username931 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 OSX can be a pain in the ass. XP is more practical and has more features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 OSX can be a pain in the ass. XP is more practical and has more features. This should be in the Laughs Forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myzar Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 This should be in the Laughs Forum! why is that supposed to be a laugh ? the osx gui is one of the worse i have used since amiga workbench 1.3 it inst customizable at all and it is tailored to a total hopeless retard level it's a shame that a nice unix bsd os is totally wasted with such retarded gui . I know that this sounds like a troll but for me osx gui just plain sucks. Xp can be considered bad but can be customized to suit everyone needs. it ranges from a braindead fisher price look to the old usable windows 2000 classic theme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantalaimon Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 XP has the "crashing" feature thats one more than osx O.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 why is that supposed to be a laugh ? the osx gui is one of the worse i have used since amiga workbench 1.3 it inst customizable at all and it is tailored to a total hopeless retard level it's a shame that a nice unix bsd os is totally wasted with such retarded gui . I know that this sounds like a troll but for me osx gui just plain sucks. Xp can be considered bad but can be customized to suit everyone needs What exactly do you dislike so much about the OS X GUI? Finder, the Dock, what? How is XP more customizable than OS X? Can you give a specific example? Personally, my only objection to OS X's GUI is that it still somehow feels like a work in progress (and I know it is) compared to Classic. In particular, something about the Apple menu and lack of a built-in application selector on the Main Menu has always left it feeling incomplete to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I love you Myzar. I think the same damn thing. From a functional point of view, the XP interface is 100 times better. Though I have to admit, the system architecture behind OS X is far superior. (I was just afraid to say it) EDIT: I guess we dont completely see Eye to Eye. But I think we have similar sentiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFNITE Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I fail to see how XP is easier to use. Lack of built in application selector? It's called the dock, which is infnitely easier to use than the poorly designed start menu. Also, OS X works differently from XP. Most OS X softwares are "packages" which can be dragged onto the dock if it's a more commonly accessed app. If not, you can just place a shortcut to the apps folder in the dock, which basically gives you the start menu functionality. It's not like installing a software in Windows, and everything's modified from the registry to a folder cluttered with data files that you don't need to see. Everything in Mac OS X is nicely packaged, and normally you can uninstall a software by dragging the package to trash and delete the associated preferences file. I don't understand why you think Windows functionality is superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Me either. It's unquantifiable, I guess. I like the way XP is laid out, especially the task bar. The way XP has it by default is grouping of windows... I hate that, just like I hate having to go to windows or right-clickong on a dock icon to find the window I want to work with. I like having all my windows laid out nicely. I also like having the names in the taskbar, especially with IE and Firefox, so I can see what that application is pointed to. like "Hotmail" or "seattle-tacoma craigslist" or "OSx86 Project Forum". I just like it. I'm know there are applications that will make the mac os less user-unfriendly, but I can never remember them. I also like being able to alt-tab to a window. So hey, if anyone knows the applications I'm talking about, gimme a hollar, cause I want them. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username931 Posted June 16, 2006 Author Share Posted June 16, 2006 XP has the "crashing" feature thats one more than osx O.o I can't recall the last time XP crashed. That was Windows 9x. I have an XP box that stays on for months at a time. If it does it is because of the outdated/incompatible hardware you have it running on/connected to that OSX will never support. XP is very reliable especially given that it supports so much more hardware and software combindations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I almost never have XP crash on me. I've never had a stop error... And I abuse my computer more than most. I did have a problem with my video card a month or so ago, but that's because it was overheating (the board I had placed it directly adjacent to the northbridge heatsink). I'm not an apologist for windows XP. It just doesnt give me troube. Neither does OS X, actually. Works quite well... except my hackintosh will not run Warcraft III I dont think I've even ever had a driver issue. Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username931 Posted June 17, 2006 Author Share Posted June 17, 2006 I just swiched to a faster computer with an ATI 9200 graphics card (driver issues), so I am back to XP. My reason for this thread was everything I spent so much time trying to tweak in OSX just works in XP. More functionality is built in, better thumbnails. It is much more practical if you want to do something. But those advantages don't make XP a better system for me. The aesthetic qualities of OSX made the experience more enjoyable and are missed. The same went for when I was in OSX was frusterated with the simplicity of the GUI's inability to accomplish many tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 What were you trying to tweak? Trying to kill drop shadows without ShadowKiller? Trying to kill the Finder? There are tons of customizable critters within OS X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mactelman Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Whoever mentioned the crashing feature, that is the type of talk that causes the other 96% of software users to hate Mac users, the lies. I've never had any NT based os ever crash on me. Only the DOS based 9x OSes, which were still more stable than the non protected memory/non preemptive multitasking classic microkernels. Xp is still more stable than OS X IMO, and is definitely more stable than any OSx86 patched kernel on SSE2. I've had more Kernel Panics than Xp total crashes, and had OS X 86 BBOD (Beach Ball of death), way more than Windows has ever stopped responding. Drop shadows and all can easily be added to Xp, and come with Vista's superior GUI. What Xp offers is the ability to use more than just the aqua theme, and you can do it without reworking the whole system, as the OS offers built in theming support. Everything runs on Xp, everything I need to do, works on Xp. When I need to do work, Xp does it, when I want to watch a Google video, I can watch it in a browser. No spontanteous Safari crashes, none of that. Have a site that doesn't work in Safari or Firefox, just open it in a modern IE build for my processor. No emulation just to run my Word processor. You know why Windows has drivers, because it supports stuff. If OS X doesn't have the drivers you need, the device is incompatable. Printing on