Windows is getting disgusting

[avrishuvorlaz]

Yeah if you're going to get a mac, which is closed and proprietary like Windows, may as well just go Linux, you'll run into the same set of compatibility issues but at least it's an open platform backed by a large community that will run on commodity hardware.  A mac is a closed black box more or less.

Translation: "I am a Linux fan who wants people to come to the platform I am on, because I use it, regardless of what is easier for the individual person."

This whole "Closed and proprietary" nonsense is not a reason to avoid a platform - I GUARANTEE you the quality of support for Macs is many leagues higher and of a more professional, less argumentative nature than the free for all "too many cooks spoil the broth" of Linux forums.

Linux: Free = "You're on your own, go and READ THE MANAUL <rant rant at user>"

[slicendice]

Windows, Linux, OS X, all same in the end, they just look different. But I must admit that on Linux one can do a bit more when it comes to managing the system, because of the openness. Most stuff that you can hack into a Linux box you can most likely do on OS X too though. On Windows these hacks can be a bit more tricky.

But when it comes to quality software, Windows and OS X are far more superior.

For networking, Linux beats them all. Maybe because it is easy to remove all extra bloat on Linux and recompile, while on OS X or Windows it is not possible.

I don't know...I use them all, they all have their PROS and CONS.

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

[eugenenine]

I have seen Apple's support, it is not any better than Microsoft's.

[james_s]

Macs are very nice systems, we have a few at work and a friend of mine has been a Mac guy for a long time. The hardware is really slick, definitely a notch above most PC clone laptops and the OS is nice and clean, I never cared for Steve Jobs as a person but his extreme attention to detail is reflected in MacOS and iOS.

None of that is important though if it doesn't support the software you use, and I happen to rely heavily on software that only works on Windows or in some cases Linux. I'd have to run one or both of those operating systems anyway even if I had a Mac so it doesn't make much sense to me. I may well get my mom a Macbook when her current Win7 laptop dies, she's not computer literate at all and I think it would save me some support time.

[eugenenine]

But when it comes to quality software, Windows and OS X are far more superior.

Quality software?  Like Excel which has turned a couple of my big projects into .tmp files?  Sharepoint which has lost documents?  .NET which still brings servers to their knees?  Server 2003 bugs which microsoft closes your case with a workaround instead of a fix?

I have to use windows at work and I've had these issues.

[avrishuvorlaz]

I have seen Apple's support, it is not any better than Microsoft's.

You are a survey sample of ONE person, and your viewpoint is not reflected by the masses.

[avrishuvorlaz]

Windows, Linux, OS X, all same in the end, they just look different. But I must admit that on Linux one can do a bit more when it comes to managing the system, because of the openness. Most stuff that you can hack into a Linux box you can most likely do on OS X too though. On Windows these hacks can be a bit more tricky.

But when it comes to quality software, Windows and OS X are far more superior.

For networking, Linux beats them all. Maybe because it is easy to remove all extra bloat on Linux and recompile, while on OS X or Windows it is not possible.

I don't know...I use them all, they all have their PROS and CONS.

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

It's Mac, not "MAC"; it's a name, not an acronym.


It's futile attempting to demonstrate known givens in places like this, everyone's got some "hate" (?!) to spread, based on ignorance and having barely (if at all) having used, let alone TOUCHED a computer running said platform they are attempting to dismiss.

[eugenenine]

I have seen Apple's support, it is not any better than Microsoft's.

You are a survey sample of ONE person, and your viewpoint is not reflected by the masses.

My experience comes from being a local VAR in the GEM market having several customers who just had to have macs and got fed up with the support.

[Cerebus]

Windows, Linux, OS X, all same in the end, they just look different. But I must admit that on Linux one can do a bit more when it comes to managing the system, because of the openness. Most stuff that you can hack into a Linux box you can most likely do on OS X too though. On Windows these hacks can be a bit more tricky.

But when it comes to quality software, Windows and OS X are far more superior.

For networking, Linux beats them all. Maybe because it is easy to remove all extra bloat on Linux and recompile, while on OS X or Windows it is not possible.

I don't know...I use them all, they all have their PROS and CONS.

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

It's Mac, not "MAC"; it's a name, not an acronym.


It's futile attempting to demonstrate known givens in places like this, everyone's got some "hate" (?!) to spread, based on ignorance and having barely (if at all) having used, let alone TOUCHED a computer running said platform they are attempting to dismiss.

