OS X v. Windows XP reliability studies?

C

Craig

New Member
I am in the market for a new computer and want to avoid the main problem I have had with Windows 98 2nd: over time (12 - 18 months max) the os files become corrupted and the os therefore slows down and frequently freezes the operation of other programs, especially Outlook and Internet Explorer, but less frequently Word, causing me to have to either open only one program at a time, reboot frequently, or take the more drastic step of reformatting and reinstalling the os and all other programs and backed up files. (I hardly ever get the "blue screen of death" - just this other problem, which is probably related.) Norton System Works doesn't correct the problem, but does manage to keep the OS hobbling along. I could use a program like Ghost and make a dvd copy of whatever new os I select, plus my newly installed and updated programs and settings before I install the backed up files, so that it's easier to reformat and reinstall when it again becomes necessary, but I'd like to avoid that or increase the time period before I have to do that. For my purposes, I'm looking at Mac OS X and Windows XP only. (Mac's have sufficient programs for my purposes.) Consequently, I am looking for any studies (not just annecdotes) comparing Mac OS X and Windows XP on this one issue. Has anyone come across any such studies? Thank you.
 
Not too many people compare Macs to Intel/AMD because their apples and oranges. They both work very well. I've used both and really don't see that much difference except the mACs are so bautifull, I want one, but too much money and evrything is expensive as it is all proprietary to Apple.

Windows O/S's pretty much suck below win 98 se. 2000 and XP are not a DOS based system like their predesesors, they are NT based so they are much more stable. On the flip side my wife has an old 98SE on her computer and always has 6 or 8 apps open at all times. Never a glitch or problem. I on the other hand can't keep away from tweaking and overclocking so I have a few glitches but never a serious problem.

You might try going into my computer, control panel, systems and you will see a tab towards the bottom that says virtual memory. Write down the virtual mem number and the set vit mem to 0, yes 0. Reboot and duplicate directions except this time select vir mem and plug back in the original number and reboot again. This will speed things up. also go to window explorer and delete all history files, cookies, temporary internet files and do a defrag.
 
theyre both osm, but i prefer the windows enviroment and work area, and the mac view and layout, so i downloaded the mac wallpaper to my lapptop and the yz dock. now it looks osm!
 
Sorry, I know this thread is from like 6 years ago, but Only get a mac if you're a real audiophile or are working in graphics :P plus you can't even build them :P
 
Well when I think of osx I think of when Mac's started running with intel cpu's, which would be leopard. Before then no real comparison cause the old G5 and older Mac's where so under powered.
 
Macs rock. Can't build them, yes, but they make up for that in expandability. OS X is much more stable than Windows ever could be, because it's based on Linux.
 
DMGrier said:
Well when I think of osx I think of when Mac's started running with intel cpu's, which would be leopard. Before then no real comparison cause the old G5 and older Mac's where so under powered.
Click to expand...

Uh huuuh.....

lucasbytegenius said:
Macs rock. Can't build them, yes, but they make up for that in expandability.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, Macs are SO well known for expandability. I'm still waiting for my stupid mini dvi to dvi adt in the mail so I can plug my friggin macbook into a monitor. >_<


lucasbytegenius said:
OS X is much more stable than Windows ever could be, because it's based on Linux.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see some sort of hard evidence for claims like these..I have had no such experiences. Both my macs and PCs run equally as stable.
 
lucasbytegenius said:
Macs rock. Can't build them, yes, but they make up for that in expandability. OS X is much more stable than Windows ever could be, because it's based on Linux.
Click to expand...

1, OSX is based on UNIX. Linux is based on UNIX. 2, what is really cool is when you take a really powerful PC that cost less then a macbook pro and install something like ubuntu. Get the hardware performance of a pc and the OS performance of UNIX with out paying for a apple.

On the otherside of things windows 7 is very stable, what you meant to say was how a UNIX based OS can multi-task better then windows.
 
You can hardly even compare Linux (even ubuntu) to OS X. OS X is based off of NeXT, which is a form of Unix derived from BSD if I recall correctly.

Apple does a lot to the *nix part under the hood to make it their own OS.
 
tlarkin said:
You can hardly even compare Linux (even ubuntu) to OS X. OS X is based off of NeXT, which is a form of Unix derived from BSD if I recall correctly.

Apple does a lot to the *nix part under the hood to make it their own OS.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that ubuntu and OSX are the same OS at all. What I am saying is that Ubuntu seems to preform and be just as secure as OSX. I know that they are two different operating systems.

It is just nice to buy a pc with similar spec to a mac for several hundred dollars less and still get a great OS that is effecient. I do understand that mac's come with a few extra's for them to justify there high cost but for some of us those don't really matter so I am not going to buy a computer that is starting at $999.99 that's hardware wasn't even top end two years ago just because it has a better OS then Windows. Buy a PC and install a Linux distro.
 
tlarkin said:
so full of fail your post is, is what Yoda would say if he read this.
Click to expand...

o-rly-baby-battles-yoda168.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top