From his past, Clevin does not seem to be an MS fanboy...in fact he likes his Linux
Please do not insult other members without backing
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.
Stability: OS X vs Win XP
- Thread starter Sonoran
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please do not insult other members without backing
Maybe its because he also owns a Mac and a PC and can offer his opinion and experience on both because he has both. So what... now to be part of a Mac forum, you need to have a love affair with the OS and be blind to everything else (good or bad)? Nobody can speak positively about windows? Is this what you're implying?
...maybe he also owns a PS3 and an Xbox360 and god forbid if he prefers one over the other but is part of both products forums.....
...maybe he also owns a PS3 and an Xbox360 and god forbid if he prefers one over the other but is part of both products forums.....
wow, sorry, not intent to call u ignorant at all, just guessing u were not an experienced windows user, which is, obviously not correct.
anyway, msconfig and regedit are normal tricks, and as an experienced user, you should know that using them does not indicate the windows is broken in any ways. Its great way to clean up ur system, safe and effective.
lol, OSX has tricks too, such as use OnyX to recover ur lost disk space, sometimes GB in size. or repair permissions, repair disks, which are never necessary in windows (unless ur HDD is physically damaged, in which case, OSX's repair disk won't do any good any way)
First, I have to agree with Clevin that unless you want to change platforms, you should consider refurbishing your current setup. You're going to incur costs with new machines and training that may be more than you're willing to spend.
Now, for Clevin, I disagree with you about regedit. This isn't computer care 101, but rather a complex part of Windows which can cause all sorts of havoc if used improperly. While OSX's "Repair Permissions" and "Repair Disks" are idiot-proof, a user can get into serious and irrevocable trouble with msconfig and regedit.
Furthermore, OSX's model means that a machine can be used for years without a decline in performance (assuming the hardware is good) but XP seems to slide into senility even with a good application of msconfig and regedit on a fairly regular basis. Couple this with the constant malware problem, both the actual malaise and the necessary defenses and even good machines take a performance hit.
Is OSX perfect, of course not, but I have experienced a constant and significant difference in reliability between XP and OSX (10.2 - 10.4).
I want to address a couple of points that others have raised:
First, regarding OS X defragging on the go, that isn't entirely accurate. OS X will allocate memory usage in such a way that small files tend not to get defragmented b/c of the way they are written and moved. As a constant user of defragging software I can assure you that larger files can be fragged to hell. With modern hard drive speeds this isn't usually a problem, but depending on what you're doing it can be a problem.
Second, while OS X is waaaaay more stable than windows, I have to disagree with those that claim OS X doesn't do stupid things. I ran into a problem where about 12 gigs of hidden .Trash files wouldn't delete. The files were not in the Trash, they were leftovers from moving a group of HD movies around. I found them during a defrag session when I was checking out what that large chunk of system level "stuff" was. The only way I was able to get rid of it was to actually log in as the root and manually delete them in the terminal.
I think the reason most OS X flaps escape user notice is b/c they don't create problems that bother average users due to the overall stability of the system.
First, regarding OS X defragging on the go, that isn't entirely accurate. OS X will allocate memory usage in such a way that small files tend not to get defragmented b/c of the way they are written and moved. As a constant user of defragging software I can assure you that larger files can be fragged to hell. With modern hard drive speeds this isn't usually a problem, but depending on what you're doing it can be a problem.
Second, while OS X is waaaaay more stable than windows, I have to disagree with those that claim OS X doesn't do stupid things. I ran into a problem where about 12 gigs of hidden .Trash files wouldn't delete. The files were not in the Trash, they were leftovers from moving a group of HD movies around. I found them during a defrag session when I was checking out what that large chunk of system level "stuff" was. The only way I was able to get rid of it was to actually log in as the root and manually delete them in the terminal.
I think the reason most OS X flaps escape user notice is b/c they don't create problems that bother average users due to the overall stability of the system.
Most of it comes from a big difference in philosophy regarding backward compatibility. Microsoft will tend to bend over backwards to support things that ran on their older operating systems, even at the expense of stability and security. The Apple tendency is to leave older things behind: bad if you want to hang onto ancient discontinued software or hardware, great for keeping things up and running in the here and now.
As long as you avoid the temptation to load up every little "utility" or add-on that turns up just to play, and then forget what needs to be uninstalled, you could go through the lifetime of the hardware without having to deal with a reinstall. Os X is really pretty resilient. Even if you might need to reinstall at some point after a major boo boo, the archive and install option is good about letting you keep your data intact. But normally, little in the way of active maintenance is usually required, it tends to be a low stress environment.