Well, I'm typing this on an ageing Core Duo Mac mini, there's two Mac notebooks in the house, also a G5 iMac and a G5 PowerMac both still in daily use (and one linux box in daily use) so this is not a Mac unfriendly household, and yet you still manage to sound like a rabid fanboy to me.

[avrishuvorlaz]

Windows, Linux, OS X, all same in the end, they just look different. But I must admit that on Linux one can do a bit more when it comes to managing the system, because of the openness. Most stuff that you can hack into a Linux box you can most likely do on OS X too though. On Windows these hacks can be a bit more tricky.

But when it comes to quality software, Windows and OS X are far more superior.

For networking, Linux beats them all. Maybe because it is easy to remove all extra bloat on Linux and recompile, while on OS X or Windows it is not possible.

I don't know...I use them all, they all have their PROS and CONS.

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

It's Mac, not "MAC"; it's a name, not an acronym.


It's futile attempting to demonstrate known givens in places like this, everyone's got some "hate" (?!) to spread, based on ignorance and having barely (if at all) having used, let alone TOUCHED a computer running said platform they are attempting to dismiss.

Well, I'm typing this on an ageing Core Duo Mac mini, there's two Mac notebooks in the house, also a G5 iMac and a G5 PowerMac both still in daily use (and one linux box in daily use) so this is not a Mac unfriendly household, and yet you still manage to sound like a rabid fanboy to me.

With all those Macs, YOU sound like the fanboy! :p hehe

I was pulling your leg

[nctnico]

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

Just must be joking. Windows 3.11 already had protected memory so a misbehaving program didn't take the whole system down unlike what would happen on a MAC: total crash.

[Cerebus]

Just must be joking. Windows 3.11 already had protected memory so a misbehaving program didn't take the whole system down

  If I had a pound for every time I ended up staring at a blue screen on a machine running 3.11 I would be considerably richer. Heck, I had days it wouldn't finish booting and would blue screen just connecting to LAN Manager shares.

[avrishuvorlaz]

Just must be joking. Windows 3.11 already had protected memory so a misbehaving program didn't take the whole system down

  If I had a pound for every time I ended up staring at a blue screen on a machine running 3.11 I would be considerably richer. Heck, I had days it wouldn't finish booting and would blue screen just connecting to LAN Manager shares.

If I had £1 for every time my Mac has crashed on me, I'd have... about £3   

[senso]

Problem is the user, I have 4 laptops for work and personal use(one on my bed to watch series, a gaming laptop tethered to a display, mouse, headset, keyboard, a work-related one and my old work laptop), none as suffered a BSOD in years...

None of them is super recent(3 of them are i7-4700 based), all four have SSD's(ranging from 128 to 480GB), the gaming laptop as currently 1GB of games, plus Solidworks, Autodesk Fusion, Eagle, Visual Studio, phyton something, and a lot of other small crap.

ZERO BSOD's, none is running anything else than MS anti-virus with the monthly or 2 month Malwarebytes scan, I only use Chrome because all my laptops have 16GB-32GB RAM, Chrome is always running with Ghostery, ADP,AD, uBlock, h.264ify, RES and https everywhere.

I dont have problems with virus, nor malware, nor trojans, nor anything like that, I can understand how people get their systems full of crap and get lots of BSOD's due to shitty Toshiba hdd's in laptops, besides that, you must be toying around with shit like Driver Booster because downloading legit drivers is hard, and crap like system cleaners and optimizers that like to dip their toes in the Registry because it makes the OS faster...

I have used linux for years as well, today, only in a VM, not much need about it, and when every reboot it wants another 300MB of updates I got feedup pretty fast..

[avrishuvorlaz]

Problem is the user, I have 4 laptops for work and personal use(one on my bed to watch series, a gaming laptop tethered to a display, mouse, headset, keyboard, a work-related one and my old work laptop), none as suffered a BSOD in years...

None of them is super recent(3 of them are i7-4700 based), all four have SSD's(ranging from 128 to 480GB), the gaming laptop as currently 1GB of games, plus Solidworks, Autodesk Fusion, Eagle, Visual Studio, phyton something, and a lot of other small crap.

ZERO BSOD's, none is running anything else than MS anti-virus with the monthly or 2 month Malwarebytes scan, I only use Chrome because all my laptops have 16GB-32GB RAM, Chrome is always running with Ghostery, ADP,AD, uBlock, h.264ify, RES and https everywhere.

