gizmodo.com — Since Windows 95 dropped more than a decade ago, our desktops have evolved to no end. Having recently had a fresh Leopard install on our Macs, we thought we would take a look back, with a side-by-side comparison of Windows and Mac operating systems.
Nov 26, 2007 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountNov 26, 2007
Yeah, forgot about ME. Mainly because I never used it.
betterthNov 27, 2007
Agreed, the Vista search/run/programs bar at one touch of a button is what I would call the most revolutionary change to Windows.It's the reason I don't use XP plain and simple. Hit one button, then type whatever I want, be it a program name, a file (videos, music, images), a settings location, or a program exe(notepad, msconfig, firefox, etc)But I'm probably just strange like that.
kanidiaNov 27, 2007
I don't think that Windows comments are suppressed. Just stupid ones who say that Macs can't right click, you can't drag to the desktop, and macs can't play games. A lot of mac favoring comments are suppressed too. Seriously, "Macs are way better than windows" aren't comments that get diggs either.
crazydave303Nov 27, 2007
win2K was the best for me if I'm working at 1 project at time with a few different apps at once, memory and CPU power is left to do what you really want, it's left to run programs. Now if I could only get my tools to work with Linux, KDE is really nice when running way way to many things at once. The virtual desktop works wonders, and Linux works wonders running too many things that all needing too much ram and CPU attention. (of course a $3000 mac will run better then a $1000 PC no matter what OS you load on the PC) And *nix or not the Mac just like Windows would be left in a wurr of clicking harddrive UI lag if the system is pushed.Taking in mind the price of PCs I have ran in to the situation where I have too many projects open at once all running to many apps, for this XP comes out on top. For the price of a Mac at a certain performance level, I can almost get 2 PC(it use to be 3 and bit). Ether I VNC between them or better yet I use Remote desktop. I can have one system with the CPU pinned running scripts or running PhotoShop with poster sized images, and the other I can leave enough clock cycles free that my interface never lags. Remote desktop is not perfect but with a fast enough connection you can easily forget it's there.This works wonders when running very graby applications, or anything that needs real time performance. I could never run live Audio programs, with a live video app on 1 computer. Also my room mate has multipliable systems I can rip through projects that I need so much CPU power I could never afford the price of Mac equivalent hardware.
cerebralNov 27, 2007
That's only YOUR experience with laptops then. I have a windows XP HOME laptop by Toshiba that I purchased for $500 three years ago for my wife. It has a Celeron processor and I added 512MB RAM to the machine the day we brought it home. The hibernate/suspend cycles have never caused me to need to reboot this laptop. Not to mention that you cannot just say that OSX handles laptops really well because you cannot put OSX on a SONY VAIO or a Gateway etc. So hardware DOES matter in this instance. You have to realize that Apple is very picky about their hardware because they want to make a "whole package". As soon as you get out of that realm and allow just the OS to be installed on any device(s) then you see just how "stable" the OS is when it is installed on "sub par" hardware; it does make a difference. Not to mention that often times the user is the main cause for the majority of Windows issues. I work in IT and can tell you that even if a MAC is completely user friendly there are people out there that would find some way to eff the thing up.
jammerdelrayNov 28, 2007
Dupe
gh0st3000Dec 2, 2007
pretty much, they look like they've both been doing the same thing for years, only shinier every year.