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.
Post Reply
www.teamhcn.com
Registered User
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:34 am

Post by www.teamhcn.com »

Announcement & Release Date Comparison
  • Windows XP & Vista
    Announced (as Longhorn)................................May, 2001
    Released (Windows XP)...................................October 25, 2001
    Original release date (as Longhorn, delayed)......Q4 2003
    Announced (as Windows Vista).........................July 22, 2005
    Release date (business editions).......................November 2006
    Release date (consumer editions).....................January 30, 2007

    Mac OSX (All Versions)
    Released (OSX Cheetah)..................................March 24, 2001
    Released (OSX Puma)......................................September 25, 2001
    Released (OSX Jaguar).....................................August 24, 2002
    Released (OSX Panther)...................................October 24, 2003
    Announced (OSX Tiger)....................................June 28, 2004
    Released (OSX Tiger).......................................April 29, 2005
    Announced (OSX Leopard)................................August 7, 2006
    Release date (OSX Leopard).............................Spring 2007
Site | Forums
=HCN= Team Cyanide
"After one taste of us, you're already dead."
User avatar
Anon
Former Team Member
Posts: 7019
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Anon »

I'll point out that price comparisons are virtually useless, at least when comparing the OSes. 1. They are not interchangagle. Unless you have an apple computer (Which in itself is more expensive) there is no point in buying the OS, as it'll be useless. 2. You don't factor in the cost of running the programs. I'm thinking in some cases of having to buy OSX and Windows XP to run all the programs you want/need, so boom. 2x the cost.

Besides, what's the point in running a date comparison? To show that windows is cheaper to update as there are fewer paid upgrades? :wink:
User avatar
smithy_dll
Former Team Member
Posts: 7630
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Name: Lachlan Smith
Contact:

Post by smithy_dll »

Anon wrote: Besides, what's the point in running a date comparison? To show that windows is cheaper to update as there are fewer paid upgrades? :wink:


Indeed, I'll point out that Windows Desktop Search, and SP1 & SP2 were all free upgrades.

The service packs aren't all security updates, there was other stuff in there as well they didn't have to give us for free, and could have charged for, but didn't as they traditionally don't.
Systems Engineering
www.teamhcn.com
Registered User
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:34 am

Post by www.teamhcn.com »

Anon wrote: I'll point out that price comparisons are virtually useless, at least when comparing the OSes. 1. They are not interchangagle. Unless you have an apple computer (Which in itself is more expensive) there is no point in buying the OS, as it'll be useless. 2. You don't factor in the cost of running the programs. I'm thinking in some cases of having to buy OSX and Windows XP to run all the programs you want/need, so boom. 2x the cost.

Besides, what's the point in running a date comparison? To show that windows is cheaper to update as there are fewer paid upgrades? :wink:


Fair enough, Apple hardware is (in general) more expensive. Make what you want of the OS price comparison; I meant for people to draw their own conclusions from it, even if they don't support my point-of-view. If comparing the two OSes based on price isn't fair, however, then neither is comparing OSX and Windows-based computers on those same criteria. Saying that a Mac isn't the right computer for you is one thing, but claiming that Macs are "overpriced" isn't true. There are a lot of things – some software, some hardware – that differentiate a Mac from a PC. The bottom line is, with each OS (and the hardware it runs on), you generally get what you pay for. What exactly that's worth to you, however, depends on what features are important to you, and what your budget is.

Having said this, I remain confident that from a technological and design standpoint, Apple's OSX Tiger is considerably more advanced than XP currently is. Windows Vista may well outdo Tiger, or even Leopard, but based on what I've seen so far it doesn't seem likely. The large amounts of new code in Vista could mean some big technological advancements for it long term, but there's also the risk that Vista could be unstable like OSX 10.0, and therefore not immediately suitable for the average consumer – at least not for awhile.
Site | Forums
=HCN= Team Cyanide
"After one taste of us, you're already dead."
imac600
Registered User
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Adelaide, SA

Post by imac600 »

True in the fact the Mac costs much more. That is, unless you get the
newest compact Core Duo series which is $600. (even the high end Mac
Pro compares cheaper than a comparable Dell)

The fact that the new "Boot Camp" comes in gives a higher advantage to
the Mac, as it appears to install Windows XP or Vista, install and configure
the drivers and make Windows XP work out of the box. Additionally, the
option to Dual Boot between Windows and Mac OS X becomes an option.
This is good, as both Windows and Mac OS X have their unique
advantages. And with the Intel Mac, it's a case of "BOB W", or Best Of
Both Worlds. That ends up cheaper in the long run for a machine that
does twice as much. I also think the option to add Linux to that Dual Boot
environment is also there.

