[Scott_H]

Shocking. As you may have seen the link on MacNN's front page.

c|net's OS death match: Windows 2000 vs. OS X

from MacNN
c|net's OS death match: Windows 2000 vs. OS X compares the two "heavy weight" operating systems, including installation, interface, software compatibility, hardware compatibility, and internet support:

"...our panel of seven judges delivered a solid victory to the revolutionary Mac OS. We couldn't overlook the Mac's legendary installation ease and its smooth hardware integration--most notably, digital video media such as cameras and videocameras, thanks to its FireWire support. ...Yes, OS X harbors serious some serious software compatibility shortcomings. But OS X's industrywide standards and Unix core will likely deliver the same variety of Mac apps that Windows now enjoys. In the meantime, OS X has power and compatibility where it really counts. "

[honeydew]

LOL. The article reads like a comparison of marketing rather than the products themselves. It's an ugly victory, but I'll take it.

[mindwaves]

I was very suprised of the outcome myself although I like it. I have used Win 2000 before and I sort of like it, but I will always like the Mac OS even more. Although OS X interface isnt the best thing in the world, I was suprised that the editors or whomever gave that victory to Windows 2000. Nevertheless, I am happy and sastisfied with the result. Thanks Apple and now the question is: "Where is the update to overtake OS 9 now?"

[Gee4orce]

I was amazed by this. Is this really C'net ??

Mind you, OS X should have won the Software category too - they just plain forgot to mention open source BSD/Unix applications.

Got to say, I'm impressed. I doubt if even I would have put OS X ahead of W2K at this moment in time. Cool !

[ntsc]

YESSSS!!!!!!

Sorry brief outburst of joy then

[clebin]

I don't think it should've won Software or Hardware Compatibility. No HID manager, DVD or data CD/RW is not a great a recipe even if Win2k's hardware is such a dog to set up (it will be great very soon, though) It's a bit fanatical to say that OS X is more software compatible than Windows.

Hooray, though. I want to see WinXP vs. OS X in a years time!

Chris

[Colonel Panic]

Strange. OS X won hardware compatibility even though we can't burn data CD's and lack some video drivers, but *lost* on interface to the "Start" button!

[plaidpjs]

Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
<STRONG>Strange. OS X won hardware compatibility even though we can't burn data CD's and lack some video drivers, but *lost* on interface to the "Start" button!</STRONG>

I don't think this is strange at all... by and large firewire and USB are more inate to Mac OS X, meaning that as new products and drivers emerge even more hardware will be available and easy to set-up on the OS X platform.

As for the interface, it is very similar to what has been seen right on these very boards. It's something that is going to take a while to get used to for diehard users of other OSes. I for one thing it's a great interface, but I've always been very amenable to change, and I'm not afraid to experiment with new ways of doing things. The panel of judges, however, are primarily Wiindows users and have a hard time seeing the simplicity or beauty of anything different than MS Windows. there's also the customizability aspect of the interface. Windows can be mucked around with on almost every level, while, at this time OS X cannot be, at least not by the average user. So, just like some diehard OS 8.x or 9.x users here who complain about the lack of certain nicities (i.e., labels, windowshading, neutral gray for color correctness, and antialiasing and font size) these people just didn't want to see where OS X's interface may have some superiority to what they are used to using &lt;---- this is my opinion and not meant to belittle anyone else's opinion of Aqua.

With that said, I cannot tell you how absolutely amazed I am to see this story on C|Net. I am also ecstatic that Apple won!

Ciao!

[iCartman]

Strange. OS X won hardware compatibility even though we can't burn data CD's and lack some video drivers, but *lost* on interface to the "Start" button!

Exactly, but look at the source. I can't believe so many of you are praising something coming from CNet. I should link to all the old articles proclaiming how lame CNet is. All of a sudden CNet is a great web site?!!? That site is garbage and always will be.

[Colonel Panic]

check out Ars' BattleFront. PC people are going berzerk over this article. very good read.

[mudmonkey]

Even more shocking to me than OSX beating Win2k at CNET is their flyweight (OS9 vs. Corel Linux) and FeatherWeight (OS9 vs. WinME), OS9 wins over Linux and ties WinME. This is CNET after all!

An interesting (and nice) start to a Friday morning.

[walrusjb]

Expected this to come around in a year... NEVER expected it this fast. But, it may be a sign of a larger gamble paying off. OSX IS pulling a lot of us away... would make sense that c|Net would try and capitalize on it and prime themselves for a market shift.

So yep - I'm out of the closet - I've got like 6 NT boxes around here and this is my only Mac - bought especially for OSX. BUT - the NTs have gathered dust around here of late... and become a REALLY expensive file storage system

There are some oddities to the article, as there are with any c|Net articles - you have to take them with the proverbial grain o' salt. But the oddities fall into the category, to my eyes at least, of forward-looking. Hardware support WILL be here, and will trump NT without a doubt. Will certainly trump XP, as most of the Plug+Play architecture of 9x (adopted as best as could be expected for NT within 2000) has been dropped for XP so they could unify the core for home + business...

Now add all this up with my personal gripes - revised Licensing from MS on OSes and Office (and all the damn CALs you have to buy for your servers to stay legit) - and you have a market primed for an Apple insurgence by virtue of the marketplace and MS greed.

BUT - the big question of Corporate America remains. In Corp. America you have fear of the unknown, and a million Jack@sses that think their MSCE makes them a qualified Systems/Network administrators. If they're making the recomendations, I wouldn't hold you breath... But home users may just suprise all of us.

I for one am happy about the article - even given it's shortcomings, as it penetrates OSX information onto a markedly PC-slanted site... a trustworthy site in the eyes of the PC community. I can send my NT buddies by to read this article and it will peak their interest in a way that I can't do simply by saying I've made the switch, or "it's really a better fit."

Now our Linux friends will likely cry BS either way - that's another battlefront

-jb

[selkirk]

Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
<STRONG>Strange. OS X won hardware compatibility even though we can't burn data CD's and lack some video drivers, but *lost* on interface to the "Start" button!</STRONG>

That is because the guy making the OSX argument failed to mention the dock or compare it to the start menu at all. He mentioned why the start menu is bad, but not how the dock solves the problems with it.

The Other issue cited was contextual menus. The funny thing that both apple and microsoft know is that most people do not use contextual menus. Apple addresses this by shipping one button mice, Microsoft has recognized this in XP by moving the items from the contextual menu to a bar at the side of each window.

I think OS X got a raw deal here.

I have no idea what "strict hierarchical folder structures" meant. Are they talking about the new finder view?

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

It's funny that ease of installation was weighted as much as interface. Most people I know will never install OS X or Win2k; they will buy machines with them preinstalled.

Also, the hardware compatibilty bit is a little funny. OS X has a nice architecture for drivers, but the WDM (Windows Driver Model) which is different than the 9x or NT style drivers isn't so bad either. I use USB and Firewire on my Win2k box and don't have much in the way of problems. About the same number as my OS X box. The reason OS X seems nicer in the hardware arena is that there's so little hardware supported and most of the stuff that is pretty quality stuff from apple or big name suppliers.

If you buy a 815 or BX motherboard with a 3com/intel enet card, ati/nvidea gpu, ti firewire card, any kind of zip, nearly any optical drive (cd-rw too) and other nice hardware, you should have very little trouble getting stuff to work. It's the cheap and random things that are a pain. Things like crappy multimedia/enet/display cards can really mess you up. However most of these things don't have drivers on X so it doesn't matter. Storage controllers are still a pain on both platforms, but a lot more of them are supported on Win2k.

Don't get me wrong, anyone who reads my posts knows that I'm a big X fan. I just think it's the things CNet missed that make X great. Application installation and removal is 1000 times better on X. Management of shared libraries is so simple, it makes management seem like a strong word. The DLL mess on Win2k is only starting to be fixed by COM, which only really fixes the versioning problem, not the complexity issues. It's things like this that will make OS X a more comprehensable platform for newbies and a more efficient platform for the rest of us. Just because I'm intimate with the windows registry and COM/COM+, doesn't mean i want to spend hours messing with it.

[foobars]

Originally posted by selkirk:
<STRONG>
I have no idea what "strict hierarchical folder structures" meant. Are they talking about the new finder view?</STRONG>

The're talking about OSX inhently UNIX file structure- /users, /applications, ect...

[Millennium]

I have no idea what "strict hierarchical folder structures" meant. Are they talking about the new finder view?

The're talking about OSX inhently UNIX file structure- /users, /applications, ect...

Actually, from what I could gather, that particular line wasn't even about OSX. It was about Windows, and the guy was touting it as a strength.

[sahara]

Re: "The Other issue cited was contextual menus. The funny thing that both apple and microsoft know is that most people do not use contextual menus."

Wow I sure do. Sorry, OT, but:
Sal if you are listening, please give OSX contextual menus something like CMScript did for OS9! Thanks (I sent that request to apple already too).

[sadie]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>Mind you, OS X should have won the Software category too - they just plain forgot to mention open source BSD/Unix applications.</STRONG>

Be fair, command line Unix tools aren't relevant to most people's work. What's relevant are programs like Word and Photoshop, which it honestly doesn't have - yet.

And they claimed that Windows 2000 wasn't yet ready to be judged! OS X is potentially a brilliant system, but as far as most people's real work goes, it hasn't even started. I look forward to it.

[unimacs]

Originally posted by sadie:
<STRONG>

Be fair, command line Unix tools aren't relevant to most people's work. What's relevant are programs like Word and Photoshop, which it honestly doesn't have - yet.

And they claimed that Windows 2000 wasn't yet ready to be judged! OS X is potentially a brilliant system, but as far as most people's real work goes, it hasn't even started. I look forward to it.</STRONG>

For most people, programs like photoshop aren't that relevent either. I realize it's big in markets where Macs are prominent, but for *most* of the computing world, it's not a make or break application.

Our organization probably has 4 different computers running the Apache web server and maybe 1 or two folks have photoshop. Quite frankly the person using photoshop could be well served by something a lot less powerfull.

[Sven G]

Indeed, Office-like suites are far more important for most people; and there are many alternatives - both to AppleWorks and MS Office - beginning to show their power: see OpenOffice/StarOffice, the KDE and GNOME Office suites, etc.

So... The OS match - besides of course involving Mac OS X 10.1+ and Windows XP later this year - will with every probability also evolve into an "integrated Office suite match", where the new MS "Office 10" (the carbon "Office 2002") will have some interesting "rivals" - mainly AppleWorks 7 and OpenOffice (6.3?) for X (when it will finally be completed).

The important thing is that the goal of such "matches" should be that one system learns from the other and vice versa, so they both get improved - in the consumers' interests! - and also converge towards some kind of common "synthesis" (difference is great, but it can only be free and positive if it is based on some common, shared "ground")...

[sadie]

Originally posted by unimacs:
<STRONG>For most people, programs like photoshop aren't that relevent either. I realize it's big in markets where Macs are prominent, but for *most* of the computing world, it's not a make or break application.</STRONG>

Granted, Photoshop was a bad example. But my point is: packeged, put-the-disc-in-and-click-'yes'-to-install programs are more relevant to most buyers than exotic command line tools. To the average person buying a computer, the BSD core means absolutely Nothing.

<STRONG>Our organization probably has 4 different computers running the Apache web server and maybe 1 or two folks have photoshop. Quite frankly the person using photoshop could be well served by something a lot less powerfull.</STRONG>

Quite a few Photoshop users would rather kill their wife and children - and you - than use something "a lot less powerful".

[penfold]

Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
<STRONG>Strange. OS X won hardware compatibility even though we can't burn data CD's and lack some video drivers, but *lost* on interface to the "Start" button!</STRONG>

I never knew that out of the box Win2K could burn data CD's - is this true - or do you mean there is no third party app. available yet for OS X?

[dbergstrom]

Some of the OS X claims were disingenuous - this is an OS with no DVD support ans no data CD burning ability.

However, I got a new Que firewire CDRW the other day. I plug it in to my new iBook, open up iTunes, and Bingo! I can burn a music CD.

When DiscBurner X comes out (in a couple of weeks, I hope), burning data CDs should be this easy, too.

This is plug and play! This is hardware integration! I've tried buring in Win2K, and I can tell you - it's not as easy as this.

Go X!

[wr11]

I was happy with C'Nets Review, but something is bugging me about it.

OS X is a consumer OS and Windows 2000 is a server OS right?

Well shouldn't the comparison be between OS X and windows ME ? LOL, to be fair of course. And then if they want to compare server OS's the put OSX-Server against Windows 2000 and see who wins. Again, we all know who will win that.
Its always good to hear a positive review, even if there is little to no substance to it. They really didn't do a great job of breaking the specific features down. Oh well, we did win...so no complaining.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: wr11 ]

[timster]

At the start of that review, they mentioned that both OSes (X and 2K) were workstation/server-strength operating systems. So thats why they compared the two. Apple may market OSX as a consumer OS, but make no balls about it, OSX Server is merely X with a few extra applications and extra server services bolted on. Same goes for Win2K Professional and the Server version.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: ]

[Norm1985]

wr11, Mac OS X Client is a consumer, professional, workstation and low end server operating system. Windows 2000 is a professional, workstation, low end server, and even in some ways consumer OS. Why? Well OS X includes things for professionals, consumers, workstation users, and low end server users. And Windows 2000 includes things for professionals, workstation users, low end server users, and even consumers as well. Yes, Windows 2000 didn't initially include DVD capabilites, BUT NEITHER DID OS X. Windows Me was just there for multimedia and gaming capabilites. Microsoft was originally planing a consumer version of Windows 2000 but was unsuccesful. I know people who know practicly NOTHING about computers, and still buy computers with Windows 2000 because they are more reliable and don't need the features of Windows Me. In fact, that's one of the points of OS X, to make a more reliable OS to attract more people to the Macintosh platform. To have things like protected memory for ALL including consumers to make sure they don't crash and lose their work as much, Symmetric Multiprocessing for professionals (i.e. Web Design/Graphic Design) so they can get their work done faster, Symmetric Multiprocessing for even gaming to have games run better, more advanced networking capabilites so that computers running Windows 2000 and Mac OS X Client can act as workstations and low end servers, etc. You can't just say Mac OS X Client is ONLY consumer and Windows 2000 is ONLY professional. But as far as more high end server operating systems go in comparison, I agree... Mac OS X Server vs. Windows 2000 Server/Advanced Server/etc.

[Norm1985]

And to add, yes Photoshop for OS 9 for example has SMP support, but this makes it easier for Adobe, etc. to make programs SMP by simply making them multithreaded which is what they ussaly have to do anyways. To allow let's say BBEdit or GoLive also take advantage of SMP...

[unimacs]

Originally posted by sadie:
<STRONG>

Quite a few Photoshop users would rather kill their wife and children - and you - than use something "a lot less powerful".</STRONG>

No doubt. In the case of the person who has it in our office, well, she uses it about once a month, and I think the only reason she chose it is because she had heard of it or one of the print shops we work with uses it and recommended it. I think I would be allowed to live if I found something different for her as long as it did what she needed.

The BSD layer may end up meaning more to a lot of users than may be apparent. Granted, a typical home user would rather have some packaged software with a nice installer, but college kids on a budget, business IT departments, and universities aren't going to be as shy about command line applications.

