• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OSX vs XP

O

otispunkmeyer

Lifer
i dunno how to word this so bare with me

do you think that apple machines running OSX have a longer life than equivalent machines running XP?

like you know you buy a new laptop with XP and after say 2-3 years you find the apps for that OS at that time run too slowly and you need to upgrade

is the same true for OSX? so 2-3years down the line will you be feeling the need to upgrade because the machine feels too slow for the new apps?

hope that makes sense. i would like to know because i will be purchasing a laptop and the criterion is that it lasts as long as possible. so not only do i need well built, i need something where the hardware isnt gonna be no good after 2 years
 
I think in the case of Windows, it's games driving the need for faster PC's. Not so much with OSX and Macs (not as many games). And in the case of laptops you have to think of the target market. Up until recently (since dedicated gfx started making their way into them), laptops weren't for playing games and would "last longer" since the only things you were doing were business-type apps. How fast do you need a machine to be if you're only checking email, writing documents, and surfing the web? As people use their laptops for things that were once relagated to the desktop arena, the laptops start showing their age quicker. Things like software development, games, DV editing, etc all take full advantage of the hardware in some cases and a faster machine always makes a difference. Again it's not really the OS that's driving this but the target market of the laptop.

I guess you have to answer, "what will I be doing with my new laptop"? If you're going to be playing games and doing other non-pedestrian activities with it, then no laptop will last long. You'll be tired of it because it's too slow for what you're using it for. And most laptops are non-upgradeable besides the RAM and HD which is another thing to keep in mind.
 
If you don't like re-installing your operating system or shutting down your computer, my suggestion is that OSX is the superior piece of software to be running.

The limiting factor becomes applications, although with the option to install Windows, the Mac platform is now interesting.

IMO Linux still beats them both. Time will tell.
 
I would have agreed completely with you a couple months ago before I actually gave Linux a try. They are limited in terms of specific apps although they do have an alternative to almost every program, and they're all free. There are very few applications that i can find no alternative on linux. There are even some programs to stream music to Xbox 360 on the linux platform.
 
In general, I would say that the hardware ages at roughly the same speed(particularly because, these days, it is the same hardware). Windows does tend to "bit rot" a lot faster than OSX, which contributes to the impression that old XP boxes are slow; but if you have a fresh install older machines are fine.

The main difference in system aging, I'd say, proportion of your apps that are distributed with the OS. An XP machine is pretty bare by default, so a full XP desktop tends to be XP + Office + lots of third party stuff. OSX is much more aggressive about bundling things in with the OS, so a fair few OSX machines run little or no third party software. This means that the applications you have, and the versions of those applications, are tied directly to which OS version you are running. The effect ends up being that the effective "age" of a Mac is tightly linked to its OS version, whereas an XP box can, and often does, run applications from about '95 to the present.
 
In 2-3 years (the time it will take for Vista to catch on) devs will be developing apps to take advantage of the hardware bumps the OEMs had to take to get compliant with Vista. So- if you buy that Windows laptop today, the chances are fair that in 2-3 years your video card will be struggling to keep up with new apps. Especially if you decide to go with integrated graphics. You are at the cusp of a major move on Microsoft's part with Vista, and the software developers will start to push apps to new levels with the newfound graphics capabilities Vista requires to be fully compliant.

On the flip side of that is OSX. If we take Apple's G4 books built 2-3 years ago and look at their service life; the pinnacle has been reached and it's a big downard spiral from there. The upside to this is buying a MacBook today get's you the new Intel platform with the Leopard upgrade coming soon. Apple controls both the hardware and the OS and integrates them nicely. Historically the machines they have built have aged well througout the time OSX has been on the scene. I wouldn't worry about the Macbooks aging near as much as I would other choices.
 
good stuff

im pretty set on getting a mac book pro now. i have been able to witness the build quality first hand this weekend, and the 17in WS display has the sweetest of resolutions for that size IMO (1680x1050, 1920x1200 while good for full HD video, seemed to be too much for a 17inch screen and not somthing id wanna work with)

ill just hold off until core 2 updates out. and im glad they give the option to spec 1gb of ram as 1x 1024 DIMM, ill jus pick up a second stick only (rathert han pay apple another wedge lol)

all i need is to dual boot with XP (do you think vista will be bootcamp-able?) so that i may run apps such as NX3/4, solid edge, and matlab and im sorted. i wont be interested in gamin on a laptop, i have a 360 and when im at uni i aint got the time of day for games anyway
 
If I ever had to switch O/S from one machine to another.It would be Linux. Converting an older Windows machine to something like Ubuntu is easy. The learning curve would give Linux the edge. Plus not to mention the free software. Open Office is one of the best software that can do most of what Windows Office can do plus its free.
OSX is still a nice O/S but how many of us have the time to learn another sysytem? There are the adventurous, but I'm too old.......
 
Originally posted by: pkme2
If I ever had to switch O/S from one machine to another.It would be Linux. Converting an older Windows machine to something like Ubuntu is easy. The learning curve would give Linux the edge. Plus not to mention the free software. Open Office is one of the best software that can do most of what Windows Office can do plus its free.
OSX is still a nice O/S but how many of us have the time to learn another sysytem? There are the adventurous, but I'm too old.......
Click to expand...

I dunno, I've been there, done that with regards to Linux (Redhat & Ubuntu). OSX was a lot easier to use since I didn't have to configure everything. Although I'm glad I went to Linux first in that I can easily switch to the command line in OSX if I have to and not feel out of place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top