why apple's osx works better for people than windows (article)

<p>with all the threads about choosing between a mac and a pc recently, i thought this would be relevant: this</a> article gives an excellent overview of the differences between the operating systems. (macdailynews summarizes it, but if you have time the full article is definitely worth reading. the mdn comments are usually interesting, too.)</p>

<p>shattering</a> the mac os x "security through obscurity" myth is another good one.</p>

<p>i really hate how macs generalize that their os is stabler than windows... it never occurs that the windows platform might be less stable because of more processes and plug in's it's required to run... and with that said... go linux!</p>

<p>to hell with linux.</p>

<p>If it was soooo good, it would replace windows with the same speed that firefox is replacing IE.</p>

<p>most business servers run some sort of linux os... i think that shows you how stable it is... and the great thing is you can partition your hd to run both os's</p>

<p>you think it's that easy to make people switch OS's?! i'd almost think you were trolling merc :p</p>

<p>the only reason i posted was because i've seen a number of threads where people asked if they should switch, and i thought the article was informative.</p>

<p>but if that's trolling, go ahead and remove it.</p>

<p>hey i didn't say you were thisyearsgirl, i was kidding about mercurysquad trolling. i completely approve of all tech threads :)</p>

<p>sorry, i misunderstood your post</p>

<p>I have to say that I like Mac OS X better than Windows, but that article is trash. She compares stupid little things like icons and folder colors. Who cares? I've never heard anyone complain about icons or the colors of folders before; she is basically just nitpicking at stuff in order to have an article. There are much bigger differences (stability, control, etc.) that one should take into consideration rather than the size of an icon.</p>

<p>Is Apple’s OSX better, more stable and secure than MS XP with Service Pack 2? Yes.<br>
Are Macs more user-friendly and stylish than PCs? No question.
Can university students connect Macs to their school’s network? No problem.
Does Apple have a core group of users that worship their machines? Yes, but just not enough of them. Since Apples are so great and superior to PCs, why are we having this conversation (again and again)?</p>

<p>Despite all the positives and almost no negatives, Apple’s market share is under 2% worldwide (2004). In the U.S., it’s around 3%. In 1992, Apple’s worldwide market share was 12% and has been sinking, like the Titanic, ever since. What’s going on? Apple’s have a great operating system, great style and are nearly bullet-proof, but where are the customers? Their marketing is way better than Microsoft’s. Nobody was rushing out to their computer store to buy a Windows machine after watching the “Great Moments in Microsoft Office” ads that ran a couple of years ago… Ipod ads are great and millions have been sold. If Apple ever had a “halo” product, the Ipod is it. The problem is that Ipod buyers didn’t turn around in sufficient numbers and buy Apple computers. The new Mini-Mac at $499 may remedy Apple’s shortfall in computer sales, but the jury is still out. Notice that Apple markets the Mini-Mac as an extra pc for households that already have a computer (mostly Windows machines). The Mini-Mac comes with no keyboard, mouse or wi-fi card. Apple claims that lots of people have spare USB keyboards and mice lying around the house. I don’t…maybe you do. And maybe you have an extra monitor (preferably a 17” LCD to go with the cute style of the Mini-Mac). The $499 is more like $1000 or more when you do some upgrading. $599 gets you 512m of memory, an 80 gig hard drive and a dvd/cd burner. Add a LCD monitor, a wi-fi card, a keyboard and the Mac one button mouse and you’re looking at a major purchase.</p>

<p>Ask yourself why Mac users in college have to buy MS Office (Student/ Teacher version) for Macs. Why can’t Windows people buy Appleworks? Answer: 98% of the world, for better or worse…mostly worse, runs Windows. When you graduate from college, 98% of the workplace uses Windows. Sad to say, knowing how to use a Mac gets you little traction when applying for a job. True, creative work in advertising and web based marketing firms, journalism and a few other occupations are Mac-centric. The cubicle with your name on it will likely have a Windows machine.</p>

<p>Looking at Apple objectively and subtracting Ipod and Itune sales and taking out Pixar profits and you don’t have a pretty financial picture for a computer company.</p>

