Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macmike42 · Mar 10, 2003, 12:53 PM

X vs. XP

If you are a regular MacSurfer, uh, surfer, you've probably already seen this. For those of you that haven't, this is probably the best, most in-depth, unbiased comparison of the two leading consumer operating systems.

There were a couple parts where I was thinking "Hey that's not fair!" only to read in italics a couple sentences later "To be fair...". Really an excellent read. Very long though.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 10, 2003, 02:16 PM

I think OS X vs. XP articles written by advanced and/or experienced computer users completely miss the point. Even MacNN forum members tend to miss the point (because I feel we are all somewhat advanced).

We (quasi-advanced computer users) view things like burning CDs and DVDs as rather simple. If we encounter a problem/error, we consider it a hurdle to overcome, but most users see anything other then a success as an absolute roadblock.

At the local computer store in which I work, most people could easily use a Mac, but choose not to do so based entirely on 3+ year old misinformation. I usually hear "Macs are for Education", "Macs are not compatible with...", "Macs are slow" etc. I have yet to hear "XP is easier to log into", "OS Updates are easier", "The script-ability is easier...", or "The OS X/XP system tools"... as a reason to pick one over another as the above article may have you think...

MOST USERS:
1) Send email
2) Surf the Web
3) Take/Send digital images (now more then ever)
4) Chat
5) Use M$ Word

and that's it... end of story...

I would say that most people purchase Windows systems because:
1) That's what they know
2) That's what their friends use

I would guess that 80%+ of Windows users use applications that have OS X ports.

The one I hear over and over is Microsoft Word. (Over and over) "Does it come with Microsoft Word) is #1. Other then that, most end users don't care what web browser they use, what email application they use etc.

clebin · Mar 10, 2003, 03:08 PM

I think you're missing the point, mitchell_pgh. You're right - this kind of comparison is not for the completely newbie, but that doesn't make it worthless does it?

It's good to compare these OSes for anyone who wants to change platform and for users to reaffirm their commitment to their chosen platform. I think it's pretty interesting information for anyone with an interest.

Like some on their forum, I don't agree with the Help section. Perhaps it should be split into Basic and Advanced. I'm likely to go looking in Windows Help for some Sysadmin stuff, but wouldn't dream of doing the same in Help Centre. Remember how MacOS used to run you through a tutorial to actually complete tasks. That was brilliant for new users. I'd love to see that back in the next release.

Mail will hopefully get the rumoured Exchange support next time, and some options for composing emails and encoding of attachments. Like the article says, though, it's a good strategy that is yielding better results with each release. Some people complain about Address Book, although I don't see any problems with it myself, apart from being sluggish at times.

I think the web browsing section should also be split into Default and Alternative, or expanded. It's unfair to confine the test to IE6 PC and IE5.2 Mac. Already I think OS X wins the alternative category. Opera and K-Meleon are no match for the range of Mac browsers we have these days. Safari vs. IE6 is a tough one. IE6's rendering engine is better, but Safari is nicer to use, has more features and makes pages look nicer.

I agree with the System Tools - the weakest area for X in this article. Backup should be bundled with 10.3, Disk Utility must include Defragmentation, and I'd like to see Classic-style boot from CD restored. Don't know about roll-back of updates or Disk Cleanup. Don't see the need for these.

Contextual menus are also weak. I agree that it's time for Apple to untap the huge amount of interest and publicity that a 2-button Apple mouse would generate.

I'm disappointed when I click on things in iCal or iPhoto and find out that there are no contextual menus for that object. I also want to see the day when Services are integrated into contextual menus in a sensible way...

So, a good article. Apple take note.

