[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
You don't need any convincing from us...you'll convince yourself eventually. Trust me.

To the rest of you: if you don't care to convince milhaus to go back, then don't post. Go away. Why are you in this thread?

I happen to know that he is not a troll, so throw that option out the window.

XP is a mess of a system, with very poor multitasking. The only advantage is the hardware.

You'll convince yourself to go back.

[Sosa]

Originally posted by milhaus:
Uh,
This is not my post. Read the thread carefully. It's part of the initial post. When people try to be smart, they can really make an ass of themselves.

Damn, I don't know how I missed that blunder. My apologies.

[stew]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
XP is a mess of a system, with very poor multitasking. The only advantage is the hardware.

Still, apparently it seems to work fine for a lot of people, and overall, the difference to MacOS X is close to void. Preemptive MT, protected memory, USB, 1394, journaling FS, integrated firewall...those two are more alike than anyone in either fan crowd is willing to admit.

[Spliffdaddy]

You folks need to learn more about multitasking.

There is zero discernable difference between Windows and Mac (post os9) when it comes to multitasking.

I think the Mac community was overwhelmed by the improvement that OSX offered over OS9 in this area. It wasn't better than Windows - it was merely equal.

[Thor]

1) Mozilla Firebird - superfast lean browser, looks great - this was the breaker for me

A couple of folks have mentioned this, but milhaus has not responded.

How can "the breaker" be something that exists on both platforms??

(Not to mention Safari, Camino, etc,etc)

[stew]

Originally posted by Thor:
How can "the breaker" be something that exists on both platforms??

I haven't tried, but it could be that Firebird is faster on Windows than on OS X. I never tried Firebird, but in my epxerience, plain Mozilla running unter LinuxPPC is a lot faster than Mozilla under OS X, both on the very same iBook.

Also, compare the speed of IE on OS X vs OS 9 - same app, different speed. Why shouldn't the Windows version of Firebird not be faster than the OS X version? Not only does the Windows version have better compilers (Microsoft VC, intel vtune) it's also very likely to have more developrs that are working on optimiations. I also wouldn't be surprised if Quartz put an extra overhead no Firebird as well.

[milhaus]

A couple more points to hopefuly wrap up the thread. I did not mean to be a troll, though I see some of my language may suggest that.

As for Mozilla Firebird, I had never tired it on my Mac - why when I've already got Safari?
Here's what I find about Mozilla Firebird Windows XP which I like better: 1) speed - its the fastest broswer I've ever used 2) ad and popup blocking (yes Safari has this) 3) quick search feature for various sites. 4) Skinnable. 5) More compliant that Safari - probably not ture, but I don't have nearly as many problems with sites as with Safari.

Whenever I had used Mozilla's broswers on OS X, they didn't feel substantially faster, either in load times or browsing, to make it a worthwhile switch.

Sosa, apologies for the curt comment, but as you can see, at that point I wasn't feeling particularly feeling fond of this discussion.

Thanks for acknowledging my post history Cipher, and you all are probably right in realizing that it will take some time for the newness to wear off, and the annoyances to creep back in.

Should be just enough time for Apple to deliver their new Powerbooks.

[Hash]

This is true. I use Firebird as a main browser on my XP pc, and it is by far the best one in windows world. MS Explorer 6.0 is slow as hell compared to Firebird.

Extremely impressed by Firebird, i downloaded its Mac OS X version, and was very disappointed. Both Safari and Camino are much better.

So I am not surprised that the man was so impressed by Firebird in XP on fast hardware and probably fast internet connection. It is wicked fast.

As far as about other WInXP advantages, as Cipher mentioned, its probably hardware, which cheaper and overall is slightly faster.

XP has very fast GUI and very good multi-language and Unicode support, especially MS Office software.

Other than that, i dont see how XP can be better than OS X. Installing printers can be still extremely time-consuming on PC side as well the abundance of all kinds of viruses. I work on both PC and Macs, and they both work.