<p>I’m not suggesting that Apple will go under. They are great computers…just like Sony’s Betamax were superior to Panasonic’s VHS. Your call…</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/32411/why_does_apple_refuse_to_explain_its_sliding_market_share_in_personal_computers.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/32411/why_does_apple_refuse_to_explain_its_sliding_market_share_in_personal_computers.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1745930,00.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1745930,00.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>lol yay! I succeeded in sparking a debate. Now let's continue.</p>

<p>I forgot to say that linux as a desktop OS is not too friendly for most people. For servers, there are also equally good OSes like FreeBSD etc.</p>

<p>my hatred for linux is that it is the worst OS for multimedia production, and I use my PC for that.</p>

<p>um... are u a fan of pc's or macs mercurysquad? and on the idea that linux is bad as a desktop os is absurd... partition ur hd, boot up in linux mandrake or red hat AND windows... or if ur not a fan of that, go dl'd the windows gui format from any linux distro site...</p>

<p>cujoe, while I conced that Linux is a good platform for servers and business related machines, it's horrible for the average user in terms of set-up and everyday operation. I know to most Linux users, partitioning the hd, booting up in linux and windows, getting and setting up the distros, command lining, etc are not a big deal, but for almost all non-programmer or non-hardcore-linux-lover it's quite a chore, especially for roughly the same function/results. The problem is the people who write distros have no concept of ease-of-use for anyone but themselves, that is why linux will never get beyond a niche OS.</p>

<p>Apple OSs, IPods, and their comps in general are downright sex-ay, it's just that compatibility wise, windows is the way to go. There's not much in terms of software/accessibility beyond Apple itself, 3rd party apps and periphenelia seem to be made FOR (not necessarily exclusively) PCs. </p>

<p>Anywho my main point is that in terms of stability, ease-of-use, and security, the OS is only as good as the user who runs it. If you keep your HD trim and tidy, have a sense of security, and know enough to run a decent spyware and general hd cleaner, almost anything should work. </p>

<p>Finally: FIREFOX > a regular fox > IE</p>

<p>haha... i like ur comparison hunter1985... but i have noticed the newer kernels for linux have been much more user friendly, with compatible windows gui's for the interface... if they could implement that into the "redhat corporation" and market it, it would be the same as having windows os compatible comp with less stability issues</p>

<p>Despite all the positives and almost no negatives</p>

<p>haha oh really? I would say that the ridiculously smaller amount of software available for the mac os is a pretty big negative. </p>

<p>And I kind of agree with cujoe - Windows is not at all less stable than Mac OS. In fact, my computer crashes a whole lot less than some of my friend's Macs. But it definitely does take a more knowledgable user to keep it that way.
There is no such thing as a completely "secure" OS!!</p>

<p>There is certainly more Windows based software than for Mac based systems. This is a function of the marketplace where Windows dominates with a 98% share. One can certainly argue that software developers find it more lucrative to write for Windows. </p>

<p>For most major catagories of programs, there are Mac equivalents. I don't consider this to be a major drawback for Mac based machines. And since a Mac user can run Windows in virtual mode, they do, within reason, have access to Windows based software. </p>

<p>For the Mac-centric user group, my point is that in the real world, Windows is the dominate operating system. A 98% worldwide share of the computer market leaves Apple in a very precarious position for its core computer products.</p>

<p>Your point about Windows XP stability is well taken. After the introduction of Service Pack 2, Windows has become much less virus prone... And it is certainly true that the cause of most crashes and viruses come from inexperienced users.</p>

<p>good luck trying to run hl2 in virtual mode* it'll eat up all the ram... i've tried it haha</p>

<p>I would launch into a drawn out argument in favor of Linux, but I'm a bit preoccupied by the failed MandrakeLinux 10.1 installation 20 centimeters to my left.</p>

<p>I'm not kidding, either.</p>

<p>Remember kids, always run an MD5 checksum on your installation CDs before repartitioning your HDD.</p>

<p>lol yeah the Windows emulation isn't much to brag about. It's a ridiculous resource hog, and Macs are known for not shipping with enough RAM.</p>

<p>That being said, I love Mac's hardware. Not only is it the best looking stuff out there (drools at powerbook), but the processors aren't bad either. I absolutely love Windows, but I'm seriously considering purchasing a 12" powerbook to be my mobile computer since I already have a Windows desktop. And I have to admit that there are a few features from Mac OS that I would like to see in Windows (ie expose).</p>