Chris

bbt · Mar 10, 2003, 03:40 PM

"I would say that most people purchase Windows systems because:
1) That's what they know
2) That's what their friends use"

and 3) they're inexpensive

mitchell_pgh · Mar 10, 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by bbt:
"I would say that most people purchase Windows systems because:
1) That's what they know
2) That's what their friends use"

and 3) they're inexpensive

VERY very true... It's hard to sell someone on a $1200 mac when you can get a $500 PC when all you want to do is email and surf. (Again, I'm all Mac, so don't read into this)

I don't think this the article is worthless, I just get tired of people splitting hairs when there are bigger issues like basic usability (or more to the point information). I must sell 10+ DVD+RW drives a week. When I ask people what they want to use them for, I get "I want to copy DVDs from Blockbuster" I know for sure that they are going to get home and get pissed because they can't just copy them. More to the point, they won't even know what to do with the drive (because the application that comes with the computer is CRAP)

Sorry people, I'm just tired of selling BAD computers to GOOD people...

xtal · Mar 10, 2003, 06:44 PM

I read the whole article, and was suitably impressed with the diversity of 'tests' that the author put both OSes through.

I have never used XP myself, so it was interesting to see how it works in comparison with OS X.

Thanks for the link.

SPOILER: (highlight to read)

OS X wins!

/SPOILER

Morenix · Mar 10, 2003, 07:55 PM

crappy article.

SeSawaya · Mar 10, 2003, 08:31 PM

QUOTE "VERY very true... It's hard to sell someone on a $1200 mac when you can get a $500 PC when all you want to do is email and surf."

I really am done believing that PCs are cheaper than macs. my friend just bought a $600 Compact with no monitor or decent amount of ram. By the time he adds all that he will have paid what I did for my ibook. And ITS portable!

Cheaper is a relative term nowadays

greenG4 · Mar 10, 2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by bbt:
"I would say that most people purchase Windows systems because:
1) That's what they know
2) That's what their friends use"
and 3) they're inexpensive

That is EXACTLY right. I sold computers for 3 years at a CompUSA. For almost every customer that came in I would show both Mac and PC. Because of those 3 things about 75% of my customers bought PC. They didn't care that Macs were "better for your money" or anything. If a 70 year old grandma was buying a computer it didn't matter what I said, their grandson had already made up her mind. There were always some sort of big rebate out for an HP or Compaq. Toward the end of my employment I started to give up...

Fallout · Mar 10, 2003, 09:06 PM

For the average user, it comes down to personal preference.

pliny · Mar 10, 2003, 09:10 PM

The article says,

"Attaching items isn't as flexible as XP. You can attach by clicking the attach button, by dragging an item into a message window and-- new to Jaguar-- if you have an item selected on the desktop you can select Finder> Services> Mail> Send File. Unfortunately this only works if you have one item selected (though that one item could be a folder with multiple items in it). You can also attach a file by control-clicking or right-clicking the file, selecting Open With, and choosing your email program. Not quite as smooth as XP's Send to Mail Recipient since OS X tries to only show you applications that are applicable to the item you've selected, and so your email program will only show up in the default list if you have a text file selected. You can still select Other... and browse to your email program, but that's more effort."

Here he gives the email edge to XP partly because you can't control-click send file but must select the file and go under services. What's the big deal there?

clarkgoble · Mar 10, 2003, 09:18 PM

The bigger issue was about scripting. He said that XP won because of .NET and web scripting. Yet he only looked at Applescript on OSX, forgetting about Perl, Python and the shell. Not to mention the development environment that comes standard with OSX. You have to lay down some serious dough for Visual Studio to do .Net programming. Admittedly Visual Studio is better than what Apple offers right now. And I think overall C# is better than Java. But at that point you are really discussing development rather than general scripting.

For most things Applescript and Perl/Python/Shell blows away ANYTHING on XP.

TheIceMan · Mar 10, 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by bbt:
"I would say that most people purchase Windows systems because:
1) That's what they know
2) That's what their friends use"

and 3) they're inexpensive

I agree also. I cannot speak for the millions of PC users out there. But I can vouch for me, my brother, and some of our friends. One friend in particular is really in need of a laptop/computer since she needs it for her computer major. She doesn't do anything major, except play games. And ultimately her reason for sticking with the PC, even though she has admitted that it is not good is that:
1) That's what she knows
2) And that it is cheaper.

