IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

MAX OS 10 -vs- Windows 2000

0 helpful
2 replies

by mikel~t 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I've recently read an article (from CNET I believe) that compared OS X and Windows 2000. At the end, the author said that OS X wins the war due to the graphical interface, stability of the unix kernel and that OS X is easy to install (because that's done on a daily basis with OS X I guess). Anyway, everyone knows that installing an operating system has nothing to do with how reliable that system is, DOS was easy to install, so why don't we all go back to that.

Now then, I have used OS X, and I have used Windows 2000, and with that stated, I have to say that the author of that article is nuts. I can't run any of the programs on OS X that I can on OS 9, but I can run all of my programs on Windows 2000 that I could run on 98. There are very few support files out there and upgrades from OS 9 to OS X, but almost every windows compatible device has some sort of upgrade, and they did a year ago when the operating system came out. I have a hard time patting Apple on the back for an operating system that can't run anything right out of the gate. It's not the software vendor's fault either...Apple has hung the vendor's out to dry so many times before when they released a Beta, and then changed everything in the final release.

Inconclusion, when at war, if one side isn't prepared to participate in the battle and the battle starts, they lose...and they lose badly, and CNN would report that a minor conflict occurred.

I say wait until both operating systems are running atfull steam, and then compare them.

Just some food for thought...and I would like to add that I don't hate macs, nor do I hate PCs. I use both, and have seen weaknesses and strengths in both.

Mike

2 replies

by mayuresh

I have used 2k, but never even touched a mac.
So i dunno what the hell i'm doin replying to this discussion, but what the heck :-)

From what i have read, the OS X is a massive upgrade. Everything from the kernel, graphics engine etc etc....everything is new.
I think u could call this a 'from the ground up' kinda project. So most of the applications developed for the previous versions would have to run in a 'kinda emulation' mode. Hence obviosly reducing performance, if at all they still run.
This initial phase of OS X was always goin to be difficult with the amount of changes they were trying to implement. But i do belive that the last time i checked, almost all the major software makers had announced that their later versions would all be OS X compatible. So it's only a matter of time before all the software titles are available and OS X picks up speed.
As for 2k, it still runs the same old registry, same old crappy handling of dll etc etc....so BSD if not so frequent does have a habit of showing up now and then. In my opinion, 2k was no great upgrade. U'll have to wait for XP to show up and then compare it to OS X. That would be a good battle, coz both are the most significant upgrades to leave their respective firms in over 1/2 a decade. But i would'nt be surprised if MS ripped off a few of Apples juciest ideas. It's already done that with Luna.

i'm rooting for Os X though, and looking forward to the day when i can take it out for a test drive.

regards
Mayuresh

by epepke

OS X is all new. It is as different from Mac OS 9 as Windows 2000 is from Windows 3.1, perhaps even more so.

OS 9 is essentially the same operating system as the first one in 1984. It has more stuff, and it has been substantially rewritten, butrule-following code written in 1984 will still run today.

Apple, I think, made a good decision on breaking ground for OS X, and what is amazing is that it is as backward-compatible as it is.

This discussion is closed to new replies.