If the guy likes XP, so be it. Leave him in peace. Consumers have the right to choose and express their preferences. No big deal.

[ASIMO]

Why do adults need so much babying?

[ebuddy]

I'm glad to hear we can all be happy with our computers. Remember, it's still a minority of us that even have Personal computers. Find one you like and go with it. I personally appreciate both platforms. My employer uses Wintel machines and they work just fine.

I prefer the Mac OS and have been plugging and playing forever. My PC using friends do not seem to experiment as much as Apple users with the latest and greatest electronics gear. (hence, solitaire statisticaly being the most used Windows application.)

I notice that PC users like to keep the side panel off their CPU so they can screw and unscrew things. I haven't figured out if this is underengineered fan assemblies or just the frequent desire to tinker. I personally do not understand this desire to tinker. On cars, yes. On computers? Hell no. PC's are generally more upgradeable, but then it seems to me, they need to be. Gaming? Get a PC. Seriously. I'm not a commissioned Apple reseller. Other than that, the number of worthless 3rd party software available for PC's is likely to waste hours of your time per month. Apple users are sticklers and whiners and they generally get the upgrades and software they need and want. The wait at times can be excruciating, but it's always worth it. If I sound like an Apple enthusiast, it's because I am.

I will say this Milhaus, it seemed as though you calmed down throughout the course of this thread. The comments on additional security and added virus protection was most definitely a "selling point" not a preference point as your post suggested. You did acknowledge that so you're a good guy in my book! Those that use Macs have grown accustomed to not ever worrying about worms etc...This may change as the Mac grows in popularity so I never tout this point too heavily. It's not as if a hacker can't design a bug to screw with our machines. It's just not much bang for buck.

[milhaus]

I will say this Milhaus, it seemed as though you calmed down throughout the course of this thread. The comments on additional security and added virus protection was most definitely a "selling point" not a preference point as your post suggested.[/B]

I don't really understand where I was excited or particularly animated during this thread, with the exception of when I was misquoted. I was never out to bash the Mac OS: I still love it, but have found that it may be possible to live with XP. Perhaps I will change my mind as I have more time with the system.

You are right about the misconception of the point re: security. My initial point was that viruses and intrusions, which has so long been a selling point for the Mac (its lack thereof), is perhaps not as big of a deal for educated and well protected PC users - i.e. use a powerful firewall and be intelligent about opening attachments.

I could be wrong about this, however; sophisticated hackers could probably bypass my protection apps, but I still feel relatively safe from casual viruses and attacks. Of course, I never had to think about this on my Mac.

[Macola]

Originally posted by milhaus:


You are right about the misconception of the point re: security. My initial point was that viruses and intrusions, which has so long been a selling point for the Mac (its lack thereof), is perhaps not as big of a deal for educated and well protected PC users - i.e. use a powerful firewall and be intelligent about opening attachments.

Just avoid using Outlook, and you'll probably reduce your potential virus problems by about 80%

[Stratus Fear]

I see no difference between 2k/XP multitasking and OS X multitasking. Plus, if your 1GHz computer with a gig of ram can't multitask while burning a CD, then you must have seriously messed it up -- I've been able to burn CDs and multitask on an old K6-2 400 with 384MB and had no problems (running XP too!).

Originally posted by rlmorel:
Stratus Fear...I do think OSX has much better multitasking capability than Windows. However, my only reference point is Win2000 on a 1Ghz HP with 1GB of RAM, vs. my DP G4500 with 1.25 GB RAM. My Mac wipes the floor effortlessly with the PC. However, XP may be better than Win2000.

That said...milhaus waits patiently...jiggles...sets the hook...reels in...lets line out...

Couldn't resist milhaus...sorry!

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by MDA:
Sorry. I'm only reporting what I hear and read from PC users.

MDA

Try a PC forum. You'll hear none of that kind of myth, simply because the only reason for a problem like that is a horribly misconfigured computer.

