What would you say would more relate to the Windows updates of 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, and Longhorn. Would these be the same as 10.1, 10.2, etc. or OS 6, OS 7, and so on...
What would you say would more relate to the Windows updates of 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, and Longhorn. Would these be the same as 10.1, 10.2, etc. or OS 6, OS 7, and so on...
Every OS X upgrade counts for about 10 windows "upgrades"
Yeah, hard to compare. First, remember that there's two separate threads of Windows, the DOS lineage and the NT lineage. So there's 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> ME, and then there's NT4 -> 2000 -> XP. The two lineages "merged" in XP, but only in that XP has some backward-compatibility with 9x apps, and so was considered OK for home use.
Many people have considered Win95 to be the rough equal to System7 (1991). Win98 and ME were minor upgrades, maybe equivalent to 7->7.6 or 7.6->8.1. Switching mainstream users to the NT lineage, in the form of XP, was a big deal - similar to, and arguably driven by, the migration of the MacOS to OSX. XP and OSX debuted about the same time (2001), but since then OSX has seen a number of very significant upgrades, and XP has seen none.
So make of it what you will. The most important thing, I think, is that XP has been essentially unchanged since its debut in 2001, while OSX has seen 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and soon 10.4 - all of which were very substantial upgrades, each more ambitious than, for example, 95->98. And there's still no ship date for Longhorn.
Have people stopped debating which is the better OS?
I use both (XP at work and at home and OS X at home) and from the point of view of which looks better, I'd go with OS X.
And from the POV of which doesn't crash as muchor at all, I'd go with OS X.
XP is lightyears ahead of apple . XP is so stable . I would die if I had to live with OS X, the graphics suck. Im just kidin'. I don't think you can compare the two except maybe os 9 = xp
Eh..Is't that rather unsurprising in a mac-only forum?
I think most users here would say that OS X is the best.
Actually, there is very little debate on the OS. Everybody pretty much knows, there is no way XP can take on X. PC mag even declared OSX the best OS of 2004.
Apple hardware is where another matter ... everyone likes to get their licks in on that subject.
It really depends on your criteria for a "good" OS. For some people, that involves things like running hideous MS Access apps. Mac OS/X definitely doesn't win on that one This is important for organisations which have a lot of custom small database apps developed.
If we're talking about elegance & functionality, I think Apple's pretty high on the charts. XP isn't as bad as people make out, but it doesn't take much deviation from the beaten path before it suddenly becomes a descent into madness - its beauty is only skin-deep (if it has beauty at all. And no, I'm not talking about the *fabulous* smurfs-on-acid default UI scheme)
Yeah, hard to compare. First, remember that there's two separate threads of Windows, the DOS lineage and the NT lineage. So there's 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> ME, and then there's NT4 -> 2000 -> XP. The two lineages "merged" in XP, but only in that XP has some backward-compatibility with 9x apps, and so was considered OK for home use.
Many people have considered Win95 to be the rough equal to System7 (1991). Win98 and ME were minor upgrades, maybe equivalent to 7->7.6 or 7.6->8.1. Switching mainstream users to the NT lineage, in the form of XP, was a big deal - similar to, and arguably driven by, the migration of the MacOS to OSX. XP and OSX debuted about the same time (2001), but since then OSX has seen a number of very significant upgrades, and XP has seen none.
So make of it what you will. The most important thing, I think, is that XP has been essentially unchanged since its debut in 2001, while OSX has seen 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and soon 10.4 - all of which were very substantial upgrades, each more ambitious than, for example, 95->98. And there's still no ship date for Longhorn.
I agree that the obvious focal points for comparison are the introduction of NT core on the MS side, and introduction of the BSD core on Apple's side, but Win2K is where they originally introduced Win9x compatibility to the NT core. I think this is about right, if you make the assumption that latest XP equals Panther:
Win2K <-> OS X 10.0
Win2K SP4 <-> OS X 10.1
WinXP <-> OS X 10.2
WinXP SP2 <-> OS X 10.3
Service Packs are mostly bugfixes, but knowing Windows, there are a *lot* of bugfixes in four or two Service Packs. XP SP2 has a lot of new functionality as well (bluetooth, wireless, etc), even if SP2's not on par with Apple's 10.x upgrades. The fact that SP's are free helps. On this timescale you'd have bought two copies of Windows, but four copies of OS X.
M$ is so pathetic that to add some of the features of osx to windows, it will take a graphics card so powerfull that it is ,as of yet, unavaailibe in the marketplace (Gee, window semi-translucency must be a cpu eater )
On the OS side, apple is usualy always light years ahead of M$
and bugs, If I miss 1 week of windows updates, I can almost garentee that I will be nailed by some hidious worm, and when these patches are applied, a reboot is requiered, sorta makes me feel for windows server managers, downtime every week to patch AND reboot?? wtf? a weekly reboot on a server farm?
Hey apple, maby you could port X server to intel - Better uptime, easier management, better tech/server ratio, lower (if any) mantainance fees, and $1000 out of the box...Thats great - just a thought
wait... no apple, dont port x.
