The rest of the world wakes up to windows XP:
Saturday, July 12, 2003 by Bliss980 old | Discussion: WinCustomize News
A year and a half after Windows XP shipped, the OS is finally getting the respect it deserves. According to the most recent "PC Magazine" annual reader survey, PC service and reliability have improved this year, thanks mostly to XP. "XP has brought consumers the stability of Microsoft's corporate operating systems, Windows NT, and 2000, replacing the relatively volatile Windows 95, 98, and Me," the report reads. "If an OS performs better, so does the hardware it controls ... This year, 44 percent of the [17,000] rated desktop PCs run Windows XP. And the users of Win XP machines are considerably happier with their desktops than respondents running other versions of Windows." The report reveals that XP crashes less often than other Windows versions, too: 37 percent of respondents who use XP have never had a crash, compared with just 7 percent of respondents who use Windows 98. And although OSs such as Linux and Mac OS X got high-reliability grades, too, those OSs are barely used, the report notes: "Fewer than 1 percent of the desktop PCs in the survey are running Linux, and fewer than 2 percent are running Mac OS." As far as XP's quality goes, am I the only person who honestly isn't surprised by this news?
macrobaye
Reply #2 Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:05 AM
Reply #2 Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:05 AM
Then I guess you've never used a mac 
Honestly I am very surprised by this, so surprised in fact that I believe, because the article was written by a Diehard PC person, that many of the results aquired were inflated. I'm sure if they compared Mac to PC, 50% TO 50%, the results would be much different (swaying toward the mac). I'm not trying to start a flame war here, so people please take what I say into consideration, but also with a considerable amount of bias (I am after all a Diehard Mac Head
). I have had only 2 computers (both macs) in the last 10 years, and together they have crashed probably a total of 20 times or so (the newer one about twice in 3 years). I happy with my Mac, and I'm sure most of you are happy with your PCs. But I for one am sick of Microsoft's b/s. After Passport, Y2K, Java, etc, I find it soooo hard to believe that Microsoft has any customers left! 
Anyways, I have one last thing to say:
Macs RULE!!! PCs SUCK!!!
"runs away*
Honestly I am very surprised by this, so surprised in fact that I believe, because the article was written by a Diehard PC person, that many of the results aquired were inflated. I'm sure if they compared Mac to PC, 50% TO 50%, the results would be much different (swaying toward the mac). I'm not trying to start a flame war here, so people please take what I say into consideration, but also with a considerable amount of bias (I am after all a Diehard Mac Head
). I have had only 2 computers (both macs) in the last 10 years, and together they have crashed probably a total of 20 times or so (the newer one about twice in 3 years). I happy with my Mac, and I'm sure most of you are happy with your PCs. But I for one am sick of Microsoft's b/s. After Passport, Y2K, Java, etc, I find it soooo hard to believe that Microsoft has any customers left! 
Anyways, I have one last thing to say:
Macs RULE!!! PCs SUCK!!!
"runs away*
Grfx Guru
Reply #3 Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:14 AM
Reply #3 Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:14 AM
Personally I like XP. However if OS X was ported to a PC I'd be very interested in trying it out as a serious replacement. The only other OS I really like that sadly died on us for the most part was BeOS 5, and Linux is still not there yet for mainstream desktop usage (but excellent for servers).
Taking all that in to consideration though, Mac hardware is still the best damn looking kit around in my opinion. Apple sure know how to make a box that I'd want people to see on my desk, only thing is (and this is why I don't know one and won't be buying one any time soon) they cost way too much in my opinion so I would have to sell the desk to afford it
Taking all that in to consideration though, Mac hardware is still the best damn looking kit around in my opinion. Apple sure know how to make a box that I'd want people to see on my desk, only thing is (and this is why I don't know one and won't be buying one any time soon) they cost way too much in my opinion so I would have to sell the desk to afford it
messybuu
Reply #5 Sunday, July 13, 2003 2:24 AM
Reply #5 Sunday, July 13, 2003 2:24 AM
I'm not surprised. XP is a great OS, but because of its connections, people denied its true power.
Tech-Cat
Reply #6 Sunday, July 13, 2003 3:52 AM
Reply #6 Sunday, July 13, 2003 3:52 AM
I'm happy with my XP/Mandrake 9.1 dual boot system. I cannot afford a Mac so I use Linux as my Unix based OS and I use XP as a stable system for mainstream software.
ihaku_au
Reply #7 Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:16 AM
Reply #7 Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:16 AM
Well, we're not talking about PC generally, but OS and XP specifically. If we compare PC and Mac, surely hardware should take into account, and there're many desktop/laptop win-based out there (like my own fujitsu) which are unsurprisingly as good as and even better than PowerBook or iBook--if cost is not an issue here.
I have been using OS 9 to X.2 for years... and of course XP. They are incomparable, depends on what you use the OS for. You can't just say this is better than that, is not that simple. Regardless of all those 'knick-knack', XP is undoubtedly an excellent windows-OS type and it works as it should on all windows-based hardware.