[booboo]

But seriously, what is there to like about Windows XP?

The multi-tasking?
The ergonomics?
The Wizards?
The way windows redraw and the screen refreshes?
Troubleshooting?
The Registry?
Microsoft, and buying into it?
The quality of the shareware?
The security?
The external design of the hardware?
The rat's nest inside?
The PC equivalent of a furry dice: a nice coloured light for the inside?
The quality of the PC magazines?
The lack of iApp's iMovie, iTunes, iDVD?
The lack of the pro app's Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro?
The floppy drive.
The manual eject button on the CD drive?
Application de-installation?
Booting up from a floppy?
The BIOS?
Windows XP activation?
The app that installed itself and won't go away?
Windows colour management?
The task-bar?
'My Computer'?

Or is the fact that the future's as predictable as it's always been?

As Bill himself said, it's got to be more like the Mac... more like the Mac...

[mrmister]

"Convince me to go back. . ."

Is there some REASON people post these kind of topics?

Here's a simple arguement: if you are coming to mac boards and asking to be persuaded to use Macs, you may wish to self-examine your motives.

In other words, perhaps you will return b/c you are so needy that you post like this on Mac sites.

[moreno]

You've trolled around here in the past so it's not surprising that you posted in this thread.

Sorry, but i don't know whats "trolled" means.
If you like to hide the 'bad MacUser experience', you can do it, but you only will lie to yourself.

Also, your designs are impressive. Isn't a shame that photoshop doesn't have a platinum interface any more?

[milhous]

Just a future note not to confuse me with with what milhaus says. The spelling's off by a letter.

If Mac people become discontent by what they use, they'll jump ship on their own. They don't need someone else to tell them about it.

[rlmorel]

Stratus Fear,
In your experience, you see no difference between multitasking on Windows and OSX. I can respect that.

In my experience as an IT Manager who also provides first call support to 400 PC's and workstations running everything from Win95 to XP and UNIX, I have seen Windows do things I have never seen any of my Macs do with respect to multitasking. I have seen PC's applications refuse to relinquish the screen when switching between apps. Screen redraws on the PC get mangled. Windows do not refresh. And so on. My experience tells me that there IS indeed a difference. Given that OSX and Windows are so different, and their implementation of this functionality is probably different, it does not strike me as impossible that there may be a difference.

Granted, I only work with four Macs, all running OSX 10.2.6. At work, I have a 400MHz iMac with 128 of RAM, a Powerbook 400 MHz with 192MB RAM, and at home I have a DPG4500 with 1.12GB RAM, and a BW G3 300MHz with 256MB RAM. My PC at work is a 1 GHz HP with 1GB RAM, running Win2000. It does okay, but my Powerbook and iMac do as good or better at multitasking (running a 1.5 GB Filemaker Pro database on each, with MS Excel, Word and Mail/Outlook usually open simultaneously.) My DP G4 at home is CLEARLY smoother and has no issues no matter how many apps I have open.

One caveat and this may be significant: I do not work with many PC's with XP on them, so it is possible that Win2000 and XP may have a difference in the way they multitask. Can anyone address this?

Bottom line, my experience tells me OSX is better at multitasking. Your experience tells you there is no difference. Could all the PC's I work with be "Horribly misconfigured" as one poster suggested, or could there be another explanation for the differences I see?

(Also, I think you are mistaking someone elses post with mine...I did not reference burning of CD's....they don't give us CD burners in our work PC's...go figure!)

[Stratus Fear]

I probably did quote the wrong post. Nonetheless, I've only seen two cases in which Windows does what you describe:

1) It's a non-NT version of Windows.
2) poorly maintained Windows installs.

