I was running the hacked OS X x86 on my AMD Sempron and I came up with some interesting results...I have experienced OS X getting just as groggy as Windows over time, it might handle it better, but its not out of the blue. Both have journaled file systems but, I have experienced the performance issues on both first hand.
Hacked OSx86 on a Sempron is not a valid comparison to XP for the following reasons (legality and morality aside):
1) Hacked OSx86 is an amalgam of several OS X versions and patched binaries and Darwin code. It's not a streamlined operating system by any means. It's taking parts from 3 or 4 cars and sticking them together.
2) On that Sempron, you're probably missing SSE3. That's basically a death sentence to OS X performance, because OS X is heavily optimized for SIMD (SSE and AltiVec).
3) You're probably losing the benefit of the graphics card, unless you have a driver for it. That's also a major performance hit, because OS X is then doing desktop drawing on the CPU and RAM instead of the GPU.
I am not saying that, but some Mac OS X users are using machines from 1999 and 2000, you and I don't know how many there are. But many have toted that as probably a strength of the platform itself, long lasting hardware. But, the point is even if you and I bought equal systems in 2003 (Mac/PC), XP would still have the edge, because you bought the Tiger upgrade to get features that XP either have built in or got as free downloads.
Mac hardware does last a long time. Most PC users I know (and I know a lot) wind up replacing their PCs every 2 or 3 years. No matter how you slice and dice it, an 8 year old computer is an old computer.
The problem here is that you're comparing built-in, integrated features with downloadable programs. Most XP users don't use Power Tools or other MS downloads like that.
Additionally, you're comparing features as bullet points, instead of comparing operating systems. I've used Macs, Windows, and Linux extensively (I had a class last semester in which the labs were entirely in Linux CLI, so I get around). If you're going to say "Oh, both Tiger and XP have search functions" without comparing the quality of the functions, then you're pretty misguided. I'll bet you consider Flip 3D and Exposé to be of equal-value. Use them. You'll
OS X did not get ... Instant Search until Tiger (10.4). XP users got Instant search technology as a free download with the MSN Desktop Search tool in 2005.
You can't seriously argue that Desktop Search tool is remotely equivalent to Spotlight in terms of performance, features, or usability. Having used both, Spotlight's OS-level integration is ridiculously superior.
You must be rich to make such a statement. Another contradiction, because even Apple disagrees with that statement. Why would they then make the minimum system requirement for Leopard be a PowerPC G4 800 MHz with 512 MBs of RAM? Ha, gotcha didn't I?
How did you get me? I never said that any machine can't run Tiger or Panther. I know that it's possible to install Tiger on any Mac with a PowerPC processor. But "can" and "would" are too completely different things. Both Apple and MS low-ball the system requirements significantly (but Apple's better about it than MS, in my experience).
The first gen PPC G5 tower (June 2003) ran at 1.6 to 2 GHz, you really, really are trying to tell me those Macs are too old to upgrade to either Panther (October 2003) or Tiger?
I made no such claim. I know first-hand (from doing layout work on them) that first-gen G5 PowerMacs can run Panther and Tiger, and I'd probably be willing to try Leopard on one. My claim was that they're relatively old computers.
Come, Apple released a 2.1 GHz G5 iMac in October of 2005, 4 months before the Intel iMac? When Tiger was released in April of 2005, Apples fastest G4 and G5 systems were 1.5 GHz and 2.5 Ghz respectively. The first Gen iMac with the PPC G5 released in fall of '04 were running at 1.6 to 1.8 Ghz, 8 months before Tigers release in April 2005. And YOU are seriously trying to tell me those machines are too old to upgrade to Tiger.
I never claimed that any G5 was too old to run Tiger. I said that computers from 2000 (G3s and pre-7450 G4s) wouldn't run Tiger well, and first-generation G5s (the fastest pre-Panther computers) are considered slow now-a-days. Much like sub-2GHz Pentium 4s are considered slow today.
I am in America as opposed to Jamaica, but I'm not rich, and you don't have to be rich to consider a sub-GHz computer "ultra-low-end" or a 4-year-old computer old. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of trying to claim that the average Mac user had to by all the updates. I'm sure some people did buy two or three updates (or maybe all of them), but most people (especially people who have computers less than 4 years old) only have to buy 1-2 updates to get to Leopard.
I have dared you, Vista runs on a minimum of 800 Mhz with with 512 MBs of RAM (1GB recommended), reading it right here on my Vista Ultimate product box, so whats your point?
My point is that XP runs slowly on such a machine with more than two applications open. Please, install Vista Ultimate on a 800 MHz PC with 512 MB of RAM and use it for a week.
At least I don't have to hack my system from 2000 to install the latest OS.
XPOSFACTO anyone?
