Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macs dont crash, seriously its amazing
- Thread starter jsousa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
63dot said:the NT kernel was meant to be stable for office apps and to conform with level two DoD security protocols...so it did that better than windows 95/98, which were better at multimedia but not at security
2000 added some multimedia capability to the NT kernel and windows 2000 was originally meant to be called NT 5.0, but still lagged behind os x on multimedia
xp yet added some more multimedia capability and in some ways, resembled os x, but os x still has the advantage...but for most users of both, like me, i notice very little difference
we can at least probably all agree that it's a good thing that os 9 and windows 98 don't rule the operating system landscape anymore
i can watch multimedia in fullscreen with the default player included in every copy of windows xp.
if it wasn't for vlc the "mac multimedia experiance" would be horrible since companies aren't making quicktime components as fast or as often as they are making codecs for windows. is it a shame? absolutly, the UI to VLC makes my eyes bleed. but hey, it does it's job fine.
risc said:LMFAO okay how about I swap every to currently supported OSes. Or OSes made this decade... actually how about this century?
By the way how good was that DOS machine at multitasking?
Well, Dr. DOS did pretty well, and if one had DESQview, MS-DOS did ok as well. The limits of the time were usually the hardware...
Max.
Dracula said:
My only complaint about XP multimedia is that it takes a lot more power ( GHz, clock cycles, etc. ) for Windows to play a DVD than a Mac. For a long time I ran an iBook 600 and a Dual PIII 1GHz. I never got the PIII to play as smoothly as OS X running on the G3.
If you want to test the metal of each OS, get a large, un-compiled program that will compile on each platform and launch them. During the compile, try to see how productive you can be with the compiler running in the background.
XP Almost always will become useless....
Max.
jsousa said:
Not true.
Multi Threading processor.
Any os now can run x number of apps, depending on the hardware.
When Jaguar first came out, I installed it on a 233MHz Bondi iMac and was able to run every program that came with the system (in the Applications and Utilities folders, plus a few more) with just 256MB of RAM.
Granted, switching back and forth was really slow, but that must've been a good 60+ Applications.
The icons were so small in the dock that they were almost impossible to see...
Granted, switching back and forth was really slow, but that must've been a good 60+ Applications.
The icons were so small in the dock that they were almost impossible to see...
Dracula said:
Sad, you don't know my usage habits. I for one am a daily user and programmer for Windows of quite a few varieties..... Been doing it for 10 years.
As for saying I couldn't play a DVD on a dual 1 GHz where you were able to watch DVDs on a 800 MHz stinkpad, You should read the post a bit closer. I only commented that it did not play as well.
Max.
P.S. This may not be the best place to hang out if your goal is to defend Windows. There are ver knowledgable people here ( and some ignorant ones too ) that dislike Windows for valid reasons.....Try AMDZone.com. Not a bad board to hang out on....
Max.
maxvamp said:
really, both os x and xp are easily defendable for their respective good points, even by new computer users
os x is a much smaller target for viruses than xp and that could be a deciding factor if someone is on the fence considering a mac or a pc
63dot said:
I don't think the fact that OS X is far less popular than windows is why there are no viruses. OS X has 4% of the market (correct me if I'm wrong) and windows has 114000 viruses. 4% of 114000 is 5460. That means there should technically be 5460 viruses of OS X....
This is one of the main reasons I switched to a Mac. plus all this with a stylish GUI and Hardware to boot! Apple now only has to worry about those few QA issues still nagging.
I don't want to sound like I love Windows, because I really dislike using it but have to at work. But I just did a little experiment on my work computer. It has an AMD 64 3800 x2 processor and 1g of ram. I opened 52 applications including Photoshop, Adobe Bridge, ImageReady, Gimp, VirtualPC, WCIII, and some other intensive apps. With all 52 running I could still play WCIII with no hiccups. Running was the easy part. Things did get a little sticky when I tried to close 50 apps at once. I had 5 or 6 give me the nice "This program is not responding" message.
Attachments
In my experience, this is true. For single core PCs without HyperThreading (e.g. Pentium Ms) a single process can very easily take up 100% CPU, making the rest of the PC pretty much unusable. OS X and other *nix OSs tend to be nicer, not letting any one process hog system resources. This is one reason (not the only one) why OS X is worse at games ... XP will allow a game to practically take over the machine while on Macs some system resources are left unused.maxvamp said:
Having said that, I now spend roughly equal times in OS X, Linux and XP (well, XP a lot less recently, maybe 35%, 45%, 20% and dropping) and I have had a couple of system freezes on OS X requiring a power off, and a couple of kernel panics (albeit with an early Parallels beta), and nothing that I can remember affecting my Linux installs. XP has been pretty stable recently, but my XP windows seem to be less than ideally responsive. I just clicked on a minimized Outlook window in the tool bar, and it took a full second to display. CPU usage spikes to 100% when moving a window about. Something odd there, but I just can't be bothered trying to work out what's wrong since I know I'll be booting into Linux soon.
GASP!!!bowens said:
proof that windows can do more the spreadsheets and diagrams.
