[yoyoman]

why is mac osx a lot better than windows xp.
And what about this new long horn hehe.

[Peter]

Mac OS X is ...[list=a][*]Stable[*]Lovely looking[*]simpler[*]more powerful (as in, more functions)[*]Virus free[*]Hacker free[*]Runs Apple programs [/list=a]
There are loads more too
Try this link for a nice comparisson

[yoyoman]

Originally posted by PeterClark2002:
Mac OS X is ...[list=a][*]Stable[*]Lovely looking[*]simpler[*]more powerful (as in, more functions)[*]Virus free[*]Hacker free[*]Runs Apple programs [/list=a]
There are loads more too
Try this link for a nice comparisson

That link didnt work.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by PeterClark2002:
Mac OS X is ...[list=a][*]Stable[*]Lovely looking[*]simpler[*]more powerful (as in, more functions)[*]Virus free[*]Hacker free[*]Runs Apple programs [/list=a]
There are loads more too
Try this link for a nice comparisson

X is not made my Microsoft.

[Peter]

http://www.xvsxp.com/
Good read

[Brass]

X is NOT hacker free!!! Just being based on Unix opens it up to the world of unix hackers - believe me, they can do a lot more to a remote computer than many people would believe.

However, it has most of the hackable features (ie, networked services) turned off by default. It is certainly an awful lot safer than Windows (any version), even with all the services turned on (PipeUpAdmin.exe anyone?)

[cambro]

I don't know what I'm talking about, but here is my top list, some of which has been mentioned:

1) X is a unix-based system with strong open-source component. I see this as a good thing.

2) X pushes the edge in terms of innovation. Just think about how the screen is composited and how this is offloaded to the GPU!!! Longhorn will try to do this in 2005 but X does it NOW and it will only get better. The only thing XP has going for it here is the speed of x86 processor development. They are brute-forcing their way to a fast and "advanced" OS.

3) Stability and ease of configuration. Plug in a printer, mouse, drive, whatever and chances are it will just work without doing anything.

4) Superior, integrated bundled applications. I know the iApps get a lot of flack for performance etc., but they are included with the OS and a great asset for most users.

5) Stability in the face of abuse. I've yet to have a KP or system crash since 10.0.0 and I run a webserver, mySQL, games, external usb/firewire devices, printers, etc. 'nuff said.

6) X is out of your face with registration, adverts etc. in a way that is completely foriegn to MS. It used to amaze me how porn and all kinds of other garbage would end up all over my parents windows machine when I would come home. All they do is surf common sites (I think!!! ) but Windows and/or IE just must make it easy for web programmers to put this stuff in everyone's face I guess. This has been a non-issue since they got an eMac with X!

The bottom line is that you can do just about anything on either platform. To me the unix underpinnings and amazing graphics capabilities and technologies are the selling point of X. X has its disadvantages for sure, but they are far less insidious than XPs, IMO. But if you like XP, hey, go knock yourself out!

[SupahCoolX]

People don't realize: By the time Longhorn comes out, we'll be on whatever comes after Panther. Jaguar as it is solidly whips XP's ass, so just imagine 2 generations from now!

Anyway, as for X vs XP: It's all the little things. In Windows, for example, each and every window has its own menubar, which just wastes space since you can only work with one at a time anyway. And don't get me started on windows-within-windows (why must 2 spreadsheets be clumped together within a bigger Excel window? It just clutters things). Then, of course, there's the reliability. I haven't had to restart my mac (aside from software upgrades and such) in months. I can't remember the last crash or anything I've had. And the list goes on...

[C.J. Moof]

I had to configure an XP box at work this week. I was screaming in frustration a couple of times....

1) Get the hell out of my way! Stop putting up a little cartoon speech box that says "new software installed" directly over the Log Off button. Stop the giant "your Caps Lock is ON!!!" alert at the login screen. Perhaps I chose to have capitals in my password! And shut up about your .net junk too.

2) Just work. Please. Why is it that Deltagraph Pro insists on complaining at me, 4 times per launch, that some color profiles aren't where they should be. In it's defense, it does say what it's expecting, and where. Problem is, they're there. They're just color profiles, anyone should be able to read them- I checked.
So... right click, Run As. computername/Administrator. Now it's happy about the color profiles, but it doesn't believe a printer is set up. It is. Everything else prints.

