• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Is Apple Stable more than windows?

Recommended Posts

LTD    0

My friend and I disscuss this a lot and we agree that both OS's (Windows XP, Mac OS X 10.4) are good operating system's, however it depends on what you do. For example if you are a in coperate enviroment, Windows is better for things like spreadsheets, word documents, powerpoints and other things. Mac OSX is better for things like Music, Video, Pictures and Digital lifestyle stuff. Like I said, it depends on what you do.

OS X runs Microsoft Office. Fully. Ditto for the full Adobe suite (wwhich was practically born on macs), and a plethora of other power apps. Your reasoning for a "corporate environment" is flawed. if you mean by "corporate environment" that there exists certain specialized software for that particular industry, that runs on XP, then fine. For example, in the collections/debt recovery industry, we use ACE and 5/9 Dialer to keep track of debtors and place certain outbound calls. But you can't buy that in stores. It's made for the industry itself.

Corporate environments use Windows on PCs . . . because that is what has been used for years. And it's a cheaper solution. The consequent ubiquity of Windows means software will be made available for that platform, at least in the beginning. But certain academic/scientific sectors use Macs exclusively.

And now, Apple does Windows, too. So the only real argument against using Macs is in the area of specialized, industry-related software, and cost.

I'm guessing you've never actually used a Mac (recently) for any length of time.

Besides, Macs are far more stable, do not need any spyware/adware/antivirus software to run efficiently (without them Windows would grind to a halt regularly), and . . . well, you know all the claims. All of which happen to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
medium_pimpin    202

Makes no sense... Is Apple more stable than Dell? or Is MacOSX more stable that Windows XP? If Microsoft controlled the hardware AND software of the PC's people bought, is would be a legit comparison.

Find a new topic to write about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RadishTM    315

That would require going out and purchasing a system with OS X (or Windows, if they have a Mac already). Some people like to get some information before making such a purchase.

A better reply, for example, would have been to reccomend some review/comparison sites, or atleast a "search for it" troll.

Or even better would be to go to a Apple store/authorized reseller, and play around with a Mac to your hearts' content.

Radish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LTD    0

Makes no sense... Is Apple more stable than Dell? or Is MacOSX more stable that Windows XP? If Microsoft controlled the hardware AND software of the PC's people bought, is would be a legit comparison.

Find a new topic to write about.

OS X makes it extremely difficult for anything to be installed without the user's knowledge/permission.

Windows, however, makes it incredibly easy.

Neither has anything to do with harware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxdesmus    0

TImes my apple crashed-------0

yes it is more stable.

[sarcasm] Oh well in that case...clearly it must be more stable [/sarcasm]

Number of times my mac mini (mactel) has kernel panic-ed since I've owned it: probably about 10

Number of BSOD since I've owned my Win XP Pro box: maybe 5 at most.

No joke, those are pretty close to the numbers.

I like the slogan: "Apple, it's just a different kind of crash."

The OS is only as stable as the user.

Edited by xxdesmus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the godfather    0

Windows has crashed for me in terms of a BSOD and sudden freezes, unable to do anything except reset on the front of the pc case. I *think* the freeze is driver related, while the BSOD was a corrupt HDD partition, that has since been restored.

My Mac has never froze on me to the point of restarting, but some applications have unexpectedly exited etc.

I do find Mac OS X mroe stable than Windows XP, but it could be due to the hardware/softwware intergration people have talked about. They are both good, but my personal preference lies with OS X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jexel    0

The OS is only as stable as the user.

definately. Since my last format around 3-4 months ago I haven't had one BSOD or any sort of crashes on my winxp home. I personally have only used macs(osx) in department stores so haven't really experienced a mac "crash" yet.

I'm happy with Windows it doesn't hinder me in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Lyle    340

it really depends on your hardware..

i have only had 1 crash in the last 9 months, and before that, i can't remember. I'm running a legit copy of Windows XP SP2, but i have never used a mac.

it really depends on the quality of your hardware, not software my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phixion    10

Number of times Windows has crashed on me with my current system = 0

Why? Because I have decent hardware and I don't install lame programs. You cannot categorize in such a way... One person might have hundreds of problems with their Windows install whereas someone else might have none at all. It all depends on your hardware and know-how.

With Mac's you get it easy really, its made by apple and so is the software that comes with it (most of it). I'm sure alot of testing went into it, but when they are selling pre-defined systems with hardware they KNOW is going to be in them, they are pretty confident the systems won't be crashing all too often.

On my system I've had Windows and Linux, I can safely say that my Windows install is JUST as stable as my Linux install was. My system has never blue-screened and never crashed in either Windows or Linux.