If PCs were better, I would use it. No questions asked. In fact, I got so sick and TIRED of my PC (Dell top of the line) messing up on me. And lets not even talk about finding DRIVERS for this and that!! Ughhhh.

I guess I'm one of those people who just don't wanna follow the crowd, just to follow the crowd. I kept telling myself, there has got to be something better than this PC. Hehehe. And there is.

Some people may like/love their PC. Good for them. I guess it just didn't appeal to me. Now when I walk through the computer stores and see rows and rows on PCs I just quietly smile to myself.

I just think about the PCs, rows and rows of them, like in the movie The Matrix. People blindly following something they believe works or accept it because that is all they know.

I guess in some ways, Mac users are like the "unplugged ones" who have finally seen the world as it really is.

Sorry for my ramblings. I just really really like my Mac!

ambush · Mar 10, 2003, 10:11 PM

The best advice I can give a gamer who wants to buy a new computer is "Don't buy a mac"

2 Years (approx.) ago, I convinced my cousin to buy a Powermac G4 with 512MB of ram and a 450 MHz G4 CPU.

I feel *so* guilty right now. He can't even play diablo II. Warcraft three lags like there's no tomorrow. Don't even *think* about running quake 3 urbanterror. Flash games? ARE YOU NUTS? THEY LAG LIKE **** IN A CAN, ON OSX.
He can't play yahoo pool. In fact he can't really play on his box.. I mean good "three dee" games, you know.
It's really sad. Myself, I would really enjoy playing a couple of Quake 3 UrbanTerror games after, say, 3 hours of hard work, but I really can't because a session of quake3 UT on my iBook does not actually relax me, it *frustrates* me (can you say 15 FPS?). And I just don't want to think about the fact that it *does* run faster in os9. Also, it does not even run in an acceptable manner on my 700 MHz G4 eMac with 640 MB of ram. With the Lowest config. you can make. (16 bits, vertex, low low low low all)

I really have no hope.. Do you think an eventual G5 will fix this? Hmm I don't know but I'm not too confident. Even the OmniGroup guys say a Windows box will always be faster..

Another thing I *never* understood. Why do macs don't have Sound cards? WTF is up with that? Sound must be computed by the CPU and not separate hardware... OF course it slows down games. Jeez.

</anti-apple rant>

Graymalkin · Mar 10, 2003, 11:09 PM

Audio in games is going to bog them down no matter if you have a sound card or not. All having audio acceleration does for you is allow for multidimensional sound or environmental entropy effects. Stereo sound is one dimensional and requires little more than a wave playback device. Throwing sound to your audio device requires X amount of processing power, whether the sound card does anything special with these sounds doesn't affect the power required to get the sounds onto it. Adding DSPs to Macs to do spacial and environmental audio processing would only help game performance if those effects were previously being done on the CPU just like on a PC. Plain audio causes as much of a performance hit on a Mac as it does a PC.

clarkgoble · Mar 10, 2003, 11:37 PM

There are sound cards for the Mac. There is a great 7.1 surround sound card, for instance. Its just that most Mac users don't buy them. But go google and you should be able to find several. If I recall Creative Labs even had one for a while.

Supposedly 10.3 will have a better sound API to support 3rd party sound cards. Apple bought several sound editing companies and is purportedly making sound a priority. This will probably be seen once the 970 systems come out and Apple can start competing on the high end again. (Say this summer)

In the meantime you can buy sound accelerators right now. I don't think they'll speed up your games though. 90% of slow games are due to crappy porting and not the hardware.

Hash · Mar 10, 2003, 11:55 PM

Well, i have built myself a Windows Xp box, with Athlon XP 1700+, 768 mb of RAM, Geforce 4Ti 4200, DVD drive and CDRW drive. XP is major improvement over old windows, and really much more stable. However, I still find macs, even with OS X, offering much more pleasant computing experience.

