| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 56185 | 2005-03-29 11:01:00 | For the mac bashers | plod (107) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 339464 | 2005-03-30 06:42:00 | Everyone is entitled to their own comment and preference. But it is another thing to base facts like "Macs are bad" Or "Windows Sucks" if yuo have not used those Operating systems for more than 2 minutes. |
ILikeLinux (1669) | ||
| 339465 | 2005-03-30 06:44:00 | I don't really care what OS you like or use, I think whatever gets YOUR work done quickly and effectively is your choice. I personally prefer Mac because it gets MY work done well. I support anyone thinking about switching to Mac. Macs may be expensive but they last that extra bit longer and come on, how cool do they look. The back of an iMac is better that the front of most Wintel PCs. But it's your choice and for me it's a Mac. | Squibler (6465) | ||
| 339466 | 2005-03-30 06:57:00 | Mac users generally use or have used Windows systems and are in a position to compare the two operating systems. That is the big difference between a Windows user who has never used Mac OS X and then gives their opinion that it is all spin and not to be believed. That is so true. I have friends who claim Mac OS is terrible, but when you ask them when they last used it you discover that they are remembering Mac OS 8 and the only experience they have with Mac OS X is playing around with it in a shop for a couple of minutes. I think everyone should give a range of operating systems a try before they start claiming the superiority of the one they use. I understand that gamers like Windows better because generally new games come out on Windows a month or so earlier. At the same time it annoys me that some people think that there are no games for Mac OS. People need to get their facts straight before they can make productive comments. I prefer Mac OS X over Windows for many reasons. The two biggest factors for me are stability - my three year old iMac only crashes about once every six months and I am running processor intensive applications most of the time - and usability. I find Mac OS X delivers better in both areas. Not to mention Apple's hardware design is super cool. You can tell everything has been thought through, right down to the very last detail. :D |
maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 339467 | 2005-03-30 07:10:00 | Mac OS is no more stable then XP,and given that XP has to run on a million different hardware configurations with millions of different drivers and hundreds of thousands of different programs this is no mean feat. The amount of games availble for Macs does discount them from being a gamers platform,and just as importantly so does the hardware, They just ain't designed with games in mind....and before anyone states the obvious,this only matters to gamers.... As far as I can recall my Desktop and my laptop have never crashed, Cost far less then any Mac equilivent (actually there is no Mac equilivent due to them having the weakest video chipsets available) and can outperfom Macs that cost twice as much. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 339468 | 2005-03-30 07:18:00 | hundreds of thousand of programs? : "There are about 1000 times more software for PCs" is unprovable since there is no real data on how many applications there are for PCs. However, since this site is not about PCs but about XP, the statement becomes even more questionable, since Microsoft recommends that XP users install not just applications that are compatible with Windows XP, but rather only applications that receive the Designed for Windows XP status: Just a quote from the original link of this topic under bias... |
plod (107) | ||
| 339469 | 2005-04-01 06:29:00 | Just a bit of info I found: Microsoft Windows XP contains about 60-90 million lines of code. Linux Red Hat contains about 5 million. Mac OS X contains about 2.5 million. Does that make it more efficient? Seems to! |
Squibler (6465) | ||
| 339470 | 2005-04-01 06:37:00 | Almost all the code is written in C or C++. The usual assumed error rate is one error in every 20-30 lines of new code. MS were proudly talking about the 40 million lines of new code for XP. Linux (and all *Nixes, including Mac OS X) is mostly code which has been debugged and developed over more than 30 years. Look at the sources for the "Regents of University of California" copyright notices. Wonder why some "service packs" are bigger than whole working OSs? |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 339471 | 2005-04-01 06:40:00 | Wow, what a great rebuttal! Does those 2.5million lines of OSX code include all the drivers that windows has to have? And compatibility issues? Not to mention patches. All that "OMG !t haz l3ss c0ded l0L d00d" says absolutly nothing. All it says is people with small hard drives will have to miss out. And it's harder for people to download. Does that really matter? | Edward (31) | ||
| 339472 | 2005-04-01 06:56:00 | My OS is better than anything else anyone else uses because it suits me better than any other OS. So there! | vinref (6194) | ||
| 339473 | 2005-04-01 11:10:00 | Wow, what a great rebuttal! Does those 2.5million lines of OSX code include all the drivers that windows has to have? And compatibility issues? Not to mention patches. All that "OMG !t haz l3ss c0ded l0L d00d" says absolutly nothing. All it says is people with small hard drives will have to miss out. And it's harder for people to download. Does that really matter? I think you have completely missed the point that Graham L was making. |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||