Why is Mac's OSX so stable?

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Not being rude, but please don't repeat what others (M$ fans/internet blogs etc.) say about Windows 7. It feels just as slow and is just as complicated as Vista. Not sure why people keep saying it's the best OS M$ has made... except due to marketing...?

Because it is the best OS Microsoft has made. Vista/W7 is far, far more secure than XP-- and that makes it better, pure and simple. Lots of old legacy software with broken installation setups will not install on Vista/W7 except with the special XP jail (if installed). That is a good thing.

 

[AzN1337c0d3r]

Not being rude, but please don't repeat what others (M$ fans/internet blogs etc.) say about Windows 7. It feels just as slow and is just as complicated as Vista. Not sure why people keep saying it's the best OS M$ has made... except due to marketing...?

Have you actually looked at the numbers of Windows 7 vs Windows Vista vs Windows XP.

Here's some clues:

Performance in Windows 7 is on-par with (or even better in some cases, due to advanced drivers/framework support) XP in terms of performance.

Note how the numbers are much closer to the XP numbers than the Vista numbers. Windows 7 is also running several advanced background services that XP didnt have to contend with.

While the link I gave only mentions 4 benchmarks, there are plenty of other reviews on numerous websites that are easily available via Google Search and I'm not going to do your homework for you.


Battery life is better on Windows 7 for netbooks and laptops than Windows Vista is another major advantage over Windows Vista.

There's tons of other reasons for other people to upgrade to Win 7, but to say that it is not better than Vista in any way but marketing is a mind-boggling assertion.

 

[MisterMe]

Honestly Os X is not Unix and it is not fair to call it that. ...

The Open Group disagrees with you in no uncertain terms.

 

[2097]

All MS Windows versions starting from Windows ME have been excellent operating systems until someone does a Windows Update. Microsoft will never learn that they CAN'T update the OS by patching it.

Windows 7 is great until you do all those patching updates that slow the system down. Kernel error after Kernel error. A Kernel cannot be patched; it needs to be replaced completely. Something MS will never understand.

Whenever an update is done on Mac OS X or Linux, the file size's are extremely big; telling us that they replaced the whole Kernel with the new version compiled from the ground up.

People that bash Windows 7 are those that do the updates. You can be Microsoft and pinch pennies or be like Mac OS X and do the job properly.

Thats why Mac OS X is stable.

 

[treichert]

All MS Windows versions starting from Windows ME have been excellent operating systems until someone does a Windows Update. Microsoft will never learn that they CAN'T update the OS by patching it.

Windows 7 is great until you do all those patching updates that slow the system down. Kernel error after Kernel error. A Kernel cannot be patched; it needs to be replaced completely. Something MS will never understand.

Whenever an update is done on Mac OS X or Linux, the file size's are extremely big; telling us that they replaced the whole Kernel with the new version compiled from the ground up.

People that bash Windows 7 are those that do the updates. You can be Microsoft and pinch pennies or be like Mac OS X and do the job properly.

Thats why Mac OS X is stable.

I'm sorry but that sounds like complete bullsh**.

Why wouldn't you be able to patch a kernel just like you patch any other kind of software?
Does MS even do it like you say they do?
Why would it be more unstable and dangerous to patch a kernel and then reload it upon reboot (after all, the patched version will be bit-identical to the newer "complete" version, just like with Delta-Updates of Mac OS X)?


There's also absolutely no issues in updating Windows 7, Vista, XP, ME, 98, 95, NT 4......
That argument was actually brought up by total noobs in the Windows-world years ago and I always found it to be extremely funny because I was doing updates with absolutely no issues whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong: Updates on Windows are about a million times more annoying than on Mac OS X, but what they don't do is break the system more often then they do on Mac OS X (which in my experience happens in 0% of all the cases).

 

[AppleMacFinder]

Honestly Os X is not Unix and it is not fair to call it that!

Mac OS X Snow Leopard is 100% UNIX compliant!

Proof :

http://www.apple.com/ru/server/macosx/technology/unix.html
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3581.htm
http://www.unix.org/unix03.html

 

[Azathoth]

No, really, just intellectually curious as to why unix is so durable as opposed to Windows, which is plagued with problems.

