which is better OS 9 or Win2000?
Nothing to do with their platforms, just which one is more powerful? eg. multitasking....etc...

I don't think you should be comparing OS 9 with windows 2000 because windows 2000 isn't out yet. I think a better comparison would be with Mac OS X Client, and i dont think there will be any contest as to which one is best...<Mac OS X obviously>

[Herr Newton]

I truly must agree with Eddie -- you're comparing an as of yet Vaporware OS with an OS which has been on the shelves for nigh-on 3 months now. Through a developer friend, I had the chance to play with MacOS X DP2 first hand. (I'm not trying to cover my ass by saying it was a "friend"--DP2 doesn't yet support the Catalyst mother board, the board in my PowerCenter Pro.) If Apple can ship it on time, it's going to blow the industry wide open. Ease of use and amazing amount of power under the hood. It's going to be a benchmark and will likely give Microsoft a terrible time.

[penginkun]

Software-wise? Let's see... Well, with Microsoft, every possible application you could ever want is integrated into the system, whether you want it or not.

With the Mac, you get SimpleText.

So if it's software you want, Win2K is your OS.

However.

I can install the MacOS in about 20 minutes, and install all my other software in less than hour.

Windows (or so I am told by people who have installed it) takes a much longer time. One report I heard said it took three hours.

Regarding applications, what do you want to do? There's nothing a PC can do that a Mac can't do better - except crash, maybe.

Windows 2000 is much more stable than OS 9. I've crashed OS 9 several times, just trying to do simple things. It's a nice OS, but I keep encountering incomptible software that crashes it or corrupts some obscure drivers that crashes it. Windows 2000 is very nice. It has gone 30 days without crashing, it's very stable, has a nice user interface, and is very efficient. It is also amazing when it comes to hardware detection and driver loading.

------------------
[email protected]

Considering how many years it took them to build win2000(they say 3 but to be honest we really don't know), and how many ppl and resources Microsoft has...It ought to be better than OS9, at least a little bit. But economically-wise OS9 is prob. cheaper to make.
I heard a rumor saying that the minimum requirement for win2000 is 128M RAM true?

[Mac007]

"has a nice user interface, and is very efficient"

I find the user interface counterintuitive and thus highly inefficiant.

[checkdef]

Well, well... Please don't forget this is a pro-mac site. I think the choice of the OS also has a lot to do with how you are going to use your computer.
If compatibility is an issue windows 2000 probably is the way to go (sorry, I know about conversions and all.. but still). Especially when the other option is OS X. OS X is a *major* step in the MacOS evolution and my guess is that it will take some time untill everyone is adapted.
Since Microsoft is selling the key software for their operatings systems themselves and since Win 2000 is really just another (big) update the transition will be smoother I think.
But let's get this straight: If you are looking for a kick-XXX OS and a cool machine and really want to *enjoy* working on it there is no need to become a 'Bob'... MacOS all the way!

[This message has been edited by checkdef (edited 12-20-1999).]

[checkdef]

Well, well... Please don't forget this is a pro-mac site. I think the choice of the OS also has a lot to do with how you are going to use your computer.
If compatibility is an issue windows 2000 probably is the way to go (sorry, I know about conversions and all.. but still). Especially when the other option is OS X. OS X is a *major* step in the MacOS evolution and my guess is that it will take some time untill everyone is adapted.
Since Microsoft is selling the key software for there operatings systems themselves and since Win 2000 is really just another (big) update the transition will be smoother I think.
But let's get this straight: If you are looking for a kick-XXX OS and a cool machine and really want to *enjoy* working on it there is no need to become a 'Bob'... MacOS all the way!

------------------
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I'm Dutch so please excuse my English
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[typoon]

I've used both win95/98/NT/2000 and Mac as well. So far even with ease of Use Mac still takes the cake. For stability I haven't used Win2K for long enough to have it crash yet just used it yesterday. After installing OS 9 and running Tech Tool Pro 2.5.3 and fixing some of the errors it found I haven't had a crash in several Months now. Of course like any New update there will be incompatabiltes until everyone has been assimilated to updateing to the new OS. Whether it be Windows or Mac OS. Mac OS X is on the horizon and if you are a mac user I would wait til then. Mac OS X looks like it could really give any Windows OS a run for its money.

Long Live the Mac!!!

penginkun,

"Software-wise? Let's see... Well, with Microsoft, every possible application you could ever want is integrated into the system, whether you want it or not."

What software do you mean? Word, powerpoint and excel are part of office, not windows, and do not come with it. It's like when you buy mac OS, you don't get appleworks with it.

And back to my earlier point...

Why is everyone Comparing windows 2000 (which wont be out for 2 months at least) with Mac OS 9? (which has been out for a while now)

The software front... I agree windows has more on the compatibility side, but then when you think 'What can I do on a PC that I can't do on a mac' you wont find many things. Infact I would say there was a greater range of software for the mac - Alot more versatile applications.

Stability...

My mac Using Mac OS 8.6 has crashed 5 times in about 6 weeks. This is with about 4 hours use everyday, and about 15 hours at the weekends. I have noticed windows will crash under very wierd situations, its as it's not been thought out properly. I find that windows crashes alot more then Mac OS, but I tend to place alot of stress on the system, often with 10 apps open, windows doesn't seem to like too many things going on at once.

Finally, the windows UI, whilst looking Pretty with its default blue title you will get so bored with this aftera few months... With the grey title bars in mac os you don't get as bored so quicky because they are neutral and wont interferre with any graphics you have on screen.