Of the Windows machines I manage, I've rarely seen anything that you describe. What you're calling a multitasking issue is probably one of two things -- poorly coded programs or user error. I don't give users a chance to mess anything up on the machines I manage (or install random programs), thus those machines never have any problems (any computer I've seen with little user restriction somehow seems to go downhill over time -- hmm, sounds like the users to me ). I've seen some Macs do some odd things as well that my Mac has never done, simply because I don't let anyone but me use it Well, that and the few people I trust because I know that they know what they're doing.

I guess, though, it's like you said -- different user experience.

Originally posted by rlmorel:
Stratus Fear,
In your experience, you see no difference between multitasking on Windows and OSX. I can respect that.

In my experience as an IT Manager who also provides first call support to 400 PC's and workstations running everything from Win95 to XP and UNIX, I have seen Windows do things I have never seen any of my Macs do with respect to multitasking. I have seen PC's applications refuse to relinquish the screen when switching between apps. Screen redraws on the PC get mangled. Windows do not refresh. And so on. My experience tells me that there IS indeed a difference. Given that OSX and Windows are so different, and their implementation of this functionality is probably different, it does not strike me as impossible that there may be a difference.

Granted, I only work with four Macs, all running OSX 10.2.6. At work, I have a 400MHz iMac with 128 of RAM, a Powerbook 400 MHz with 192MB RAM, and at home I have a DPG4500 with 1.12GB RAM, and a BW G3 300MHz with 256MB RAM. My PC at work is a 1 GHz HP with 1GB RAM, running Win2000. It does okay, but my Powerbook and iMac do as good or better at multitasking (running a 1.5 GB Filemaker Pro database on each, with MS Excel, Word and Mail/Outlook usually open simultaneously.) My DP G4 at home is CLEARLY smoother and has no issues no matter how many apps I have open.

One caveat and this may be significant: I do not work with many PC's with XP on them, so it is possible that Win2000 and XP may have a difference in the way they multitask. Can anyone address this?

Bottom line, my experience tells me OSX is better at multitasking. Your experience tells you there is no difference. Could all the PC's I work with be "Horribly misconfigured" as one poster suggested, or could there be another explanation for the differences I see?

(Also, I think you are mistaking someone elses post with mine...I did not reference burning of CD's....they don't give us CD burners in our work PC's...go figure!)

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You folks need to learn more about multitasking.

There is zero discernable difference between Windows and Mac (post os9) when it comes to multitasking.

I think the Mac community was overwhelmed by the improvement that OSX offered over OS9 in this area. It wasn't better than Windows - it was merely equal.

Maybe you need to learn something about it.

Right here, I have a G4/400 with 640MB RAM, and a Pentium III 600 with 640. OS X 10.2, versus Windows XP (up to date).

XP cannot multitask for ****, in short...

My opinion is not biased towards OS X in any capacity.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Maybe you need to learn something about it.

Right here, I have a G4/400 with 640MB RAM, and a Pentium III 600 with 640. OS X 10.2, versus Windows XP (up to date).

XP cannot multitask for ****, in short...

My opinion is not biased towards OS X in any capacity.

XP can't multitask? Tell that to the millions of PC users that use it every day. Tell that to me. I manage a number of 2k/XP machines that multitask just fine, and of course, I have my own machine. If I couldn't do the same kinds of things on my PC that I do everyday on my Mac, I'd agree with you. But that isn't the case. I have no problem using 8+ programs at once on either machine. The PC will do it faster simply because it's a much quicker machine than my iBook, but both machines multitask smoothly. If XP doesn't multitask for you, then you're probably not using it right. It's not really rocket science or anything either which is why I'm baffled by some of these comments.

[MDA]

Originally posted by Stratus Fear:
I probably did quote the wrong post. Nonetheless, I've only seen two cases in which Windows does what you describe:

1) It's a non-NT version of Windows.
2) poorly maintained Windows installs.

