Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:03 pm

SAK ` wrote: There is no telling if a Windows emulator for Mac would stand up to a Windows.


Imitation is almost always inferior to the original.

Nesseight
Registered User
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:02 am

Post by Nesseight » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:34 am

Perhaps if Mac OSX would run on my PC without any performance degradation, and without any loss of compatibility with any Mac applications, I would take interest. My current setup, though, requires Windows, regardless of how slow it's running or unnecessary focus on GUI. However, I'll probably be sticking with XP until I have a reason to buy Vista other than a message saying "Windows Updates for XP are no longer supported". XP has been reliable for me, and I don't use i<insert service/device> or edit video. I do, however, play PC games and prefer them over consoles, and I enjoy being able to play Direct X 9 supported games without setting up complicated Direct X emulation software that is likely not to work with ATI video cards and be limited to version 7 in the event of success.

As far as servers are concerned, I think I would rather use Red Hat or Suse than Windows to host, unless it's a "development" machine, than it's Windows hands down.
My level 93 debater is no match for your level 1 moderator

User avatar
Marshalrusty
Project Manager
Project Manager
Posts: 29253
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: New York City
Name: Yuriy Rusko
Contact:

Post by Marshalrusty » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:51 am

JonB2004 wrote: MennoniteHobbit, I wasn't comparing Windows Vista and Mac OS X by only system requirements. I was also comparing them by stability, speed, and compatibility. Obvisously, you didn't read my entire post.

Stability: You're comparing a stable released product to a Beta. I quote myself from the other topic: nobody expects you to live in a house that is still being built. You may argue that OSX is more stable than XP and you may be right, but before you pat Apple on the back for making such a great product, consider that their software is designed to work only on their own hardware. That may seem like a good thing now, but what about when you want to upgrade. I predict that as software from other companies is ported to Macs, you'll begin to see stability issues similar to those on PCs.

Speed: Like Mark, I saw no decrease in speed when comparing to my XP installation. When factoring in the improvements in the GUI and the fact that it is still a Beta (meaning that it comes with certain diagnostic elements that will be removed before release), I have nothing to complain about.

Compatability: You can't be seriously suggesting that Macs are compatible with more software/hardware than PCs...

So as per MennoniteHobbit, your only real argument is the requirements, which is not much of an argument anyway.

I think that you complicate things for yourself by getting a Mac for home/office use. You're definitely going to run into something you cannot use and installing XP on a Mac is like buying a boat and attaching wings to it, so you can fly around.
Have comments/praise/complaints/suggestions? Please feel free to PM me.

Need private help? Hire me for all your phpBB and web development needs

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:02 am

Maybe I'm screwing something up if you guys had no speed penalty from switching from XP to Vista.

Even so, I've been turned off from it, and have no intentions of using it in my normal life. Maybe Fiji and/or Blackcomb might be good, then XP users could go for either of those later on.

For my own computer, XP is about twice as fast as Vista.

User avatar
Anon
Former Team Member
Posts: 7019
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Anon » Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:17 am

I really don't see why this thread exists. If you buy an apple computer, you are likely to also use OSX. If you use a generic x86 computer, you're likely to use Vista (I'm ignoring other Windows versions, Linux et all purely as this is a OSX vs. Vista thread). Why compare and argue the finer points of 2 operating systems that are by and large not interchangable?

Yawner
Registered User
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by Yawner » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:39 pm

Its interesting that nobody has mentioned Linux thus far.. With the inroads Ubuntu has been making why hasnt Edgy Eft been included within this comparison? I know its still in planning but with the featurelist it looks like the first Linux Distro is a long time that will really have a viable chance against the Paid OS Market..

Yawnster
Alan Kay : "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Support the OpenDocument Format!

Bison911
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:27 pm

Post by Bison911 » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:06 pm

SAK ` wrote: There is no telling if a Windows emulator for Mac would stand up to a Windows.


Why in the world would you use a windows emulator? Just use native OSX apps. People are too worried about 'compatibility'. Screw that, just use native apps.

User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Post by AdamR » Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:26 pm

Newfie wrote: Maybe I'm screwing something up if you guys had no speed penalty from switching from XP to Vista.


For me, it slowed down quite a bit. But considering I have a 5 year old system that was a piece of junk even for 2001, I can quite understand that since, yes, Vista is more resource intensive. But honestly, who cares? Is it NOT going to be released ~5 years after XP? There have been massive hardware performance improvements in those 5 years. I wouldn't expect to be able to play F.E.A.R. on this machine. Heck, I can barely get by with HL:2 on the lowest possible settings. Granted, these types of applications (FPS games) are intented to test the limits of the system. However, the analogy still stands in terms of performance progression over time. In terms of OS X ... don't anyone suggest to me that OS X isn't more resource intensive than OS 9.

When I turned off Aero (Glass) and went back to Classic mode, performance was at least on par with XP's classic mode.

