Wesley1357
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 374
what are a feel features mac os x have/don't and xp have/don't, can os x do everything xp can do? 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
os x vs xp
- Thread starter Wesley1357
- Start date
This should give you some insight: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_01.asp
I know its comparing Vista and not XP... but you know what XP is capable of, and this highlights what OSX is capable of.
I know its comparing Vista and not XP... but you know what XP is capable of, and this highlights what OSX is capable of.
Wesley1357
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 374
thnaks!
SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
I don't think comparing Tiger (which has been out for a while) with Beta 1 of an OS we're not likely to see for more than a year.. is very fair.
The absolute, simple, pure 100% undiluted answer is "no."
OS X's abilities aren't really the problem. OS X in general is powerfull and capable of alot. It's lack of software support for the Apple platform that leaves the OS crippled, simply because there is no software for it. Or at least not much in comparison to the PC.
Wesley1357
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 374
Sir-Fragalot said:
thanks Sir-Fragalot, this is what i was looking for.
Jeriko_Cherry
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Messages
- 794
Sir-Fragalot said:
really depends on what kind of software you use.
Veritas616
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 129
No, it really doesn't. The fact of the matter is that Apple has < 6% of the market...there is no reason for the majority of software developers to worry about it. The truth is, regardless what the Mac fans say, there is much, MUCH more software for PC's than Mac's. The only two categories I can think of Apple competing with PC in the software department is with graphics/video editing. Other than that (office work, games, misc. software, etc.), the PC has much more to offer.
don't try to bypass the filters
they're there for a reason
- odoe
don't try to bypass the filters
they're there for a reason
- odoe
neo86 said:
Not the PC versions. Both ATi/nVidia produce "Mac-only" cards...and those are ludicrously overpriced compared to the PC side. Competition has its benefits, and for the PC users that means that you get a helluva LOT more for your money.
tdg said:
No it can't, I use both daily and could write a book about +'s and -'s of both. However, I don't understand why everyone thinks OSX can't game, You can game [H]ard on a mac if you got the budget: List on the right. No BF2 or HL2, but there's plenty of fraggin, adventure, MMORPG, etc. It's not so much gaming as I think it's people can't really be enthusiasts with mac, all you can really do is a buy a videocard, you don't have the hardware choices that windows users do. Go with windows though..
One bit of humor I'll toss in:
Check out OS X vs. Windows XP sometime. While I find the sheer amount of work and the effort put into producing that site are something to admire, the content is fairly seriously skewed towards OS X - in my opinion, of course.
There are some valid points in the comparisons but from a truly realistic standpoint running Windows (any flavor at this point) guarantees compatibility and the widest hardware support you're going to find.
I'm a PC man, always have been. When Apple releases the Intel-based Macs, I'll look at them in stores, all pretty and shiny and expensive then I'll come home to my hand-built PC that'll smoke the doors off anything Apple can produce - and I'll play some games that no developer would even consider porting to the Apple platform, even if it is finally on the Intel platform.
To quote one of my favorite lines from a movie:
"The truth hurts... perhaps not as much as running Macintosh OS on Intel hardware and still not having anything to do with it, but it hurts just the same..."
(bonus points to the person that knows where that quote is paraphrased from...)
One last thing... this is always an "OS X vs XP" thing and really, it's not a fair comparison. If an Apple Macintosh could run any OS on it then we'd have something to discuss, but it's a moot point.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer that happens to write an OS for the computer hardware it produces. Microsoft is a software manufacturer that writes an OS for any PC-compatible machine. This isn't even an apples vs oranges comparison (no pun intended).
Two different companies, two different agendas.
One amazing thing about Apple: they founded themselves on the idea of "Think Different." But in the end, what that slogan and philosophy has done is pigeon-hole Apple right into a corner by becoming a proprietary platform where the consumer that buys an Apple product is (go figure) pigeon-holed into buying hardware basically from Apple and Apple alone.
In the effort to create a totally non-conformist computer for people that "Think Different," Apple created the exact opposite: A locked down proprietary platform where you can do pretty much anything except "Think Different."
Just my $.02...
bb
Check out OS X vs. Windows XP sometime. While I find the sheer amount of work and the effort put into producing that site are something to admire, the content is fairly seriously skewed towards OS X - in my opinion, of course.