Of the Windows machines I manage, I've rarely seen anything that you describe. What you're calling a multitasking issue is probably one of two things -- poorly coded programs or user error. I don't give users a chance to mess anything up on the machines I manage (or install random programs), thus those machines never have any problems (any computer I've seen with little user restriction somehow seems to go downhill over time -- hmm, sounds like the users to me ). I've seen some Macs do some odd things as well that my Mac has never done, simply because I don't let anyone but me use it Well, that and the few people I trust because I know that they know what they're doing.

I guess, though, it's like you said -- different user experience.

Have you noticed that no one here is complaining about OS X doing poorly at multitasking because of a "horribly misconfigured computer"? As a matter of fact I haven't seen anyone complain about the multitasking in OS X at all. It would almost seem that PC users are reaching for excuses to explain inferior multitasking in XP.

MDA

[stew]

Originally posted by MDA:
It would almost seem that PC users are reaching for excuses to explain inferior multitasking in XP.

Could somebody finally explain what is wrong with XP's multitasking? You keep on repeating "it sucks it sucks it sucks", but please tell us what exactly XP's multitasking is doing different than OS X. Because from my POV, both systems have priority based round-robin schedulers, I'd love to be enlightened about where the difference is. So far, I could get both systems down on their knees by raytracing scenes larger than the physical RAM.

[Cipher13]

If something is stalling in XP (like with a beachballing app in OSX), UNLIKE in OSX, you can't switch apps. How's that?

In OSX, you can continue to work in another application...

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Stratus Fear:
XP can't multitask? Tell that to the millions of PC users that use it every day. Tell that to me. I manage a number of 2k/XP machines that multitask just fine, and of course, I have my own machine. If I couldn't do the same kinds of things on my PC that I do everyday on my Mac, I'd agree with you. But that isn't the case. I have no problem using 8+ programs at once on either machine. The PC will do it faster simply because it's a much quicker machine than my iBook, but both machines multitask smoothly. If XP doesn't multitask for you, then you're probably not using it right. It's not really rocket science or anything either which is why I'm baffled by some of these comments.

Oh, yeah. And I'm sure the millions of people who use it every day are such a great testiment to its superiority. Just like the millions of drivers who drive 1983 GM Generics, as opposed to the latest Alfa 166.

But I'm sure you're right - I'm just not using XP "correctly".

Sure.

[Hash]

yup, Cipher correct here. XP just stalls or freezes *whatever you prefer. Basically it stalls. Sometimes you have to kill the app, usually throuhg process manager. OS X is very good in multitasking. XP is less.

These stalls can be caused by heavy network activity in the background, CD-burning, and other tasks. Not all tasks cause such stalls, nevertheless there are occasions when they are obvious.

[crayz]

I like my Mac and all - I still use it even though I have a 50% faster PC sitting right next to it on my desk.

However, anyone who suggests that Firebird or any browser for OS X is as good as Mozilla or Firebird for Windows has either not used the browser on Windows or is smoking a lot of crack.

Mozilla/Firebird(right now I lean towards Moz as being better) on Windows is simply the best browser ever created. And the Mac version is nowhere near up to par speed-wise. Camino would be a contender if anyone was working on it anymore.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by milhaus:
On the Mac OS I always found I was constantly having difficulty finding or having to jump through hoops to do things which were more easily done on the PC (using it with my xBox, backing up DVDs, etc.) but I could do everything (even though I did have to wait a while for divx files to play properly for example).

You tell my friend who just switched from PC to Mac. He's constantly telling me how easy things are compared to PC. (Networking, "iTunes is everything I ever wanted in an MP3-player", making music, getting devices to interoperate, etc.)

And how is backing up DVDs harder on a mac? xBox-connectivity better on a Microsoft OS? Whoopee!

[sailin74]

Well, I have a PC 1.2Ghz Celeron Type running XP, and a 400Mhz G3 Pismo 10.2.6 at my desk. I have to have the PC for a few work programs, otherwise I wouldn't.

I'm suprised you built the PC and didn't have conflicts. I was simply trying to add wireless to my PC box, and couldn't get it stable. It didn't like to play with my airport base station.

