5% of all Windows installs crash 2 or more times a day?

Opening the Application Menu, as it's officially called, has some real advantages over the Dock. It doesn't get in the way until you need it; it shows all the currently running forefront applications; and it shows the current application. Sure, you have the Application Menu on the left side in OS X, but it only shows the current application. The Dock shows you everything that's running, but not the current application. It takes twice as long to find out the same information.

I wish the Dock had a way to show the current application, with maybe an enhanced triangle, or a halo, or something.

Oh, and the Dock is one of the technologies Apple "borrowed" from Next; I don't know where Microsoft came up with the Taskbar, probably the same place.
 
Well, uh, Microsoft introduced the Taskbar with Windows '95...

Not that it changed significantly or anything, but it's been around.

And, isn't your "current application" going to be viewable somewhere around your screen? It shouldn't be minimized if you're calling it a current application?
 
Oh, and the Dock is one of the technologies Apple "borrowed" from Next
Click to expand...
You make it sound so microsoft-ish.
Apple bought a company that would have otherwise no doubt, disappeared, because they had great technology, which apple saw a use for.
 
Yes, but they didn't invent the Dock, as I'm sure Microsoft didn't invent the Taskbar.
 
And to clarify, NeXT was run by Steve Jobs, now CEO of Apple. A lot of NeXT technology has been integrated into Mac OS X quite openly, such as the "open" command format and the way the apps are packaged.

Mind you, I liked that comment that Windows runs well "... once i close all of the crap she has put on her computer..." which sort of implies that Windows runs well, as long as you don't actually install any actual software as such, no accessories per se.

If you really want to see the difference between Mac and windows, take a PC and a Mac of about equivalent power, then fire up Word, Excel, PhotoShop, DreamWeaver, 50 web browser windows in 3 different browsers, mail, and about 20 other major applications. The Mac will be a little sluggish switching, but will remain stable. Even if an app does crash, the system can still be recovered and no other apps will fall over.
The PC will almost certainly crash.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself.
 
Originally posted by symphonix
...
Mind you, I liked that comment that Windows runs well "... once i close all of the crap she has put on her computer..." which sort of implies that Windows runs well, as long as you don't actually install any actual software as such, no accessories per se.

If you really want to see the difference between Mac and windows, take a PC and a Mac of about equivalent power, then fire up Word, Excel, PhotoShop, DreamWeaver, 50 web browser windows in 3 different browsers, mail, and about 20 other major applications. The Mac will be a little sluggish switching, but will remain stable. Even if an app does crash, the system can still be recovered and no other apps will fall over.
The PC will almost certainly crash.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself.
Click to expand...

This http://homepage.mac.com/hulkaros/Reloaded.html is from here http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32719

85 apps (+many other background processes) under OS X.2 :D

Check it out! :p
http://homepage.mac.com/hulkaros/dock.jpg
 
sorry but the 5% stat just reminded me of the last day before we hadto hand in a technology and design project in june.
using prodesktop-possibly the most unreliable cad program known to man, and a really bad printer, i would have would eaily have been double figure *per hour*
and there were about 45 people working their damdest using the really processor intrensive stuff availible.

id say that by ourselfves we must have contributed at least 2% that day
 
the 5% number is quite useless, since it seems to include both the OS and the applications. There are more then enough crapy OSX applications that can be crashed when pushed a little. A fine example is iMovie 3. While editing a full day with iMovie 2 never yielded crashes, importing long streams (say 1 to 1,5 hour) is almost impossible with imovie 3.

I'm sure i get my 5% mac crashes, even tough the operating system seldom locks up.

also, an enourmous number of crashes are caused by crap hardware, especialy memory modules not up to their tasks. (try to do a full gcc build with a linux kernal on cheap wintels) Something that has little to do with m$, and all with cheap wintel hardware.

so... the only safe conclusion may be that the small apple hardware platform is in general, more stable *hardware* then the wintel boxes
 
My iMac has only had 2 errors. I know it's not a crash but a kernel panic counts because Mac's never do things like Windows. The 1st time I kind of logged into the root account and renamed my "system" folder. Then it had a kernel panic when I rebooted it. The other time, don't ask why but it had a kernel panic out of nowhere when I was opening Maya PLE. But it doesn't happen daily.(Microsoft)
 
i havent had any touble with Maya PLE but i also have only used it rarely on my powerbook :)
 
The Mac can open more programs than Windows because of its protected, and virtually unlimited, RAM. Virtual memory is much better in OS X than in Windows, and the RAM is protected, so one program doesn't crash the whole system (usually). You can have as much RAM as you have disk space, though it will not perform well like real RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top