Still, for average users, all that matters is price. I already mentioned here that no one anymore differentiates computers by GUI (as in old Mac againts DOS) days and comparing GUIs is really difficult. Price alone now is the main factor. If only Macs had some basic desktops for about 699 without monitor .. Cause simplest configuration now is enough for basic computer needs. You dont need dual G4s to type an e-mail.

sek929 · Mar 11, 2003, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by ambush:
The best advice I can give a gamer who wants to buy a new computer is "Don't buy a mac"

2 Years (approx.) ago, I convinced my cousin to buy a Powermac G4 with 512MB of ram and a 450 MHz G4 CPU.

I feel *so* guilty right now. He can't even play diablo II. Warcraft three lags like there's no tomorrow. Don't even *think* about running quake 3 urbanterror. Flash games? ARE YOU NUTS? THEY LAG LIKE **** IN A CAN, ON OSX.
He can't play yahoo pool. In fact he can't really play on his box.. I mean good "three dee" games, you know.
It's really sad. Myself, I would really enjoy playing a couple of Quake 3 UrbanTerror games after, say, 3 hours of hard work, but I really can't because a session of quake3 UT on my iBook does not actually relax me, it *frustrates* me (can you say 15 FPS?). And I just don't want to think about the fact that it *does* run faster in os9. Also, it does not even run in an acceptable manner on my 700 MHz G4 eMac with 640 MB of ram. With the Lowest config. you can make. (16 bits, vertex, low low low low all)

I really have no hope.. Do you think an eventual G5 will fix this? Hmm I don't know but I'm not too confident. Even the OmniGroup guys say a Windows box will always be faster..

Another thing I *never* understood. Why do macs don't have Sound cards? WTF is up with that? Sound must be computed by the CPU and not separate hardware... OF course it slows down games. Jeez.

</anti-apple rant>

You say that even on your eMac with 640 RAM it doesn't run well. However on my G4 which has the same specs besides 33 extra mhz Wolfenstein 3D (relatively new and advanced game) runs quite smoothly, only skipping once even couple minutes for a half second.

If you told him at the time to get some "top of the line" PC it most likely would suck ass right now too, I have friends with 1GHZ machines that can barely run XP properly with a few apps open.

Thats the thing about testing older machines with video games, game technology advances so rapidly even a two month old machine will not be able to run it properly.

DeathMan · Mar 11, 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by sek929:

Thats the thing about testing older machines with video games, game technology advances so rapidly even a two month old machine will not be able to run it properly.

None of those games are new. Macs generally do not do well for games. Everyone knows that. Pop a 9700 in a brand new mac, (if we ever get them), and that of course would help, and you'd have a mac that could play current games that are coming out on the mac.

It is sad for gaming in general. Partly because to stay in front of the gaming curve, you have to have pretty up to date hardware, which means constantly upgrading. This is more expensive on a mac, especially hard to justify when it meets all your other needs so well.

Gaming is our bane.

khufuu · Mar 11, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Fallout:
For the average user, it comes down to personal preference.

That's almost completely untrue. Most users have never EVER used a mac. The don't have a presonal preference.

zazou · Mar 11, 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Morenix:
crappy article.

What?

Oh you were finished...

Welll, allow me to retort...

crappy post

The article, while I think written in a Pro X disposition was generally very fair on the particulars and did point out very good aspects for both sides.

Ultimately, for me using both OS's side-by-side everyday in web design and such, X is by far more usable as a whole. XP has nice features hidden here and there... but in the end, OS X's execution of tasks is remarkably better integrated.

Gee4orce · Mar 11, 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
The bigger issue was about scripting. He said that XP won because of .NET and web scripting. Yet he only looked at Applescript on OSX, forgetting about Perl, Python and the shell. Not to mention the development environment that comes standard with OSX. You have to lay down some serious dough for Visual Studio to do .Net programming. Admittedly Visual Studio is better than what Apple offers right now. And I think overall C# is better than Java. But at that point you are really discussing development rather than general scripting.

For most things Applescript and Perl/Python/Shell blows away ANYTHING on XP.

Absolutely agree - he blew off Mac scripting as Applescript and nothing else. Well, hello ?!? What about the Unix command line and all the application development tools that come as free ?! I have scripted tasks that run in the background from cron doing all sorts of clever things. I simply couldn't do that with Windows without 3rd party tools and almost certainly a big drop in overall stability.