Every now and again it rejects it's USB peripherals. Sometimes it just doesn't like the mouse, go figure.

The PC doesn't like my network wired either. It isn't always visable. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I gave up trying to figure it out.

IE is faster on the PC than Safari is on the Mac, but I like Safari better, go figure. Tabs are nice, and I like the fit and finish better.

When you begin to experience plug and pray, you'll come back. You'll come back when you slowly realize that the PC just slows down over time, spyware, and junk that gets orphaned all over. You'll see that you can't install and uninstall software. There's pieces that you just can't get rid of.

I initially thought I really liked XP when I got the machine, then I found myself swearing at it too much, and went back to the Pismo.

If you like the PC better, that's great. The Mac has some great things to offer. There is a price difference. To me, a couple hundred dollars extra is worth not having the PC problems that I've experienced. Start keeping a running tally, how much is your time worth?

Oh, and find a computer company that will warrantee your wireless base station that's out of warrantee just because you have a new computer and that warrantee extends to the base station..... Other than Apple...

The integration is better. It's hard to quantify, but it is.

Macs are just more fun. They're happy computers.

-Jason

One other reason, Office for Mac is so much nicer to use in my opinion. To me, the UI is so much cleaner.

Oh and try bridging an airport connection to ethernet on your pc.

[michaelb]

Re the multitasking...

It's funny how Mac users often know more about how Windows behaves. I think I know why with this example:

A friend administers PCs at a large company, cut his teeth on NT4 onwards, pretty hardcore, takes care of dozens of users a day.

He swore blind that I was making stuff up about the multitasking, that I must have a badly configured machine with lots of background processes etc, etc.

I then gave him a demo, on one of his machines, a P4 2.4 GHz running XP Pro. Started a 2 minute filter in Photoshop and then clicked on the Taskbar to use IE or anything else. "Oh."

Burnt a CD at 32x speed, while previewing some stuff from Kazaa. Would you like jam on that piece of toast? "Er."

Basically his response was: "Well I mainly work with Word and Excel and Access, they multitask fine. I guess you're right it chokes on more intensive stuff."

Some myth. Mac OS X piddles on XP when it comes to multitasking.

[Cadaver]

Milhaus- I will post something useful for you, instead of just calling you Troll Bait...

I know exactly what you're talking about. I do what you are doing about once a year (there's even a couple old threads about it at xlr8yourmac). I've built two of my own PCs as well. Not crap, either. But good, well built and thought out hardware.

Guess what I always end up coming back to.

[michaelb]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
And how is backing up DVDs harder on a mac?

He probably means ripping (off) rented DVDs onto a single 4.7 GHz consumer DVD-R.

That was harder on the Mac until DVD2One X came along. Now, with it and/or DVDBackup 1.3 to rip a full DVD onto your harddrive, I doubt very much the PC is any easier at all.

[rlmorel]

Folks-

I just want to be clear. I am not saying XP sucks at multitasking. I am just saying that in my experience, OSX SEEMS better, more fluid, with fewer pauses and stalls and that the implementation on OSX may be better than that of XP, for unidentified reasons. Could be the OS. Could be the way apps are written. Could be user configuration...don't know. That is ALL I am saying.

It's not like I am saying Mail sucks on OSX because it stalls on occasion when I select the Mail or File menu. I happen to like using Mail in spite of that.

I don't get to use XP a lot, so it may work just fine for the majority of people. Granted, the look of the interface and icons turns me off (looks toyish) but that is just my opinion. I know lots of people who love using XP.

[lookmark]

I used XP on a 1.5Ghz P4 with 640MB of RAM for about 5 months on a project at a company.

XP is lovely at launching and quitting programs. Window-sizing? Snappy. But serious multi-tasking (i.e. using intensive programs like PS, Ill, Dir, DW)? Not very good -- programs would consistently stutter and pause, sometimes even for as long as 5-10 seconds. (!) And maintaining visual integrity of windows onscreen when attempting to multitask? Forget about it: screen redraws, flickering, all kinds of ghost effects. Shocking.