Unix was developed over 30-40 years for multi-user environments.
Windows has its heritage in DOS and CP/M meant mainly for hobbyists and running on systems with much less resources than the multiuser Unix systems of the time.


Much of DOS / Windows was developed before networking became popular in office environments. A boss had a secretary who would type his letters. Email didn't exist for most businesses. Therefore there was no need for security beyond a password.

As businesses moved to local computing (rather than mainframe systems), the IBM PC and its clones became popular and with it DOS. Later progressing to Windows. By this stage 90% of the world was running MS based OS (Windows 3.1 / DOS). MS has always been about legacy support - business customers demand it, so you cannot make fundemental changes to the OS, breaking many programs. No, you cannot just "recompile" a program to make it work under Unix.

A decade of recent Linux experience has shown me that even most Linux flavours are not really that compatible.

A lot of programs were developed for the Windows (and DOS) environments with specific HW at their base. Now it's a given that HW resources are "abstracted", through a HAL from the OS - because processor speeds and functions to do this have increased - this was not possible in earlier Intel systems without significant performance penalties.

Apple controls the hardware - MS has to support an effectively infinite number of combinations of plugin cards, graphics, processor architectures.

Now don't forget that *before* OS X, Apple OSes were unstable cr0p (according to our office Linux aficionado). By the time that OS X was released, processor speed and functions has increased including a lot of work on virtualisation. Combined with the relatively small market share in the business sector, this allowed Apple to make a "fresh start".

Looking at the situation now, Windows 7 is really rather stable - I ran the beta for over a year and remember having 2 OS crashes.
Ive been trying to explain OS X to my father (an old Windows user) and to be honest OS X preferences and system settings are pretty scattered as well - though not quite as bad as Windows (which has way more settings that can be tweaked by the user).

And yes I needed to delete some /Library/plist files earlier this week in order to get my networking to work again (it wouldn't get a DHCP assigned address) - so Win7 and OS X aren't that different

 

[Avro]

Even if Microsoft switched to a Unix platform, this would still be a problem.

The funny thing is that I find Linux, on a variety of hardware, to be just about as stable as OS X and a lot more stable than Windows.

If Apple ever did give up on the Mac I would head for Linux rather than Windows.

Not that I think that is going to happen.

 

[Dr McKay]

I would say Windows 7 is damn stable. I got a bad impression of OS X when I had to use Tiger on the Mac Pros at College for Photoshop and Final Cut, and they'd beachball at everything, and 50/50 chance of them fatally crashing when asked to render video, forcing a restart and losing my data.

But apart from some dodgy Vista video drivers my laptop is still using it has been smooth sailing.

 

[fswmacguy]

When Windows gets a proper shell, and some proper IDEs (such as Espresso and Coda), then I might consider using it. Dreamweaver is the primary IDE for Windows and, let's face it, Dreamweaver is a heaping pile of crap.

The 'command prompt' in Windows is a joke. Terminal is just so handy and helpful.

 

[MisterMe]

...
Windows has its heritage in DOS and CP/M meant mainly for hobbyists and running on systems with much less resources than the multiuser Unix systems of the time.


Much of DOS / Windows was developed before networking became popular in office environments. A boss had a secretary who would type his letters. Email didn't exist for most businesses. Therefore there was no need for security beyond a password.

....

A few comments:

• Windows Me was the last MS-DOS-based version of Windows. Windows 7, Vista, XP, and 2000 are based on Windows NT which has nothing to do with MS-DOS except for a compatibility environment.
• MS-DOS was a rip-off of CP/M. Intergalactic Digital Research, the developer of CP/M bears no responsibility for the many flaws in MS-DOS.
• The worst Windows viruses in history were Windows NT viruses and did not affect MS-DOS-based versions of the OS.
• Linux is installed on more varieties of hardware than Windows, but it does not have the stability problems that bring Windows low.
• Your office Linux aficionado is parroting nonsense about Mac stability pre-MacOS X. In its entire history, Macs had something like 26 Mac-only viruses prior to MacOS X--most of those affecting System 7 or earlier. The Mac's other stability issue was the indiscriminate use of user-installed third-party Extensions. Often users never bothered to install readily-available free updates to these problematic Extensions. Even at that, the Extension Manager allowed the user to rearrange the loading order of Extensions so as to eliminate conflicts.
• My most vexing pre-MacOS X stability was actually a Microsoft issue. The Microsoft library required by latter versions of Outlook Express is incompatible with Office 98.

