Windows XP SUCKS compared to OS X

Sure OSX needs more drivers.
We still have a long way to go. But the ones I have now work flawlessy (at least for me).

On xp, apparently, everything is more messy. Plus it's not only drivers that are needed. I heard people having different sorts of problems. All in all the impression that I got is not good. People I talked to are disapponted.

OSX is perfect for me. Others may use xp or other flavours of win. My point is that xp has been over hyped. It feels wrong to me. I don't like using it. OSX (once again, IMHO) is a pleasure to use. My friends had never been interested in my Mac before. Now they ask me if they can get the same sort of feel on their machines.

I wasn't about defining which one is technically better, but which one feels better. OSX feels right to me.
 
Exactly, lonny. Whatever works best for you personally. Neither OS is bad, they are just very different. Like with cars. A Honda Civic is not a bad car at all, but I wouldn't want one as a track car. Something like that. :)
 
And OS X has support for stuff?!? XP is WAY ahead right now in that respect!
Click to expand...

"right now" being the key words.

In the past, the Mac OS has been plagued by legacy code. OSX helps get rid of that problem.

MS will find themselves in the same position Apple was before OSX.

Getting Apps to OSX is an uphill battle, but I have to say they're doing pretty well. I think you'll find, down the road, that OSX will be better suited to the times and MS will be scrambling to reinvent their OS.
 
well, NT has historically been server-network
9x based windows wre for home.

M$ released XP which is like the "OS X" of the windows world since it unifies the home and business market under one OS.
(and probably getting rid of the old stuff like OS X kinda does)


Admiral
 
Originally posted by dlookus
Can someone explain the lineage. Is 2000 a mix between NT and 98? If so, what are ME and XP?
Click to expand...

Sure. In the early 90's msft decided they needed a better os. They (with the help of IBM) came up with NT.

For a long time the DOS -> Windows -> Win95/98/ME strain ran next to the NT -> 2000 -> XP strain.

Msft has wanted to get rid of the DOS line for a long time but because of incapatibilities, min hardware requirements, gamers, etc. they had to keep it alive.

Now, finally, the DOS line is supposed to be dead. What we have instead is a professional and a home version of XP. They are the same core but msft removed some extra stuff from the home version. The home version is also cheaper.

Is it as good looking as OSX, not to me. Is it but ugly and unusable, not to me.

I'm not sure why the multi-media apps that ships with it are so terrible. I'm guessing the either don't want to get in trouble for crushing more partners or that they want to sell you better versions later.
 
Originally posted by hazmat


Probably better off that way, since MS is HORRIBLE at making deadlines. :) I think they just barely made it with 95.
Click to expand...

Win95 shipped in July of 95. Still, your point is valid. It was originally going to be called Win94.
 
Originally posted by vanguard
Win95 shipped in July of 95. Still, your point is valid. It was originally going to be called Win94.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, Windows 95 (Code name : Chicago) was supposed to be called Windows 4. In 1994, since they were 2 years late, the marketing guys at Microsoft found a way to spin the new OS in a new way that would make people forget that they had been victims of the "it should really come out any time now" syndrome... and thus ease the frustration of the Windows 3.1 users.
 
That Windows 2000 is stable is a urban legend. I use it every day at work and it is always broken. OK, I agree : it doesn't crash and there are seldom BSODs to be seen, but that doesn't mean everything is fine. Every now and then, something suddenly stops working (the mouse, Office, Explorer) as if the machines were possessed or something. And, mind you, this happens many time per week. :(

This contrasts sharply with my two Macs running Mac OS X. Take my iBook, for instance : I never shut it down (I always lug it around in sleep mode), and right now, the Terminal's uptime tell me it has been running for 15 days straight without a restart (although I will have to restart any minute now since I am currently installing iTunes 2.0.3 !) or any problem whatsoever. :)

So for all those who insist in saying that Windows XP is stable, I allow myself to doubt. But then even if we do pretend that XP is as stable as Mac OS X, those of you using it still have to deal with the Big Brother approach of Microsoft and its .Net initiative ! Poor fellows ! :eek:
 
When I first got my new notebook at work with Win2k on it, it was very stable. I think I went the first few months without any trouble. However, now I'm lucky to go a week without a BSOD.

We'll probably be hearing the same reports of XP being stable that we did with w2k. Why? Because it is stable, at first.

Every windows distribution has been the same for me. It's good at first but after 6-12 months it's terrible. I've been using NT since 3.51 and it's always been the same. I'll believe that XP is stable when I see it stay up for months in 2003. Unix can do it.
 