3) Stupid dialogs. I can't count how many times it told me it was connected to the wireless network with no signal. I can't wrap my head around how you can be connected with no signal.
Another great one was the dialog that came up today... wish I had a picture. Small dialog with an XP close box in the top right, a big close box logo (the X, not an interface element) left of center, and a clickable OK button. I have no clue what was so OK. I guess it was just a confirmation about life in general.

4) Learn something. Yep, I used a self signed certificate for SSL on my mail server. If you have any business doing encryped mail exchanges with my server, then you'll have to trust me that the certificate is legit. Sure would be nice to get advised of this once, then get a "stop telling me about this" option.... this is an OE specific gripe here. Mail.app never complained about my certificate once.

So... it's better because it doesn't raise my blood pressure nearly as much.

[Tyler McAdams]

All that free, open source software! That combined with all the "needed" software that windows uses (office..etc) makes it more fun to use... I still think there are many ares that XP beats OS X in but take into consideration that Mac OS X is basically virus free and there you go...

[C.J. Moof]

One more thing- don't even get me started about comprehending Windows licensing in a corporate environment.... aye carumba.

Slightly OT, but not irrelevant.

[Gee4orce]

Originally posted by SupahCoolX:
And don't get me started on windows-within-windows (why must 2 spreadsheets be clumped together within a bigger Excel window? It just clutters things).

I had this just yesterday. If you open 2 spreadsheet in Excel on Windows 98, you get two seperate buttons on the task bar - even though they are both contained withing the same Excel MDI window.

Now, right click one of the buttons, and choose 'close'. It disappears. Now, right-click the remaining button and choose 'close' - the usual behaviour is for the app to quit. Oh no - not Excel - the document closes, but Excel stays open, so the button you clicked just changes name. WTF ?? How about a little consistency ?

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
One more thing- don't even get me started about comprehending Windows licensing in a corporate environment.... aye carumba.

Slightly OT, but not irrelevant.

I was just talking to my College's system administrator, who I've always considered to be a kind of MS is the best, and they will be for eternity, type of a guy, but recently he's been mentioning RedHat, and that his Mac does this or that (he's got a really old first gen imac that he plays around with)

He was telling me some of the nightmares he's been having with the licensing issues he's been having with MS. Basically his sales rep lied to him about what he could do with his licenses, and now they're telling him he needs an Sequel license PER PROCESSOR. Whats up with that? He's got a bunch of dual procs set up running Sequel, and the license just tripled, then doubled because of the per proc thing.

Thats not even the beginning. So he's looking for alternatives, and I wouldn't be surprised if he cut 90 percent of what we're doing there to open source solutions, and running the bare minimum windows crap so that the school can still claim to teach the kids standard technologies.

One of the benefits of using a computer made by a smaller company is that they are not abusing their customers like the larger ones do. Apple may be slow on getting out new Towers, but they make up for it in so many ways. I can't think of MS making up for any of the things that bug users.

[Tyler McAdams]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I was just talking to my College's system administrator, who I've always considered to be a kind of MS is the best, and they will be for eternity, type of a guy, but recently he's been mentioning RedHat, and that his Mac does this or that (he's got a really old first gen imac that he plays around with)

He was telling me some of the nightmares he's been having with the licensing issues he's been having with MS. Basically his sales rep lied to him about what he could do with his licenses, and now they're telling him he needs an Sequel license PER PROCESSOR. Whats up with that? He's got a bunch of dual procs set up running Sequel, and the license just tripled, then doubled because of the per proc thing.

Thats not even the beginning. So he's looking for alternatives, and I wouldn't be surprised if he cut 90 percent of what we're doing there to open source solutions, and running the bare minimum windows crap so that the school can still claim to teach the kids standard technologies.

One of the benefits of using a computer made by a smaller company is that they are not abusing their customers like the larger ones do. Apple may be slow on getting out new Towers, but they make up for it in so many ways. I can't think of MS making up for any of the things that bug users.

I used to work for corporate sales for TigerDirect (www.tigetdirect.com) and I'll tell you that MS licensing was 90% of my pay check! Corporations have to do it... One rep I knew would actually call around to find out what small companies were skimpping out on there licensing and report them to Microsoft to get audited! (Another way MS makes it easy to be a sales rep for them...)

[C.J. Moof]

Oh yeah.

About 18 months ago, my company brought in 2 NT4 servers, one for Citrix, one for SQL to host an accounting system for the company. It actually worked out to be reasonably not-painful.