Btw, Windows Vista and the comparing OS X Release, 10.5 are both in
Beta and are both at the same stage as each other. When comparing the
seeded releases, Mac OS X tends to lead by a small amount, but in terms
of functionality, stability and seamless operation, I expect this gap will
grow over the next few months, and it looks like Mac OS X will take the
lead in this area for the 6th year running since its induction in 2001, with
Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah".
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 »

www.teamhcn.com wrote: I spent 2 years working in a design studio. We had 7 Macs and 3 PCs. Most of the Macs were PowerMac G4s, between 4-5 years old, and still running Adobe CS2 pretty fast. The 3 PCs, which were used for web development and 3D graphics, were all scratch-built and kept well maintained by experienced hands. They all used high-end components, including an OpenGL video card on the 3D workstation. Each of the computers cost quite a bit less than the older Macs did at the time we got them. The 3 PCs ranged between 6 months - 2.5 years in terms of age. 2 of the 3 PCs were plagued by hardware failures, and the third one got a virus (we removed it, however). The $2,500 PC graphics workstation we purchased barely a year ago had to have its power supply and motherboard replaced; a half-melted, top-of-the-line DFI mobo is not a pretty sight. We were always careful to turn the PCs off when they weren't in use, and we always kept them adequately cooled, so our hardware troubles remain something of a mystery. On the other hand, most of our 7 Macs were left running almost constantly for years; none of them has ever needed any repairs. I thought I was alone in having had such experiences, but a lot of other people I've talked to have said the exact same things. For whatever reason, Apple hardware tends to last a really long time, without breaking down.


I just want to address this really quick. I don't care what computer you get. Hardware is hardware and sooner or later you're going to get a bad apple, no pun intended. ;). Heck, how many recalls has Apple had over the years because of faulty hardware? Several. How much of Apple's hardware is actually manufactured by Apple? Very little. In terms of hardware, for the past 10 or so years, pretty much the same manufactures have been making both PC and Apple hardware. In recent years, there's literally little to no difference with the Intel switch.

Are you, therefore, getting a less reliable Apple computer nowdays because it's using "PC hardware?" :?

In my experience, I have built many, many machines from scratch using the absolute best hardware (in terms of reliability) that exists, and still keep it at a fraction of the cost of an Apple machine. Also, in the many machines I've built, I've only ever had to replace one video card in their 5-7 year lifespan. Maybe an occasional network card to upgrade. Nothing more.

In terms of keeping the computer running on the software side, another void point in my opinion. I'm writing this on my laptop. Next to me is my desktop which I also use very frequently, even moreso than my laptop. Currently, it's running Windows XP SP2. It has an uptime of 76 days as we speak. The previous uptime record was 93 days. The only reason for going offline was that I discovered after coming back from a 1 week vacation that the power had gone off for 2 hours and my 1500VA battery backup didn't last that long. I've never had a spyware problem. I've ever only had 1 virus which I quickly fixed. In the 4 years since I installed XP on it I've only had the BSOD once, happening alongside of said virus above. Operating system stability isn't an issue. Granted, out of the box, OS X is more stable. But with a good 10 minute tweaking after Windows installation, it's fine.

In terms of video/photo editing capability, I won't even discuss that point. Software is software. Photoshop is the same for OS X as it is for Windows. After Effects, Premiere, etc. And not just Adobe software, though I would argue that Adobe's software is the best there is.
...but look good and are a joy to use...Microsoft (and especially IBM) released anything at all visually inspiring?


Look good? I can't stand the look of a Mac, personally. Joy to use? I get frustrated every single time. Aqua theme inspiring? Heck no, at least not for me. I find it extremely ugly. Please don't use these points when comparing OS X and Apples to Windows and PCs. It comes down to a personal preference here.

Secondly, since when has IBM had any serious foothold in the mainstream PC market? 8O It's been so long I can't even remember. Heck, they just sold their whole notebook devision. As far as I'm aware, IBM is only providing services for mainframe-type systems and servers these days. And thirdly, I quite like the look of Windows XP. Simplicity is beautiful, in my opinion...

