Forums | MacLife

test wrote:

As far as I can tell XP is just as big pile of kludges as OS9. The only advantage XP has over OS9 is that the publisher still supports it. Or, from a more realistic perspective, the biggest advantage OS9 has over XP is Apple had the decency to give it a proper funeral and not let the rancid corpse fester on the front lawn.

There IS a lot of spaghetti code in XP, mostly for maintaining backwards compatibility, and because its always cheaper and smarter to reuse existing code (lots of OS 9 still exists in OS X, not to mention Unix and NeXT).  Nevertheless, the XP Kernal was designed to imitate the key features of Unix that make it so valuable as a multi-user client-server framework, which are automatic (always on) protected virtual memory, and preemptive multitasking.  OS 9 did not have these key features.

Where windows has generally never been as good as Apple is in human interface guidelines (quick pick an Interrupt Vector!), and its intrusive housekeeping (registry--AAAAARRRGGHH).

EDIT: NSX's logic escapes me, other than comparing some list of chronological releases.  For one thing WindowsME is part of the 3.1-95.-98 lineup, and Windows2000 is part of the NT-2000-XP lineup.  I'm not sure if Vista warrants a new product thread anymore.

Last edited by Metacell (2008-07-05 5:37 pm)

I meant this:

NSX wrote:

che/pum -> 95
jag         -> 98
pan        -> 00/me
tiger       -> xp
leo         -> vista

You have listed the successive OS releases from each copmany in chronological order, with, I am assuming, the MacOS on the left being superior.  I don't think there is any such neat correlation.

Also you have listed pan(ther?) as being -> 00/me.  But Windows2000 and WindowsME are very different.  ME is the last incarnation of MS's original Windows line of OSes.  2000 comes from NT and evolved into XP.  I still know people who much prefer 2000 to XP.

In any event, from a design standpoint, ALL versions of OS X are superior to Win95-98-ME.  10.0 and 10.1 might fail at the performance level, but 10.2 and above are solid performers.

EDIT: As for Vista, it was once going to be an entirely new OS at the core (what longhorn was going to be), but ended up being largely an XP makeover.  I'm not sure if it warrants being called the start of a new product line or a continuation of the NT-XP line.

Last edited by Metacell (2008-07-05 6:57 pm)

ah ok metacell, i get the vista thing u r talkin bout now.

to dvpierce, i think its a pretty fair rendition, but yours is accurate.

im not comparing the time.  i'm comparing the interface.  where 3.1 and nt are similar, os 9's and its releases were. and osx's etc

dvpierce wrote:

OS 9 is comparable to 98/Me, as both were obsolete when shipped.

10.0 and 10.1, (which were functional, ultra-stable OSes, shipped for servers first and were missing some features that made them not quite ready for desktop users) might be compared to NT 4.

More like obsolescent? It's been a long time, but IIRC it might be better 'comparable to NT 3.51 and NT 4.' And '98SE was quite serviceable; it rarely crashed on me as well as having decent memory management and preemptive, not cooperative, multitasking.

2k/XP/Vista stack up nicely against 10.2-10.5.

Someone should point out that thru Win for Workgroups 3.11 was a GUI layer on DOS, 9x added a 32-bit layer on DOS underpinnings, and NT thru XP (barring XP/64) are pure 32-bit OSes. XP and Vista both have 64-bit versions that give up 16-bit compatibility which most flavors of XP have. XP's compatibility modes alter up to 200 environment variables  which allow running most DOS/ 95/ 98/ ME apps.

Metacell wrote:

EDIT: As for Vista, it was once going to be an entirely new OS at the core (what longhorn was going to be), but ended up being largely an XP makeover.  I'm not sure if it warrants being called the start of a new product line or a continuation of the NT-XP line.

Vista runs like a whole new OS, at least the 64 bit version does for me. I don't get multiple BSODs per hour any more. I no longer feel lucky if the OS holds together for more than a week or two. Vista may be an XP makeover but it is a damn good makeover.

test wrote:

Vista runs like a whole new OS, at least the 64 bit version does for me. I don't get multiple BSODs per hour any more. I no longer feel lucky if the OS holds together for more than a week or two.

Thing is, most people don't get that with XP, either.

Or did you upgrade from Me to Vista in one fel swoop?

Well, yeah, MCE was problematic, but computers straight from the factory usually need an immediate format/install.

Last one I bought, I had to boot into safe mode to even get past the Windows splash screen. I uninstalled all the bloatware, including two or three different internet security and antivirus apps, installed my own, and was off to the races. I haven't had a problem since that wasn't of my own doing.

I shudder to think what would happen if Apple started shipping machines pre-installed with 10 GBs of auto-launching, buggy 3rd party trial software, carefully selected and guaranteed to use more RAM than the OS itself.

Yeah... but XP Pro is pretty solid. In fact, I just got contracted by some relatives to build them a PC, and I am loading XP Pro on it for them, instead of Vista.

Metacell wrote:

EDIT: As for Vista, it was once going to be an entirely new OS at the core (what longhorn was going to be), but ended up being largely an XP makeover.  I'm not sure if it warrants being called the start of a new product line or a continuation of the NT-XP line.

Probably enough, if just. It's true a fair number of features were cut to make ship (WinFS may actually be dead), but the rewritten driver model, new software-only audio stack and more are significant departures; and that's only on the DX10 end. (And yes, DX9.0L does mean Longhorn. That name was held over in that designation).

XP has some nice amenities buried inside, like

Roll your own WinXP keyboard is not rocket science, shocker

YOU DON'T have to struggle with the default key maps provided with Windows. Yet few people venture to redesign their own keyboard map with Microsoft's freeware utility. We prove here you have nothing to fear.

Anyone can have a reason for redefining the keyboard layout. In the case of this scribbler the main reason was owning a US notebook with US keyboard and often having to type in Spanish, with all the special characters like the ñ and the acute accent in vowels that come with it. Yes, WinXP provides ways to switch between key maps using the floating "Language Bar" or its icon docked next to the Systray, but switching back and forth between key maps can get a bit irritating. And some key maps like US International help. But in some instances that might be not enough.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ … ard-rocket

Not really true, tho. NT lacked, especially in the mid-'90's, a number of amenities consumers would expect, '95 had, & NT lacked. NT then was mainly a server/ workstation OS. The GUIs were similar, but differences abounded after that.