How many APPLE products have you owned?

This is illegal.

If you have actually bought this copy of OSX it is also a violation of the EULA.

 

I don't think the cops will arrest him.

 

Yep, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Bought a 120gb iPod Classic back in 2008 as my first mp3 player. Got a Macbook Pro September 2011 after using my gf and friends' macs and just being over Windows. Ended up paying $1000 even with a $100 Apple store gift card and printer so not too terrible.

 

When, in Dec 2008, after 13 years I replaced my PowerMac 7600 (Originally 120 Mhz, but running at 500 Mhz with 440 Meg of RAM and 3 monitors) with an HP running Vista, (way too many clients were having trouble with Vista, I had to learn it to help them) I noticed I rebooted a brand new Windows box more often than a 13 year old Mac. This was not met with joy by the Windows fan boys. (I am on Windows 7 now, I have never made it past 'patch tuesday' without a reboot)

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Tuesday"]Patch Tuesday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/stats/powermac_7600_120.html

 

I never owned any apple product because my business software would not run on a Mac. Once they started using Intel processors all hell broke loose for me.

3 iPods
2 iPhones
2 MacBook pros
1 apple tv
1 iPad
1 time capsule

 

VMs are a bit more than simple emulators, which is why a majority of server software is now run in virtual environments. There are huge advantages in portability, maintenance, and disaster recovery. While there is overhead in the VM, sometimes the overhead is less than the supporting software required to run the OS native. I find that Windows runs faster in a VM on my Linux box than it does native, since the native installation requires Windows drivers and massive amounts of maleware protection.

Tom

 

Do these count? Because I have one, too.

 

I also have VMware Fusion on my MacBook Pro for when I have to quickly dip into Windows 7 for a few minutes. However, I like having the Boot Camp option, as well.

 

My company laptop is the latest ThinkPad T420 with i7 and 8 GB of RAM and my wife's Core2Duo MacBook Pro runs Windows visibly faster.

My wife's Windows partition is configured with the standard software load for a New York Life agent, which includes Norton and a bunch of other stuff. Even so, when she brought it to her IT person, he said its the fastest Windows machine he'd ever seen.

Maybe if you clock a 3 D game or a Photoshop Gaussian blur, it won't be the fastest, but for booting up and launching office apps, it's lightning fast. She uses the Windows partition strictly for work and does all of her web surfing and personal use with the Mac partition. This prevents viruses and the problem of Windows getting sluggish with time.

 

this is entirely true...unfortunately windows in a Mac OSX environment does not make windows any more stable

 

I've used Apple computers since high school, and that's quite a long time ago.

I have no idea how many I've had over the years. Less Apples than PCs, though - they tend to last longer. I used to solve the virus and business software issues with two computers - an Apple for surfing, and a PC for working. The PC wasn't connected to the net, so I didn't get updates, but this little trick made it far more secure than it could have been otherwise. In the last few years, everything's been loaded on one machine, and it works great.

 

Curious...

How do you get to see the stuff that is in Flash on the Apple stuff.

 

Need facts there.

Modern Windows and OSX are both very stable. I have not had an inherently unstable machine since 2002/2003. The first incarnation of XP fixed many stability issues as did the first incarnation of OSX.

I have worked extensively on macs and pcs. I have had just as many iMacs die as I have PCs die. The PC gets a blue screen of death, the mac either sits there in an infinite loop with the spinning beach ball or kernel panics and restarts.

You have to look for an unstable window's machine today. And those that have problems with vendor specific installs of the OS cannot blame Microsoft for anything other than not making the hardware too.

It is like when a Toyota dealership installs some cheap 3rd party system (like an alarm/remote start) into a Prius and it sucks. That does not make the base (Toyota Prius i.e. Microsoft Windows) bad. It makes the 3rd party addon (Remote Start/Alarm i.e. Vendor specific Software) bad.

I have a Windows 7 based server at home. It has 99.8% uptime. The only times it has been shut down since it was built was for software updates which are stored and done once a month and in the summer when the power went out and the UPS gracefully shut down the network. And this isn't a personal type server that doesn't do anything. I have 100GB to 400GB (that's giga bytes not bits) going in and out of this box per day.

None of my windows laptops that I currently own have ever BSOD'ed. The last laptop I had that BSOD'ed was a Toshiba that I used in highschool with a desktop P4 inside (that dates it!). I didn't zip up my backpack, threw it into the car, laptop didn't make it into the car. I ran over it with the car. The screen miraculously did not crack and other than a non functioning Function-Key (F11 or something) it worked fine. It BSOD'ed frequently after that until I found the DDR slot on the mobo had broken its solder joints. A hot air gun and 30 seconds of time, it never BSOD'ed again while I had it.

Windows machines are not flaky. They are not unstable. When you give people free reign over what to install, they generally install garbage. When you give consumer-level people reign over what to install, they will install garbage. Bonzai Buddy anyone?

 

Psst, when I'm running Windows it isn't in a Mac OS-X environment. It's running native.

 

This is the key. That fact that most Windows machines are littered with crap software means that most Windows machines are unstable. They aren't inherently that way, but left in the hands of a typical non-technical user they rapidly end up that way.

You can make the argument that all of the bad software is not Microsoft's fault. I agree from a technical standpoint, but it's also true that Microsoft could have engineered an OS that was more tolerant of bad applications. A bad application should crash the application, not bring down the entire machine. Regardless, from the consumer's perspective, Windows machines are not very robust.

As an example of how Windows can operate when not corrupted by crap, I have a Windows NT server running at a client's office that has been going for 15 years. It's never been reloaded. I had to replace the cooling fan on the power supply, but other than that it just runs.

Tom

 

Since Vista I have never had an application crash and take down anything but the program. Even basic hardware driver crashes (simulated in a test environment) leave the OS intact.

 

Strawman ?

For eg. I've bought $5k speakers and they were good values too.

 

I'm not surprised. Windows started improving in this area with the development of OS/2. Microsoft lifted much of that architecture and put it into NT, which turned out to be very stable. From there on Windows has been better.

Still, you miss my point. Your Windows computers as well as my Windows computers are not the problem. We are both competent technology people who generally know better than to install crap and allow our computers to get loaded up with trojans and viruses. The computers I see in the wild are not so lucky. I see a lot of Windows computers at my clients locations. They all start out being reasonably fast and stable. Six months to a year later they aren't so good, even with solid anti-virus software and hardware firewalls. All the protection in the world is no help when the administrator willingly allows the installation of system altering malware.

The computer industry needs a paradigm shift in how we install and maintain operating system software. It needs to be locked away from the casual user and generally better protected from malicious change. It also needs to change less often. If we operated cars the way we run computers, every time you stopped for gas someone would run out and change a part on your engine. You wouldn't be quite sure what they were changing or why, but still it would get changed - maybe for the better, maybe not.

High hardware costs limited OS isolation in the early days. Windows was particularly bad about this, with applications dropping into kernal mode and everything interconnected through DLLs. It was a mess. It's largely still a mess, although it's a more manageable mess.

Tom