Out of curiosity, how is it that XP (which has been out for uite some time now) is an attempt to mirro OSX (which has not been out as long)? Also, I would say that Microsoft really does their own thing (for good or bad), but each new OS for a mac gets strikingly more and more similar to Windows. Also, OSX isn't any more stable it's just different. Someone with some knowlkedge can crash a mac pretty easily as well. Especially if they filled it full of garbage software that hasn't been properly tested. Not to mention cheap hardware as well. So lets not spout off concerning this lame old debate.
Win98 or XP????
- Thread starter 5150 Musician
- Start date
countrylac
New member
OS X was released first.
Apple released OS X in September of 2001 and Microsoft launched XP in October 2001. However, apple had a keynote presentation showing the new features of OS X in January of 2001. If you look at history the Macintosh was the first platform GUI(Graphical User Interface) that Microsoft copied for the first versions of Windows. Microsoft still has to pay apple to this day for copying their OS.
Have you ever used Pro Tools on OS X vs. XP. There is no comparison. And of course anyone with experience can crash OS X. All you have to do recompile the kernel or make it have a kernel panic. But all you have to do to crash any Windows operating system is use it long enough. One more thing, the feature in XP that closes programs that crash and not the operating system is modeled from OS X.
Apple released OS X in September of 2001 and Microsoft launched XP in October 2001. However, apple had a keynote presentation showing the new features of OS X in January of 2001. If you look at history the Macintosh was the first platform GUI(Graphical User Interface) that Microsoft copied for the first versions of Windows. Microsoft still has to pay apple to this day for copying their OS.
Have you ever used Pro Tools on OS X vs. XP. There is no comparison. And of course anyone with experience can crash OS X. All you have to do recompile the kernel or make it have a kernel panic. But all you have to do to crash any Windows operating system is use it long enough. One more thing, the feature in XP that closes programs that crash and not the operating system is modeled from OS X.
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
98 is an inherently unstable platform. No question- XP home. XP pro has a lot of networking crap in it that just gets in the way of recording.-Richie
vestast
Gassy Member
countrylac said:
Besides all the other crap that you wrote, this is bullshit.
XP is based on the WinNT kernel. Applications in XP allocate it's own memory resources unlike Win98 which used shared memory resources. Therefore when an application crashes, it no longer takes down the whole OS.
countrylac
New member
Linux and OS X does the same thing.
OS X and Linux doesn't use shared memory and as far as linux is concerned it has been that way for years? Everyone keeps talking all this stuff, but no one has given me any clue that I'm wrong. Has anyone that disagreed with me ever used OS X or Linux(Red Hat or Mandrake for example). And "vestast" I know that XP is based in theory on the NT Kernel, so is windows 2000(which is actually Windows NT version 5.0) for that fact, and I don't think that anyone will disagree that windows 2000 is much better than NT. Windows ME was mainly based off Windows 98 and it was probably the worst operating system microsoft released. (And if anyone disagrees I know plenty of guys who are programmers for Microsoft and they told me that they burned every copy of Windows ME in the office).
OS X and Linux doesn't use shared memory and as far as linux is concerned it has been that way for years? Everyone keeps talking all this stuff, but no one has given me any clue that I'm wrong. Has anyone that disagreed with me ever used OS X or Linux(Red Hat or Mandrake for example). And "vestast" I know that XP is based in theory on the NT Kernel, so is windows 2000(which is actually Windows NT version 5.0) for that fact, and I don't think that anyone will disagree that windows 2000 is much better than NT. Windows ME was mainly based off Windows 98 and it was probably the worst operating system microsoft released. (And if anyone disagrees I know plenty of guys who are programmers for Microsoft and they told me that they burned every copy of Windows ME in the office).
vestast
Gassy Member
I'm well aware of how linux and other unix based systems work as I've been working with them for years.
My issue was with your statement "the feature in XP that closes programs that crash and not the operating system is modeled from OS X."
Since you know that the OSX kernel is based on BSD and Mach then you should also know that OSX did not invent memory sharing.
I'm not putting down Mac's at all. I think they are great. But they are out of my range of what I can afford and what many others here can afford. I can't really understand what else your trying to say.
Anyway this thread is about Win98 vs WinXP. Lets try to keep it on subject.
My issue was with your statement "the feature in XP that closes programs that crash and not the operating system is modeled from OS X."
Since you know that the OSX kernel is based on BSD and Mach then you should also know that OSX did not invent memory sharing.
I'm not putting down Mac's at all. I think they are great. But they are out of my range of what I can afford and what many others here can afford. I can't really understand what else your trying to say.
Anyway this thread is about Win98 vs WinXP. Lets try to keep it on subject.
I know plenty of people who have problems with Pro Tools on OSX. Are you sure OSX was actually released in 2001? I could have sworn it was 2002 or maybe even 2003. Maybe you are thinking the shortlived OS9?
Anyhow, the crap being spewed about Microsoft and PC's is just that. There are plenty of things I don't like about them, but all of those, with the tiniest bit of knowledge can be worked around. The price of a G5 however can not be worked around. I am into pure performance and stability with my purchases. Performance wise, my machine has been cruising. Stability wise? No problems yet. My PC runs intensive stuff for about 60 to 100 hours a week on most weeks and stays on without a crash or a reboot for weeks at a time sometimes. How much more stable do you want? And all that for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a G5 that probably wouldn't even perform quite as well.
Anyhow, the crap being spewed about Microsoft and PC's is just that. There are plenty of things I don't like about them, but all of those, with the tiniest bit of knowledge can be worked around. The price of a G5 however can not be worked around. I am into pure performance and stability with my purchases. Performance wise, my machine has been cruising. Stability wise? No problems yet. My PC runs intensive stuff for about 60 to 100 hours a week on most weeks and stays on without a crash or a reboot for weeks at a time sometimes. How much more stable do you want? And all that for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a G5 that probably wouldn't even perform quite as well.
countrylac
New member
Let's end this discussion.
I never meant to say that a PC is bad. I think PCs are great, and are way more affordable and upgradable than Macs(as far as price range). I just have an issue with how Microsoft does alot of its coding, but that's another issue. The basic theme to me is if you keep your system install pretty clean without alot of conflicting software then you should be ok regardless of what OS you use. For those using windows who tend to do alot of web surfing on the same machine, it is a good idea to keep your data on seperate hard drive than the OS(or aleast a partition) because sometimes wiping the OS clean and starting fresh from time to time helps with performance. (Atleast in my experience doing tech support.)
I never meant to say that a PC is bad. I think PCs are great, and are way more affordable and upgradable than Macs(as far as price range). I just have an issue with how Microsoft does alot of its coding, but that's another issue. The basic theme to me is if you keep your system install pretty clean without alot of conflicting software then you should be ok regardless of what OS you use. For those using windows who tend to do alot of web surfing on the same machine, it is a good idea to keep your data on seperate hard drive than the OS(or aleast a partition) because sometimes wiping the OS clean and starting fresh from time to time helps with performance. (Atleast in my experience doing tech support.)
Sorry for reacting so harshly. I guess I have just gotten really sick of the Mac snobs that blindly diss PC's because they need to justify to themselves the amount of money they have spent. To be truthful though, I also stick up for the whole Macintosh regime when I see PC guys that blindly bash a mac. The truth for me is that if you know nothing about computers and can afford it, buy a mac. If you either can't afford it or know enough about computers and what sheer performance, get an Athlon64