I firmly believe a large segment of people buy Macs because they're the "in" thing at the moment, they look damn sexy and the OS is pretty nice looking too.

My main problem with Mac's are the cost, spending that much money and finding out a year or 2 later its out of date, not being able to upgrade and probably having to buy an entire new system - but if I had the cash I'd definately buy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chad    0

If Microsoft controlled the hardware AND software of the PC's people bought, is would be a legit comparison.

Find a new topic to write about.

What hardware works in a pc that doesn't work in a Mac? There isn't much difference anymore. The only drivers included with each OS are the basics to get it running. Any enhancements are released by the hardware vendor, so a Mac is just as susceptible to crappying drivers as Windows is. With those things known, what you are saying is that MS sucks at creating the most basic of drivers.

Apple has no more control over the hardware that works with a Mac than Windows does with a pc. The original hardware configuration of a Mac/pc is but a small sampling of what is available for each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chad    0

I firmly believe a large segment of people buy Macs because they're the "in" thing at the moment, they look damn sexy and the OS is pretty nice looking too.

What proof do you have that supports your assumption? How do you know people aren't realizing that a Mac is a better computer; that OS X is a better os?

My main problem with Mac's are the cost, spending that much money and finding out a year or 2 later its out of date, not being able to upgrade and probably having to buy an entire new system - but if I had the cash I'd definately buy one.

What kind of computer is out of date in 2 years? Hell even most windows machines aren't that out of date in 2 years. I've used 5 year old Macs that run the os and the apps I need without a problem. Don't expect to run the newest pro apps, but who would.

I've upgraded many Powermac processors for myself and friends, as well as video cards, harddrives, added usb/firewire/serial ports....wait, what part can't you upgrade again? I see. I guess Windows laptops can be upgra....oh wait, they can't. Then how about those Windows-based all-in-one machines, they ca...oh, not them either. So what part of a Windows machine can be upraded that can't be in a Mac?

A Macintosh WILL be usable longer than a pc. The cost of ownership of a Mac is less over a x year period than a pc. That includes original cost, software, upkeep (time/money), etc. Want something new? Great! Sell your Mac for a bundle (they hold their value REALLY well) and buy new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kickenchicken360    0

you know id say that generally windows is just as stable as osx, just for the fact that people have mastered xp only becuase its sooo common. if osx were to become common then it would also need anti-virus. but for now id say that osx is more stable but the programs run so freakin darn slow on those things emacs in my old computerromm at school were running at 1.2 ghz 256 mb ram osx they were too slow for more than 6 hours on and when we made movies on htem they were super slow at the end of the day those things were just too low on resources for 6 hours of movie making and editing it took soo long too open ie or imovie on em . but the good thing is that well they were more stable as i has less frequent crashes. only had to unplug a couple of times. i never have to do that with windows. i have xp pro sp2 on my comp its running smooth and only bad thing is i upgraded from win2k on a 10% corrupted filesystem, so ie on my pc doest go back when i hit the back button so now im using mozilla firefox. i also noticed that on osx firefox ran soooo darn slow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiG-    2

Windows is as stable as you make it... and it can stay that way very easily..

The best thing you can do is make a custom XP disc which has everything pre-installed onto it, all the crap u dont want removed and settings for multi-partitioned discs already there..

I've done this, and i bet i can set-up XP 10x quicker than a Mac..

I put in the Disc, walk away, come back in an hour or so, i could come back to a complete fresh install, but with my settings, my apps installed, or the nessecary shortcuts or triggers in place so i can access games and stuff i dont delete when formatting...

Being a Power User of XP helps tremendously.. without it, XP can be a serious ****er...

BSOD's are usually down to bad hardware / drivers, something windows cannot avoid, it has a million and one more pieces of hardware it has to deal with, heck try OSX with a standard computer, unless u have the exact hardware it wants you aint getting no-where, thats is why OSX is more stable out of the box, but you all knew that ? right ? :rofl:

IF you want XP to work for you, it can work just as good if not better than OSX, and if you take the time to make a decent unattended install then i think the power is greater than OSX... by a nice margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LTD    0

Most of you are forgetting a critical point:

Windows systems *must* be maintained, and done right, and done regularly, with antivrius/anti-spyware and adware software. Without all this, it would grind to a halt in no time. Unless you don't go online. The average user needs plenty of help with this. Or rather, it takes quite a bit of work (read "non-productivity time") to get all of this up and running and under control.

OS X needs no maintenance, by and large, whether you expose it to the internet or otherwise. No slowdowns, no degradation in performance.