Then we learned of a tie-in product that would be useful to us, except that it would only run on Win2K servers. They wouldn't guarantee or support older. We decided it was worth it, and upgraded our servers to 2K- paying consultants a non-trivial fee for their service.
Next we find the software is a peice of poop. Does ridiculous things like freeze the gui and send the processor to 99% utilization if someone clicks the wrong interface element (I'm not kidding!) It's also less stable- NT4 ran for 8 months at a time, Win2K doesn't seem to stay up for more than a month on our Citrix box.

Next gift was the eye-opener of the licensing changes. Our NT4 servers were licensed with 15 user slots open: 15 remote devices could connect at a time, but it didn't matter what they are. 2K Terminal Services demands a license for every individiual device that will talk to it. 2K Pro and XP boxes have a license built in, but we now had to buy CALs for every mac that would connect. Same person goes home and uses their personal machine to do their timesheet? Pay up, sucker. That's a new license.

We regret not realizing that before we upgraded... if we had, we would have lived without the software. Yet another on the long list of events that's making me jaded and calous towards modern computing.....

[sushiism]

quite simply:
[im]http://www.microsoft.com/enable/images/training/windowsxp/linkcolors2.jpg[/img]
VS.
err the osx pallette which i cannot find a pic of someone help me out here (im on a litrally filthy pc and thus cant get a shot of it myself)

now think if the colour pallette(and font) is that much better whats the rest of the os like Osx makes the simplest of windows things look well kinda crappy and limiting, I mean those damn favorite colours in windows dont even work on 99% of the apps and even then they're not OS wide and get deleted when you close the app

[zythemac]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
I had to configure an XP box at work this week. I was screaming in frustration a couple of times....

3) Stupid dialogs. I can't count how many times it told me it was connected to the wireless network with no signal. I can't wrap my head around how you can be connected with no signal.
Another great one was the dialog that came up today... wish I had a picture. Small dialog with an XP close box in the top right, a big close box logo (the X, not an interface element) left of center, and a clickable OK button. I have no clue what was so OK. I guess it was just a confirmation about life in general.

Man, this had me laughing out loud. Very nice. Actually, I think this may be the most intelligent MS/X thread I've read.

[stew]

What I don't like about OS X is stupid threads like these...why do you need this? Does it make you feel less ashamed of having paid too much for too slow hardware?

Yes I am using OS X, and I am happy with it. But I don't need 50 people around me telling me how great it is and why some other OS I happen I use just as much and just as happily is supposed to suck.

[yoyoman]

Originally posted by stew:
What I don't like about OS X is stupid threads like these...why do you need this? Does it make you feel less ashamed of having paid too much for too slow hardware?

Yes I am using OS X, and I am not happy with it. But I don't need 50 people around me telling me how great it is and why some other OS I happen I use just as much and just as happily is supposed to suck.

Are u mad? It was just a question. If you are mad don't take your anger out on this thread. So **** off. If you care so much about what people are saying then don't read it. So xp does sux.

[Peter]

Originally posted by yoyoman:
why is mac osx a lot better than windows xp.
And what about this new long horn hehe.

I heard MS was going to rename Longhorn to Blowhorn.

[Superchicken]

Man I can't believe M$ still has those same colours! I was working in Page maker on a windows comp a while ago to help someone out and she was asking how to change colours, so I figured ohw ell it'll probably be similar to a Mac... right? WRONG I got that stupid colour box, she only had a few colours to choose from, I had to find this little tint and opaccity slider and build the RGB colours with that, and it was like.. yeah why not just give the lil circle thing!? I mean personally I like sliders use em all the time in free hand, but seriously for new users who don't even know that red and green make yellow... WHAT KINDA TREATMENT IS THAT!?

[C.J. Moof]

Originally posted by stew:
What I don't like about OS X is stupid threads like these...why do you need this? Does it make you feel less ashamed of having paid too much for too slow hardware?

Yes I am using OS X, and I am happy with it. But I don't need 50 people around me telling me how great it is and why some other OS I happen I use just as much and just as happily is supposed to suck.

Please tell the mean, nasty person who is forcing you to read threads on this forum to leave you alone.

[moreno]

why is mac osx a lot better than windows xp.
And what about this new long horn hehe.

i don't use shades on my eyes. windows xp it's a lot better than os x.... ah! and faster. if you want to use an Apple computer, that's ok for me, but you can buy a better computer for less.

[exa]

*sigh*, and those cool pc users get to look at:

[moreno]

windows 98? .... vs ... mac bomb os 9?