Just my 0.2 cent
I have been using OS 9 to X.2 for years... and of course XP. They are incomparable, depends on what you use the OS for. You can't just say this is better than that, is not that simple. Regardless of all those 'knick-knack', XP is undoubtedly an excellent windows-OS type and it works as it should on all windows-based hardware.
Just my 0.2 cent
macrobaye
Reply #8 Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:26 AM
Reply #8 Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:26 AM
Oh I understand that it is a very stable OS, but all I can say is "finally". My mothers 20GB HD on her Wintel laptop has about little to no hard drive space left, thanks to XPs security updates, thanks to the quick release of an XP that was obviously not ready for consumer use.
I understand that many of you will not buy a mac due to their prices, but if you would take a second glance at their store, you'll see that the new G5, the world fastest personal computer (judged by NASA against the P4 3.4), which starts at 1.6GHZ for $1700 (and includes hardware wuch as PCI-X and serial ATA, as well as up to 4 and 8 GB of RAM), you'll find that you can't find a PC that fast for that price with those accessories and hardware options. The G5 is an awesome computer, and according to NASA, the best.
That is, of course, if you're willing to settle for less software. But for every app on the PC, there are alternatives on the Mac that are the same, if not a little better (like Carracho, a Hotline based app only for the Mac). And with Apple's award winning video editing software, iTunes, and it's XML based UNIX server, PCs don't even come close.
Together, Panther (Mac OSX 10.3) and the G5 will crush competition for a long time in raw speed and app benchmarks, but also, it will make only a slight dent in their market share. I hate to say it, but despite Apple being the most innovative company the world has seen since, well since 1984 , it will never get the attention and respect it deserves, due to the ignorance towards other platforms that Microsoft has "conveniently" placed upon all it's customers.
We live in a computer age. For REAL prosumers, who may not mind spending a little extra (which is starting not to be the case), go with a Mac, the clear winner.
For a consumer, and this is where market share comes into play, go with a PC. XP is a stable little focker , built for consumer use.
I understand that many of you will not buy a mac due to their prices, but if you would take a second glance at their store, you'll see that the new G5, the world fastest personal computer (judged by NASA against the P4 3.4), which starts at 1.6GHZ for $1700 (and includes hardware wuch as PCI-X and serial ATA, as well as up to 4 and 8 GB of RAM), you'll find that you can't find a PC that fast for that price with those accessories and hardware options. The G5 is an awesome computer, and according to NASA, the best.
That is, of course, if you're willing to settle for less software. But for every app on the PC, there are alternatives on the Mac that are the same, if not a little better (like Carracho, a Hotline based app only for the Mac). And with Apple's award winning video editing software, iTunes, and it's XML based UNIX server, PCs don't even come close.
Together, Panther (Mac OSX 10.3) and the G5 will crush competition for a long time in raw speed and app benchmarks, but also, it will make only a slight dent in their market share. I hate to say it, but despite Apple being the most innovative company the world has seen since, well since 1984
, it will never get the attention and respect it deserves, due to the ignorance towards other platforms that Microsoft has "conveniently" placed upon all it's customers.We live in a computer age. For REAL prosumers, who may not mind spending a little extra (which is starting not to be the case), go with a Mac, the clear winner.
For a consumer, and this is where market share comes into play, go with a PC. XP is a stable little focker , built for consumer use.
Frogboy
Reply #10 Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:27 AM
Reply #10 Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:27 AM
Steve Jobs is the boy who cried wolf. He made claims the G4 was faster than the fastest Pentiums at the time too. Had "head to head" comparisons and everything.
Then people bought them and found that for the most common tasks on the computer, the Mac was noticeably slower. And this was back when it was using OS 9 which was much faster than OS X.
I prefer XP. I prefer it because there's more to an OS than just the OS features themselves. OS X and XP are both quite stable. Which one makes you more productive depends on the user's own preferences. I've found it easier to get XP to "work the way I want". Part of that is because I'm more familiar with Windows. Part of it is the wealth of third party software.
But don't be fooled by Apple's claims on performance. Maybe the G5 and Panther will be truly incredibly fast. But they've blown their wad as far as I'm concerned. The "Mhz Myth" nonsense really wrecked their credibility in my book.
When people start trying to take their Quicktime videos and burn them to DVD or convert video formats, compile something or do something else that is very CPU intensive, they'll know. And no benchmark will be able to work around that. And if the latest/greatest PC is faster at that, then it'll be just like the G4 all over again.
I've used Photoshop for 7 years now. I've never had a filter that took significant time to apply. Sure, I don't do massively large photoshop work. But I am a professional user of it and so are other people where I work and the real question will not be how fast it is at some very specific filter. It'll be how fast you're able to rotate something or resize something or do tons of little things. In my experience, the Mac has always felt a lot more sluggish than a similarly priced PC. And that, at the end of the day, is the benchmark people will care about.