On the whole I thought it was a good web site, but it's a little too biassed towards XP. Even so, OS X still wins

iRebound · Mar 11, 2003, 03:59 AM

very very nice and very in depth article and a very fair score to both OSes. i'm sure to let my pc friends read this.

andreas_g4 · Mar 11, 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Morenix:
crappy article.

crappy post.

dfiler · Mar 11, 2003, 09:28 AM

An enjoyable article. While the author was oblivious to some features and considerations, it was still an excellent read. It would have be even better received if the article hadn't attempted to be so quantitatively analytical.

It would be interesting to read a version of this article that didn't declare a victor at the end of each section. It seems as if the comparisons are less convincing when a winner is declared. For one thing, it assumes that all factors have been considered. While I agree with many of the author's observations I feel they are incomplete. By proclaiming a winner, reader objections can easily be misconstrued as disagreement with the author's points.

Example: His thoughts on Fitts law are good but incomplete. He seems to be working under the assumption that the most accessible parts of the screen should all be active widget regions. Inactive corners have their purpose.

Example 2:As noted previously, the analysis of scripting is far from complete.

Despite my gripes... I'm still emailing this to a few XP devotees that I know.

CatOne · Mar 11, 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by SeSawaya:
QUOTE "VERY very true... It's hard to sell someone on a $1200 mac when you can get a $500 PC when all you want to do is email and surf."

I really am done believing that PCs are cheaper than macs. my friend just bought a $600 Compact with no monitor or decent amount of ram. By the time he adds all that he will have paid what I did for my ibook. And ITS portable!

Cheaper is a relative term nowadays

I put together a machine with 1 GB of RAM, 120 GB HDD, Pioneer DVR-A05 DVD burner (superdrive), Athlon 2800+ (SCREAMING FAST) for $1300. Added my Radeon 9700 Pro (already had it) for a total of $1700. Based it on a Shuttle SN41G2 chassis ($350 for case and mobo -- expensive side but really cool).

Unfortunately this system is about 3x faster than a dual 1.42 in Photoshop. And it's ROCKING for games.

I still prefer my Mac for lots of things, but for games and brute strength, I built a PC for $1700 where the slower Mac equivalent is over $3500.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 11, 2003, 11:30 AM

Again, I consider myself a mac fanatic, but price is a major issue with most people.

I don't care what anyone says, you pay a small premium for a Mac. The lowest G4 configuration available is the eMac which retails for $999. For that same amount of money, I can get:

$399 - Samsung SyncMaster 17" (From Best Buy)
$399 - eMachine Intel� Celeron� 1.80
- Intel� Celeron� 1.80 GHz processor
- Large storage capabilities with a 40 GB hard drive
- 128 MB DDR memory for optimal performance
- Convenient front panel ports and jacks
- 48x CD-ROM for loading programs or playing your favorite music
- Built-in Ethernet for networking or Internet connection
- Stereo speakers for dynamic sound
$70 - Crucial Technology_256MB PC2100 DDR DIMM Memory
$130 - Epson_Stylus Color Ink Jet Printer_?_C82

I kid you not, I get this kind of logic all of the time. The sad truth is, they will get home, they MIGHT be able to get all of the parts together, they have this OK system, but not a byte of software to work/play with. They also won't have a USB cable, so that's another trip to the store.

--------> This is how uninformed consumers think <--------

That being said, many more people are starting to understand the quality of a total solution. I get people that can't stand having to buy all these parts just to do something as seemingly simple as burn a CD or edit a Movie. If I worked at the Apple Store, I would be one fire... mainly because I know how bad the PC side of the fence is.

chris v · Mar 11, 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by pliny:
The article says,

"Attaching items isn't as flexible as XP. You can attach by clicking the attach button, by dragging an item into a message window and-- new to Jaguar-- if you have an item selected on the desktop you can select Finder> Services> Mail> Send File. Unfortunately this only works if you have one item selected (though that one item could be a folder with multiple items in it). You can also attach a file by control-clicking or right-clicking the file, selecting Open With, and choosing your email program. Not quite as smooth as XP's Send to Mail Recipient since OS X tries to only show you applications that are applicable to the item you've selected, and so your email program will only show up in the default list if you have a text file selected. You can still select Other... and browse to your email program, but that's more effort."