ASWELL, it can run more than 5 applications!!!
*edit. no evil viruses either!
send this devil to hell, along with all the m1cr0s0f7 windoz in the world.
Sheesh, the blatant fanboyism and misinformation towards the beginning of this thread is nauseating. Borderline cult...
As far as I'm concerned, any modern operating system should handle any number of programs running, limited only by available physical memory. In my experience, Windows XP does this as well as OS X, which does it as well as Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. I routinely have machines running several hundred active processes (in addition to hundreds more inactive/sleeping) with good responsivity and certainly no crashes. In fact, running many programs at once is one of the easiest things an operating system to do without crashing. Start plugging all kinds of foreign hardware into that machine and get back to me on your crash rate.
I've said before, even though I hate Windows and love using OS X, my Macs crash far more often than my Windows machine. Why? I'm guessing it's because I use only a small set of stable programs on Windows (Office, Firefox, VC++, and a home grown app or two), whereas I do everything else on the Mac. I also plug in a lot of external hardware to the Mac, and that's where the majority of my crashes have come - yes, even Apple writes bad drivers. I don't plug any external hardware into Windows machines.
The point is:
1. Macs do crash sometimes
2. Windows can handle a very hefty load
3. In either case, there are situations where the reverse is true. Both have their flaws and strengths, and just because you only see flaws or strengths in one vs. the other, it doesn't mean that's how it is for everyone.
With that said, OS X rocks.
As far as I'm concerned, any modern operating system should handle any number of programs running, limited only by available physical memory. In my experience, Windows XP does this as well as OS X, which does it as well as Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. I routinely have machines running several hundred active processes (in addition to hundreds more inactive/sleeping) with good responsivity and certainly no crashes. In fact, running many programs at once is one of the easiest things an operating system to do without crashing. Start plugging all kinds of foreign hardware into that machine and get back to me on your crash rate.
I've said before, even though I hate Windows and love using OS X, my Macs crash far more often than my Windows machine. Why? I'm guessing it's because I use only a small set of stable programs on Windows (Office, Firefox, VC++, and a home grown app or two), whereas I do everything else on the Mac. I also plug in a lot of external hardware to the Mac, and that's where the majority of my crashes have come - yes, even Apple writes bad drivers. I don't plug any external hardware into Windows machines.
The point is:
1. Macs do crash sometimes
2. Windows can handle a very hefty load
3. In either case, there are situations where the reverse is true. Both have their flaws and strengths, and just because you only see flaws or strengths in one vs. the other, it doesn't mean that's how it is for everyone.
With that said, OS X rocks.
dpaanlka said:
There's a huge difference between sharing in a common enjoyment of a product, and fanboyism which ignores all traces of reality.
windows would be done as soon as you run half those.
Windows is slower than Microsoft releasing a new OS in comparison.
Admit it, Macs are superior when it comes to multitasking!
Sadly, OSX does crash and lock up - moreso than my XP installation has ironically. [Response: I do not believe you.]
I love seeing people get enthusiastic about Mac stuff, but the above bashing of Windows doesn't sit well with me. It's fanboyism without basis in fact. I really hate using Windows, and I hate having to defend it. I just happen to hate misinformation even more because it detracts from any attempt at intelligent conversation.
This thread could have been a good, intelligent discussion of what OS X is really good at with regard to multitasking, and how it truly compares. Actually, parts of it are. I guess I've come to expect that sort of open minded, insightful discussion here, but more and more I see the "Everything else sucks no matter what the facts say" mentality. You can't have good discussion with that.
So I try to set the record straight and get labeled a complainer. Maybe I am just a crotchety old, angry spoilsport. Damn kids these days....
OS's crash and Mac OS X is no different. Technology to this day has a horrible track record for reliability.
I wish you would all stop trying to discredit Windows by saying "it could only handle half of those programs before crashing". You are full of it. There are windows boxes out there that will run circles around your kiddy multi-tasking.
Not to mention *BSD *nix. A computer is a computer. Some crash, some don't. If it does what you want, cool. If not, maybe you need to get something new. Like a Mac(assuming you don't have one)
To the OP, Macs do crash. Seriously they do. Just like every computer. Sh*t happens. A better statement would have been "My Mac doesn't crash".
I wish you would all stop trying to discredit Windows by saying "it could only handle half of those programs before crashing". You are full of it. There are windows boxes out there that will run circles around your kiddy multi-tasking.
Not to mention *BSD *nix. A computer is a computer. Some crash, some don't. If it does what you want, cool. If not, maybe you need to get something new. Like a Mac(assuming you don't have one)
To the OP, Macs do crash. Seriously they do. Just like every computer. Sh*t happens. A better statement would have been "My Mac doesn't crash".
63dot said:
I disagree, if somebody actually wrote a successful Mac OS X virus that got out in the wild and infected millions of Macs, I bet that would be HUGE news, and not just in the tech world. It would probably make major newspapers and the tech columns at CNN, MSNBC, and FNC after all the fuss Apple makes about not having viruses. The creator would become legendary as the first person to make a virus for the ultra-secure Mac OS X.