I don't remember how I found this link, so it might have already come out of a thread on ehMac.
But I recommend checking out http://www.xvsxp.com/ , since it's a pretty fair comparison and of couse OS X wins out. If nothing else, you could learn a few things about the OS's, especially the little User Interface things that make XP suck!!!
As much as I hate to do this, I have to say that most of the info in the links provided so far is totally inaccurate (except http://www.xvsxp.com/... good site!)
Don't get me wrong, I love MS bashing as much as the next person, but being a techie (for now) I have to say that a lot of the rants on XP is due to stupid user error, or bad hardware. In fact, I suspect those top 10 lists are Apple users running XP in VPC. Of course it will be slow! It's not a PC!
Let's face it, Apple has an advantage. Apple makes the hardware, Apple makes the OS, Apple makes a lot of the software. They have a lot less to deal with. MS only makes the OS, and it's expected to work with thousands upon thousands of hardware manufacturers, a lot of them trying to cut corners and create cheap crap. MS does pretty well considering the amount of crappy hardware people buy. When I was buying PC hardware, I was buying quality parts (Asus, Ati, Maxtor, Pioneer) and I never ever had any problems.
XP is fast, fairly stable, pretty secure, and has some nice features. Still doesn't come CLOSE to the power of Unix, and the beauty and functionality of OS X, but let's be fair... XP is at least a step in the right direction.
Then again... what do I care. I don't even own a PC anymore.
" ... In fact, I suspect those top 10 lists are Apple users running XP in VPC ..."
Well, I find that hard to believe. Few, if any, refer to things MacOS does that Windows doesn't. But, supposing that it is true they are closet Mac users; and are Mac lovers who for some reason use MSN; and somehow manage to create such ugly websites with Mac hardware/software.
What about the things they bring up?
WinXP home is a crippled OS that should have all the functionality of XP pro; I can't see any reason why XP home even exists or why you should have to pay more to get what amounts to a properly featured OS.
Hardware compatibility is an issue; there is no reason why I should have to spend hours trying to get a Hewlett-Packard USB keyboard recognised, for example. (Note: it still doesn't work properly, and XP Pro insists on replacing the HP driver, which offers at least some of the additional features, with a generic MS driver that doesn't, on every reboot).
Networking and connectivity are still far too complex and cranky. Windows Help is frankly worse than no help at all; generally it sends you all over the place for no apparent reason, and the solutions it suggests are just as likely to lead you to fix things that aren't broke in the hope of fixing what is. Many times it offers only the most inexplicable results to simple queries.
It is definitely a resource hog. One might well argue that OSX isn't much better, but it is a complete rewrite that I expect will get faster with each new release, not the other way around. I see no reason to expect the next OS from Windows will be faster on the same hardware than the current one.
Windows XP, even with good hardware and memory installed, has problems dealing with certain multitasking processes that should not be an issue with protected memory and the OS/Application separation that comes from Win2K. Stability, much to my suprise, is still an issue; a monthly panic is better than a weekly or daily one but is still inadequate considering the rest of the world now runs some flavor of UNIX.
Installation, even on fast machines, takes forever. Getting a given install up to current (ie this week's) security patches is an all-day process. Windows Update is convenient but hardly goes beyond the absolute minimum in terms of ease-of-use; download speeds are often glacial even on fast connections. Often an update will break a perfectly good running system.
Many potentially vulnerable services are turned on by default. Properly configuring an XP system for decent security involves many an hour on the net and poking around obscure control panels.
In fact, if you aren't on the internet, not only can you not find out what you need to know to get it to run smoothly, but a whole whack of resource hogs are turned on by default for no earthly use.
My comments all refer my experience with XP on a standalone Windows box. XP under VPC is significantly easier to run, and some of these issues are in that case moot. Given a choice, I run Win98SE whenever possible.
There is a lot about XP that is good, very good in fact. With the caveat that XP Home is a complete waste of time, the OS runs like a Windows OS should have ran for years. If only they could have worked on the 10th 10th, rather than being satisfied with shipping a 9/10ths complete product, WinXP might be enjoying the adolation that Win95 users heaped upon that overdue OS.
gordguide wrote: WinXP home is a crippled OS that should have all the functionality of XP pro.
I'm curious; what functionality is missing from XP Home that's present in XP Professional that you think most home users would use?
It is definitely a resource hog. One might well argue that OSX isn't much better....