No contest in the multi-tasking department. I far prefer using OS X.

[cpac]

bottom line?

Computers are tools. XP might do what you want to do better. X does what I (and many others) want it to do better. Figure out what's best for you, and go with it.

[Spliffdaddy]

There is no difference between the multitasking in Windows and the multitasking in OSX.

You can 'percieve' anything your heart desires, but the facts won't change even a little.

Without going into great detail, all of the arguments in favor of OSX multitasking can be easily crushed by one simple word. "priority", aka "nice" in OSX parlance.

Learn a little about about "priority" and how it relates to multitasking. If you want to learn even more, I would suggest another word, "affinity". That one can build a good foundation for the understanding of priority on multiprocessor systems.

[booboo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There is no difference between the multitasking in Windows and the multitasking in OSX.

Actually, I'm sure there is a way to benchmark this to prove how wrong you are.

I have my Dual 533 G4 and 1.8GHz PC running XP. There is absolutely no comparison between the two. In OS X I can instantly switch between app's, everything is fluid.

I'm running FileMaker, Photoshop, Entourage, Excel, Word, Safari, iTunes, PreView, BBEdit; I'm downloading a large file and I'm writing a CD in the background. FileMaker - where I'm building a database - is as responsive as if I were running none of these other app's.

On XP, app's - sorry, programs - become unresponsive for sometimes 10's of seconds on switching. And if, god forbid, one crashes, it sometimes takes minutes to wrestle back control.

For me, the OS X experience is so far superior that I only ever use the PC to check my FM solutions compatibility - and write print scripts for them - when the database will be deployed on PC.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by booboo:
Actually, I'm sure there is a way to benchmark this to prove how wrong you are....

I'm sure you could benchmark it, but it wouldn't prove me wrong.

There are x number of clockcycles and y number of processes competing for those clockcycles. Both OSX and Windows schedule these processes in a similar manner and they get similar results. There is no magic. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by MDA:
Have you noticed that no one here is complaining about OS X doing poorly at multitasking because of a "horribly misconfigured computer"? As a matter of fact I haven't seen anyone complain about the multitasking in OS X at all. It would almost seem that PC users are reaching for excuses to explain inferior multitasking in XP.

MDA

It would also seem to me, that, since this is a Mac forum, Mac users are reaching for anything, true or not, to put down Windows. Something like this never goes without bias, unfortunately.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
If something is stalling in XP (like with a beachballing app in OSX), UNLIKE in OSX, you can't switch apps. How's that?

In OSX, you can continue to work in another application...

What are you talking about?

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Without going into great detail, all of the arguments in favor of OSX multitasking can be easily crushed by one simple word. "priority", aka "nice" in OSX parlance.

Learn a little about about "priority" and how it relates to multitasking. If you want to learn even more, I would suggest another word, "affinity". That one can build a good foundation for the understanding of priority on multiprocessor systems.

Exactly. I've seen OSX programs slow down just as much as Windows can under heavy load. Hell, nice a pretty intensive program to -20 and watch the OS choke. But whoever it was that made that comment about CD burning slowing down the OS, you must be on something, because I couldn't even get CD burning to slow down a P2 400 using a fairly fast burner. Very bad example.

[Xerxes]

Do you really think anyone cares what you think or prefer to use?

X

Originally posted by milhaus:
I'm a lifelong Mac user, temporarily migrating to Windows XP. I moved over because I was curious and wanted to "bulid my own PC" from parts just for the experience, and because of the delays announcing and getting new powerbooks in the pipeline (apple's delays with the G5s and no new powerbooks kinda soured me). So, I thought I would build a cheap machine <$600 and add some of my parts I had lying around.