There are some valid points in the comparisons but from a truly realistic standpoint running Windows (any flavor at this point) guarantees compatibility and the widest hardware support you're going to find.
I'm a PC man, always have been. When Apple releases the Intel-based Macs, I'll look at them in stores, all pretty and shiny and expensive then I'll come home to my hand-built PC that'll smoke the doors off anything Apple can produce - and I'll play some games that no developer would even consider porting to the Apple platform, even if it is finally on the Intel platform.
To quote one of my favorite lines from a movie:
"The truth hurts... perhaps not as much as running Macintosh OS on Intel hardware and still not having anything to do with it, but it hurts just the same..."
(bonus points to the person that knows where that quote is paraphrased from...)
One last thing... this is always an "OS X vs XP" thing and really, it's not a fair comparison. If an Apple Macintosh could run any OS on it then we'd have something to discuss, but it's a moot point.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer that happens to write an OS for the computer hardware it produces. Microsoft is a software manufacturer that writes an OS for any PC-compatible machine. This isn't even an apples vs oranges comparison (no pun intended).
Two different companies, two different agendas.
One amazing thing about Apple: they founded themselves on the idea of "Think Different." But in the end, what that slogan and philosophy has done is pigeon-hole Apple right into a corner by becoming a proprietary platform where the consumer that buys an Apple product is (go figure) pigeon-holed into buying hardware basically from Apple and Apple alone.
In the effort to create a totally non-conformist computer for people that "Think Different," Apple created the exact opposite: A locked down proprietary platform where you can do pretty much anything except "Think Different."
Just my $.02...
bb
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,785
I've heard lots of people keep telling me that Apple is a hardware manufacturer. If you count the iPod and possibly the mini then yea you could call it a hardware manufacturer.br0adband said:
ATM the only thing that makes Mac's and PC's different is the CPU and the OS. Of course not to long from now it'll be only the OS. That would mean the only hardware that Apple truely makes would be the case, mouse, and keyboard. Given that you like the ultra white decor that is given off by an Apple machine.
Apple is no more a hardware manufacturer then Microsoft. Seeing as Microsoft created the Xbox, mice, keyboards, and other junk. Apple would probably be more comparable to HP, Dell, and Gateway.
The only saving grace of Apple computers is OS X. Had it not been for OS X people would have crapped all over Apple years ago.
After the Intel move Apple won't be doing much hardware designing. Unless you think those fabulous cases are entirelly worth the additional cost you pay over a Dell machine.
Years ago you could have called Apple a hardware manufacturer but today the only real engineering they're doing is with those iPods. Apple should really put more work into their software. As Mac OS X still needs lots more work compared to Windows. Anandtech had a benchmark which they used Linux on a Mac and compared the performance to OS X.
Jeriko_Cherry
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Messages
- 794
Veritas616 said:
So you say it doesn't, but then agree that there are categories of software where the Mac is able to compete. So like I said, it depends on the kind of software you use.
I think everyone in here who shits on Apple either hasn't had the opportunity to actually use OS X or hasn't used it for very long.
Either compare OS X to Windows XP or compare the available software library for each, but don't criss-cross the comparisons.
Label me a !!!!!! if you want, but OS X Tiger and soon to be Leopard is going to rip the hell out of anything Little Billy Gates and Hot-headed Ballmer can muster up. Vista is a joke, a bad counterfeit piece of art, and if you saw an unbiased list of features and performance you would rip your hair out at why anyone would praise Microsoft over Apple.
Aside from a small price difference when comparing the consumer level offerings; for instance, Mac Mini/iMac vs Dell/HP/etc, the only reason people still flock to Windows is proprietary file formats and legacy lock-in.
Either compare OS X to Windows XP or compare the available software library for each, but don't criss-cross the comparisons.
Label me a !!!!!! if you want, but OS X Tiger and soon to be Leopard is going to rip the hell out of anything Little Billy Gates and Hot-headed Ballmer can muster up. Vista is a joke, a bad counterfeit piece of art, and if you saw an unbiased list of features and performance you would rip your hair out at why anyone would praise Microsoft over Apple.
Aside from a small price difference when comparing the consumer level offerings; for instance, Mac Mini/iMac vs Dell/HP/etc, the only reason people still flock to Windows is proprietary file formats and legacy lock-in.