Originally posted by hazmat
Dell now ships with Linux. There are more. But Linux? Check out the BSD's. FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Much more secure and well supported. FreeBSD moreso for a desktop. OpenBSD is awesome for a server, but I find a PITA otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually Dell has dropped linux pre-installations in consumer machines. The news was all over Wired and Slashdot.
 
Originally posted by Jadey


Actually Dell has dropped linux pre-installations in consumer machines. The news was all over Wired and Slashdot.
Click to expand...

Damn, sorry. I had no idea. Until XFree86 is significantly improved, Linux I don't think will ever be a viable alternative. That's what I love about OS X. It's Unix-based, yet has a proper GUI and the Mac software range. What was the last version of Photoshop that was made for Linux? :) The Gimp I guess is good, but I love Photoshop. Just an example.
 
Originally posted by lonny
The fact that xp is copied from OSX irritates me, not because I don't like X (I love it), but because it reminds me of how much MS lacks immagination.
Click to expand...

Erhm... Have you ever worked on a machine with Windows XP? It does not look like a Mac OS X ripoff. It looks like candy alright, but it's quite different from OS X.

Windows XP is a Windows 2000 that has been revamped with a new user interface. It gets in the way of users sometimes, but Mac OS X does that very well, too. :)

Well, whatever you guys think... I think Windows XP is the best Windows as of yet. It's easy to use, quite stable and reduces some of the 'bad things' older Windows incarnations had. Usually Win32 software runs on XP. Compatibility is already better than Windows 2000 was when it was twice or four times its age, mainly because XP is also aimed at the private home user.

Mac OS X has some catch up to do in *that* area at least, for many hardware extensions to the Mac still don't work in OS X (modems, PDAs, cameras etc.).
 
Mac OS X has nice antialiasing on LCD screens. Really nice.

Windows XP has ClearType. If you've ever used that feature on a notebook or an LCD screen, you don't think about it once more: Windows XP is BETTER in that feature.
 
Originally posted by fryke

Erhm... Have you ever worked on a machine with Windows XP? It does not look like a Mac OS X ripoff. It looks like candy alright, but it's quite different from OS X.
Click to expand...

Ummmm.... I beg to differ. I can't stand using XP either, and it is really for the same reason. Granted that it is a horrid copy of OS X, but a blatent ripoff none the less.

I shutter when I remember a story that I heard of one of those compusa ppl telling a customer that Apple ripped off microsoft.
 
Originally posted by fryke
Mac OS X has nice antialiasing on LCD screens. Really nice.

Windows XP has ClearType. If you've ever used that feature on a notebook or an LCD screen, you don't think about it once more: Windows XP is BETTER in that feature.
Click to expand...

Can somebody explain this to me? My interests lie closer to the machine but I often hear guys talk about apple's fonts and how wonderful they are. From what I can see, Apple and MSFT have good looking fonts, the X Window system has ugly ones.

What's the difference between clear type and anti-aliased?
 
Mac OS X uses basic antialiasing. You use shades of gray on type, so it actually seems like the screen has a better resolution. Or, as others put it, it makes the type look fuzzy.

CoolType (Adobe) and ClearType (Microsoft) use subpixel-antialiasing, which works best on TFT monitors. Every pixel is made of three pixels (RGB), and by antialiasing the type using color-based masks, type actually looks better. You can try it in Acrobat Reader's preferences (CoolType). MS has made ClearType available to the whole system in Windows XP.

(And I also hate Windows XP and its look, but it's still better than what it was before.)
 
Originally posted by fryke
Mac OS X uses basic antialiasing. You use shades of gray on type, so it actually seems like the screen has a better resolution. Or, as others put it, it makes the type look fuzzy.
Click to expand...
For what its worth, I've read somewhere that subpixel-antialiasing is planned for Mac OS X 10.2...
 
I must say after using XP on my girlfriends SISTERS computer, i think it is just W2K with a cheesy appearance theme and some wannabe-clever puppet assistants. Oh yeah, and a gawd awful hunk of crap video-shop app. woo hoo M$! Way to sustain my expectations for the next onslaught of misleading propaganda for your OS.
 
Originally posted by fryke
Erhm... Have you ever worked on a machine with Windows XP? It does not look like a Mac OS X ripoff.
Click to expand...

My favorite feature of XP is that it looks more like Mac OS then ever! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top