OS X 86 is a nightmare, especially since PPC drivers don't work, you need to find a comperable gutenprint driver, then print a test page to test accuracy. How about trying to make shortcuts (aliases) on the desktop, there is no right click and drag, or dragging from a CD, makes shortcuts. I don't mind Windows Explorer, but Finder makes me want to physically hurt someone/something. Or the dock taking up wayyy to much Window space. The application incompatability, or once again, most things need emulation, and their unibins are still buggy if they even exist. Parallels plain sucks, only would VMware suffice. Did anyone ever get the Window clutter horror, where windows (especially iChat ones), get caught behind the others, then you have to find the proper icon in the dock to call it up, or use crappy expose. You don't need expose in Windows because the taskbar manages windows more efficiently, as does alt-tab. I gave up with the hardware issues myself, the not so much better OS itself (I actually prefer windows). No, this is not a laugh at all, this is a serious opinion, and there's a reason Windows is on 95% of all computers, everything runs on it, and it works on all hardware, and is designed, easy, and has drivers for everything, plus Microsoft wants you using it, Apple doesn't want you on it unless you get their crappy hardware either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Bear in mind that you are on a Hackintosh, not a real Mac. OS X is stable for the most part, but frankly, so is Windows. Windows does suffer from a huge disadvantage though; it's popularity. Everyone and their mother knows how to exploit the features of XP (and some of them ARE features, though I cant figure out why I'd ever want to use them). There's a lot of stuff Microsoft could improve apon, such as protecting the registry from being altered willy-nilly. But Microsoft also doesnt have set-in-stone laws that if you break them, your software wont work on Windows, like OS X does. This leaves them vulnerable, but also broadens their application base. It might be bad, or it might be good, depending on your perspective. Okay, so dont take this analogy personally, it's just an analogy and doesnt mean anything. Windows is like Democracy. Every app and piece of hardware can do much of what it wants and can have it's demands without colapsing the whole thing, but, on the negative side, there's a lot of disorganization and disunity. OS X is like a planned scientific state. Everything more or less works in harmony, but mainly because software and hardware is stuck in a very rigid framework, which, if it deviates, f*cks sh*t up. Each side has it's advantages and disadvantages. Maybe a mixture of the two system ideologies is in order. Or not. One isnt better than the other in an absolute fashion; just subjectively. EDIT: Another point to make against windows (and maybe mac os for different reasons, but I dont know), is that it has a huge operational bureaucracy to keep all the mischievous hardware, drivers and software working in somewhat ordered fashion. When your system has a bad day, that's this police force at it's worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 in my opinion: Mac Windows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 So, what you're saying is, while windows went out and got a thankless but ultimately productive job, Mac decided to go the steroids route and now models men's underwear for the sears catalog? Or, are you trying to say that Windows is ugly and bloated, but gets stuff done, while Mac looks good on the outside, but on the inside is really a walking chemical weapon? Just teasin. EDIT: Me want Kentucky Fried Chicken. PSST. For body number 1, KFC isnt the answer ;-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiaboliK Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 ive had more windows crashes than osx crashes ever. (Osx crashes - 2) (windows - countless) there isnt a build of windows i cant crash or get the BSOD its just it how you use your comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Sure, if you want to, and know what you're doing, you can f*ck up windows. But I can sudo rm -rf /usr/standalone/i386 and screw it up too... what's the point? Yay, I broke my computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mactelman Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Well, if you want all apple hardware/software to work in harmony, do so, but realise you're supporting a proprietary state, which is not good. Diabloik, anyone can crash XP if they try, or any OS for that matter. If Xp crashes regularly for you you're messing with the wrong stuff, or are an idiot (no offence) Xp is just as stable as OS X. I can easily crash both of them, but if I don't want to, I can keep them stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username931 Posted June 17, 2006 Author Share Posted June 17, 2006 My windows is f***ing up now I take back my comments here about the crashing lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Sure, if you want to, and know what you're doing, you can f*ck up windows. But I can sudo rm -rf /usr/standalone/i386 and screw it up too... what's the point? Yay, I broke my computer. I think it's the point of saying that OS X is more like "sandbox UNIX" where you have to jump through hoops to really screw it up. It usually involves entering a password to screw up the system. In Windows, anything can install itself in the background without the user's permission. Anything can overwrite a file without the user's permission. Anything can screw with the system during the install (relace a DLL for example) and the user knows nothing about it...until the system screws up. Now you can go through and screw it up yourself too, to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdprophet Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 I've never crashed OS X, even after opening countless applications. Windows XP has crashed for me, but not nearly as much as the Windows operating systems including and before Windows ME. If OS X is crashing for you, you either deleted or modified files incorrectly, or you've got hardware problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 No one's saying OS X crashes (at least, not on real macs). But to hear people tell it, Windows crashes every 3 seconds to the point of unusability. \ / \ / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U.C. Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 To all of you, who are unsatisfied with OSX 1) Download Pathfinder 2) OSX is a Sandboxed OS. It is far too candy coated. Too work on it succesfully you have to got the terminal. You just have too. 3) If u want a stable non sandboxed Os, use Linux. Now that is raw power. No Crashes, No Candy Coating. 4) Windows from the kernel up is a very unstable OS, due to bad memory management, registry and no security. 5) On Linux/Unix/OSX, everything has security. Every single file. Thus less headaches. Everything is more logical. The more you learn about linux the more you are in love with it. 6) I used to be happy with Windows too, in fact I used it more than OSX. But once i Finished RHCE(Redhat Certification), I turned over to the *nix side. BTW: Please donot start a flame thread. Seriously if you are not satisfied. Remove it from your system and throw the dvd in the trashcan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Redhat. LOL. I'll eat Steve Jobs out before I ever use Redhat again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts