Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: "Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:42:54 -0700
"Jon Yaeger" <jono_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BE8A7BB2.22C81%jono_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I believe that people who are enamored of XP really haven't had an
> opportunity to do much actual work on different platforms. Once they
have,
> they'll realize quickly that XP is mediocre at best.
>
> For example, compared to OS X:
>
> 1. Microsoft products cost more at each new release. This is contrary to
> other tech stuff (i.e. You get more for less over time). This is the
> hallmark of a monopoly. OS X has always been $129 (Linux is free).
>
> 2. For the most part, the repair and recovery tools that Microsoft
provides
> are inadequate, poorly documented, or don't do anything useful (like fix a
> busted install, with rare exceptions).
>
> 3. When you buy Microsoft OS you'll also need to buy Norton or M cAfee,
> plus anti spyware, plus pop-up blockers, etc. I don't get pop-ups or
> harmful viruses with OS X. This is a huge difference, in initial cost and
> user experience.
>
> 4. Need to transfer or back up applications to another drive (with the
> intention of actually using the app)? Can't do it with Microsoft. Simple
> with Mac. Huge drawback!
>
> 5. System crashes typically take about 3-4X as long to resolve on
Windows.
> The registry concept is a kluge and a mousetrap.
>
> 6. XP's paranoia is really annoying. I was fixing a bad XP install and
> after every time I changed the System registry keys the OS forced me to
> re-register. It's a lot of fun calling some Indian fella and putting in
40
> digits or whatever . . ..
While we can agree about how crappy XP is especially it vulnerability to
attack, spy ware and the like, most of the software I use is not available
on the MAC or under Linux either for that matter. Apple missed the boat in
not coding a version of the MAC OS for Intel and AMD machines. At one time
they were talking of doing that and had they done so, they could have been a
contender. That would have given us all multiple choices and may have
spurred Gates toward better software. Furthermore, it could have given
developers reason to develop for the MAC OS. As it is Apple's decision to
stay away from 95% of the hardware has relegated them to less than 5% of the
business, a real dumb move IMO. If their operating system is really
superior, they could have ruled the roost but that is not to be. I've been
hoping Linux would assume that position since Apple has abrogated the throne
but I don't see much activity there either. Few of the programs I deal with
are available in Linux. So, what the hell are we supposed to do? Like it or
not we are stuck with Bill Gates.
Bob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Rich Grise
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- From: learning
- Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- References:
- XP vs Mac OS X
- From: Jon Yaeger
- XP vs Mac OS X
- Prev by Date: Re: THE ART OF TROLLING: Winding up the net
- Next by Date: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Previous by thread: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Next by thread: Re: XP vs Mac OS X
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