[Hi I'm Ben]

People who have trouble using XP are either ignorant or morons.
It's no harder then X. And both have their ups and downs.

As a whole, i like OS X, the speed i don't like and the applications are limiting. YES THE APPLICATIONS ARE LIMITING DON'T TELL ME THEY'RE NOT. Just because someone makes ONE program that serves a function you do not get a variety of different programs to choose from as you do in the PC world.

I think I prefer OS X more but I'll use a PC till Mac can make their system as fast. And no my XP system DOES NOT CRASH. It also has no problems. So Spare me the "i get more work done on my mac becaues it never crashes" garbage. I like iBooks. I think I should buy one.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by exa:
*sigh*, and those cool pc users get to look at: [snip]

If they really did look like that, I'd buy one and crash it on a daily basis Wait, no; that would require too much work to get it that stable

Seriously, Moreno, would you care to elaborate on what makes Windows XP better than OSX? We're talking about the OS, not the hardware, so the price of the machine is irrelevant. Let each OS stand only on its own virtues, and then we'll see who wins.

[Hi I'm Ben]

to be more specific to this thread

Networking
XP < Mac
Since 10 my mac has always networked with less difficulty then my PCs.

Included Apps
XP < Mac
I'm not a huge fan of WMP. WMV sucks and the GUI is hideous. It works well but so does the collection of mac apps you recieve for free when purchasing a mac.

Third Party Apps
XP > Mac
More of them and they're all faster. Mac has some interesting apps that you can't find on a PC, not enough to make the difference in buying one though. At least I'd hope not.

WebBrowsing
XP > Mac
Much faster. Things such as flash and shockwave run much better on XP. There are plenty of browsers out there that have all the features you find in Safari, Camino, etc.

Overall Gui
XP < Mac
Microsoft has no idea how to make a good looking gui. I don't know why they think the blue rubber look is in style but it just doesn't do it for me. I don't want my GUI to look like a childs toy.

Stability
XP = Mac

i feel done.

[kmkkid]

Originally posted by exa:
*sigh*, and those cool pc users get to look at:

BSOD

Yeah and before apple's friendly panic, OS X users got to look at an even worse screen dump.

Chris

[moreno]

Seriously, Moreno, would you care to elaborate on what makes Windows XP better than OSX?

one image is worth a thousand words...

We're talking about the OS, not the hardware, so the price of the machine is irrelevant. Let each OS stand only on its own virtues, and then we'll see who wins.

irrelevant? ok, therebefore you pay more for design, because...
...
well let's see...

- Faster (file mgnt, software & interface events)
- Old graphics engine, but good enough to deliver good experience to the user
- network assistants for auto setup small networks
- Customization; options for all; key acelerators for menus;
- It's stable.
- Show warning before emptying the Trash works on XP (LOL)
- More software, better optimized (not carbon yeak)
- and more....

[Brass]

Originally posted by moreno:
one image is worth a thousand words...



irrelevant? ok, therebefore you pay more for design, because...
...
well let's see...

- Faster (file mgnt, software & interface events)
- Old graphics engine, but good enough to deliver good experience to the user
- network assistants for auto setup small networks
- Customization; options for all; key acelerators for menus;
- It's stable.
- Show warning before emptying the Trash works on XP (LOL)
- More software, better optimized (not carbon yeak)
- and more....

I guess it just boils down to perspective sometimes. Some things that you see as making XP good, just make me sick. Eg, anytime I see an "assistant" or even worse, a "wizard" in windows, I cringe. I despise them! They do not make things easier for most users, and sometimes just make things more complicated.

Why can't we just use the normal control panel, and if someone doesn't understand it, they can look it up in the help system. Hmmm... well, maybe not the Windows help system

[hudson1]

Not an XP user but have a Win 2K box at work.

OS X does a much better job than Win2K at multitasking. When the Win2K box gets any kind of load on it, application switching can bring it to its knees for several seconds. This never happens for me on OS X.

[Brass]

It's also ironic that the tables are turning on the choice of applications available for the two systems, now that OS X is unix-based.

Windows still has a much wider range of EXPENSIVE commercial software available, as well as some special purpose windows-only apps.

However, when it comes to high quality FREE software, you can't beat the unix world, and most of that was very quickly ported to OS X. Yes the UI may require X11, and look different to the rest of the OS X UI, but X11 is also free (from Apple) and the applications are often industry leading programs (eg, GRASS).

