Why Win2K is worse than OS X?


I have read the battle of win2k vs. OS X in cnet.com and zdnet.com. Flanky, I think the compare is not fair although I am a Mac user.

The scord can't be 1:1:1:1. The article just compare the features of each os and then decided which is the winner. This is not fair.

Software support must be the highest portion in the battle. eg 10:15:50:15:10. Totally 100 marks.

In the comparision, OS X win 3 of 5, but the scord must lower because 50 is from software.

What want to wait 1 or 2 and even more to wait the new software supporting OS X to out?????? OS X not running software compatibly means what? Adobe is confused and the porting software is not clear yet. Adobe is with Apple for about 20 years. Why now Adobe don't support OS X immediately? Porting problem, right?

Now almost all software fully supporting OS X is out about 1 years late. What are they? All of them is small software not bigger up to 20MB, am I right? They port their small software with 1 year. How about others like Adobe? Must be not less than 10 years to completely port their software, isn't it?! Everyone know how many products Adobe has.

2 years and 10 years later, what is OS X? OS XIII ? or OS X is abandoned and new OS is used? like OS 9 will become history in 1 or 2 years. Even OS X core is still using, Apple will change a lot of it. Apple OS always has compatibility problems. just like os 8.1 and os 8.5, os 9 and os 9.1. Software running under it will get problem.

So the software must be a highest portion in the battle. The winner is from the total scord.

I hope my opion is supported.
To start with , I think it's up to whoever runs the tests to decide how they want to weight their comparisons. So if Cnet decided that software compatibility is AS important as hardware compatibility, or ease of install, then that's their business.
Second, I find the way you take issue with OSX software compatibility is flawed. OK, so Adobe haven't released native versions of their packages yet - reasons for this are many and varied, but not least of which I think is going to be the fact that they want to do it properly, and not just port software over like others have done. The opportunities that an interface-minded software company like Adobe can see in Aqua must be huge. And anyway, Current Adobe product run fine under Classic, so they ARE usable. And apart from which, the way you talk you'd think Adobe were the only people who write software for Apple.
Whilst no OS is any good without software, software is no good without a decent OS. I use Win2K every day at work, and yes, there's loads of software, but it's a pig to work with, it's ugly and it crashes.
Fact is, you're a Mac User who thinks that Win2K is better than OSX? Fine, OK. That's your opinion. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously...;)
I've been a Mac user a long time and Windows has never really seemed "serious" to me.

However, Windows 2000 really is the best WinDoze I've ever used. It beats the heck out of 95/98/NT.

I'm really anxious to see how OS X 10.1 deals with things like drag & drop and file extensions vs. creator/types. If Apple nails these things then I'd agree that it is better than all of the Windows flavors, but if they screw this up then it is more in question.

I'm not saying I'm going to stop using my Mac... I'm just saying we might be converting more *nix people with OS X than WinDoze people.
I just want to say wether it is fair to compare Mac OS X with Win2K. Of course, the things will change if Apple can combine the application running under classic is OS X.

Mac must has its advantage, but I can't use Mac advantages to deadly beats Windows. I am not an anti-microsoft guy. I just want to let us know, what is the comparing logic. Fair or not Fair.

Apple has done a lot of successful things, so done Microsoft. If not so, how Apple and Microsoft still survive until today?

Feelings != Facts.

Bill Gatez also adopted that OS X is the most advanced operating system he has never seen. See http://www.osdata.com, the movie.
But advanced doesn't mean success. UNIX is also the best operating system in Mainframe. But does it do successful in Destop? No! OS X is UNIX kernel, but doesn't mean it is UNIX operating system. UNIX is not for Destop.

I have used Linux before. A lot of voices say that is more liable than NT for destop. But I stop using it for almost 4 years, because I need convenience and stable and easy, not liability. I just want to be in third party eyes to compare them fairly. I am not Anti-intel, Anti-microst, Anti-UNIX, Anti-apple, Anti-linux, not Anti-????
PoweMACuser -
I am confused by your Threads. You say that you are a Mac user, and then you also say that you are not an anti-Microsoft user. Then you start this thread saying at CNet has a screwed up evaluation method in testing these two operating systems. But you never say which operating system you prefer. By the sounds of it - you are a Windoze user. And a hardcore one if so. I don't understand the point of this posting. You complain that the review of OS X and Win 2000 was unfair without stating in your opinion which is the better.

In my opinion - software Quanity is not worth giving up over software Quality. For many years, Apple shipped an OS that had no memory protection - yet how many times did your Mac crash compared to that of a Windows machine with memory protection. Very few times.

Being a developer - I must say that the new Cocoa is simple amasing. In my opinion - it must single handly be one of the greatest achievements for developers in computer history. It has made GUI design a breeze - it include many features that keep developers from 're-inventing the wheel' all over again in its package.

With the new OS X and native applications for it - I honestly can not see another operating system beeting the stablilty of OS X or its rubustness.

. . . just my two bits