Here he gives the email edge to XP partly because you can't control-click send file but must select the file and go under services. What's the big deal there?

???? Okay, boys and girls. Do this. If Mail.app is running, quit it. Now, take a file. Any file. Drag and drop it on the Mail.app icon in the dock. Program launches, and attaches file to new message. HOW EASY AND FLEXIBLE IS THAT???

CV

OwlBoy · Mar 11, 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by SeSawaya:
QUOTE "VERY very true... It's hard to sell someone on a $1200 mac when you can get a $500 PC when all you want to do is email and surf."

I really am done believing that PCs are cheaper than macs. my friend just bought a $600 Compact with no monitor or decent amount of ram. By the time he adds all that he will have paid what I did for my ibook. And ITS portable!

Cheaper is a relative term nowadays

I agree, you get what you pay for.

/me huggles his iMac G4 and 12 inch PB.

-Owl

mitchell_pgh · Mar 11, 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
I agree, you get what you pay for.

/me huggles his iMac G4 and 12 inch PB.

-Owl

Again, I --> ONLY <-- buy Mac, but I can see why some would bitch.

step · Mar 11, 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by bbt:
"I would say that most people purchase Windows systems because:
1) That's what they know
2) That's what their friends use"

and 3) they're inexpensive

exactly, i don't think it's too great a leap to imagine a future where most people buy those walmart $399 linux pc's (which are the 'real' competition for bill) with macs hoovering up the more savvy users, whilst Microsoft's hairline recedes to a hardcore of corporate users, sticking with microsoft ' for now'. Microsoft's only real money maker is the windows OS and Office, it can undercut people out of business in any other area, but it just can't cut it's license fees for these two core products to a level where it can compete with these almost 'disposable' VCR priced boxes.
XP , not the mac, is a luxury item

DeathMan · Mar 11, 2003, 12:59 PM

About the personal preference issue:

I just can't imagine why someone who has tried both systems would even consider sticking with a PC.

I suppose if I were big into games I would grit my teeth through the hassles and wizards and confusing dialog boxes, but your average Joe user, why would that person not switch given a look at what they could be using?

I just don't get it. My computer is a joy to use. A PC is a tool that its user is constantly at opposition with. Why do people put up with them?

mitchell_pgh · Mar 11, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I just don't get it. My computer is a joy to use. A PC is a tool that its user is constantly at opposition with. Why do people put up with them?

I think when you say "Computer" some people still think hardware and not the whole package. Like I said, many users simply don't know any better. I will say that at the computer shop, many more people know about Apple then ever before.

I think the iPod really helped out.

macmike42 · Mar 11, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I just can't imagine why someone who has tried both systems would even consider sticking with a PC.

1) Status quo
2) Cost
3) Status quo
4) Games
5) Status quo
6) As the article pointed out, quite fairly I might add, XP and X are pretty fairly matched. My personal preference is the grace of SmoothStripes combined with the power of BSD, but X is not yet an entire order of magnitude above and beyond XP in every respect. X may never cut it in terms of games, but thanks to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, it may never need to.
7) Did I mention the status quo?

Morenix · Mar 11, 2003, 01:53 PM

I just can't imagine why someone who has tried both systems would even consider sticking with a PC.

Because PC is fast, no way.
ah, and super cheap.
ups, and got usb 2.0
ah-ah, and winxp support themes
Dass, even flash screams on PC

mitchell_pgh · Mar 11, 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Morenix:
Because PC is fast, no way.
ah, and super cheap.
ups, and got usb 2.0
ah-ah, and winxp support themes
Dass, even flash screams on PC

This is the type of crap I put up with every day...