However, I know many people who have average machines for 2006 who have installed and tested Vista quite a bit, and all they've reported to me are speed increases since it can take advantage of much of this new hardware.

All in all, I'm looking forward to Vista. I'll have a new machine by its release (Core 2 FTW!), so I can't complain.

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

User avatar
Anaximander Thales
Registered User
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:05 am
Location: Alabama

Post by Anaximander Thales » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:28 pm

Marshalrusty wrote: ... You may argue that OSX is more stable than XP and you may be right, but before you pat Apple on the back for making such a great product, consider that their software is designed to work only on their own hardware. That may seem like a good thing now, but what about when you want to upgrade. I predict that as software from other companies is ported to Macs, you'll begin to see stability issues similar to those on PCs.

I predict that ports to Mac OSX won't be a problem at all. Neither will hardware upgrades.

Several things to consider. Apple has gone with the cisc based processor and now has the ability to dual boot Windows on the same hardware as OS X. So, there should be no hardware problems at all (with their machines). Sure, you'll pay more for the hardware, but it's guaranteed to work. No Mac version for your software, boot over to Windows.

The other thing to consider is that Apple gives a set of creteria for the software developers. You follow their guidelines and the software is all but guaranteed to work. It is for this reason that Mac had less software for it for a long time or why a very popular product wouldn't show up for the Mac for several months after the Windows product came out.
A cat almost always blinks when hit in the head with a ball peen hammer.

SAK `
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Places where authorities can't see me.
Contact:

Post by SAK ` » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:05 am

True or False: Compaq (before they merged with HP) and possibly Packard Bell made their own hardware for PC operations the way Apple did their own for Mac OS versions to X.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:47 am

I think that's somewhat true.

MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Post by MarkTheDaemon » Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:51 am

Anaximander Thales wrote: The other thing to consider is that Apple gives a set of creteria for the software developers. You follow their guidelines and the software is all but guaranteed to work. It is for this reason that Mac had less software for it for a long time or why a very popular product wouldn't show up for the Mac for several months after the Windows product came out.


But as with everything as more software converts to the Mac format not everyone will follow these guidelines. In a perfect world they would but in reality they won't.


Mark

User avatar
Anaximander Thales
Registered User
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:05 am
Location: Alabama

Post by Anaximander Thales » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:51 pm

MarkTheDaemon wrote: But as with everything as more software converts to the Mac format not everyone will follow these guidelines.

Well - I could be wrong now, I'm going to ask my Mac Guru - the only code a programmer could see would be what Mac gave them, which wasn't much. It essentially came down to:
xyzScreen - display to screen
abcWrite - write to hard drive
abcRead - read hard drive

I know it's overly simplified, but that's all the programmer gets (and from my programming classes -- seemingly, all that's needed) to write a program. Where MS differs is that for x amout of dollars, you can get your hands on the actual code. That allows the programmers to redirect incoming e-mails on an exchange server to process for viruses (a virus company hijacked port 25 from Exchange to process for viruses -- essentially, the virus company 'acted' as the exchange server, processed the mail and then forwarded the mail to the exchange server. MS was not happy about it).
A cat almost always blinks when hit in the head with a ball peen hammer.

User avatar
MHobbit
Former Team Member
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: There and Back Again

Post by MHobbit » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:03 pm

SAK ` wrote: True or False: Compaq (before they merged with HP) and possibly Packard Bell made their own hardware for PC operations the way Apple did their own for Mac OS versions to X.


Apple manufactures their hardware and produces Mac OS X. Compaq et al., whether they manufactured any of their own hardware or not, did not and do not produce Windows. So, I don't see how that's relevant at all to this topic.
Former phpBB MOD Team member
No private support is offered.
"There’s too many things to get done, and I’m running out of days..."

Bison911
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:27 pm

Post by Bison911 » Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:29 pm

Anaximander Thales wrote:
MarkTheDaemon wrote:But as with everything as more software converts to the Mac format not everyone will follow these guidelines.

Well - I could be wrong now, I'm going to ask my Mac Guru - the only code a programmer could see would be what Mac gave them, which wasn't much. It essentially came down to:
xyzScreen - display to screen
abcWrite - write to hard drive
abcRead - read hard drive

I know it's overly simplified, but that's all the programmer gets (and from my programming classes -- seemingly, all that's needed) to write a program. Where MS differs is that for x amout of dollars, you can get your hands on the actual code. That allows the programmers to redirect incoming e-mails on an exchange server to process for viruses (a virus company hijacked port 25 from Exchange to process for viruses -- essentially, the virus company 'acted' as the exchange server, processed the mail and then forwarded the mail to the exchange server. MS was not happy about it).


I doubt MS offers any kind of source code for money, at least yet. What they do is document their API.

And the other thing is that almost all programming languages offer some kind of wrapper for those low level functions[ex. c++: cin/cout, python: print, php: echo]

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”