You have to hack a computer from 2005 to install XP. In order to install XP on a computer with a SATA hard drive, you need to buy a floppy drive, load SATA drivers on the floppy drive, and install them from the floppy disk at install. Alternatively, you need to create a custom install disk with the SATA drivers (this is what I do). That's at least as much work as installing Tiger on a pre-G3 computer (ripping and re-burning the install CDs with one text file altered.
They still bundled iTunes with iLife when the first version was released in 2003, can you run iTunes 7 on OS 10.0, 10.1, 10.2? NO, but I can run Windows Media Player 11 on XP just fine. WLM maybe garbage in your opinion, but its still free to users of Windows 2000, XP and Vista. You actually have to wait on a new release of OS X to get a new version of iChat.
The reason for this is pretty straightforward - on Mac OS X, the iApps make use of advanced features. WLM can't do real-time compositing, for instance. It's not like there's a shortage of free IM apps or music players, so I really don't see what the point is here.
At least I didn't need to buy a new version of OS X to gain functionality, thats delivered through Service Packs. All the other functionality mentioned are similar to in some ways to features already in XP and Vista. 64-bit is not gonna benefit every one btw, so toting it as a holy grail feature is really not a big deal for the majority of users on either on the OS X or Windows platforms.
I don't think I toted it as a holy grail feature at all, but it's darn useful, because we need to move over to 64-bit OSes within the next 5 years, and having an easy migration path is better than having one where software and hardware isn't compatible.
And "similar to in some ways to features already in XP and Vista" is a far cry from an answer. A Lincoln is "similar in some ways" to my Ford Taurus, but I think it's pretty clear which I'd rather have.
At least I didn't need to buy a new version of OS X to gain functionality, thats delivered through Service Packs.
...
Combo updates on XP are known as Service Packs, on OS X Tiger in particular, you have had 11 of them so far.
You need to be self-consistent. Either Service Packs are roll-ups of bug fixes, or they add features. Most Service Packs are bug fixes and performance updates.
Come on, its called a maintenance update, it should be fixing problems in the OS not adding them.
Yeah, because Microsoft has never retracted an update, or released an update to an update, or had a feature regression.
At least Windows Problems and Solutions offers suggestions. When you get a kernel panic on OS X, you only get two options, cold reset or reinstall to fix the issue. In fact, you have repair permissions everytime you do a maintenance update on OS X just to be safe.
That's silly. I've repaired permissions exactly once in two years and a dozen updates, and had no update related problems, just like most Mac users.
Most of the time when one gets a kernel panic, it's not reproducible, or is a hardware problem. You should only need to reinstall OS X if you've really screwed something up. A single kernel panic does not force a reinstall of OS X any more than XP crashing forces one.
And I've rarely ever found scripted troubleshooting to be helpful, since it's usually asking obvious questions.
Leopard just added differentiation between secure and unsecured wireless networks in the latest Leopard build 9A499. Vista and XP have had that a good while now. So who's better here.
Tiger and Leopard are still better. The reason is simple: I pick wireless networks from a menu, you need to use a dialog box. Besides, in most situations, which networks I'm authorized to use and which I'm not is generally pretty obvious. I'm not denying that it's a useful feature to be able to tell up front, but it's way better to have it in a menu than in a window.
Safari doesn't work with all websites, but many cross platform browsers such FireFox and Opera do a way better job. The point, there is a full version of IE 7 that is the default browser in Vista that works with the Microsoft website. So you point is still moot.
Safari is way more standards compliant than IE7. And Firefox and Opera also do a way better job than IE7, and work on Macs too. And for the record, in two years of browsing with Safari, I've never had an issue with anything other than an ActiveX control.
Same with Windows XP, you have multiple options, in fact, you can download imagex utility from Microsoft download center and apply updates in whatever order you want and drop the image of the OS on the machine without any problems.
If I was so inclined, I could update OS X in a similar fashion without any help from Apple. In fact, I could update OS X not just update-by-update, but package by package if I was ambitious. However, that's the sort of thing that only 0.001% of the populace needs to do, and isn't worth arguing about.
That question is irrelevant, I'm running Windows Vista, even if you are on XP running Defrag is a once in a blue moon occasion. Windows had pre-emptive multi-tasking and support for large memory address space since NT 3.1. You just got that "luxury" at 10.0. Which proves the Mac OS has been a nightmare most of its life.
Just so we're on the same page, NT wasn't merged with the consumer line until XP (2000 was not a consumer OS). Also, if it's more than 5 years old, you're really wasting your time arguing about it. Focus on the present, future, and recent past. It's a lot healthier for you.
Ok, I am typing up all the comments in a Word Doc from Macworlds comment section about OS X's bugginess. I hope you are ready answer all of them.
Hey, if this makes you happy, then whatever. If I didn't have a life, I could spend 50 years copying and pasting bug reports from XP into here or into a Windows forum. And just out of curiousity, why are we talking about bugs in Jaguar or 10.1 or even Panther in a "News" discussion?