Yes and no. There are lots and lots of preference files for applications and the OS scattered all around, and these do pretty much the same things that the Windows registry does. Because they aren't all shoved into one central database, it's a lot easier to isolate any problems that come up, and start over with a clean slate on any problem areas, without blowing away everything else.
oh my, trolling is a serious word. I hang around here coz I have two macs(MB and mini), one acer laptop with windows vista and Ubuntu. Do I know OSX more than you? maybe, maybe not, do I know linux and windows more than some ppl here? probably. Say something I felt valuable in the discussion is not trolling. is it?
with more ppl (now more than 30%) of mac users being the switched from pc, I think the whole mac user base now should have more knowledge of pc, and I don't see contribute a little bit of that isn't helpful, after all, macs run windows too, don't they?
thanks guys for clearing my records,
Yup. If there wasnt any contest, then there wouldnt be so many mac forums with so many posts requesting help figuring out why something doesnt work. Same with the windows forums. They both have tons of forums on the web with lots of people asking for help. There are just way more windows forums because there are way more users. If windows was that unstable, then all the NT/2K/2K3 servers would be crashing all the time. Our company of 120 would be in chaos ummm but its not. The server based products are not much different than XP/2K and even Vista in terms of core operation and stability.
first off you should really do a clean install of ANY os once a year or so. its a healthy habit..
unix is the main reason osx is stable. free bsd to be exact.. its at the core of osx. in many ways osx is more secure vs standard bsd. at least 70% of the net is hosted on some form of unix/linux because its so rock solid. many bsd servers get over 1 year uptime. now thats stability..
there is no registry at all..
the unix file system apple uses is great and has full file journaling support which means more stable installs and read/writes all round. info: http://www.lafcpug.org/features_file_journaling.html
But then you're not really switching to OS X, are you? This discussion is not about Mac hardware, but the OS.
oh my, trolling is a serious word. I hang around here coz I have two macs(MB and mini), one acer laptop with windows vista and Ubuntu. Do I know OSX more than you? maybe, maybe not, do I know linux and windows more than some ppl here? probably. Say something I felt valuable in the discussion is not trolling. is it?
with more ppl (now more than 30%) of mac users being the switched from pc, I think the whole mac user base now should have more knowledge of pc, and I don't see contribute a little bit of that isn't helpful, after all, macs run windows too, don't they?
thanks guys for clearing my records,
Clevin, while I disagree with some of your points, I wouldn't characterize you as a troll. Your contribution is appreciated.
*shrugs* I know this is going to sound trollish but I've crashed more times in the last year and a half with my 2 MBP's then the 5 years I was using XP on 4 laptops. (Thinkpad T41, ThinkPad X31, Toshiba Sat, Latitude CPx.) I'm not kidding either. That being said I'm playing with a lot of under the hood things in OS X but some of the stuff simply doesn't make sense for a modern OS. Things like coming back from safe sleep and loosing my touchpad and keyboard. Consistent hangs in finder when I'm dealing with network shares. Most of the time, something like 95%, it comes back but when it doesn't I have to kill finder. And less then 1% of the time I need to reboot. What I think it boils down to is that x86 is still a new beast for Apple. As is OS X on X86. I don't care what Jobs said about having a parallel dev track for OS X. This IS a new beast for them and as such I think its going to take years for them to get a real handle on how to craft OS X around the Core series.
Overall I would say stability is pretty much equal. What does set OS X above windows from an IT perspective is a lack of registry. This IMHO is the single greatest blunder that Microsoft ever did. While apps in OS X do leave crap behind it doesn't have a tendency to drag your system down over time. Or as I like to put it. One corrupt registry key could ruin your entire day. I've gone mad trying to troubleshoot an issue in windows when I know the problem lies in a corrupt key somewhere in the registry. A key that isn't being updated or changed for some reason or another.
With the number of keys it literally takes less time to simply reimage a system the sit there and try and figure out where the problem is. The nice thing that I've found is that if you are using parallels for virtualizing XP you can keep a backup copy on your server. No data files are stored in the disk image. That way if you ever have any problems. Or XP gets slow. Simply delete the image, copy it back down from the server, and away you go. 15 minute job vs. a 2 hour one.