Night Fox said:
Your language doesn't seem very conducive to discussion. Aside from that, I don't flock to Windows. I use it. Why? Because it does what I want it to do. Because it affords me the opportunity to build my own computer. Because it doesn't cost me nearly as much to have a high end machine. A $400 Dell with a Pentium 4 with HT isn't all that comparable to a $500 Mac mini that limps by with its PowerPC chip. Do I feel locked in? Yeah, I kind of do. But at the same time, it's cool that everyone is using the same stuff.
You have to ask yourself a lot of questions before switching away from Windows. Can I still do everything I do now? Can I do anything better after the switch? Can I afford to pay more to do the same things? For some people, those answers are yes. For someone that plays a ton of games or builds their own computer or doesn't have deep pockets, those answers are quite clearly no.
The point I always try to make when looking at comparing any Os to WINXP. WINXP is very stable. I am running OSX86 on a spare PC. while its "cool" i come back to the same thing. I can use linux or OSX but neither offer any great benifit over WINXP that could swing people to use it. You need to give people a reason to switch and that hasn't come from anyone yet.
DukenukemX said:
Actually, Microsoft doesn't make hardware. They use third party suppliers to design, develop and manufacture all the hardware products that are labeled with the Microsoft name. Hence my statement that Apple is primarily a hardware manufacturer is completely accurate.
Go out to Apple HQ in Cupertino sometime and take a tour. The stuff being manufactured there looks an awful lot like computer hardware to me, and a lot of other stuff like those iPod things.
Now take a tour of Microsoft HQ in Redmond. They produce software which is basically transmitted to plants to press on CD. They don't make stuff at HQ like Apple does because they create software, not hardware.
Microsoft didn't create the Xbox, nor the fancy mice, nor the natural keyboards, and they certainly didn't manufacture any of it. They don't own any manufacturing plants for hardware; they don't even have controlling interest in any. They're playing it smart and using third party companies for all that work.
DukenukemX said:
It's a bit more complex than that. If what you said was true I'd be able to just drop a P4 CPU onto that PowerPC mobo and load up Windows on the hard drive and be rolling. Nice try, but you missed a few relevant points.
If the only computer OS you've ever used is OS X or any precursors to it in the Mac OS series, you're looking at things from a pretty limited point of view. I've run OSes of all flavors, from BASIC to COBOL to FORTRAN to DOS and Windows and OSx86 and back again.
It's simply not all it's cracked up to be, and neither is Windows, nor Linux, nor Unix, etc. There is no perfect OS for every single person; it's all a purely subjective experience for each of us. "Best" is relative.
But tell me this: when was the last time you went into a retail store anywhere for any reason and saw them using Macs for the day to day operations that run the business other than an Apple Store?
'Nuff said.
bb
br0adband said:
So are you saying you have seen alot of POS (Point of Sale) systems being run on Windows?
Sure there are some, but I have a decent background in retail and in IT and for the most part, all the POS systems I have seen were some custom tailored *NIX variant and if not, it certainly wasn't being run on anything Microsoft.
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,785
br0adband said:
Didn't I say CPU and the OS? That would mean you obviously can't drop in any X86 CPU in a Mac.
What did you think I meant when I said CPU and the OS?
Besides that you could say that if I could I would take a PC video card and drop it in a Mac machine. Which you can't. Of course for some video cards you could flash the firmware to a Mac version and then it would work.
Yes but you're using big boy OS's. BTW I'm using Windows only ATM.
The reason why Mac OS X is great is because it makes it easy for them to use the machine. Not saying it makes it any easier then Windows but a lot of people are confusing Mac OS X as a more stable OS vs XP.
I know OS X needs lots of work but it is a serious end user OS. Unlike Linux which all it needs is a GUI. Google OS maybe?
I like to think Windows could be the best All In One OS. If it wasn't for all the viruses and spyware that it has.
Never.
Most stores I've seen use a green monitor with a Dos prompt.
Sanchi said:
Yeah, I made a booboo there. Been doing the computer thing so long I forget the difference sometimes. I built an Altair in 1975 when I was 7 years old, and it didn't have an OS at all really. Anything using punchcards and DIP switches, well... the hardware was the OS in those days.
My how far we've come and how far we've still got to go...
bb