Then people bought them and found that for the most common tasks on the computer, the Mac was noticeably slower. And this was back when it was using OS 9 which was much faster than OS X.
I prefer XP. I prefer it because there's more to an OS than just the OS features themselves. OS X and XP are both quite stable. Which one makes you more productive depends on the user's own preferences. I've found it easier to get XP to "work the way I want". Part of that is because I'm more familiar with Windows. Part of it is the wealth of third party software.
But don't be fooled by Apple's claims on performance. Maybe the G5 and Panther will be truly incredibly fast. But they've blown their wad as far as I'm concerned. The "Mhz Myth" nonsense really wrecked their credibility in my book.
When people start trying to take their Quicktime videos and burn them to DVD or convert video formats, compile something or do something else that is very CPU intensive, they'll know. And no benchmark will be able to work around that. And if the latest/greatest PC is faster at that, then it'll be just like the G4 all over again.
I've used Photoshop for 7 years now. I've never had a filter that took significant time to apply. Sure, I don't do massively large photoshop work. But I am a professional user of it and so are other people where I work and the real question will not be how fast it is at some very specific filter. It'll be how fast you're able to rotate something or resize something or do tons of little things. In my experience, the Mac has always felt a lot more sluggish than a similarly priced PC. And that, at the end of the day, is the benchmark people will care about.
dagwinn
Reply #11 Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:20 PM
Reply #11 Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:20 PM
Macrobaye wrote:
"... The G5 is an awesome computer, and according to NASA, the best.
That is, of course, if you're willing to settle for less software. But for every app on the PC, there are alternatives on the Mac that are the same, if not a little better ...."
This is somewhat true and not necessarily useful. While there may be a Mac alternative for any given program, this does not mean that the output of the alternative is compatible with Windows.
The latest version of the SPSS statistical package, for example, does not have a Macintosh version and is not backward compatible with earlier versions that did support Mac. While there are statistical packages for the Mac, they do not use the same file format and so you cannot work with or share existing SPSS data files without converting them. To collaborate with other students and faculty on data management or analysis, I would either be running SPSS in Virtual PC (then why not just use Windows?) or would be contstantly converting the file format - if that is even possible.
For graphics and video work, there are alternatives based upon your OS. But for some day-to-day computing functions, switching to a Mac would make me incompatible with the rest of the department.
Besides which, aren't the forthcoming "Copperhead" processors from IBM supposed to greatly surpass the performance of Intel's Pentium lines?
"... The G5 is an awesome computer, and according to NASA, the best.
That is, of course, if you're willing to settle for less software. But for every app on the PC, there are alternatives on the Mac that are the same, if not a little better ...."
This is somewhat true and not necessarily useful. While there may be a Mac alternative for any given program, this does not mean that the output of the alternative is compatible with Windows.
The latest version of the SPSS statistical package, for example, does not have a Macintosh version and is not backward compatible with earlier versions that did support Mac. While there are statistical packages for the Mac, they do not use the same file format and so you cannot work with or share existing SPSS data files without converting them. To collaborate with other students and faculty on data management or analysis, I would either be running SPSS in Virtual PC (then why not just use Windows?) or would be contstantly converting the file format - if that is even possible.
For graphics and video work, there are alternatives based upon your OS. But for some day-to-day computing functions, switching to a Mac would make me incompatible with the rest of the department.
Besides which, aren't the forthcoming "Copperhead" processors from IBM supposed to greatly surpass the performance of Intel's Pentium lines?
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #12 Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:24 PM
Reply #12 Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:24 PM
First of all i own both. I have seen mac programs crash many times more than PC programs. The days where mac users can say they have a better, more stable OS are long gone. As far as productivity, my PC networks 1000 times better than my mac. I can leave shortcuts to folders on my desktop from other PCs, boot up and go right into them. With the mac i have to mount the drives every frikking time. It's a joke. Mac is a pretty OS but thats about it. I would never be a "switcher". Then we can talk about how mac is the audio/video aficienado's machine. But my pc has a 100 more programs that play audio and video and play it better. Overall i think mac is overated and overpriced. The one thing i do love is my 23" cinema. For that piece of hardware, i can do nothing but swoon
TaoX
Reply #13 Sunday, July 13, 2003 9:18 PM
Reply #13 Sunday, July 13, 2003 9:18 PM
I have to laugh at this... hehe, Mac better than XP? nope... I see it everyday. The XP machines run fine, the macs are crashing. I've had win2k and zp since they came out, and between the two added together I've only had 3 lock ups in all that time.
stark23x
Reply #14 Monday, July 14, 2003 2:12 PM
Reply #14 Monday, July 14, 2003 2:12 PM
Mac or PC lover, you have to watch this spoof. The Mac killed my inner child. http://www.happynowhere.net/mac_parody.htm
http://www.happynowhere.net/mac_parody.htm
kwyjibo
Reply #15 Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:01 PM
Reply #15 Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:01 PM
Define, "crash". Any Win9x user that claims to have never experienced a crash should become a politician.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:55 AM