M$ now that I think about it is doing IT guys like me a favor by churning out this crap, the more buggy an os, the more geeks you need to fix 'em, Gee THANKS BILL
Comments
Originally posted by psgamer0921
What would you say would more relate to the Windows updates of 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, and Longhorn. Would these be the same as 10.1, 10.2, etc. or OS 6, OS 7, and so on...
Every OS X upgrade counts for about 10 windows "upgrades"
Many people have considered Win95 to be the rough equal to System7 (1991). Win98 and ME were minor upgrades, maybe equivalent to 7->7.6 or 7.6->8.1. Switching mainstream users to the NT lineage, in the form of XP, was a big deal - similar to, and arguably driven by, the migration of the MacOS to OSX. XP and OSX debuted about the same time (2001), but since then OSX has seen a number of very significant upgrades, and XP has seen none.
So make of it what you will. The most important thing, I think, is that XP has been essentially unchanged since its debut in 2001, while OSX has seen 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and soon 10.4 - all of which were very substantial upgrades, each more ambitious than, for example, 95->98. And there's still no ship date for Longhorn.
OS X or XP?
Have people stopped debating which is the better OS?
I use both (XP at work and at home and OS X at home) and from the point of view of which looks better, I'd go with OS X.
And from the POV of which doesn't crash as muchor at all, I'd go with OS X.
Originally posted by O-Mac
Have people stopped debating which is the better OS? [/B]
Eh..Is't that rather unsurprising in a mac-only forum?
I think most users here would say that OS X is the best.
Originally posted by O-Mac
So which OS is more stable?
OS X or XP?
Have people stopped debating which is the better OS?
I use both (XP at work and at home and OS X at home) and from the point of view of which looks better, I'd go with OS X.
And from the POV of which doesn't crash as muchor at all, I'd go with OS X.
XP is lightyears ahead of apple
Originally posted by Token
Eh..Is't that rather unsurprising in a mac-only forum?
I think most users here would say that OS X is the best.
Actually, there is very little debate on the OS. Everybody pretty much knows, there is no way XP can take on X. PC mag even declared OSX the best OS of 2004.
Apple hardware is where another matter ... everyone likes to get their licks in on that subject.
If we're talking about elegance & functionality, I think Apple's pretty high on the charts. XP isn't as bad as people make out, but it doesn't take much deviation from the beaten path before it suddenly becomes a descent into madness - its beauty is only skin-deep (if it has beauty at all. And no, I'm not talking about the *fabulous* smurfs-on-acid default UI scheme)
Originally posted by Towel
Yeah, hard to compare. First, remember that there's two separate threads of Windows, the DOS lineage and the NT lineage. So there's 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> ME, and then there's NT4 -> 2000 -> XP. The two lineages "merged" in XP, but only in that XP has some backward-compatibility with 9x apps, and so was considered OK for home use.
Many people have considered Win95 to be the rough equal to System7 (1991). Win98 and ME were minor upgrades, maybe equivalent to 7->7.6 or 7.6->8.1. Switching mainstream users to the NT lineage, in the form of XP, was a big deal - similar to, and arguably driven by, the migration of the MacOS to OSX. XP and OSX debuted about the same time (2001), but since then OSX has seen a number of very significant upgrades, and XP has seen none.
So make of it what you will. The most important thing, I think, is that XP has been essentially unchanged since its debut in 2001, while OSX has seen 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and soon 10.4 - all of which were very substantial upgrades, each more ambitious than, for example, 95->98. And there's still no ship date for Longhorn.
I agree that the obvious focal points for comparison are the introduction of NT core on the MS side, and introduction of the BSD core on Apple's side, but Win2K is where they originally introduced Win9x compatibility to the NT core. I think this is about right, if you make the assumption that latest XP equals Panther:
Win2K <-> OS X 10.0
Win2K SP4 <-> OS X 10.1
WinXP <-> OS X 10.2
WinXP SP2 <-> OS X 10.3
Service Packs are mostly bugfixes, but knowing Windows, there are a *lot* of bugfixes in four or two Service Packs. XP SP2 has a lot of new functionality as well (bluetooth, wireless, etc), even if SP2's not on par with Apple's 10.x upgrades. The fact that SP's are free helps. On this timescale you'd have bought two copies of Windows, but four copies of OS X.
Originally posted by O-Mac
Smurfs on acid...excellent description of XP's UI. I can't stand XP's interface. who designed that hideous thing anyway?
Im not the first to say that the answer to that is "Fisher Price"
On the OS side, apple is usualy always light years ahead of M$
and bugs, If I miss 1 week of windows updates, I can almost garentee that I will be nailed by some hidious worm, and when these patches are applied, a reboot is requiered, sorta makes me feel for windows server managers, downtime every week to patch AND reboot?? wtf? a weekly reboot on a server farm?
Hey apple, maby you could port X server to intel - Better uptime, easier management, better tech/server ratio, lower (if any) mantainance fees, and $1000 out of the box...Thats great - just a thought
wait... no apple, dont port x.
M$ now that I think about it is doing IT guys like me a favor by churning out this crap, the more buggy an os, the more geeks you need to fix 'em, Gee THANKS BILL