I'm not trying to get into an OS war, but it's hard not to respond to so much misinformation...
>Uhh, I should have qualified that statement as windows *NT* being
>superior to mac OS. What do you mean blanket statements?? Its one
>product versus another, its a small blanket eh? One is better than
>the other, one is faster, one has better features.
And that's simply not true. NT isn't "better" nor is it "faster" nor does it have "better features." Better for whom? Faster doing what? NT has better multi-user support than Mac OS, but Mac OS has more useful features for the average single-user machine. Neither is "better." Speed? Doing what? I got news for you, NT's memory management isn't all it's cracked up to be, and even a good NT machine can bog down to the point where my old C64 was faster
I just have a big problem with these blanket X is better than Y statements.
>MAC OS is not as stable as NT/2000
>in my experience.
Key words: "in my experience" -- I'm willing to bet that you've never used a Mac that has been set up properly. You should ask any NT guru if he/she uses NT out of the box. They'll say "NO WAY!" and explain how they spend time getting it up and running well. Same with any other computer. In real-life use, NT and OS 9 are pretty comparable. They each have their problems and their advantages. Heck, even Lockergnome published an article a couple weeks ago about how Mac OS is as stable as NT, and much easier to troubleshoot. UNIX, on the other hand, is a completely different beast, and *far* more stable than either.
>Nor is it as fast.
Doing what? You mean like copying files from a Zip disk to the hard drive, where 400 files that take up 80MB take 15 minutes to copy vs. 2 on a Mac?
Again, blanket statements just don't fly. Scrolling on Word, sorts in Excel, those are things that are much faster on NT, because Microsoft writes the OS and the apps. Scrolling and sorts in AppleWorks fly on a Mac for the same reason. Heck I could list 100 things for each platform that are faster on that platform.
>In fact MAC OS is slow, very slow. IT boots up very slow,
>it does not manage memory worth a damn, when a program
>crashes the system generally goes down with it.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't used Mac OS much, since all the statements you make would apply to 1994 but not today. I could say the same about Windows 3.1
. For a real-world example, I have a G4/400 running OS 9, and a PIII 733 running NT. The NT machine takes FAR longer to boot into the desktop than the Mac. Both are pretty well optimized. As for memory management, while you're wrong when you say that a program crash generally takes the whole system down (it usually doesn't, especially under OS 9), I completely agree that OS 9 and earlier don't manage memory that well. On the other hand, neither does NT -- it's horrible compared to a good UNIX system, and in every day use, not much better than a Mac.
>I also think you should reconsider your claim that OSX is going to be
>the new top dog. Linus Torvalds claims that the implementation of
>Unix they chose for OSX was poor. I don't know if you should trust
>the guy who wrote linux or not. Maybe he said this as from the
>viewpoint of a competitor although I seriously doubt that.
That's his opinion -- lots of people who know just as much about UNIX as he does disagree. That's why we have different variants of UNIX.
As for his motivations, of COURSE he said it from the viewpoint of a competitor. He dislikes microkernals, which is what Mach/BSD uses. He chose not to go with a microkernal-based system, so of course he's going to say that his way is better. Plus, and this is a bigger issue IMO, the fact of the matter is that Mac OS X is the biggest competition Linux has. The two biggest stumbling blocks to getting more people to use UNIX/Linux are 1) ease of use; and 2) software availability. The Linux community has been struggling for years now to convince people that Linux is a viable alternative to Windows. Unfortunately, their main inroads have been in the server market and in the "geek" market. Along comes Mac OS X, a UNIX-based OS that offers a much better interface, much better ease of use, a bigger software base, and commitments from most of the major developers to provide versions of the major software packages for OS X. Here's an OS that will be useable by a newbie, but powerful enough to run high-end graphics and scientific solutions, plus the ability to natively run professional, scalable e-commerce solutions like WebObjects. Don't you think that's going to take some steam out of Linux, and make people like Torvalds try to talk it down?