I dont have problems with virus, nor malware, nor trojans, nor anything like that, I can understand how people get their systems full of crap and get lots of BSOD's due to shitty Toshiba hdd's in laptops, besides that, you must be toying around with shit like Driver Booster because downloading legit drivers is hard, and crap like system cleaners and optimizers that like to dip their toes in the Registry because it makes the OS faster...

I have used linux for years as well, today, only in a VM, not much need about it, and when every reboot it wants another 300MB of updates I got feedup pretty fast..

You talk about 300MB as if it's a lot of data... that's the 2017 equivalent of 30Kb.

[senso]

Welcome to living part of the week in a village with 2Mb's of download(thank you ADSL), and when I used ubuntu/mint/arch THAT is a lot of data to be downloaded everyday..

Currently in that place I have 4G(limited to 20Mb down, 10Mb up, no data caps), the rest of the week I have fiber(but its just 120Mb down, but more than enough for me).

[james_s]

While I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where broadband is pretty much standard, I think a lot of tech workers exist in a bubble utterly unaware that there are hundreds of thousands of people even in first world developed nations who do not have access to broadband. Many thousands of people still use dialup just like we did in the 90s, it hasn't changed much. If you don't have access to broadband, 300MB is as big a download now as it was 20 years ago.

[rsjsouza]

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

Just must be joking. Windows 3.11 already had protected memory so a misbehaving program didn't take the whole system down unlike what would happen on a MAC: total crash.

Despite your assertive is correct on both accounts, Windows 3.11 had huge holes in HW management and multitasking (the then called cooperative multitasking). Applications brought a system down by holding on to the CPU without yielding to the kernel, either because they simply crashed or because they were waiting on a HW resource.
Macs, as you said, were simply too reckless with memory and the lack of true multitasking never allowed a fair comparison with Windows - it was always a heavy conjecture a Mac system outperformed Windows until they migrated to Intel processors. By then, it was evident the claims of higher performance were only marginal and the only tangible benefit was a much more streamlined integration with hardware and ease of use.

[CraigHB]

Surprised Windows 3.11 is even coming up in this discussion.  For me it was a really poor product, constant crashes.  Windows XP was the most stable MS product I've run.  It could give Linux a run for the money.  It was even more stable than the Win7 installation I'm on currently.  Don't know if I got lucky with just the right hardware or what, but I tend to think it was more a design thing, XP was just done right.

For me it's not as much a matter of the platform as it is the software I can run on it.  Mac, Linux, Windows, it's all just the foundation to house the software.  From my own experience, Windows seems to be the ubiquitous platform for software.  If developers wanted to they could hoist Linux or Mac up to the same standing, but they don't do it.  There's a good amount of software that's just not available for anything but Windows.

If you don't mind running various platforms it's not so much a problem.  For me, I want one machine and one installation to handle all my needs, not a bunch of devices or virtual machines crowding up my life.  In that case I'm pretty much stuck with Windows.  Software makers always develop for Windows first then ports to Mac and Linux seem to be an afterthought.  If that changes I'll have zero issue with running something else.

[CatalinaWOW]

Surprised Windows 3.11 is even coming up in this discussion.  For me it was a really poor product, constant crashes.  Windows XP was the most stable MS product I've run.  It could give Linux a run for the money.  It was even more stable than the Win7 installation I'm on currently.  Don't know if I got lucky with just the right hardware or what, but I tend to think it was more a design thing, XP was just done right.

For me it's not as much a matter of the platform as it is the software I can run on it.  Mac, Linux, Windows, it's all just the foundation to house the software.  From my own experience, Windows seems to be the ubiquitous platform for software.  If developers wanted to they could hoist Linux or Mac up to the same standing, but they don't do it.  There's a good amount of software that's just not available for anything but Windows.

If you don't mind running various platforms it's not so much a problem.  For me, I want one machine and one installation to handle all my needs, not a bunch of devices or virtual machines crowding up my life.  In that case I'm pretty much stuck with Windows.  Software makers always develop for Windows first then ports to Mac and Linux seem to be an afterthought.  If that changes I'll have zero issue with running something else.

I agree in general, but not in detail.  There have been superior programs in both the Mac and Linux world that either never became available in Windows, or have been slow to develop and poorly supported.  But if you have to have a single platform with the widest availability of software, Windows is definitely it.

[slicendice]

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

Just must be joking. Windows 3.11 already had protected memory so a misbehaving program didn't take the whole system down unlike what would happen on a MAC: total crash.

