Why is Mac's OSX so stable?

[avro707]

Windows 7 is very stable, especially on a Mac Pro Xeon 64-bit workstation.

However, it is also slow running compared with Mac OS X. Windows takes more than double the time to start on the same machine. Once running, it's fast enough though.

 

[maflynn]

However, it is also slow running compared with Mac OS X. Windows takes more than double the time to start on the same machine. Once running, it's fast enough though.

Yes, windows boot up can be slower the OSX, but I've never seen OSX run faster then windows ever. Don't get me wrong, I prefer OSX, but windows is faster

 

[dusk007]

Yes, windows boot up can be slower the OSX, but I've never seen OSX run faster then windows ever. Don't get me wrong, I prefer OSX, but windows is faster

I agree. Forget boot times they can be tweaked and since you use standby (if you are smart) they really don't matter but if you throw similar workload on it Windows 7 performs better than OSX on my MBP.
OSX is not bad but Windows just feels more performance optimized. OSX more battery optimized.

As to the thread topic. After I bought my MBP I used OSX a little than mostly Windows 7 64bit for a few months. Then a few months till now mostly OSX. Windows 7 is definitely more stable and had less issues on this very same MBP. If something crashes or stops doing what it is supposed to Windows 7 handles that easily and without slowing down anything else. OSX had some kernel panics and sometimes one process managed to kill a lot of performance. In OSX I only played around with NTFS drivers and other than that only normal apps, never any tweaking tools or similar stuff. In Windows I played around with overclocking, GPU drivers and all kinds of stuff. Thus from what I put it through Windows should have felt less stable if they were equally stable at the same stress level.
I prefer OSX for work most of the time but stability and speed are definitely not the reason.

 

[snberk103]

I agree. Forget boot times they can be tweaked and since you use standby (if you are smart) they really don't matter but if you throw similar workload on it Windows 7 performs better than OSX on my MBP.
OSX is not bad but Windows just feels more performance optimized. OSX more battery optimized.

This is more of a comparison of OS X as tuned for your MBP. Obviously OS X may not be battery optimized while running on an iMac or MP. It would be interesting to hear from those users.

As to the thread topic. After I bought my MBP I used OSX a little than mostly Windows 7 64bit for a few months. Then a few months till now mostly OSX. Windows 7 is definitely more stable and had less issues on this very same MBP. If something crashes or stops doing what it is supposed to Windows 7 handles that easily and without slowing down anything else. OSX had some kernel panics and sometimes one process managed to kill a lot of performance. In OSX I only played around with NTFS drivers and other than that only normal apps, never any tweaking tools or similar stuff.

We must have different setups. I've never had a kernel panic, near as I can remember. Though I've had my MBP for nearly 3 years now, so perhaps I've had one or two that I've forgotten. The only issue I have is Safari (I can get it so bogged down, I need to force quit it.... happens every couple of months). Currently using Snow Leopard. Was on Leopard as soon as it came out. Mostly I do word processing and use Capture One on this system, and online research using Safari.

My point is that one can't generalize about OS X based on just your experiences.

I don't use Windows at all, and my only exposure is to my wife's XP that we set up as a VM on her MBP.

In Windows I played around with overclocking, GPU drivers and all kinds of stuff. Thus from what I put it through Windows should have felt less stable if they were equally stable at the same stress level.
I prefer OSX for work most of the time but stability and speed are definitely not the reason.

For what I do (photography) I've not had any reason to use Windows. I'm not philosophically against it, I'm just happy to keep my life simple and efficient....

 

[GGJstudios]

Sorry, don't mean to rude, but you sound rather like you have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree. After displaying their lack of knowledge and understanding in a battery thread, now I see the same going on in this thread:

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.

You're really naive enough to believe you can determine the contents of an update, merely by the size of the update file? You can't.

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

It's obvious you don't know how patching or object oriented programming works.

Just get a USB key to keep your files on it.

Files on a USB key are no more secure than any other. In fact, many viruses have been transmitted from one computer to another via USB keys.

 

[Jisuo]

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.

Please, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just stop before you embarrass yourself too much.

 

[munkery]

Why is it stable?

Because it is full of horses. Hardy har har. LOL