I would say my biggest issue with using Macs and OS X in a business environment is the simple fact that the IT industry is built around Windows. ITs tools, its training, its services are all built around MS Windows. From what I've heard service contracts for Macs are substantially more expensive then your standard vanilla PS box. Again though "heard". I would really like to see Gartner do a comprehensive annalist of all the various factors. Ease of use is relative since most people in a business environment have been using Windows for god knows how long. Security is only one piece of the puzzle.
would I recommend Macs in a business environment? Small business say less then 50? Sure. But larger enterprise environments. No. Apple hasn't really shown any initiative to try and make their company corp friendly. Do you know how expensive it would be if MS came out with a new OS every 18 months and started obsoleting their stuff after 3 years? You'd see the computer industry go completely ape crap. Its things like that. Apple is a great company for home users. But businesses? Less so. Apple needs to change course beyond simply a CPU type if they really want to interest the corp environment. Personally I would like to see a sep OS be created for the business user. We already have a server version of OS X. Why not OS X for businesses. OS X for servers. And OS X for the home user. Three. Not a bagillion versions that MS came out with, with Vista.
Overall I would say stability is pretty much equal. What does set OS X above windows from an IT perspective is a lack of registry. This IMHO is the single greatest blunder that Microsoft ever did. While apps in OS X do leave crap behind it doesn't have a tendency to drag your system down over time. Or as I like to put it. One corrupt registry key could ruin your entire day. I've gone mad trying to troubleshoot an issue in windows when I know the problem lies in a corrupt key somewhere in the registry. A key that isn't being updated or changed for some reason or another.
With the number of keys it literally takes less time to simply reimage a system the sit there and try and figure out where the problem is. The nice thing that I've found is that if you are using parallels for virtualizing XP you can keep a backup copy on your server. No data files are stored in the disk image. That way if you ever have any problems. Or XP gets slow. Simply delete the image, copy it back down from the server, and away you go. 15 minute job vs. a 2 hour one.
I would say my biggest issue with using Macs and OS X in a business environment is the simple fact that the IT industry is built around Windows. ITs tools, its training, its services are all built around MS Windows. From what I've heard service contracts for Macs are substantially more expensive then your standard vanilla PS box. Again though "heard". I would really like to see Gartner do a comprehensive annalist of all the various factors. Ease of use is relative since most people in a business environment have been using Windows for god knows how long. Security is only one piece of the puzzle.
would I recommend Macs in a business environment? Small business say less then 50? Sure. But larger enterprise environments. No. Apple hasn't really shown any initiative to try and make their company corp friendly. Do you know how expensive it would be if MS came out with a new OS every 18 months and started obsoleting their stuff after 3 years? You'd see the computer industry go completely ape crap. Its things like that. Apple is a great company for home users. But businesses? Less so. Apple needs to change course beyond simply a CPU type if they really want to interest the corp environment. Personally I would like to see a sep OS be created for the business user. We already have a server version of OS X. Why not OS X for businesses. OS X for servers. And OS X for the home user. Three. Not a bagillion versions that MS came out with, with Vista.
It's an interesting idea, but I don't see exactly what the difference between a 'business' version of OSX and a 'home' version would be in practice?
XP Pro versus XP Home makes me think this would be a bad thing as XP Home users basically get the short-stick version of XP (and Vista follows that model with extra flavors of random complexity). Would OSX Home users get all the handy tools or would business users just get a slower update track?
I'd definitely like to see the Finder deal with disconnected shares without losing it's little mind and OSX apparently needs 'maturing' on x86, but I don't think adding in another OS model will solve either of these problems.
Furthermore, one of the things that nice about OSX is every model can act as a server, but OSX includes several very nice GUI tools to make that job easier. OSX Server is just really OSX with more cool stuff and is architectually no different from the one running on an iMac.
Sonoran should use Boot Camp or Parallels only if he needs to. Some applications are not available for Mac OS X and there could be no Mac OS X replacement for some applications. It's like this, boot into Windows and use those specific applications and later reboot or go to Mac OS X and use Mac OS X for everything else.
Sonoran should use Boot Camp or Parallels only if he needs to. Some applications are not available for Mac OS X and there could be no Mac OS X replacement for some applications. It's like this, boot into Windows and use those specific applications and later reboot or go to Mac OS X and use Mac OS X for everything else.
I disagree, Parallels is fantasically useful to use that one goofy application that runs only on Windows, but allows you to easily do everything else in OSX. This means you can, for example, create a file with Goofy.exe and then email the results using Mail and surf MacRumors with Safari. Rebooting adds time to the sequence that's uncessary.