Last I checked, you didn't need a 3D accelerator to get decent performance in Windows XP
Stability, much to my suprise, is still an issue; a monthly panic is better than a weekly or daily one but is still inadequate considering the rest of the world now runs some flavor of UNIX.
I've found Windows XP far more stable than Mac OS X; I've gotten more kernel panics with Mac OS X in six months than I have from Windows 2000 and Windows XP combined.
Getting a given install up to current (ie this week's) security patches is an all-day process.
Not in my experience. Windows Update downloads the patches in the background, and lets me know when they're ready to install. It takes less than a minute of my time to get the patches installed (I don't usually reboot after every patch).
Many potentially vulnerable services are turned on by default.
CUPS under Mac OS X springs to mind immediately. I've no idea how to turn it off, either.
I personally think we are getting off topic a bit.Point to all the rants is this-
The "average".....ahem....pc user doesnt know a damn thing.They dont care enough to learn what it is they are dealing with when they buy a box.That said,the whole point to buying a pc is to make life easier right?Bank machines dropping like flies due to "loopholes" or something makes nobodys life easy.Being afraid to use the net because of hackers/virus/spyware isnt easier.Needing a floppy to boot your system in case of a crash isnt easy if you dont know before hand that you need it.And I dont know about other people,but I dont want a damn thing running in the "background".I paid for it,its MY computer,I will tell it what to do and when to do it.I dont need "friendly" reminders from ms dorks telling me my whatever needs to be "reported".If they got it right in the first place I wouldnt have to report anything.Seems "Reports" are good for beta stuff.Doesnt that mean that XP is just a beta?Or are they just being good little friendly ms people?
I've worked on all OS...95 to XP and 7-Jag,and it frustrates me to no end seeing a WAY better company with MUCH better programers get looked down upon.Mac is the better OS in my opinion.The only issue I will ever have with Mac is what holds them back.Their prices.If they would just come down they would dominate.
Oh and before I forget,I have a co-worker who uses good hardware.He just hopes that none of his 7 fans breaks so his PC wont errupt into a fireball.Stick to thinking of the basics and you can see which is the better.
And damn......it does look like Fisher Price dont it,especially those lame little cutsie things in MSWord.....a dog?PC people dont realize a dog is giving them tutorials?Then again,the more simple the better right?
"WOOF!!!WOOF!!.........please press ctrl+alt+del"
" ...I'm curious; what functionality is missing from XP Home that's present in XP Professional that you think most home users would use? ..."
For me, the major issue is security; each logged in user in XP Home is essentially an administrator account. If you have, as I do, 4 teenagers using the computer, you find that pirated games, viruses and mp3 downloads either make the machine unstable or eat up all available disk space very quickly. With one user requiring good security to to confidental work (requiring a federal security clearance) and kids homework being killed by this kind of stuff, it was obvious XP Pro was the only viable option. This even though the computer is clearly in a "home" enviournment.
Other security features are also an issue; some functions are missing in XP Home.
Other features I consider essential which Home does not have is file/folder encryption. Many Canadians need multiple language support.
" ... Last I checked, you didn't need a 3D accelerator to get decent performance in Windows XP ..."
Correct, but it sure helps (for many other programs, not the OS). It is supposed to be a good game platform, after all. OS9 is a perfectly acceptable OS that also doesn't require acceleration and can compete with XP Home quite easily.
" ... I've found Windows XP far more stable than Mac OS X; I've gotten more kernel panics with Mac OS X in six months than I have from Windows 2000 and Windows XP combined. ..."
Exactly the opposite of my experience. I have yet to crash OSX even once in over a year of daily use. XP panics about once a month here at home, and Win2000 and WinXP crashes are fairly commonplace at my workplace (about 6 machines, one is good to go down every day).
" ... Not in my experience. Windows Update downloads the patches in the background, and lets me know when they're ready to install. It takes less than a minute of my time to get the patches installed (I don't usually reboot after every patch). ..."
I was referring to a new installation. Reboots are mandatory. Don't know how you do it, but I find MS's servers often too busy to get decent d/l speeds. As for Windows update in general, all attempts to install Explorer 6 on two separate & current Win98SE installations consistently results in a blue screen, (something about writing to an illegal area) even though it's supposed to be a supported OS. In my experience, Apple's implementation never allows you to d/l updates that are incompatible with the OS.