OSX vs. Windows

Well, my only comparison of web browsing is my PB 1.5gz, and my office XP box. Although I agree, Safari could be faster, I feel the web pages load well enough on my PB. Certainly, Java has significantly improved on Tiger.

I also agree, Firefox is a great browser, for the Mac it fails to impress, and lacks the Mac feeling when using it.
 
I find Firefox a real chore to use. From its strange contextual menus to its odd Download window and "feel". It also takes an eon to load.

I love Safari, and I'll stick with it.
 
im switching to mac cause of reliability and the fact its not a swiss cheese computer like windows based pcs are. i can easily do transactions online and be able to do my thing without gettin a virus or a BLUE SCREEN of death. haha. Thats just what ive learned and im switching over in a few weeks.
 
Seriously, for anyone having any major issues with their platform being unstable, its either user error or crappy/failing hardware. Thats it.

Our macs are G4 and G5's running print and sound apps and our higher end PCs are video editing and application development stations. We also have some more basic PCs scattered around as general purpose desktop machines (P3's and P4s). So far the only problems we encounter on the PC's are people installing betta applications or finding 'mystery' codecs and installing them. The problems we get on the macs are people thinking they have 8 gigs of ram and leaving everything open all the time and of course eventually running it into the ground....
 
Not having a large amount of experience with browsing the net with Windows other than my office XP box, I can say, the experience is much better on my Mac. Perhaps on a tweak out PC, it may be faster. Overall a few seconds of performance verses enjoying web browsing keeps me happy with Safari.
 
Surfing the web on a Mac is a lot more enjoyable for me — unless the site contains Flash or Java, which makes it suck. Still, at least I can surf the web without having adware and other crap unknowingly thrown into my browser cache folders.

I think Safari needs some work, and I can see it getting a lot better in the future (so long as the metal goes).
 
How are you all comparing these Web Surfing, how fast of a connection are you running? IE runs great and fast on windows cause its not blocking anything, if u have it right outta the box with no upgrades or popup blockers on, it runs smooth...But ive never tried the mac one. Ill be gettin my mac when i get back from this military deployment.... But ther is a way, to change in IE's prefs to Load Page after all pictures are downloaded, or to load them one by one. for any connection i do the Load page after eveyhings downloaded...somehow pops up faster. Just my $.02
Ill compare my new ibook 1.33ghz to my 2.0ghz celeron in a few weeks when i get home. Ill record it and post it.
 
IE on Windows (without taking into account the security issues with it) is definitely much faster and improved compared to IE on the Mac. I find it a chore to browse using IE on the Mac. Then again, I find it a chore to use IE at all since it doesn't support a lot of the stuff all the other "alternative" browsers already do.

But the best way to find out what's best for you is to try it out yourself. Just a note: if you think you'll get the same benefits from the Mac IE that you had on the Windows IE, you'll be sorely disappointed. It's basically treated by those IE-only sites as the unwanted child (yeah, it's a hard analogy especially since I'm a parent myself, but it's the truth in this respect).
 
The real question remains.


When will apple take the throne from windows?



If it could only get past 5% of market share...
 
128shot said:
The real question remains.


When will apple take the throne from windows?



If it could only get past 5% of market share...
Click to expand...


That's assuming the 95% is using XP, which they aren't. That 95% also includes much older versions of Windfows including NT4 and older, as well as Windows 95 and earlier. What good are those? :rolleyes:

I guess we'll see what happens once the Intel Macs are out. It's only a matter of time, I guess.
 
nixgeek said:
That's assuming the 95% is using XP, which they aren't. That 95% also includes much older versions of Windfows including NT4 and older, as well as Windows 95 and earlier. What good are those? :rolleyes:

I guess we'll see what happens once the Intel Macs are out. It's only a matter of time, I guess.
Click to expand...



Looking at this from a strictly business point of view-I believe-mac missed it shot-I firmly believed if apple took a similiar road like MS did (they owned the business comp market and in turn raised enough money to rule the desktop market too) we would be talking about how MS has 5% marketshare and apple is the big bad giant.


overly simple but it drives the point home.