Take away Microsoft software and a working installation of MacOS 8 [or MacOS 9] would run for years without issue. Users needed not fear updating their working software. This from a Mac user since 1989.

 

[2097]

I'm sorry but that sounds like complete bullsh**.

Why wouldn't you be able to patch a kernel just like you patch any other kind of software?
Does MS even do it like you say they do?
Why would it be more unstable and dangerous to patch a kernel and then reload it upon reboot (after all, the patched version will be bit-identical to the newer "complete" version, just like with Delta-Updates of Mac OS X)?


There's also absolutely no issues in updating Windows 7, Vista, XP, ME, 98, 95, NT 4......
That argument was actually brought up by total noobs in the Windows-world years ago and I always found it to be extremely funny because I was doing updates with absolutely no issues whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong: Updates on Windows are about a million times more annoying than on Mac OS X, but what they don't do is break the system more often then they do on Mac OS X (which in my experience happens in 0% of all the cases).

Of course they do. It's common sense. NT Kernel is a lot bigger than a 5-10 MByte update. Last Mac OS X update(10.6.5) was 977MB in size; replacing the whole kernel with a new compiled one. Same with ubuntu linux, they replace the kernel with a new compiled one.

What is the point in compiling software if you believe patching software doesn't affect performance?

Lets keep patching the kernel and never compile it again. I really would love to see how far MS can take it with this.

Patching = modifying compiled code. Really MS?

Patching is the act of going all frankenstein on compiled code.

 

[munkery]

People that bash Windows 7 are those that do the updates. You can be Microsoft and pinch pennies or be like Mac OS X and do the job properly.

And, if you don't install the "patch" updates, you are leaving known exploitable vulnerabilities uncorrected such that anybody using metasploit can make malware that can affect your system. Updates are necessary for security reasons.

 

[treichert]

Of course they do. It's common sense. NT Kernel is a lot bigger than a 5-10 MByte update. Last Mac OS X update(10.6.5) was 977MB in size; replacing the whole kernel with a new compiled one. Same with ubuntu linux, they replace the kernel with a new compiled one.

What is the point in compiling software if you believe patching software doesn't affect performance?

Lets keep patching the kernel and never compile it again. I really would love to see how far MS can take it with this.

Patching = modifying compiled code. Really MS?

Patching is the act of going all frankenstein on compiled code.

Mac OS X's kernel file is also just about 8MB.

Also, the 977MB of Mac OS X were mostly stuff that has nothing to do with the kernel (like any other system update).

 

[snberk103]

What is not being mentioned here is that Windows NT is based on IBM's OS/2. There was a short period when IBM and MS were collaborating on a GUI that was to replace DOS. When that collaboration fell apart, IBM's continued with it and released OS/2 (there was a period when Windows 3.1 code was included as part of OS/2, as an option, and OS/2 could run Win 3.1 programs natively.)

MS continued with their bits of the project and turned it into NT.

IBM started the OS/2 project by taking some of the concepts of Unix, and translating them into a PC OS. So, OS/2 was modular, it had a great command line, it could any number of file systems as plugins, it had it pre-emptive memory management, etc etc. It was an amazing OS, written in, iirc, Assembler - so it fast and small.

The GUI that sat on top of it was also revolutionary, but had nothing to do with Unix or DOS, so I won't go into here.

ps All of the above is from memory. I do not guarantee it's exactly factually correct. But the essence is true.

Except that, IBM and Apple collaborated for a period on a GUI, iirc called Taligent, that was object oriented. IBM took those ideas and implemented a whole bunch as part of OS/2. Apple took some of the ideas. I wish they had taken more, there was some incredible things one could do with OS/2. I wish I had WorkPlace Folders on OS X.

OS/2 was then licensed to an outfit, and is being maintained in a fashion, as eComstation.

 

[2097]

And, if you don't install the "patch" updates, you are leaving known exploitable vulnerabilities uncorrected such that anybody using metasploit can make malware that can affect your system. Updates are necessary for security reasons.

People actually get exploited(local exploits) by clicking on ads, using illegal software and clicking ads on porn sites.

