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