Aside from the currently baseless allegation that OS X will become just as vulnerable as Windows becuse it runs on Intel, it is far more difficult for a virus or malicious content to be installed on OS X because virtually nothing is installed without the user's permission. The point is, it is much easier to compromise a Windows-based system.

In terms of security and satbility , OS X is *still* far more reliable (especially out-of-the-box) than a Windows system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kickenchicken360    0

Windows is as stable as you make it... and it can stay that way very easily..

The best thing you can do is make a custom XP disc which has everything pre-installed onto it, all the crap u dont want removed and settings for multi-partitioned discs already there..

I've done this, and i bet i can set-up XP 10x quicker than a Mac..

I put in the Disc, walk away, come back in an hour or so, i could come back to a complete fresh install, but with my settings, my apps installed, or the nessecary shortcuts or triggers in place so i can access games and stuff i dont delete when formatting...

Being a Power User of XP helps tremendously.. without it, XP can be a serious ****er...

BSOD's are usually down to bad hardware / drivers, something windows cannot avoid, it has a million and one more pieces of hardware it has to deal with, heck try OSX with a standard computer, unless u have the exact hardware it wants you aint getting no-where, thats is why OSX is more stable out of the box, but you all knew that ? right ? :rofl:

IF you want XP to work for you, it can work just as good if not better than OSX, and if you take the time to make a decent unattended install then i think the power is greater than OSX... by a nice margin.

yah ur right. but one thing that ticks me off is that mscs are overpriced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stadsport    0

Or even better would be to go to a Apple store/authorized reseller, and play around with a Mac to your hearts' content.

Radish?

I've used OS X at school for two years, and have played with it at the Apple store many a time. It wasn't until I had my own computer with it that I got a chance to really see how it works and feels, because when you're using it at school or an apple store, you can't just sit down an use it like you normally do, install applications you want, etc.

Besides that, there's not an Apple store near many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudnartim    11

I hvaent used an Apple but my Windows x64 hasnt had a blue screen that was related to a bad memory stick since i had it installed back in February and its on ~24/7 playing avi's wow, downloading torrents and using trillian, granted I aslo control what services are running virus scan and uses windows defender awesome prog by the way so I like to kep my comp running like a swiss watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlibbyFlobby    0

Nope, Mac OS X isn't more stable than Windows XP. I use both OS's at work constantly and they both have their fair share of crashes and problems but neither are what I would call unstable.

Also its not true that Windows XP installs get worse over time provided you look after your machine properly. Keep control of whats booting up on your machine (and what processes are running), run anti virus and malware solutions, use a good firewall, defrag as needed, don't install every program under the sun you don't actually need and keep up to date with the latest OS updates.

Mac OS X definately needs less maintenance than Windows XP, I can testify to that (see above :p), and Mac's are especially good for certain multimedia based applications because the software is designed and developed specifically for the hardware configurations it runs on, which provides better stability in that respect. The only downside with Mac OS X is that besides the multimedia aspect I don't feel it offers enough depth, complexity or options (software, games etc) for me to ever get stuck into properly like I do with Windows XP.

As much as I love the design of Mac's and the sleek look of Mac OS X I don't think they'd ever offer me the functionality and options that Windows XP does, hence why I don't own one, that and the jumped up prices (talk about a tax on style and design).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vhane    94
Mac OS X definately needs less maintenance than Windows XP, I can testify to that (see above :p), and Mac's are especially good for certain multimedia based applications because the software is designed and developed specifically for the hardware configurations it runs on, which provides better stability in that respect. The only downside with Mac OS X is that besides the multimedia aspect I don't feel it offers enough depth, complexity or options (software, games etc) for me to ever get stuck into properly like I do with Windows XP.

As much as I love the design of Mac's and the sleek look of Mac OS X I don't think they'd ever offer me the functionality and options that Windows XP does, hence why I don't own one, that and the jumped up prices (talk about a tax on style and design).

Don't be fooled by the simplicity of the OS X UI. Once you dwelve into the command line you'll find the power of unix lurking just beneath the surface. Windows feels opaque and GUI-dependent by comparison.

