so that you have to by another license if you install a new card. Pluse all the usual hunting around for shitty drivers. Not to mention XP is just as stable as the rest of the M$ family. With really realy really powerful hardware and 'proper' drivers ME CAn be more stable than XP!
quote:
(though its godawful interface is a step backwards).
--- End quote ---
No arguments there.
quote:
I use windows on a daily basis at work, and considering the plethora of hardware it has to run on, it does a decent job.
--- End quote ---
Then why does every M$ zealot out there always give the exuse that its always bad drivers and never windows fault for stability? Considering that XP is the defacto deskto it has THE shittiest driver support I have EVER SEEN!
quote:
You also have to give some credit to Intel and the others for putting together better hardware.
--- End quote ---
Really? Then when XP does crash on those name brand hardware's it isn't their fault but windows aftter all.
quote:
Linux? Well, some of us like to tinker. I really do not want to come home to wrestle with yet another machine.
--- End quote ---
Myth! I run Red Hat and SuSE. NEVER 'tinkered' as much than on windows. No registry hacks, dll hell etc...
If I want to install a peace of hardware I plug it in and thats it. No hunting around for drivers that don't work anyway!
quote:
Many a times i've had my mandrake install kill itself on an X upgrade (mysteriously murdered? wtf?).
--- End quote ---
I've never even heard of that happening. But I have seen all generations of windows lock up during its install!
quote:
Its got a way to go, and I'd rather have a company behind the OS to go and fight for it (Apple, Microsoft, Sun, etc...).
--- End quote ---
IMO I'd rather the Open Source community route! From the home desktop to fortune 500 companies Linux IS a supiror product!
I don't know about Mac's since i'm not a user of such an OS but I do know windows and I do know linux and I know what is right and what is myth!
To say that Linux is hard to use, doesn't have good driver support or crashes mystically is myth. Likewize saying XP is stable, windows has good driver support and is secure is also a myth!
hm_murdock:
quote:Maby, but they are more usable and have less compatibility problems compared with the other M$ OS'es.
--- End quote ---
And what compatibility problems are those?
And define "more useable". Windows 95 was the height of 1990s Windows. For its time, it had great hardware support, and it had a simiple, clean UI. The Win9x appearance is, IMHO a work of art.
XP is great, although it's in flux. It's a mix of next-gen MS ideas on task-based UI (which I'm disliking less and less) and of classic Win95-style UI.
quote:Lets see. Win2k, 2k3 and XP is less usable, slow as shit, has just a mount of viruses, trojans and spyware pluse idiotic 'anti-piracy' shit so that you have to by another license if you install a new card.
--- End quote ---
I installed a vid card, removed a modem and added a second NIC and it didn't ask to reactivate.
[quote[Pluse all the usual hunting around for shitty drivers.[/quote]
I've never had to "hunt around". I install it and my shit works. 'Nuff said.
quote:Not to mention XP is just as stable as the rest of the M$ family.
--- End quote ---
Untrue. XP and Server 2003 are better than 2000.
quote:With really realy really powerful hardware and 'proper' drivers ME CAn be more stable than XP!
--- End quote ---
Lies.
9x is not as watertight as NT.
quote:Then why does every M$ zealot out there always give the exuse that its always bad drivers and never windows fault for stability? Considering that XP is the defacto deskto it has THE shittiest driver support I have EVER SEEN!
--- End quote ---
Because a poorly written device driver WILL CRASH ANY SYSTEM. I had OS X go south and destroy itself because of a buggy driver. Same will happen to Linux. A driver is software, like any other thing. Write it badly and it fucks up. When something runs that closely to the kernel, it fucks up big time.
Stop confusing lazy developers and shitty, cheap hardware companies with the OS's "driver support".
quote:Really? Then when XP does crash on those name brand hardware's it isn't their fault but windows aftter all.
--- End quote ---
Why does any OS crash?