Intel is a good shot at gaining marketshare though. Since macs will-finally-be cheap



Even a mac fan has to admit where his favorite company might have gone wrong in the past.
 
128shot said:
Looking at this from a strictly business point of view-I believe-mac missed it shot-I firmly believed if apple took a similiar road like MS did (they owned the business comp market and in turn raised enough money to rule the desktop market too) we would be talking about how MS has 5% marketshare and apple is the big bad giant.


overly simple but it drives the point home.

Intel is a good shot at gaining marketshare though. Since macs will-finally-be cheap



Even a mac fan has to admit where his favorite company might have gone wrong in the past.
Click to expand...

Oh, many times! Flaming PB 5300s, the lost cause that was Copland, unstable 52xx/62xx models. No one has said that Apple has been a complete saint in this whole thing. The reason MS caught up was because Apple kept tripping up in the mid-90s. Once Steve Jobs came on, things started taking a turn for the better. And yes, MS did help out Apple, but only to look good in front of the DoJ. Without Apple, they would have been a monopoly and broken apart.

Remember they are a computer company like many others, and many others like Apple have had their fair share of bad decisions and bad hardware/software.

And for the record, Apple DID try to do what MS did, but without being sleazy as MS had been in gaining that 95% market share (the killing off of DR-DOS and other tactics to make MSDOS and Windows take the market). Remember that Apple did decide to license out the Mac OS to clone makers in the mid-90s, and it was great for consumers in the short term. However, from a business standpoint the clone makers were cannibalizing Apple's sales. Had that kept on going, Apple would be history now. As much as people think Apple should be a software compabny like MS, it is inevitably a hardware company. Of course, now that might change since their main focus now is the iPod and now they are switching CPUs.

Another thing about the Mac clone makers was that while their systems might have been cheaper, not all of them were very stable. Some Power Computing Mac clones and other Mac clones had huge stability problems that in a way was good for Apple since people knew that Apple's Macs were from Apple and would work without the instabilities of the clones.

So as much as I hate to say it (because I did love the clones), Steve's killing of the clones was good for Apple, and it definitely shows now. And now with a robust system like Mac OS X, a lot of businesses are considering the Mac for teh corporate space.

Here's some proof from not too long ago...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/21/osx/index.php
 
nixgeek said:
Oh, many times! Flaming PB 5300s, the lost cause that was Copland, unstable 52xx/62xx models. No one has said that Apple has been a complete saint in this whole thing. The reason MS caught up was because Apple kept tripping up in the mid-90s. Once Steve Jobs came on, things started taking a turn for the better. And yes, MS did help out Apple, but only to look good in front of the DoJ. Without Apple, they would have been a monopoly and broken apart.

Remember they are a computer company like many others, and many others like Apple have had their fair share of bad decisions and bad hardware/software.

And for the record, Apple DID try to do what MS did, but without being sleazy as MS had been in gaining that 95% market share (the killing off of DR-DOS and other tactics to make MSDOS and Windows take the market). Remember that Apple did decide to license out the Mac OS to clone makers in the mid-90s, and it was great for consumers in the short term. However, from a business standpoint the clone makers were cannibalizing Apple's sales. Had that kept on going, Apple would be history now. As much as people think Apple should be a software compabny like MS, it is inevitably a hardware company. Of course, now that might change since their main focus now is the iPod and now they are switching CPUs.

Another thing about the Mac clone makers was that while their systems might have been cheaper, not all of them were very stable. Some Power Computing Mac clones and other Mac clones had huge stability problems that in a way was good for Apple since people knew that Apple's Macs were from Apple and would work without the instabilities of the clones.

So as much as I hate to say it (because I did love the clones), Steve's killing of the clones was good for Apple, and it definitely shows now. And now with a robust system like Mac OS X, a lot of businesses are considering the Mac for teh corporate space.

Here's some proof from not too long ago...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/21/osx/index.php
Click to expand...


Indeed that is interesting.