Despite your assertive is correct on both accounts, Windows 3.11 had huge holes in HW management and multitasking (the then called cooperative multitasking). Applications brought a system down by holding on to the CPU without yielding to the kernel, either because they simply crashed or because they were waiting on a HW resource.
Macs, as you said, were simply too reckless with memory and the lack of true multitasking never allowed a fair comparison with Windows - it was always a heavy conjecture a Mac system outperformed Windows until they migrated to Intel processors. By then, it was evident the claims of higher performance were only marginal and the only tangible benefit was a much more streamlined integration with hardware and ease of use.

I think rsjsouza is understanding what I meant, the rest of you have just stuck on the OS itself. I talk about the whole system. Mac was more superior in the days of PowerPC just like the Amiga was superior to any computer during that time. Today there's no difference between a Mac and a Windows PC, buy either one and you get same crap, just with different software.

[slicendice]

But when it comes to quality software, Windows and OS X are far more superior.

Quality software?  Like Excel which has turned a couple of my big projects into .tmp files?  Sharepoint which has lost documents?  .NET which still brings servers to their knees?  Server 2003 bugs which microsoft closes your case with a workaround instead of a fix?

I have to use windows at work and I've had these issues.

You must be having some user error/configuration issues. Something is not configured right. Maybe security is not good enough and you got hacked. I have never ever had any issues with Office, Sharepoint, Windows Server, or any Microsoft products for that matter ever since Windows 1.0 was released. Nor have I had any issues with any Linux, Amiga or Mac box either.

It is funny that people keep finding problems in products when the problem most of the time is the user. :-D

EDIT: I am currently running Windows 10 Beta software, and have no issues what so ever. Only 3 builds were bad for my hardware, the rest has been running more or less without glitches.

[Zero999]

EDIT: A MAC was superior to all of the other computers while they still were PowerPCs, but after they degraded their system to Intel X86_64 architecture MACs are just PCs. :-)

Just must be joking. Windows 3.11 already had protected memory so a misbehaving program didn't take the whole system down unlike what would happen on a MAC: total crash.

A rouge program could still easily cause the Windows 3.11 to crash though because it allowed ordinary programs direct access to much of the hardware.

[Sigmoid]

I think rsjsouza is understanding what I meant, the rest of you have just stuck on the OS itself. I talk about the whole system. Mac was more superior in the days of PowerPC just like the Amiga was superior to any computer during that time. Today there's no difference between a Mac and a Windows PC, buy either one and you get same crap, just with different software.

Was it? The PowerPC cpus were a joke. The blasted things easily doubled as space heaters. Performance per watts was a decade behind Intel, heck even AMD would have wiped the floor with them on that, and that's saying something.

It's popular to bash the x86/PC architecture because it "grew organically" and has a lot of "legacy crap", but ultimately, it's come a very long way, and I really don't see any objective (ie. non-aesthetic) argument why it would be inferior to anything else. I'm one of the idiots that bought into this with Amiga, with ia64, with second Jobs-era Macs, but ultimately I realized all this is just hipster snobbery, nothing else.

The thing that made makes Apple computers "superior" is the build quality. They aren't "the best", but they are really good, and that's probably enough. The first time I've seen the mainboard of an iMac, I threw a backflip; the board layout was a literal work of art. It was beautiful - not just the emergent beauty of something well-made, but conscious, "let's make this look as good as it works", "put in the extra effort" beautiful, like a little cityscape built of capacitors, resistors and ICs.

It was never an outdated and overhyped processor architecture that gave Macs their flavor. It was just something to wave around, like kids back in the day shouting in the playground about whose games console has "more bits".

[nctnico]

Just must be joking. Windows 3.11 already had protected memory so a misbehaving program didn't take the whole system down

If I had a pound for every time I ended up staring at a blue screen on a machine running 3.11 I would be considerably richer. Heck, I had days it wouldn't finish booting and would blue screen just connecting to LAN Manager shares.

Ofcourse you need to have a good PC to begin with. 99.9% of Windows stability problems come from cheap crap hardware. In all fairness you have to realise there is not much MS can do about that (and this is probably the reason Apple is so hell bound on running their software on their hardware only). However on good hardware a misbehaving program triggers an exception and only the data in that program is lost. I've seen enough problems on the old (pre x86) MACs where a misbehaving program takes the entire machine down and you'll lose all the data you didn't save.