And no, it can't be the hardware maker's fault for using shitty hardware. It can't be a simple manufacturing defect. THERE'S NO WAY THAT A COMPUTER COULD BE A LEMON!
quote:Myth! I run Red Hat and SuSE. NEVER 'tinkered' as much than on windows. No registry hacks, dll hell etc...
If I want to install a peace of hardware I plug it in and thats it. No hunting around for drivers that don't work anyway!
--- End quote ---
First off... NEVER... NEVER act like your experience with something is the same as everybody's. Saying that it's a myth is supreme arrogance. I have to jump through hoops to get my GeForce 4 to work in Red Hat 9 because for some reason it simply does not detect it and use it by default. Even when I deactivate built-in Intel 810 video in the BIOS, X11 uses it and it configures for it.
This is inexplicable behavior and it would RUIN A N00B ON LINUX.
Things don't always go perfectly in Linux, just as Windows isn't always shitty. 2000 never worked right on my old AMD box, but now XP is WITHOUT FLAW on my P3.
quote:IMO I'd rather the Open Source community route! From the home desktop to fortune 500 companies Linux IS a supiror product!
I don't know about Mac's since i'm not a user of such an OS but I do know windows and I do know linux and I know what is right and what is myth!
To say that Linux is hard to use, doesn't have good driver support or crashes mystically is myth. Likewize saying XP is stable, windows has good driver support and is secure is also a myth!
--- End quote ---
Windows XP is stable, has good driver support, and my install is secure.
For some people Linux is hard to use, doesn't support any of their hardware, and crashes inexplicably.
I've seen both.
oh, btw...
This is a Mac thread. Leave. Now.
solarismka:
quote:
And what compatibility problems are those?
--- End quote ---
Try running Office on Office XP or 2k or 2k3.
Because of NT compatibility most porgrams that run in 9x cannot run on XP, 2k and 2k3. Such database programs that are used by many business cannot run on different version of windows. Infact, even the same systems can cause problems do to diffrent version'ings in .dll files and how they are implimented in the program.
quote:
And define "more useable". Windows 95 was the height of 1990s Windows. For its time, it had great hardware support, and it had a simiple, clean UI. The Win9x appearance is, IMHO a work of art.
--- End quote ---
I agree, it stayed the same right through untill XP. However driver support was never great. Win95 had better support for driver install. Due to wizards etc. Which put it above windows 3.1. But it has no where as near as linux and this has been around a hell of a lot longer.
I've fixed dozons of windows boxes of all versions and guess what. They all have the same problem. Instead of the drivers being built in with an auto detection system. You have to hunt around for them. When one does install the correct drivers for the correct version of windows it still fucks up windows. When one tries to fix the problem its always the same exuse. Its badhardwaresoftwareenduser's fault.
quote:
XP is great,
--- End quote ---
Lets see, its slow as shit. The interface is damn ugly. It does the same as all windows. It has a stupid anti piracy shit built into it. Still has viruses. It needs even more hardware power etc etc etc.....
quote:
although it's in flux. It's a mix of next-gen MS ideas on task-based UI (which I'm disliking less and less) and of classic Win95-style UI.
--- End quote ---
The only 'classic' UI style it has is if you turn off that awful fisher price GUI. Even that is STILL slow and very unproductive.
quote:
I installed a vid card, removed a modem and added a second NIC and it didn't ask to reactivate.
--- End quote ---
No the corperate version does not. But most people have the home or OEM version. That does. Also. Adding any kind of hardware takes separate drivers that seem to never work.
quote:
I've never had to "hunt around". I install it and my shit works. 'Nuff said.
--- End quote ---
I've worked as a sys admin and tech support. I've NEVER seen a windows box that did not ask for some sort of drivers. You have to have them!
quote:
Untrue. XP and Server 2003 are better than 2000.