Themes!!! (that's almost as bad as tabbed browsing)

cheap - OK, good for you, we all know about the Mac tax...

P.S. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,847716,00.asp

"Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher throughput speed, FireWire delivered faster performance on external hard drives when connected to a desktop."

That also goes for everything else firewire... USB 2 is where Firewire was 3+ years ago. Also, I would guess that Apple will also start placing USB 2 in their systems...

"Hey guys, come on over and check out the speed of this flash site!!!!"

pliny · Mar 11, 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
???? Okay, boys and girls. Do this. If Mail.app is running, quit it. Now, take a file. Any file. Drag and drop it on the Mail.app icon in the dock. Program launches, and attaches file to new message. HOW EASY AND FLEXIBLE IS THAT???

CV

Yeah duh, I didn't even think about that--just drop the file onto the program icon. Since I usually mail from another app I got so used to services, I forgot about good old Mac drag and drop!

sek929 · Mar 11, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Morenix:
I just can't imagine why someone who has tried both systems would even consider sticking with a PC.

Because PC is fast, no way.
ah, and super cheap.
ups, and got usb 2.0
ah-ah, and winxp support themes
Dass, even flash screams on PC

If those aren't the best 4 (5, 6, 7?) reasons to ditch the Mac I dunno what is. UPS?

This thread was started by someone who just wanted the opportunity to bash Macs, and instead it has become a place to ridicule these 14 year old PC trolls. I love it

macmike42 · Mar 11, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by sek929:
This thread was started by someone who just wanted the opportunity to bash Macs...

Excuse me? I started this thread because I thought it was a fair comparison, which is quite rare. For the record, I own 7 Macs and 0 PCs. And by "own", I mean "have in active use at my residence", not "haved owned" or "have stacked in the corner". For games I have a Dreamcast.

istallion · Mar 11, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by pliny:
Yeah duh, I didn't even think about that--just drop the file onto the program icon. Since I usually mail from another app I got so used to services, I forgot about good old Mac drag and drop!

How is this different than windows, except that you don't have to make sure Outlook is closed first?

cpac · Mar 11, 2003, 03:28 PM

Just a quick thought on the whole gaming issue:

Consoles people!

GameCube
PS2
(or even evil M$'s) XBox

FAR FAR less expensive than a PC, no need to buy a controller/adapter and worry about proper drivers etc.

People who are buy a computer concerned *primarily* about gaming performance boggle my mind as for less they could (e.g.) buy a PS2, a copy of EverQuest, and probably pay for a cable modem for several months before reaching the price of a PC.

Avon · Mar 11, 2003, 05:01 PM

Dam! Thats not an article. Thats a book. Job well done. It must have been a painfull experience, but this is a great side by side comparison.

ApeInTheShell · Mar 11, 2003, 06:51 PM

I agree with the post way above mine: crappy article.
a) I think he gives too much credit to XP and compliments it's user interface even when he says OS X won. That is just gloating.
b) He emphasizes on Mac OS X's lack of a 2 button mouse. So frickin what. Buy a 3rd party one and be done with it.
c) I know he tells us about the login and how you can switch between users in XP, but how is that secure? For some odd reason he also blames OS X for Internet Explorer??? I didn't get it.
d) Chat: does ichat have video conferencing yet...i didn't think so. so how can you compare that feature?
oh and he wrote: "Messenger so surpasses Safari in advanced conferencing that XP deserves more than one point for this."
e) but i wasn't dissapointed with the rest of the articles so far. I do think iPhoto should loose but that is my own opinion. I would of liked it to be an aqua app instead of a brushed metal one.

klinux · Mar 11, 2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by ApeInTheShell:
I agree with the post way above mine: crappy article.
a) I think he gives too much credit to XP and compliments it's user interface even when he says OS X won. That is just gloating.
b) He emphasizes on Mac OS X's lack of a 2 button mouse. So frickin what. Buy a 3rd party one and be done with it.
c) I know he tells us about the login and how you can switch between users in XP, but how is that secure? For some odd reason he also blames OS X for Internet Explorer??? I didn't get it.
d) Chat: does ichat have video conferencing yet...i didn't think so. so how can you compare that feature?
oh and he wrote: "Messenger so surpasses Safari in advanced conferencing that XP deserves more than one point for this."
e) but i wasn't dissapointed with the rest of the articles so far. I do think iPhoto should loose but that is my own opinion. I would of liked it to be an aqua app instead of a brushed metal one.

