DragonMaster said:I think it's mostly due to hardware. There are some computers that run Windows and Linux without ever crashing or whatever, while there are some where Linux runs fine but Windows like a PoC.
So true I am a proud user of Windows XP SP2 I've had my HP 510N sence 2000 And have yet to have any problems out of it and if so it was my fault (A software Problem)which takes me less than 5 mins to address....Linux is ok but I dont really like the interface(Guess I've been using Windows to long) It's a very stabled OS (in my view) I just chose not to use it do to the fact that it's barley no software availabel compaired to Windows ..Linux also takes alot of memory and a strong cpu to run at optimal speed....I had no hardware problems when using Linux all of my hardware was sucessful detected without the use of 3rd party drivers (surprised) ...The Mac OS has always and will always be garbage to me ....just like a few ppl said above if i application crashes etc u have to re-install the entire OS which automatically eliminates this OS from my selection......
My PC Spechs....
1.2 Intel Celeron (overclocked @ 1.7 GHZ using Thrusmaster water cooling system) Very Stabled performance cosidering my cpu only reach a max heat tempature of 38 degrees (Yes I Actully place ice cubes in the compartment for additional cooling
512 MB of system memory with ECC
128 MB Geforce MX4000 Overclocked using Coolbits Core 367MHZ Memory 512MHZ.....
Software encode Pixel Shader 2.0 (so I can play all of the latest games using the Geforce)
40 GB Seagate 7200 Rpm 8 mb cache hardrive
60 GB Maxtor 7200 Rpm 16 MB cache hardrive
Hi-speed on board realtek networking card
V92 56-k Voice/Data/Fax Modem
Logictec Driving Force Wheel And Pedal Set
12 Button Game Controller
Logitec Digital Camera/With Built In microphone
.............Windows Xp Tweaked out for performance still with all of the cool graphical effects..............
Pc runs quick as lightning & Have not updated anything Sence the Geforce MX4000 Came out.....
clcrow9705 said:Windows is very unstable... although it can use any program out there it is still just too unreliable and unstable.
holiday112284 said:Hearsay. if it were true, I would agree, but it aint so I've run Macs all the way from 6.0.5 and never had to reinstall the OS.DragonMaster said:The Mac OS has always and will always be garbage to me ....just like a few ppl said above if i application crashes etc u have to re-install the entire OS which automatically eliminates this OS from my selection....
jobeard said:I was going to call him out on that too if you hadn't, well I guess I am goign to anyway.holiday112284 said:Hearsay. if it were true, I would agree, but it aint so I've run Macs all the way from 6.0.5 and never had to reinstall the OS.
I've ran 6.0.2? through 8.5.5 then started up again at 10.4 and have not had to reinstall the OS because a program crashed. Hell back in the classic (pre 10) if one crashed you just upped the memory usage set for it. Now in the new ones that is all automatic (dynamic). If a program starts crashing on me now, well I haven't had any do that except Adium, and each time its began crashing I've found there was an update for it, which eliminated the crashes (usually due to some chat network changing how things work which upsets how adium works).
The ONLY other program I've had crash itself in OSX is Opera9 beta. (for some reason the alpha I was running was stable, but these betas seem off). But Opera9 isn't even released officially so I can't expect it to be perfect.
sorry, urban legend but also not so. With the FreeBSD(Unix) at the core, OS X 10.* is now exposedJulian309 said:yea because there arnt any viruses for the mac their all for the windows os because more people use windows.
WinDoWsMoNoPoLy said:I really do hate Windows because it eventually always crashes. You could have a computer running Windows not connected to the internet for years and it would eventually get the BSOD.
Then the crapload of useless services that run in the background on windows eating RAM as well.
98 and 98SE: upped reliability even more when compared to 95, interface is pretty much the same except they added "active desktop"
Currently its acting like XP on a 400Mhz K6-2 with 128 megs of ram. (I would know, I ran XP on a system like that)
this is a prime motivator for Mac users -- use the system, not manage it :giddy:SNGX1275 said:I want to use a system that just works without spending time troubleshooting.