There's even some nice gui's and installers being created for some of the UNIX utilities, - brickhouse for example. Having a BSD layer puts a whole other world of applications on our doorstep. Some will take more work than others to actually get through the door, but they are coming.

The fact remains though that there's currently a shortage of commercial grade apps for X. I expect this to change quite a bit in the next 6 to 9 months.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by unimacs:
<STRONG>

The BSD layer may end up meaning more to a lot of users than may be apparent. Granted, a typical home user would rather have some packaged software with a nice installer, but college kids on a budget, business IT departments, and universities aren't going to be as shy about command line applications.</STRONG>

As a poor college student, I can totally agree with this. Plus being able to easily compile a bunch of Unix/Linux/whatever CLI/X-Windows apps, and still have the pretty GUI whenever you want it makes you the envy of all the geeks at your school... all 10 of them.

However, I personally thought the article was a very dirty win for Mac OS X. I don't know if I'd be proud about taking it... but the free Ad is nice.

Cnet just did it to get hits though. I mean a 2 year old OS vs. an OS that's only a few months old? C'mon! and such a drastic switch on who Cnet supports (OS 9.1 beat Corel Linux and tied WinME too)... I think they're doing to the PC world what they've been doing to us Mac users for awhile.

[theolein]

Originally posted by walrusjb:
<STRONG>
So yep - I'm out of the closet - I've got like 6 NT boxes around here and this is my only Mac - bought especially for OSX. BUT - the NTs have gathered dust around here of late... and become a REALLY expensive file storage system

Now add all this up with my personal gripes - revised Licensing from MS on OSes and Office (and all the damn CALs you have to buy for your servers to stay legit) - and you have a market primed for an Apple insurgence by virtue of the marketplace and MS greed.


-jb</STRONG>

Welcome , mate, I also have a pc at home with win98 and linux. But although they're both a lot snappier than my oldish lombard pb, I don't care. This OS -X- has one thing that the other don't: potential to make some changes in this otherwise boring IT world.

[Gee4orce]

Originally posted by sadie:
<STRONG>

Be fair, command line Unix tools aren't relevant to most people's work. What's relevant are programs like Word and Photoshop, which it honestly doesn't have - yet.

And they claimed that Windows 2000 wasn't yet ready to be judged! OS X is potentially a brilliant system, but as far as most people's real work goes, it hasn't even started. I look forward to it.</STRONG>

Once Virtual PC runs on OS X, your Mac will be able to run pretty much any software under the sun:

* Carbon or Cocoa Mac OS X apps
* Classic Mac OS apps
* X windows apps
* BSD/Unix apps
* Windows 95, 98, Me, NT, 2K, XP apps
* Linux apps

Hmmm. I think that's pretty hard to beat - anywhere...

To address your point about Joe average not using BSD apps - well yes, and no. Take something this example:

In this day and age of high speed, always-on internet, personal firewalls are a must. Would Joe Average know that Mac OS X has an packet filtering firewall built in ? No. Would he likely pay $$$ to Norton or Symantec for a commercial app - maybe.

What he should do is download Brickhouse - a shareware app that is simply (and I mean that in the best possible way) an elegand GUI interface to the BSD application that actually does the firewalling.

Similarly, Apple's 'on-off' switch for the Apache web server: just a GUI frontend to apachectl

I though it deserved at least a mention in the article.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Gee4orce ]

[hotani]

I disagree with the outcome even though I am a mac fan. I used Win 2000 for a few months at work and it was fast, stable, supported all the hardware I threw at it (as soon as I found drivers), and never crashed.

OS X on the other hand is just the opposite. It is slow (painfully), crashes regularly (window manager, not Darwin - but unless you are telnetted in to your machine, what is the difference?), and does not support my hardware (smartmedia card reader, no data CD burning - although I know this is on the way).

The beauty of OS X for me stops at the unix core (I am a webmaster and absolutely love being able to run Apache, PHP and MySQL on my laptop!!) - the window manager is simply a bad program that should never have been released in its condition.