Man... another one of those defend Mac at all cost people. If Mac does not have it (video chat, two button mouse), then it loses. Plain and simple. If PC does not have a certain feature, ditto. If we have to bring 3rd-party features in (2 button mouse), then that would be a whole different ball game (case in point, for screen capture, PC users use Snag It - much much more powerful than default XP). While I do not agree with all of the author's opinion, I think it is a mostly fair comparison.

One issue I took with the article is re CD burning. Sure, Mac may be easier (to each his or her own) but XP lets you burn at the the rated speed of hardware e.g if you have a 52x burner, burn away if your media can handle it! Instead, we get the problem of iBooks (see iBook forum) burning at 4x instead of 16x. 4x? That is y2k speed!

Spliffdaddy · Mar 12, 2003, 02:55 AM

You can't exclude 3rd-party apps for Windows while extolling the virtues of 3rd party apps for the Mac platform.

klinux · Mar 12, 2003, 03:00 AM

Exactly, which is a reason why I liked the article which kept it mostly a strict OS vs OS comparison.

mbryda · Mar 12, 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by klinux:
One issue I took with the article is re CD burning. Sure, Mac may be easier (to each his or her own) but XP lets you burn at the the rated speed of hardware e.g if you have a 52x burner, burn away if your media can handle it! Instead, we get the problem of iBooks (see iBook forum) burning at 4x instead of 16x. 4x? That is y2k speed!

More a media issue than anything else with the iBooks. All the other burners support theur maximum speed...

Morenix · Mar 12, 2003, 08:50 AM

This is the type of crap I put up with every day...
Themes!!! (that's almost as bad as tabbed browsing)
cheap - OK, good for you, we all know about the Mac tax...
P.S. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,847716,00.asp
"Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher throughput speed, FireWire delivered faster performance on external hard drives when connected to a desktop."
That also goes for everything else firewire... USB 2 is where Firewire was 3+ years ago. Also, I would guess that Apple will also start placing USB 2 in their systems...
"Hey guys, come on over and check out the speed of this flash site!!!!"

Themes (thats almost as bad as tabbed broswing)?
Themes are an important feature on modern operating systems. Themes helps the user to use and work better, even more when users have special needs. don't be selfish.

the Mac tax? because Mac is PC without windows/and without some features, lack of speed...etc?

USB 2.0 is good for devices like eg. printers and webcams. firewire is good for devices like dv cams. Also, USB connections are cheap to build on devices.

Well, if Flash is slow on the Mac, i can't even figure ANARK (www.anark.com) - interactive 3D+2D+movies+js. It's all about Evolution. Buy a spectrum if you don't wanna be part of that.

And more one thing, i don't play games, but - also the PC is the best plataform for gamming.

CharlesS · Mar 12, 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You can't exclude 3rd-party apps for Windows while extolling the virtues of 3rd party apps for the Mac platform.

Well, there are some exceptions. Take IE for the Mac - who uses it? Almost everyone who knows what they're doing downloads something else and uses it. IE's shortcomings are certainly not Apple's fault, they're Microsoft's, and the solution is really simple - don't use IE. Use Camino or Safari or Mozilla or OmniWeb.

sek929 · Mar 12, 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by macmike42:
Excuse me? I started this thread because I thought it was a fair comparison, which is quite rare. For the record, I own 7 Macs and 0 PCs. And by "own", I mean "have in active use at my residence", not "haved owned" or "have stacked in the corner". For games I have a Dreamcast.

Whoops, must have missed the first half dozen posts or so, d'oh

Good article, though I think just a few things sounded a bit biased towards the Mac, but its all good.