Forwarding to pre-2006. I can only see apple doing one route


Giving up on being a hardware company, which would make sense now that they adopted x86, and becoming a more software kind of company and this could become a standpoint to bombard MS's hold, and this would probably include adding extra features that are MS like in a way-but with an apple twist-(MS didn't do EVERYTHING wrong)-to drag in new users. the 2 year switch is-in my humble opinion-a phase out of being a hardware company and into a new software company of apple (with the exception of course of the iPod etc etc etc, those things are still good sellers)


If I owned apple I'd go this route, easily. MS's only weakness is itself. Though, i think apple will have to fight HARD against a billion dollar multi-national.
 
I don't see them giving up the hardware....however, I don't think that the Mac will continue to be their main focus for the time being due to the halo effect with the iPod. However, think of all the cash Apple would come into if the x86 Macs tend to be wildly popular...why would they give this opportunity up to other companies when they could still be making the cash for both the hardware and the software for years to come. This is a bold undertaking, but one that looks like it will bear much fruit. And it looks to benefit both Apple and Intel according to Ars Technica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051115-5572.html

Considering the new relationship between Apple and Intel, it would be silly of them to let go of the hardware at this point.
 
nixgeek said:
I don't see them giving up the hardware....however, I don't think that the Mac will continue to be their main focus for the time being due to the halo effect with the iPod. However, think of all the cash Apple would come into if the x86 Macs tend to be wildly popular...why would they give this opportunity up to other companies when they could still be making the cash for both the hardware and the software for years to come. This is a bold undertaking, but one that looks like it will bear much fruit. And it looks to benefit both Apple and Intel according to Ars Technica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051115-5572.html

Considering the new relationship between Apple and Intel, it would be silly of them to let go of the hardware at this point.
Click to expand...



I'm under the influence that i can just buy the OS and build the comp 3rd party though..
 
Then you would be mistaken. Intel and Apple are putting all sorts of DRM doodads into the OS to make it very hard to run on a non-Apple kit. There is a reason the hacked version out now are hacked.
 
Apple has always favored tight integration between hardware and software. That means that each machine they built, they know the _exact_ specs off, and thus know what drivers are needed. If they were to be like MS and just sell OS X like Windows, you'd lose the tight integration. Mixing and matching hardware though sexy(to the technologically inclined) does have it's drawbacks, especially when you look at how most of the instability on Windows is caused by device drivers.

I do not understand why people think that just because Apple is switching processors, it means that it'll be just like any other PC. As lurk has pointed out, you can bet Intel and Apple will have some sort of DRM on it.
 
Started out talking about surfin the web with either winblows or MAC. The discussion is now around Mac vs windblow$. I am not, nor never been concerned that Apple does not have a major part of the PC market. Sure, I would like to see there market share increase, and its has recently, and I believe it will when Intel Macs are commonplace.
Overall, I enjoy the Mac for it simplicity, and reliability. I agree with Viro, I would not want an unstable computer because of endless downloading of drivers, updates, security patches, etc. M$ faces so many challenges, whether some of them are created by their own business practices or large responsibility of dominating the PC market.
One thing that bothers me with the PC world is computers advertise "built of windows". What happen to the days when software boxes posted requirements based on hardware (IBM compatible 386, etc)?
I am not sure that a software company should be dictating to hardware companies how to built computers. Conversely, many PC users download so many programs, etc, that their systems become unstable. At work, our network admin has strict control over our usage (School), so our computers are some what stable. Although on daily basis, I struggle with the printer, poorly written Psychology programs that freeze with large amounts of data to crunch. Thankfully, my Powerbook gets me through the day and my productivity remains efficient. ;)
 
Well, the software boxes _still_ show minimum hardware and software requirements. But Microsoft, at the top, has started to license badges like "built for Windows", and usually, most of the people (that's of course not you and me) will buy something that "sounds more compatible". Actually, device driver problems etc. _help_ here, since people might think that buying a puzzled-together PC might be less compatible.
But of course, Apple computers won't need any such badges.
 
mac, pc, mac, pc, mac, pc is my current pattern... I guess I really care... I care a lot ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top