--- End quote ---
Really? Lets see. Same viruses, trojans, spyware, idiotic updates etc. Oh I see the differense. win2k3 even MORE hardware. Pluse the expensive licensing etc... Yea. Real different.
quote:
Lies.
--- End quote ---
Nope!
quote:
9x is not as watertight as NT.
--- End quote ---
Yep, it is! Its the same thing over and over and over.....
quote:
Because a poorly written device driver WILL CRASH ANY SYSTEM.
--- End quote ---
I'm running my web server on a P2 233mhz, 24mb ram with ony a 2gig hard drive. Windows, no matter what version crashed it. Execept 2k3 and Xp simply because those verions just cannot run on such hardware.
Fedore Core Linux however, installed and worked out of the box, is able to run KDE 3.1 all on a 2gig 24mb of ram. Why is it that Linux has no problem running but windows has. Why is it that an updated state of the art Linux box can run fine but the latest windows box can't even run properly without of gig of ram!?
quote:
I had OS X go south and destroy itself because of a buggy driver.
--- End quote ---
quote:
Same will happen to Linux. A driver is software, like any other thing. Write it badly and it fucks up.
--- End quote ---
Show me one. I've haven't seen any and I've been running linux since the 2.2 kernel! I've never seen 'bad drivers' in linux. But then there is a community behind linux not corperations that care more about the bottem line then they do about a product.
quote:
When something runs that closely to the kernel, it fucks up big time.
--- End quote ---
Ok, proof please!
quote:
Stop confusing lazy developers and shitty, cheap hardware companies with the OS's "driver support".
--- End quote ---
I'm not. But you CAN stop with the bullshit. Oh its badhardwaresoftwareendusers fault! The same exuse ofver and over and over! M$ has been around a long time yet Linux has better support!
Figure that out. I've never seen a crash because some driver faild unless its on windows!
quote:
Why does any OS crash?
--- End quote ---
If Linux crashes because its some old hard drive or ram that has been running for ever. Eventualy all hardware will age and eventually die. However. All you have to do on windows is even look at it wrong and it does not matter what version it is!
quote:
And no, it can't be the hardware maker's fault for using shitty hardware.
--- End quote ---
Nope, expecialy when Linux or any other OS can run on it just fine!
quote:
It can't be a simple manufacturing defect.
--- End quote ---
Not if all windows behave the same way on the same machine yet other OS'es on that same machine works fine!
quote:
THERE'S NO WAY THAT A COMPUTER COULD BE A LEMON!
--- End quote ---
It could. But not to the point of what windows zealots make them out to be.
quote:
First off... NEVER... NEVER act like your experience with something is the same as everybody's.
--- End quote ---
I'm not saying its like same as everybody's. But the argument of Linux not supporting hardware is long gone and is no longer a valid exuse!
quote:
Saying that it's a myth is supreme arrogance.
--- End quote ---
Really.
I quote you!
"I've never had to "hunt around". I install it and my shit works."
So what you say is fact? Yep that there is pritty
arrogent to me. Expecialy when Me and everyone else in the world have to jump through hoops just to install any kind of hardware in windows!
quote:
I have to jump through hoops to get my GeForce 4 to work in Red Hat 9 because for some reason it simply does not detect it and use it by default. Even when I deactivate built-in Intel 810 video in the BIOS, X11 uses it and it configures for it.
--- End quote ---
Well. I've never ran that type of card. But I have installed out of the box using RH9 a readon 7500 with S-Vidio out. Everything works INCLUDING the S-Video out. If I couldn't get something to run I ask on the billions of Linux help boards out there and look through the many helpful of books, without having to wait for expensive tech support or listen to the same old exuse.
"Your using badsoftwarehardware, try reinstalling it..."
quote:
This is inexplicable behavior and it would RUIN A N00B ON LINUX.
