Windows XP beats Mac OS X
<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%3D25063%26a%3D18045,00.asp" target="_blank">http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%3D25063%26a%3D18045,00.asp</a>
Windows XP beat out MacOS X for the Award for Technical Excellence in Desktop Software.
That's the one I didn't want to win.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Windows XP beat out MacOS X for the Award for Technical Excellence in Desktop Software.
That's the one I didn't want to win.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Comments
First of all its still a damn mess to configure stuff. There is no centralized place to control such simple things as sounds, colors, etc. Its EXACTLY like 98/ME/2000... its all a pretty skin.
Its also significanly slowed down everything (coming from ME)
On the other hand, the installation was a snap. I backed some stuff up just in case... but when I simply updgraded (no clean installs, no nothing) it kept EVERYTHING. All my bookmarks, custom icons (except My Computer and Network Neighborhood, grrr, still havent figured out how to change those damn icons), sounds, preferences, etc etc etc.
That was quite amazing.
It took a hell of a long time to install (about 40minutes-1 hour) and so far its a mixed ride.
Although, in the end, its still crap MS sh!t and nobody has anything to fear... OS X is much better (ahem.. just get those damn webcam, scanner, etc etc etc drivers working damn you)
Brand new OS + Unix OS + Ease of use + usable compatibility with the old OS = Failure
Oh! it's been awarded by some clueless PC Rag = Sucking up to Billy.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Mediaman ]</p>
[quote]Its also significanly slowed down everything (coming from ME)
<hr></blockquote>
And the move from 9.X to OSX wasn't?
<strong>JFW said:
And the move from 9.X to OSX wasn't?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a MUCH bigger difference between the move from OS 9 to OS X than Windows 95/98/ME to Windows XP. XP was an upgraded code base, while OS X was a major freakin' overhaul.
Edited for clariffication
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Gambit ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
Depends if your going from 9x to XP or just 2000 to XP.
In the case of 9x/Me to XP, the jump is much more than an "Upgraded Codebase", it's quite on the order of a OS9 -> OSX jump.
<strong><a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%3D25063%26a%3D18045,00.asp" target="_blank">http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s%3D25063%26a%3D18045,00.asp</a>
Windows XP beat out MacOS X for the Award for Technical Excellence in Desktop Software.
That's the one I didn't want to win.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a PC mag what do you expect? XP is nothing new. I can't believe people actually believe the hype.
<strong>You guys need to get your facts straight before posting nonsense. The upgrade from Win 95/98/ME to XP is *not* a minor upgrade with an interface tweak. What XP is is basically the next version of Windows 2k, which has descended from NT. It has been given alot of usability fixes to make it appropriate for consumers, but the underlying code base is miles ahead of the previous consumer versions of Windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but there is nothing major or anything that would be considered a technological breakthrough in XP that wasn't in Win2k. It's all HYPE.
Did you see Michael Dell won "Lifetime Achievment". What a Jack Ass. Try not taking credit for things you didn't invent, like AirPort.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
There's a MUCH bigger difference between the move from OS 9 to OS X than Windows 95/98/ME to Windows XP. XP was an upgraded code base, while OS X was a major freakin' overhaul.
Edited for clariffication
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Gambit ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
funny. years ago one of the big pluses of overhauling the Mac OS was amazingly faster performance
Sorry folks, but as it stands right now XP is a better operating system. It's got far better app support, better compatability with older versions of Windows (I run old-school Wolfenstein in compatability mode, DOS files and all) and it's rock-solid like Win2k.
If you don't like Luna you can turn that off easy enough. Remote Assistance is spectacular, I use it all the time to fix problems with computers at work. There are a hundred different little things that you grow to appreciate as you use it.
OSX has beautiful text rendering when the apps use quartz, I am high jealous of that, but there isn't a whole lot that OSX really beats XP at. I dig the OSX icon sets and options a lot more. The default widgets are far nicer than Luna.
There are also negatives for both, but I won't go into them.
And the sour grapes was about Dell losing the education market to Apple. Not XP vs OS X
Now that is not to say that XP is not interesting for all the neat doodads that they put in the OS or for the solidness of the OS itself. I was actually somewhat impressed with how well it upgraded windows 98.
But performance on it is actually quite sad. I cannot even get it to play the quicktime trailer for "Fellowship of the Ring" without hiccuping severely the whole time. This is even after rebooting and ending ALL other tasks on the machine. PIII 500, 192 MB ram, and plenty of HDD space. SAD. My iMac 400 plays the same trailer silky smooth under OS X.1.
There are other things as well, but I don't feel like going into them right now.
<strong> I cannot even get it to play the quicktime trailer for "Fellowship of the Ring" without hiccuping severely the whole time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Besides that, I wouldn't dare compare a 500 MHz PIII to a 400 MHz G3. Everyone here ought to know by now that 1 Motorolla Hz == ~2 Intel/AMD Hz. Isn't that true from the "Megahertz myth" we so often hear about? Thus, you should be comparing your iMac to an 800 or 900 MHz PC.
[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
XP's activation might suck for some, but that's how they make their money. It's annoying but I can hardly blame them. And it is painless, you'll notice the startling lack of actual complaints regarded activation. The most complaints you hear are from those with no experience with it.
I've used XP on a PIII 550mhz, it was decent speed-wise. I've also used OSX.1 on a 450mhz G3 tower, it was dog slow.
Sine:
Education is Apple's market to lose. Apple has had a stranglehold on that market for over a decade. Dell came up on Apple in education, not vice versa.
<strong>Quicktime for Windows is a total piece of ass. At least Microsoft writes good apps for Apple's operating system.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've obviously have never used WMP for the Mac
<strong> [quote]
XP's activation might suck for some, but that's how they make their money. It's annoying but I can hardly blame them. And it is painless, you'll notice the startling lack of actual complaints regarded activation. The most complaints you hear are from those with no experience with it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Basically the only people that it's going to hurt are the honest ones that pay for it.
<strong> [quote]
I've used XP on a PIII 550mhz, it was decent speed-wise. I've also used OSX.1 on a 450mhz G3 tower, it was dog slow.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it hard to believe 10.1 was dog slow on a 450mhz G4 when it's quit speedy on my 350mhz G3 grover. How much RAM did that G4 have.. 64megs?
<strong> [quote]
Sine:
Education is Apple's market to lose. Apple has had a stranglehold on that market for over a decade. Dell came up on Apple in education, not vice versa.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and Apple took it back. See you must not remember the big deal ol Mike made it out to be. He was rubbing it in Apple's face. Next time around Apple took it back in a big way.
_________________
Being Politically Correct is retarded.
[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>