In the end, however, it pretty much all boils down to personal preference. What are you going to be using the computer for? If you want to give a computer to your grandmother who's never used one before, sure, go for a Mac. They're easier to learn. If you want to do video/photo editing, in my opinion, it's a tossup. If you want to use it as a server, I'd choose Linux most of the time. However, I'd choose Server 2003 over OS X Server any day. Any day. However, for the power users like myself, I won't touch a Mac. I find it restricts my productivity. For others it might be different.

Again I say, it all boils down to personal preference. Price (though Apple is still a bit behind in this area), software use, editing capability, and yes, since Apple switched to Intel, hardware are absolutely no longer factors...at all.

- 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
malkierian
Registered User
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 5:56 am
Contact:

Post by malkierian »

I find it interesting that security (i.e. viruses, etc.) has only been mentioned two or three times in this thread. Sure, right now, Macs are more secure, but as someone said earlier, that's only because they're less popular than PCs right now. If/when they get more popular, they will be targeted, and any and all weaknesses that went unnoticed before will become blatantly obvious.
However, Vista takes a step in the wrong direction, as far as I'm concerned, in that Microsoft did not allow full access to the core of Vista to the third-party security companies (i.e. Norton, McAfee, etc.), which means that they will have extremely limited capabilities compared to what they have now with XP. Windows, in relying on its own lack of ingenuity and security, makes a terrible mistake, and I predict that Vista users will pay dearly in the years ahead, in the form of thousands of updates, and many hassles.
It is for this reason that I choose to stick with XP. It works wonderfully on my 2003 HP, and it works reasonably well on my 2000 HP Pavilion. IMHO the graphics and user interface upgrades do not outweigh the security risks. and the size is reprehensible at best. Maybe it is the 64-bit world, but if that's the size for the 32-bit edition, that's outrageous.
pulling his hair
Registered User
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:20 pm
Contact:

Post by pulling his hair »

malkierian wrote: I find it interesting that security (i.e. viruses, etc.) has only been mentioned two or three times in this thread. Sure, right now, Macs are more secure, but as someone said earlier, that's only because they're less popular than PCs right now. If/when they get more popular, they will be targeted, and any and all weaknesses that went unnoticed before will become blatantly obvious.
Then why did Mac OS 9, with a smaller market share, have more viruses?
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 »

pulling his hair wrote: Then why did Mac OS 9, with a smaller market share, have more viruses?


No one is doubting that OS X isn't more secure out of the box because of the way it handles access to the kernel. But the fact still stands that OS X has a much, much, lower market share than Windows, and therefore, it's not targeted.

Why, all of a sudden, after Firefox hit 1.0 release did they start releasing patches pretty often? Popularity significantly increased, therefore it was targeted. Not necessarily all for security reasons, but bugs upon bugs were found. That's all there is to it. :)

- 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
imac600
Registered User
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Adelaide, SA

Post by imac600 »

I actually did hear of the fact that the reason Mac OS X has a lot less
viruses is that only Mac OS X core services are registered to change
system settings and modify files. When you add additional system files, it
doesn't add to the actual system, but to the Library. (Windows adds files
directly to the system)

Also, OS X permissions in the system are also key to locking out most
viruses. Finally, the fact that major unexpected file changes require
Authentication means that even if a virus tries, OS X will block it from
doing anything.

If a virus manages to slip through OS X, Apple patch the problem almost
immediately, before any computer can be affected. To ensure it gets
installed, OS X can automatically apply the patch in the background,
while not taking any system resources or desk space. Of course it will
ask your permission first.
smart.income
Registered User
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:20 am

Post by smart.income »

Yeah.. but Vista has more powerful graphic comparing MacOS X.
User avatar
Quillz
Registered User
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Name: Joseph
Contact:

Post by Quillz »

I think that Windows Vista is a substantial upgrade from WinXP. I also think that OS X 10.5 (Leopard) is a substantial upgrade from OS X 10.4 (Tiger). While I do think that Mac OS X has a slight advantage over Windows in terms of eye candy and usability, I also think that Windows is far more practical in the long run. Almost any piece of software is guaranteed to work with Windows, with little to no code configuration. The same compatibility issue cannot be said for OS X or Linux. So, until OS X is more widely used, I'll keep my Windows box.
darkassasin93
Registered User
Posts: 414
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:45 pm

Post by darkassasin93 »

IMHO, even the Vista Beta and Release Candidates are as stable as XP on my computer (Intel Pentium 4 2.60GHz, overclocked to 3.12GHz). I only got one BSD (Blue Screen of Death) when I tried to install the wrong drivers for a smart card reader. I have actually been running Vista RC2 for about a month-and-a-half as my main desktop.