That was a few weeks ago, and I'm finding very little reason to switch back as I had originally planned to. Here's what I like about XP:

1) Mozilla Firebird - superfast lean browser, looks great - this was the breaker for me

2) Skinnable UI - Stardock allows you to really customize your windows appearance

3) Security - though this would be an issue, but several excellent firewall programs running keep me well protected and norton keeps me healthy

4) For less than $600 invested (on top of some parts) I got 2500+, a SATA Raid 240GB, all the firewire I could use, all the USB 2.0 I could use, 1024 MB Dual Chanel 400MHZ Ram, and an ugly but quiet case

I had been used to a QS 733MHz so this machines feels super fast - especialy in file compression/extraction, audio video ripping, etc.

Convince me to go back. . .
What is it about Panther I won't be able to live without.

Signed,
Not a troll.

[milhaus]

Originally posted by Xerxes:
Do you really think anyone cares what you think or prefer to use?

X

Hey Mr. Five posts . . . Look at the number of responses to this thread, and the fact that you posted, and figure out the answer for yourself.

[teszeract]

Geez, stay away for a couple of days and come back to find that there's a war going on about WoMD (WinXP) here!

[gorgonzola]

Let's not have another display like this, please. milhaus has posted here for a while and he's not trolling. His post was polite and to the point. Posts like this are NOT welcome:

Well in any case, good riddance and don't look for a warm reception if you ever come back.

What a ridiculous post. If you're not interested in participating in the thread, just ignore it. Garbage like the quote above is not the appropriate response.

[MDA]

Originally posted by Stratus Fear:
It would also seem to me, that, since this is a Mac forum, Mac users are reaching for anything, true or not, to put down Windows. Something like this never goes without bias, unfortunately.

You're kidding. Someone taking jabs at Windows in a Mac forum? I don't believe it. How dare they.

MDA

[Xerxes]

What has the number of my posts got to do with your absurd post?? duh!!!

Anyhow perhaps you should read the replies to your post before you use them as proof that your words mean anything.

You want to use XP do it, no-one cares, no-one wants to know. People that talk, do just that and nothing else. All mouth!!

X

Originally posted by milhaus:
Hey Mr. Five posts . . . Look at the number of responses to this thread, and the fact that you posted, and figure out the answer for yourself.

[Mooga2]

Originally posted by Cipher13:


To the rest of you: if you don't care to convince milhaus to go back, then don't post. Go away. Why are you in this thread?

I happen to know that he is not a troll, so throw that option out the window.

XP is a mess of a system, with very poor multitasking. The only advantage is the hardware.

You'll convince yourself to go back.

Cipher, it's nice to see that someone around here has some class. Milhaus has been around these boards since June of 2000, supporting the Macintosh boards and the MacNN... I think you guys have found the wrong person to choose as a scapegoat. If you want a real troll, look at those bastards in Seattle.

Milhaus, if you want a single reason to stay with Macintoshes, look toward the security problems that are plaguing Windows machines every week. I know of several people who got the latest MBlaster virus, and they were on simple dial-up connections. I haven't had a single virus on my Mac since my 7100/80... and what a beautiful machine that was!

- Moo!

[kmkkid]

Not this crap again.

Why can't people use both OS'?, then you're not limited in any way.

As for the people ragging on XP's looks - XP is skinnable, and has some of the best skins out of any OS (for both WB and msstyles). Watercolor for example, is by far superior to aqua in every way. It's professional, non-distracting, ergonomically sound, and you just never tire of it. Too bad MS didnt make it the default skin for XP, or you guys wouldnt have anything to complain about. And yes I can make these claims, because literally hundreds of thousands of people use the skin and say the exact same thing. I do agree that Luna certainly isnt the best look for such a 'mature' OS though. If you dont like something, and it's easily changed, why bitch and moan?

As for security/stability issues, if you're not a moron, then you shouldnt have any horrific issues with XP. Use a firewall, use AV software and keep up to date, is it really that hard when they can all work in the background without your aid?


Chris