Also by asking mac users which OS is best, the answer is bound to be Mac OS because if we liked windows better we would buy that instead.

I hope my opinions aren't too biased.

Eddie

Apples and Oranges. No pun intended. A world of difference. MacOS is lean, mean and clean. Win2000 is still a kludge. Just NT4 with a Win98 face and Plug and Play that sorta works. The only good thing that I can say about Win2000 is that it IS better than Win98. That's about it. Stick with MacOS.
-joe-


------------------
iMac (Lime 266 OS 9), iBook (Tangerine 300 OS 9), SE/30 (Platinum 16 OS 7.5.5)

[Heman]

AntDesign:
back to reality and to your question, W2K is more powerful than OS9 in terms of multitasking. Even NT4 is powerful than OS9 with that repect, you can test it with a large download and copy a large file at the same time, or browsing multiple webpage, NT4 and W2K are more responsive.

But of coz, OS9 is always better in terms of ease of use and a better UI.

As for the crash thing, it depends on how well you maintain the system. some people can have their system running for age without a single crash, whlie others crash their system every 10 minutes.

[pastusza]

OS 9 vs Win2000. Well, I've had a chance to play with Win2000 and I have to say this:

1. There's still a registry. Which means that there's one big database file that has all your preferences, so the OS still has a single point of failure.

2. DLLs still exist and are scattered everywhere, so uninstallation is still a pain.

3. It's slow as dirt

4. USB still won't work on my laptop

5. Serial ports won't work on my laptop

And I'm running gold code. No beta here! Win2000 has a LONG way to go.



------------------
Andy Pastuszak
[email protected]

Am I not being clear...

Windows 2000 is not out yet and wont be for at least 2 months (even if it is on time)

Mac OS 9 has been out for months.

Do you get my point? You can not compare the 2 because of them isn't even out yet.

I hear people on here talking about windows 2000 beta's etc... Well Why don't we include what people have said about Mac OS X client beta's?....

.

btw, I think multitasking in windows 95/98 is poor... If I start a file download with explorer and switch to a different program, the download will just about stop.

[pastusza]

Perhaps you did not read my post clearly. My company, as a solution provider, and a beta tester has access to the Release to Manufacturer's code that was released on the 15th of December. I am using it right now, and I gotta say the only strength Windows 2000/NT5 has over MacOS9 is multitasking. Multitasking has always been a little weak on the Mac, but the rest of the features the Mac wins hands down.

Win2000 is:

1. Needlessly complex
2. Incredibly slow
3. HUGE
4. Still has a HAL, so you really can't play games on it
5. A general pain in the *ss, since I had to install a beta BIOS for my laptop just to get my serial ports and USB working.

I haven't tried to hot plug a USB device in yet. I'll get back to you on that.

On the other note...I would LOVE a comparison of Mac OS X consumer and Windows 2000. Anyone who has used both products....BRING IT ON. WE WANT TO KNOW!

------------------
Andy Pastuszak
[email protected]

[Heman]

I know this is a pro-mac forum. When people post a question or whatever, I think he/she is seeking the exact answer to his/her questions.

I have W2K RC2 on a PII-450 machine 128MB RAM.
1. It is fast (not as fast as NT4 though, could be the problem with IE integration).
2. USB works just fine.
3. Lack of peripheral driver.


Multitasking is far better than OS9.
Apart from the multitasking thing, W2K has nothing comparable to OS9.

[penginkun]

Eddie, in regards to my comment about software being integrated into Winders, it was a bit of a jest.

Sure, the MacOS doesn't come with much, but you know what? I don't want it to.

I have a lot of third-party software I use, and I'd hate it if Apple suddenly decided to pull a Microsoft and started making their own versions of every last little thing.

MS floods the market with half-assed code, and everything is rigged so that if you're not using MS's version of whatever you run the risk of it not working right, or worse, taking the whole system out.

Regarding NT's memory requirements:

My last job was configuring NT boxes for a law firm. I had mine tricked out with 256mb RAM (it's good to be in charge of these things!) and it was still as sluggish and thrashed the drive as much as when I had on 64mb. I've heard people say that 256mb is the real minimum for NT5, that 128mb is not nearly enough.

Let's face it: if you want a REAL modern OS on your Intel box, you have basically three choices: BeOS, a commercial or BSD UNIX, or Linux. NT just isn't a viable choice, not for mission-critical work.

[cfoster611]

Remember:Microsoft has put off the full intergration of Windows 9x and NT untill a vapporgrade sometime in 2002. Windows 2000 isn't the "magic OS" that the press made it out to be earlyer this year. Windows 9x was, is , and always will be a hack ontop of DOS. Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5. You can't compare NT to 9 because NT is a server/workstation OS, not a consumer OS. NT will never be as easy to use and as powerfull as Mac OS (X) can be.
Mac OS X will be like the magic OS/ and it will work. Yes, you'll to update your apps with the new carbon API's, but's that's nearly half of the work it will take to bring old 16 bit apps to Windows 2000.
Plus, Mac OS X is in beta, the carbon API os almost finished, and i'll bet microsoft isn't that close to that unified OS. (well, they got till 2002.) Clasic Mac apps have also been reported to run better on OS X then on 9.
By 2002, when Microsoft finishes and releases the new OS (and we know how good Microsoft is at keeping deadlines), Mac OS X will be out for at least a year, and will be reaping the good tides of a fully modern OS.
OK, thats a little much. But you get the point. You can't compare 9 to 2000; they're too different OS's with different goals

[This message has been edited by cfoster611 (edited 01-01-2000).]