Some of these are also available for Windows, but they are only ports and do not fully measure up to the unix (and OS X) versions.

A few of the many applications and programs of this catagory are listed by Apple at:

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/
and
http://www.apple.com/scitech/unixports/

Apache (the industry leader in popularity and reliability for web servers) is available for windows, but the fact that Windows ships with IIS and Mac OS X ships with Apache says a lot

[Brass]

PS. I back up my comments about apache vs IIS by the fact that IIS appears only once at NetCrafts list of longest uptimes for web servers:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

(NB: The operating system listed here is incorrect, as the FAQ states, this would be due to detecting the proxy OS rather than the server OS).

[RooneyX]

Windows has better video and 3D acceleration, Direct X, support for more graphics cards and the newest features and support for wicked multimedia speaker systems, gamepads, etc.

Windows also launches apps real fast.

Otherwise OSX is better for everything else.

[Brass]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Windows has better video and 3D acceleration, Direct X, support for more graphics cards and the newest features and support for wicked multimedia speaker systems, gamepads, etc.

That's true Windows makes a good games console (a.k.a "toy")

I use my computer for work. If was into games, I think I'd use a PlayStation.

[moreno]

I guess it just boils down to perspective sometimes. Some things that you see as making XP good, just make me sick.

Get sick and call 1- 800-MY-APPLE. some people say the boys over there really enjoy dead pixels!

[moreno]

That's true Windows makes a good games console (a.k.a "toy")
I use my computer for work. If was into games, I think I'd use a PlayStation.

Then, you have one more reason to buy a PC, you can save on the PlayStation...

[Tyler McAdams]

The only thing that make windows better is a larger user base... the larger the user base the more refined the os due to the feedback from users...

But pound for pound Mac OS X is better since most mac users are loyal to the OS while windows user don't really care.

As far as 3D accelerateion I don't know QE is pretty cool.. and OpenGL I think is just as good if not better than DirectX9,8 whatever

[Brass]

Originally posted by moreno:


Get sick and call 1- 800-MY-APPLE. some people say the boys over there really enjoy dead pixels!

and your point is... ?

[Brass]

Originally posted by moreno:
Then, you have one more reason to buy a PC, you can save on the PlayStation...

Nope, not a reason for me. Like I said, I don't play games on computers, I use them for work. If I want to have fun, I'll do something that involves not being tied to a computer (or a games console).

Eg, I've just got back from my lunch hour, during which I got on my motorbike and tore up the highway along the edge of the river for a while. Gotta love the real thing

But it might help others - obviously a lot of people are into that sort of thing.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Lets see,
I really do like the user experiance better on OS X. I don't game enough to be competitive with the people that play games 12+ hours a day, so Quake and UrbanTerror are good enough for me. I'm probably one of the most ept people at computers in my town and some tools for Windows will still confuse the hell out of me. (Hiding stuff that you NEED to use, ect...) Plus Intelligent Defaults will kick a wizard's butt any day.

[Brass]

Originally posted by King Bob On The Cob:
Plus Intelligent Defaults will kick a wizard's butt any day.

Yeah, that's about right. If the system wasn't so confusing to use in the first place, they wouldn't need the "magic" of a wizard to get it to work right. Normal people would just be able to do it for themselves (like they do on OS X). Some of the OS X users I support are certainly lacking in computer knowledge but they find OS X very easy to understand and configure, for the most part.

[DaedalusDX]

Originally posted by moreno:
Then, you have one more reason to buy a PC, you can save on the PlayStation...

A Playstation, Gamecube, or Xbox are MUCH less expensive than a PC geared for gaming... as of the last round of price breaks, you could buy one of each for the price of a "gaming PC"


I've had alot of experience with both Windows XP and Mac OS X. Every time I try to compare them, I go to Mac OS X every single time... and I'm rather quickly convincing alot of my PC user friends... the hardware on the Mac side may be more expensive, but there are significantly fewer frustrations.

One thing that Mac OS X prevails over Windows XP is consistency... Never will you have applications like Excel which have the strange windowing method where individual documents are all inside a window that represents the application... Mac OS X (for the most part... the brushed metal thing is the one exception) decides on UI rules, and sticks to them at every turn.

Here is my experience with Windows XP vs. Mac OS X... It is definitely possible for Windows XP to be a stable and fast operating system, but I would dare say that it requires a higher level of expertise with the OS to do so than Mac OS X...