It's become a cliche that the average Mac user is a designer or multimedia producer who cares more about looks and design than technology. However, I see more and more developers - especially unix-types - who use OS X as their workstation environment of choice. OS X is a great platform for cutting code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
altermind    0

being a user of both mac and windows systems... I've found my windows system needs ALOT of maintanence to keep as stable as my mac... and the reality is this... TIME IS MONEY.... the amount I earn per hour compared to maintaining a windows system to a osx system is that.. even tho windows system is by far cheaper.. within 3 months.... I've made the difference time alone to pay the difference.

if anyone cares what I do.... video editing. 3D modeling. ... some heavy duty stuff for any comp to do...

long story short... I am a total mac convert... that being said... still no decent games for it LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capr    36

i dont think it's more stable. infact i think it's less stable. the only reason you notice windows soo much is because people keep exploiting the flaws in it. someone who wants to start a warm or spread a virus that crashes things starts with the big market which is windows. because of this windows has had to TRY to build everything more stable and as flawless as possible making their software as good as they can inteh time they are given.....

with the macOS there is much less threats out there so they don't need to worry about viruses spyware and warms a much. in return they don't spend as much time with stability and security as windows has to....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Pablo    0

Talking strictly about the OS here over the last six months of usage:

I have only seen one blue screen on XP (on my Dell Inspiron) when it was coming out of hibernate.

I have had two "Faded screens of death" (on my MacBook Pro) - one with a Beta of Parallels and one whilst playing Civ 4.

If I was to just evaluate the above evidence then I would have to say that Windows XP is a more stable OS than Mac OS X. The answer however, isn't that straight-forward, if only because one product has been commerically available for 5 years (Windows XP 32 bit) and the other for 6 months (Mac OS X 10.4 for x86) - five years is a lot of patching and fixing for MS and third party driver developers, so the product maturity should be highe (I remember a lot more blue screens in the early days of XP - nv4disp.dll anyone?). On that basis I would say XP is slightly more stable than Mac OS X due to it's maturity and not because of any inherent superiority.

A fairer comparison would be to wait for Windows 6.0 (Vista) and Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) to make the comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the evn show    138
someone who wants to start a warm or spread a virus that crashes things starts with the big market which is windows.

IIS Worms outpace Apache worms by an order of magnitude.

with the macOS there is much less threats out there so they don't need to worry about viruses spyware and warms a much. in return they don't spend as much time with stability and security as windows has to

Is it impossible for software companies to prioritize security and stability even without an onslaught of crap-ware to motivate them?

Do you run about licking rats because you no longer have to worry about the black death?

A fairer comparison would be to wait for Windows 6.0 (Vista) and Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) to make the comparison.

A fair comparison would be to have a sample size > 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Pablo    0

A fair comparison would be to have a sample size > 1.

If the OP asks (to paraphrase) "Is Windows or Mac OS X the most secure?". So there are some assumptions to be made:

i) We are talking about the current generation of the operating systems for x86 based machines - in this case Windows XP 32-bit and Mac OS 10.4.6/7.

ii) We are evaluating the difference in stability between these two operating systems and not the applications which run on them.

So that would be a comparison between two products with responses from many individuals. So it is already a comparison with a sample size of more than one.

The only reason a comparison between Vista and Leopard would be fairer, is that both products may be released around the same time as opposed to XP and Mac OS X x86. I would expect code that had been available for 5 years to have a greater percentage of its vulnerabilities and instabilities found and patched than one which has been available for six months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the evn show    138

If the OP asks (to paraphrase) "Is Windows or Mac OS X the most secure?". So there are some assumptions to be made:

conflating stability with security.

Stability is not falling over.

Security is being resistant to pushes.

i) We are talking about the current generation of the operating systems for x86 based machines - in this case Windows XP 32-bit and Mac OS 10.4.6/7.

Where did the limitation that it had to be an x86 Mac come from?

So that would be a comparison between two products with responses from many individuals. So it is already a comparison with a sample size of more than one.

Except that the comment I quoted wasn't.

Purhaps the sun was casting glare on your screen. I'll quote it for you:

I have only seen one blue screen on XP??Ib> have had two "Faded screens of death"?I was to just evaluate the above evidence

See all those places where you used the personal pronoun "I"? That's your sample. You. One.

Now imagine you sa

"Awesome PC weekly journal found that in a survey of 3000 PC owners, only 1 had a BSoD. In a similar survey, the Awesome Mac weekly journal found in a survey of all 1725 Mac owners experienced a kernel panic in 3 months of use. Judging by those, I'd say that Windows > Mac OS when it comes to not puking on the dog."

See all those places where imaginary you talks about other users?lots of them? That's a sample size bigger than one. I'm sure you remember back to your highschool statistics classes where they explained that when making generalizations, the accuracy of your conclusion is directly related to the size of the sample on which you based that conclusion.

I would expect code that had been available for 5 years to have a greater percentage of its vulnerabilities and instabilities found and patched than one which has been available for six months.

Get yourself a bucket of crap and put it on the steps. Come back 5 years later and put a spoonful of crap beside it. Wait 6 months and the flies will have consumed the small one, but still be working at the big bucket.

Not that it matters what the excuse is. Bad software is bad software weather it's 3 days or 3 decades old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.