--- End quote ---
No, since most 'n00bs' actually get help. Not just install it once then say fuck it.
quote:
Things don't always go perfectly in Linux,
--- End quote ---
No its not the perfect OS. But for an OS that is pritty much new. Can out perform the biggest corperation in the OS business. It has that title for a reason!
quote:
just as Windows isn't always shitty. 2000 never worked right on my old AMD box, but now XP is WITHOUT FLAW on my P3.
--- End quote ---
If Xp has over a gig of ram it would run fine. Give windows 2k runs with over a gig of ram it runs fine too! Heck give winME 500mb of ram and it runs smooth! But the same problems of viruses, trojans and constant updates are still gonna be there.
quote:IMO I'd rather the Open Source community route! From the home desktop to fortune 500 companies Linux IS a supiror product!
I don't know about Mac's since i'm not a user of such an OS but I do know windows and I do know linux and I know what is right and what is myth!
quote:Windows XP is stable, has good driver support, and my install is secure.
--- End quote ---
Why is it that the rest of the M$ install base really dissagree's with you.
It could be for you. But for me and for many others we don't buy that same old exuse of its the hardware's fault! Windows is simply insecure, buggy and has bad driver support.
I Know great many windows users and they ALWAYS have something to complain about when it comes to windows. But when it comes to other OS'es those complaints arn't there.
There is a difference between quality and marketing. Apple is a corperation yet its FAR supirior than windows its even better than Linux!
Why is it that Apple has gotten the message but Microsoft has not?
because every other OS out there is about people using their product not just some marketing PR.
quote:
For some people Linux is hard to use,
--- End quote ---
That goes for windows as well. Fighting with the machine just to get even simple tasks done because of its instability and security is not 'ease of use.'
quote:
doesn't support any of their hardware
--- End quote ---
,
It might not support EVERY hardware out there BUT it DOES have better support with more help avilable than that of windows and yet windows has been around!
quote:
and crashes inexplicably.
--- End quote ---
Linux DOES NOT crash almost everyday to a few times a month. There have been Linux boxes out there that have an uptime of 2 years or more. Not just 6 months!
Linux may crash. Just like all OS'es but not to the extent of windows!
quote:
I've seen both.
--- End quote ---
So have I but most often that not on Windows!
oh, btw...
STFU!!!!
[ August 03, 2004: Message edited by: kn0wn ]
solarismka:
quote:Originally posted by bedouin:
I purchased my first Mac in 2002 -- a Quicksilver 2002. It's honestly the only computer I've ever owned that I have absolutely no complaints about. It's been updated from 10.1 > 10.2 > 10.3 without a clean install, and runs just as fast (perhaps faster, because of QE) than the day I bought it.
A year later I bought a 12" 800mhz G3 iBook. It suffered from one logic board failure, but has been fine ever since. The battery life is great (sometimes close to 6 hours), and the size is perfect. I haven't found anything comparable to Apple's laptop offerings in the PC world, especially in the 12" form. The x86 laptops I did like made no mention of Linux support, and I refuse to run another Microsoft OS in my life.
My dad is the owner of a 1ghz eMac, and it's been completely trouble free. I've been a computer user since 1985, when I received a c64 and I was PC user from probably '88-2002. As far as a desktop OS, there's nothing comparable to OS X.
The only OS I ever used comparable to OS X was BeOS. If Be was still adequately supported I'd probably still be using it.
I've kernel paniced OS X a couple times, but both times it was my fault. I don't know that I've had a Windows install last more than 6 months without going awry. As long as Steve Jobs keeps doing his magic, I'll be a loyal Apple customer.
Oh, and BTW: Microsoft could make the best OS in the world; I would never support them. It's a moral issue to me. They want to control every computer in the world, eliminate open standards, and subsequently control the exchange of information itself. Whether you install a pirated copy of Windows or not, by running their OS, or helping other people use it, you're just perpetuating a dictatorship.
--- End quote ---
That last part was very well written! I couldn't agree with you more!
WMD:
I'm sorry...
did you say something?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version