- Sep 9, 2001
- 1,256
- 0
- 0
Hello, everyone.
I read Anand's review on the Mac OS X "Tiger" and I found little reason to convince me that it was indeed a better OS than Windows. Little to none. I find it, pretty much based on Anand's words, as simply "another OS".
Performance:
It was very interesting to note that everyone claims that every new OS from apple is faster than the last one. I find this a very flawed statement.
First, OS X is NOT A NEW OS, it is simply a revision of the X series. In other words, it is something like a "Service Pack". Apple marketing department, who I deeply respect for what they have acheeved, have made it look as it was "a NEW OS". Its not, I repeat: its a revision. Its a ".4" instead of a ".3"; a NEW OS would be Mac OS- XI (or 11... whatever) which uses something completly different than the former. Yes? Maybe not many remember the transition from Mac OS 8 to X.
It is OBVIOUS that performance bennefits will come with a new revission, but we have been living on this on the PC since the Win95 days. Don't remember? Well, tech-savies will know that updated drivers will yeild a 2-5% increase of performance in whatever plataform; add that to a 10% from a new video card driver, and another 3% from a new IDE/S-ATA driver, and so on. It is well known that a computer with updated drivers can perform up to 20-30% faster than an identical setup but with out-of-date drivers. So nothing spectacular there. Apple can bundle the drivers in the new revision because... well... they only have 2 or 3 sets of hardware for their OS, whereas on the PC you have many... to say the least.
Also, Anand stated that the Tiger on a Dual G5 took 45 seconds to boot. WTF? My Duron @ 1.8Ghz/512Mb RAM w/integrated nVidia graphics boots in 25 seconds since I push the button! Not to mention my A64 rig gets to do it on 15 seconds. Some Intel mobo/cpu combos are said to boot WinXP even faster.
My take?
OS X Tiger is faster than previous incarnations: true.
Only Apple OS get faster every time a new version comes out: false.
OS X Tiger is faster than Windows XP SP2: NOT.
Pricing:
Paying for an update? Yeah, right.... I get SP for free from MS, and free driver updates, too!
Eye Candy:
Yeah. Tiger is pretty. Yeah, by default. But anyone can make WinXP look even better. ItmPls showed all of us how GOOD WinXP can actually look. I myself have tried it, too, and as you can see in my signature, my desktop is as pretty as any OS X can be. Sure, you need 3 or 4 3rd party apps to make this possible, like Konfabulator, Icon X, Object Dock and StyleXP, but the point is simple: WInXP can be prettier than OS X, and that "eye candy" statement that Mac owners say they have over WinXP users is false.
Ease of use:
It caught my attention when Anand mentioned that there is this special folder where all of your recent files are shown... well... that's not new at all. See the "Recent Documents" on the Start Menu? Who's copying who?
Ease of use?! Of one button mouse? No. Nu-huh. Anyone who likes the word "easy" will aquire a two button mouse imediately. I've used Mac OS X a couple of times, and... well... I like to find ALL of my programs in ONE SIMPLE MENU... not having to look for them in folders and folders. I mean, Win 3.1 is easier than that!
Conclusion:
I adore those Marketing guys at Apple. I mean... they KNOW their stuff. You gotta give it to them: make a simple ugrade look like it was the best OS to be released in years. The rest, well... you should have made up your mind already. I did.
BTW: I left out the security part on purpose. I mean, why would a SMART hacker want to attack an OS that only 2% of the computer users have and whose only personality is the very Mac they own?
Cheers.
I read Anand's review on the Mac OS X "Tiger" and I found little reason to convince me that it was indeed a better OS than Windows. Little to none. I find it, pretty much based on Anand's words, as simply "another OS".
Performance:
It was very interesting to note that everyone claims that every new OS from apple is faster than the last one. I find this a very flawed statement.
First, OS X is NOT A NEW OS, it is simply a revision of the X series. In other words, it is something like a "Service Pack". Apple marketing department, who I deeply respect for what they have acheeved, have made it look as it was "a NEW OS". Its not, I repeat: its a revision. Its a ".4" instead of a ".3"; a NEW OS would be Mac OS- XI (or 11... whatever) which uses something completly different than the former. Yes? Maybe not many remember the transition from Mac OS 8 to X.
It is OBVIOUS that performance bennefits will come with a new revission, but we have been living on this on the PC since the Win95 days. Don't remember? Well, tech-savies will know that updated drivers will yeild a 2-5% increase of performance in whatever plataform; add that to a 10% from a new video card driver, and another 3% from a new IDE/S-ATA driver, and so on. It is well known that a computer with updated drivers can perform up to 20-30% faster than an identical setup but with out-of-date drivers. So nothing spectacular there. Apple can bundle the drivers in the new revision because... well... they only have 2 or 3 sets of hardware for their OS, whereas on the PC you have many... to say the least.
Also, Anand stated that the Tiger on a Dual G5 took 45 seconds to boot. WTF? My Duron @ 1.8Ghz/512Mb RAM w/integrated nVidia graphics boots in 25 seconds since I push the button! Not to mention my A64 rig gets to do it on 15 seconds. Some Intel mobo/cpu combos are said to boot WinXP even faster.
My take?
OS X Tiger is faster than previous incarnations: true.
Only Apple OS get faster every time a new version comes out: false.
OS X Tiger is faster than Windows XP SP2: NOT.
Pricing:
Paying for an update? Yeah, right.... I get SP for free from MS, and free driver updates, too!
Eye Candy:
Yeah. Tiger is pretty. Yeah, by default. But anyone can make WinXP look even better. ItmPls showed all of us how GOOD WinXP can actually look. I myself have tried it, too, and as you can see in my signature, my desktop is as pretty as any OS X can be. Sure, you need 3 or 4 3rd party apps to make this possible, like Konfabulator, Icon X, Object Dock and StyleXP, but the point is simple: WInXP can be prettier than OS X, and that "eye candy" statement that Mac owners say they have over WinXP users is false.
Ease of use:
It caught my attention when Anand mentioned that there is this special folder where all of your recent files are shown... well... that's not new at all. See the "Recent Documents" on the Start Menu? Who's copying who?
Ease of use?! Of one button mouse? No. Nu-huh. Anyone who likes the word "easy" will aquire a two button mouse imediately. I've used Mac OS X a couple of times, and... well... I like to find ALL of my programs in ONE SIMPLE MENU... not having to look for them in folders and folders. I mean, Win 3.1 is easier than that!
Conclusion:
I adore those Marketing guys at Apple. I mean... they KNOW their stuff. You gotta give it to them: make a simple ugrade look like it was the best OS to be released in years. The rest, well... you should have made up your mind already. I did.
BTW: I left out the security part on purpose. I mean, why would a SMART hacker want to attack an OS that only 2% of the computer users have and whose only personality is the very Mac they own?
Cheers.
Facebook
Twitter