Vista also has made large advances in their OS. Their Aero interface, featuring transparency and Flip 3D, though costly in the video resources, is a very tasty eye candy. It has also introduced UAC (User Account Control). If any program opens up, usually UAC will confirm if you want it opened. It can help against viruses, though otherwise, it can get extremely annoying.

In closing, if I was stuck on a deserted island with a Mac running OS X 10.4 and a PC running Vista, I would only use Vista.

darkassasin93 8)
www.teamhcn.com
Registered User
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:34 am

Post by www.teamhcn.com »

smart.income wrote: Yeah.. but Vista has more powerful graphic comparing MacOS X.

Vista's way of doing graphical effects is bloated and extremely inefficient compared to Quartz on OSX. OSX has had such graphical effects for at least 2 versions now, it's obvious that Microsoft only introduced this feature to play catch-up to OSX and Linux. Like a lot of it's other projects, Microsoft has taken the most direct route to accomplish its aims, and it has done so using the ugliest, most sloppy coding possible.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would prefer the XP Fisher-Price UI, or the ugly gray bars of classic – much less the aqua rip-off Vista UI – over OSX aqua. Not everyone liked the brush metal look of OSX, and Apple has responded to that by reducing it's dominance in Tiger and Leopard, in favour of the more minimal Spotlight UI. Almost every PC user I know admits to preferring the OSX interface over any version of Windows. If you think the aqua UI is ugly compared to Windows, you're being blinded by your hatred of Macs, and therefore are lying to yourself. One look at OSX and it's obvious that the UI was built by real designers and usability experts. Windows, by comparison, looks as though it were made by some programmers as an afterthought; they applied a few Photoshop filters, added a bevel effect, and thought "this looks cool, so let's use it."
Site | Forums
=HCN= Team Cyanide
"After one taste of us, you're already dead."
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 »

www.teamhcn.com wrote: I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would prefer the XP Fisher-Price UI, or the ugly gray bars of classic – much less the aqua rip-off Vista UI – over OSX aqua.


/me raises his hand

I absolutely hate Aqua. It's ugly to me. And IMO, Vista is significantly different than Aqua that I don't know how the comparison was ever made in the first place. Similarities exist, yes...that's hardly a ripoff. But there's only so many ways to do something.

Not everyone liked the brush metal look of OSX, and Apple has responded to that by reducing it's dominance in Tiger and Leopard, in favour of the more minimal Spotlight UI.


I couldn't stand it then, I still can't stand it.
Almost every PC user I know admits to preferring the OSX interface over any version of Windows.


"Almost" is a bit of an over generalization. I know many people who prefer Windows to Aqua. Heck. I'm still on Windows Classic. And when I upgrade to Vista, I'll probably turn off Aero Glass after I get my initial fix.
If you think the aqua UI is ugly compared to Windows, you're being blinded by your hatred of Macs, and therefore are lying to yourself.


I beg your pardon? Everyone's different. I repeat: everyone is different. Mac OS X is an awesome OS under the hood. I just can't stand the way it was carried out in the GUI.
One look at OSX and it's obvious that the UI was built by real designers and usability experts.


Who's being biased now? Are you saying that the designers of the XP GUI and Aero aren't designers? By the way, what qualifies as beauty? In another aspect, a friend of mine and I at work were commenting how beautiful a girl from another department was. I personally thought she was. He was bitterly surprised that I could actually think such thing. So who's right? Answer: In this case, no one.
Windows, by comparison, looks as though it were made by some programmers as an afterthought; they applied a few Photoshop filters, added a bevel effect, and thought "this looks cool, so let's use it."


Again, over generalization. If there's one thing I can't stand about the majority of Mac users is their utter bias against Windows and Microsoft. They discredit them for everything they do. When Steve Jobs announced they had gained a 0.26% marketshare, the crowed gave him standing applause. I'm sorry--the majority of Mac users are so tied to their "precious, slick, sleek, aesthetically beautiful" machine that they don't realize that anyone out there could possibly think different than them when it comes to design and functionality.

I absolutely love Windows and I understand that some people prefer OS X.

You on the other hand love OS X and think that I'm biased, confused, and utterly blinded to "true aesthetic beauty" and from what you said, can't fathom how I could like the Windows UI over Aqua. Oh, that's right. I'm lying to myself.

- 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
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”