When I use to live with my family and had a windows laptop. I was the only one without a virus scanner. My PC was also open to the internet with DMZ and the ISP network IP was open to the outside world. Nothing happen to my laptop. I had to re-install windows countless times on my families computers because of their stupidity of clicking on ads.

Remote exploits are rare. What is the hacker/cracker going to steal from a home computer? My email address? Seriously?

 

[Sydde]

Of course they do. It's common sense. NT Kernel is a lot bigger than a 5-10 MByte update. Last Mac OS X update(10.6.5) was 977MB in size; replacing the whole kernel with a new compiled one. Same with ubuntu linux, they replace the kernel with a new compiled one.

Sorry, don't mean to rude, but you sound rather like you have no idea what you are talking about. Mac OS X does not have the same sort of kernel as Linux. The kernel on a Mac (mach/xnu microkernel) is one or 2 files, around 20Mb. The main part of the system (usr/ and System/Library/) add up to around 4 to 5 Gb. Updates will typically replace hundreds of individual files (applications, frameworks, dylibs, etc), but not necessarily the kernel itself.

 

[2097]

Sorry, don't mean to rude, but you sound rather like you have no idea what you are talking about. Mac OS X does not have the same sort of kernel as Linux. The kernel on a Mac (mach/xnu microkernel) is one or 2 files, around 20Mb. The main part of the system (usr/ and System/Library/) add up to around 4 to 5 Gb. Updates will typically replace hundreds of individual files (applications, frameworks, dylibs, etc), but not necessarily the kernel itself.

You need to learn how to read. I never stated they had the same kernel.

The point is that patching is wrong. Ever done a fresh install of XP, done all the updates and when you restart you get a blue screen?

What is with everyone and the wikipedia history lesson on how MS fuc*ed over IBM????

 

[treichert]

sorry, don't mean to rude, but you sound rather like you have no idea what you are talking about. Mac os x does not have the same sort of kernel as linux. The kernel on a mac (mach/xnu microkernel) is one or 2 files, around 20mb. The main part of the system (usr/ and system/library/) add up to around 4 to 5 gb. Updates will typically replace hundreds of individual files (applications, frameworks, dylibs, etc), but not necessarily the kernel itself.

qfe

 

[munkery]

People actually get exploited(local exploits) by clicking on ads, using illegal software and clicking ads on porn sites.

When I use to live with my family and had a windows laptop. I was the only one without a virus scanner. My PC was also open to the internet with DMZ and the ISP network IP was open to the outside world. Nothing happen to my laptop. I had to re-install windows countless times on my families computers because of their stupidity of clicking on ads.

Remote exploits are rare. What is the hacker/cracker going to steal from a home computer? My email address? Seriously?

Last time I checked, Windows updates included updates to vulnerable default client side programs (IE & WMP) that are exploited remotely.

Clicking on an ad and getting exploited is a REMOTE exploit. Browsers can get exploited by the content of a webpage just by visiting a webpage; especially IE as its security mechanisms are often negated by the installation of extensions (ActiveX). I think you are confusing remote exploits with privilege escalation exploits (priv esc is rare but unnecessary for users or processes with superuser privileges).

Also, as shown by DLL hijacking and the fact that many clients side programs (games) need superuser privileges (run as Administrator), Windows has many more vectors for remote root exploitation that can occur in the wild. Remote root = a remote exploit with privilege escalation.

Remote roots equal more than just your email address. These exploits can write to anywhere in the OS.

 

[2097]

Last time I checked, Windows updates included updates to vulnerable default client side programs (IE & WMP) that are exploited remotely.

Clicking on an ad and getting exploited is a REMOTE exploit. Browsers can get exploited by the content of a webpage just by visiting a webpage; especially, IE as its security mechanisms are often negated by the installation of extensions (ActiveX).

Also, as shown by DLL hijacking and the fact that many clients side programs (games) need superuser privileges (run as Administrator), Windows has many more vectors for remote root exploitation that can occur in the wild.

Remote roots equal more than just your email address. These exploits can write to anywhere in the OS.

IE is exploited by clicking on ads and WMP is exploited by playing content that is located on the internet. Its always the users fault and their stupidity.

People excessively worry and that gets hackers all excited. Just get a USB key to keep your files on it. Who would actually keep their credit card number in a text file? I bet there is those lazy people.