Apple tailors the operating system to run reliably even if a complete novice works with the computer... From my experience, I've found that novice users can still bring XP to a crawl out of ignorance... try to delete an application by just throwing it out instead of Uninstall it... run Kazaa for too long and get loads of spy and junkware on the computer... the computer comes to a crawl... Its much harder for stuff like that to happen in OS X.

I think that people are still justified in spending money on Macs... and i totally resent the comment that was made before about how threads like this are useless and are just here to make us feel better about spending money on more expensive hardware... you just don't get it. Mac OS X, in my opinion and the opinions of many here, is vastly superior to Windows, and is a primary reason for spending more money on a Mac....

Its a matter of better overall computing experience.

[Athens]

Originally posted by yoyoman:
why is mac osx a lot better than windows xp.
And what about this new long horn hehe.

OS X isnt alot better then Windows XP, I find them both good OS's get your head out of the sand. Its all about preference now not which is better.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Brass:
anytime I see an "assistant" or even worse, a "wizard" in windows, I cringe. I despise them! They do not make things easier for most users, and sometimes just make things more complicated.

Ugh, I hate hearing complaints about something that can be turned off in two seconds (most wizards can).

This is about as bad as that one post above this where somebody complained about the color chooser in XP. I'm sorry, but that's just really superficial. That's like saying, "I hate the one button mouse. I'll never buy a Mac because of it." And you can go buy a friggin' optical wheelmouse for as little as $10! And most people already do for their PCs! So what's it to buy one for a Mac? Absolutely nothing. Stop your whining and buy the damn thing is what I say to those stupid users.

Why can't we just use the normal control panel, and if someone doesn't understand it, they can look it up in the help system. Hmmm... well, maybe not the Windows help system

Windows help does suck a lot, but if you actually need to use it, then it's likely that the answer you're looking for is in there. Windows help and Mac help are both geared towards the more computer illiterate users, and more experienced users can usually figure out something on their own much easier than searching for help (unless it's a really complex problem that you would never find in a help file anyway).

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by hudson1:
Not an XP user but have a Win 2K box at work.

OS X does a much better job than Win2K at multitasking. When the Win2K box gets any kind of load on it, application switching can bring it to its knees for several seconds. This never happens for me on OS X.

NT doesn't balance loads the same way as Unix based systems do. They have priority levels, but even a program on normal priority (where most run at) can take over a computer pretty easily. A good way to get around this is to set it to idle priority. This lets any other program get whatever CPU time it wants without the other offending program hogging the CPU. Of course, this is kind of a pain, and I like the Unix style process management a lot better, too. Although, you have to admit, NT is a LOT better than 9x and Classic.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally posted by Stratus Fear:
NT doesn't balance loads the same way as Unix based systems do. They have priority levels, but even a program on normal priority (where most run at) can take over a computer pretty easily. A good way to get around this is to set it to idle priority. This lets any other program get whatever CPU time it wants without the other offending program hogging the CPU. Of course, this is kind of a pain, and I like the Unix style process management a lot better, too. Although, you have to admit, NT is a LOT better than 9x and Classic.

ever run a crappy program for OS X? Try running something like iVisit
www.ivisit.com
and iTunes.
Throw up Konfabulator and use a couple widgets... let say VersionTracker and Weather.


and then go play with photoshop.
If your computer still runs great let me know, i'll be buying your mac.

[MindFad]

I render movies, listen to iTunes, and do Photoshop work all at once. Wanna buy mine?

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
Oh yeah.

Then we learned of a tie-in product that would be useful to us, except that it would only run on Win2K servers. They wouldn't guarantee or support older. We decided it was worth it, and upgraded our servers to 2K- paying consultants a non-trivial fee for their service.
Next we find the software is a peice of poop. Does ridiculous things like freeze the gui and send the processor to 99% utilization if someone clicks the wrong interface element (I'm not kidding!) It's also less stable- NT4 ran for 8 months at a time, Win2K doesn't seem to stay up for more than a month on our Citrix box.

We regret not realizing that before we upgraded... if we had, we would have lived without the software. Yet another on the long list of events that's making me jaded and calous towards modern computing.....

Your company makes premature software decisions and this would be better on OSX platform how?

I presume this software doesn't exist for OSX (which wouldn't exactly make a better case for OSX) or if it does it runs better on that platform?

Bad software=Bad OS? Is this the point, I'm trying to understand this better.

DRM