I don't see what is so exciting about gaining access to a computer with nothing important on it. Its like entering an empty room.

The only thing other than money would be bandwidth for piracy.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

OS X only appears more stable because it's based off of a 40 year old OS, supported on limited hardware, without many malware writers targeting it. Older versions of OS X for Intel (10.4), early versions of OS X (10.2), or OS X running on unsupported hardware, is much much less stable.

Once malware writers start targeting OS X en mass, it wont be much better off than Windows... you may find it to be much worse actually.

Not being rude, but please don't repeat what others (M$ fans/internet blogs etc.) say about Windows 7. It feels just as slow and is just as complicated as Vista. Not sure why people keep saying it's the best OS M$ has made... except due to marketing...?

Probably because they used it, and realized it's the best OS that Microsoft has ever made... just a guess though

A few comments:

• Linux is installed on more varieties of hardware than Windows, but it does not have the stability problems that bring Windows low.

Well, last time I tried out linux, which was sometime in 2007, you're right. It didn't have stability issues. It was rock solid... until I would reboot, then it wouldn't reboot.

The other thing you forget is that you can't do anywhere near as much with linux as you can with Windows or even OS X. The GUI (in 2007 anyway) was 2D, couldn't 3d accelerate without a LOT of work, which 1/2 the time didn't work, and the program library is much weaker.

Sure maybe Linux is rock stable, but there's no photoshop, no final cut, no iTunes, no video games, and no office. And by the time I've finished installing the programs to run photoshop, iTunes, WoW, and Office, I might as well as be running a PC.

 

[munkery]

IE is exploited by clicking on ads and WMP is exploited by playing content that is located on the internet. Its always the users fault and their stupidity.

No. IE is exploited just by visiting a maliciously crafted webpage. You do not need to click an ad for many Javascript & Flash exploits. So, if you don't visit webpages and/or watch videos, what do you do on the internet?

People excessively worry and that gets hackers all excited. Just get a USB key to keep your files on it. Who would actually keep their credit card number in a text file? I bet there is those lazy people.

Remote roots allow viruses and worms that can collect your keystrokes while internet banking to be installed.

I don't see what is so exciting about gaining access to a computer with nothing important on it. Its like entering an empty room.

I totally agree but not everyone can do that. So, I prefer an OS that has a better history of being able to insulate the stuff that matters from the stuff that doesn't matter.

 

[snberk103]

...

Once malware writers start targeting OS X en mass, it wont be much better off than Windows... you may find it to be much worse actually.
...

Respectively, I disagree. Apple has spent as much as they needed to make OS X as safe as it needs to be. To spend more at this stage is a waste of money. How many fewer Macs would be compromised if Apple doubled their security budget?

I would like to think that as widespread exploits are released that Apple will spend what it takes to close the holes. And I think they would..... they get a lot of sales based on the "Macs don't get viruses" perception.

The analogy is ... if you lived in a place where it didn't snow, then spending money on snow tires is not necessarily the best use of money. The technology exists, and while you would be safer should it snow, you would pay the price of a performance hit the rest of the time. However, the moment snow became more common you would put up the snow tires on, and at that point it would make sense to.

Macs are still in a snow-less environment. Only Apple knows if they are ready for snow, but I think they are.

 

[munkery]

Once malware writers start targeting OS X en mass, it wont be much better off than Windows... you may find it to be much worse actually.

Once OS X has a greater market share, there will be an increase in the number of easily avoided trojans such as already are targeting OS X. These can be easily avoided with user knowledge (for example, don't password authenticate install prompts you have not explicitly initiated). AV software can not prevent infection from novel trojans that rely solely on social engineering.

Apple has spent as much as they needed to make OS X as safe as it needs to be. To spend more at this stage is a waste of money. How many fewer Macs would be compromised if Apple doubled their security budget?

Apple is criticized for lack of some security mitigations for 32 bit processes but 32 bit security mitigations can be defeated even if well implemented. So, why waste money securing 32 bit processes when you can spend the money making them 64 bit, which has other benefits. This appears to be the route taken by Apple.

Also, Apple is developing Webkit2, which uses the split-process model, to sandbox the browser to prevent exploitation via third party plugins with weak security (Flash, etc).