Macs own 50% of the Marketshare??

[ReverendSlappy]

There is no reason whatsoever that an application should cause the entire OS to crash. None. No reputable OS aside from Windows allows this. You cannot cause a Linux kernel panic or an OS X failure from an application. The application will be terminated, and the rest of the system keeps right on running.

No, applications shouldn't crash - but it's inexcusable for the OS to crash when the application has a problem.

Yeah, I'm sure it's never apps that cause that. Mmm-hmm.

Funny...I've been told by Microsoft Support (while working to resolve a customer issue) that reinstalling Windows is a recommended way to get the system back to a known state.

My guess is that's the standard response in the playbook next to "Customer has so thoroughly hosed things up that they're beyond help."

 

[jesse]

I use a Macbook Pro as my primary computer--and spend most of my time inside an SSH terminal to Linux servers. I also deal with a fair amount of Windows Server and lately Mac OS X Server.

There is nothing perfect about any of them. It is all user preference--and one should not allow themselves to be blinded by their preference (at least I don't). To be perfectly honest, IMHO, a properly built Windows XP box can be just as stable as my MacBook.

I'm not planning on going back to a Windows laptop any time soon--because Mac OS is a closer counterpart to my primary focus, Linux.

I do not understand how a hard-core geek can allow themselves to be blinded and defend a specific platform so hard while ignoring the flaws that it does have.

 

[jmaynard]

Yeah, I'm sure it's never apps that cause that. Mmm-hmm.

The only time I've ever seen that is when the hardware has had problems.

My guess is that's the standard response in the playbook next to "Customer has so thoroughly hosed things up that they're beyond help."

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event, it's the answer I (more precisely, a customer I was working with on a recalcitrant server) got from the horse's mouth.

 

[jesse]

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event, it's the answer I (more precisely, a customer I was working with on a recalcitrant server) got from the horse's mouth.

It is pretty easy to search the Microsoft knowledge base and find hundreds if not thousands of problems with a recommended resolution of reinstalling the operating system. That said, there is generally always a way to fix it, and if you pay the right people at Microsoft they'll assist you with that.

 

[jmaynard]

I do not understand how a hard-core geek can allow themselves to be blinded and defend a specific platform so hard while ignoring the flaws that it does have.

For me, it's simple: OS X is secure, stable, reliable, and simple to manage and administer. Windows is none of the above. To recommend Windows over OS X (or Linux, for that matter, which is most of the above) in the absence of a requirement that rules out one or the other system is nothing less than professional malpractice, for a computer consultant (which I am).

Yes, there are folks out there who write software on one platform. The company I work for uses a practice management system that is so thoroughly Microsoft-centric that not only does it require Windows, but IE on Windows. I must run that in order to get paid - but it lives inside its very own virtual machine which I use for no other purpose. I refuse to run IE, which I consider a collection of security holes masquerading as a web browser, for any other purpose, and refuse to expose any other part of my computing environment to being compromised by it.

 

[gibbons]

To recommend Windows over OS X (or Linux, for that matter, which is most of the above) in the absence of a requirement that rules out one or the other system is nothing less than professional malpractice, for a computer consultant (which I am).

Now that right there is funny, I don't care what planet you're from.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I use a Macbook Pro as my primary computer--and spend most of my time inside an SSH terminal to Linux servers. I also deal with a fair amount of Windows Server and lately Mac OS X Server.

There is nothing perfect about any of them. It is all user preference--and one should not allow themselves to be blinded by their preference (at least I don't). To be perfectly honest, IMHO, a properly built Windows XP box can be just as stable as my MacBook.

I'm not planning on going back to a Windows laptop any time soon--because Mac OS is a closer counterpart to my primary focus, Linux.

I do not understand how a hard-core geek can allow themselves to be blinded and defend a specific platform so hard while ignoring the flaws that it does have.

It's not about being blinded or ignoring flaws; of course Windows (and all Microsoft products and all other software) has problems. It's about defending it against the outlandish, ridiculous hyperbole that's slung around. And that goes for all of them: Linux isn't as user-unfriendly as some make it out to be, OS X isn't as lame as some claim, and Windows just isn't as unstable and bug-ridden as some constantly harp. I'd say that probably 90% of all the mud slung around in OS debates is overwrought, exaggerated, flat-out made-up, Grade A BS. And all that does is take the level of the conversation down a few intellectual notches.

The only time I've ever seen that is when the hardware has had problems.

You do realize, don't you, almost all BSODs are driver-related. Right?

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event, it's the answer I (more precisely, a customer I was working with on a recalcitrant server) got from the horse's mouth.

Sometimes it's necessary, sure.

It is pretty easy to search the Microsoft knowledge base and find hundreds if not thousands of problems with a recommended resolution of reinstalling the operating system. That said, there is generally always a way to fix it, and if you pay the right people at Microsoft they'll assist you with that.

And most of the time, if one knows what they're doing, those problems are easy to avoid in the first place.

For me, it's simple: OS X is secure, stable, reliable, and simple to manage and administer. Windows is none of the above. To recommend Windows over OS X (or Linux, for that matter, which is most of the above) in the absence of a requirement that rules out one or the other system is nothing less than professional malpractice, for a computer consultant (which I am).

"Professional malpractice"? Please. See above about "overwrought, exaggerated, flat-out made-up, Grade A BS." I mean that's just ridiculous.

The only thing I would say is that it'd be professional malpractice to implement a system that one is utterly incompetent and clueless in administering. Windows, obviously, falls into that category for some -- as do other OSes for other people.

Yes, there are folks out there who write software on one platform. The company I work for uses a practice management system that is so thoroughly Microsoft-centric that not only does it require Windows, but IE on Windows. I must run that in order to get paid - but it lives inside its very own virtual machine which I use for no other purpose. I refuse to run IE, which I consider a collection of security holes masquerading as a web browser, for any other purpose, and refuse to expose any other part of my computing environment to being compromised by it.

That IE is junk is about the only thing you've gotten right so far.

 

[jmaynard]

Windows just isn't as unstable and bug-ridden as some constantly harp.

In my experience, it is. It is that bad in the experience of lots of other folks I know. (My dad now uses a MacBook Pro; he's certainly not someone who is ignorant about how to make Windows work. He just got tired of it.) If it weren't so thoroughly terrible, I'd use it.

You do realize, don't you, almost all BSODs are driver-related. Right?

Perhaps that's related to the multitudes of drivers that are needed, because of the multitude of hardware Windows is forced to support. In any event, a driver is part of the OS - if I have that hardware and that OS, I must use that driver. The only way to get away from it is to change the OS or hardware.

And most of the time, if one knows what they're doing, those problems are easy to avoid in the first place.

Then why do Windows experts have the same problems I did?

Your constant statement that people who have problems with Windows just don't know what they're doing is highly insulting. Talk about lowering the level of intellectual discussion.

The only thing I would say is that it'd be professional malpractice to implement a system that one is utterly incompetent and clueless in administering. Windows, obviously, falls into that category for some -- as do other OSes for other people.

Oh, so the fact that experts have the same problems I did means they're not experts after all? Indiscriminately insulting everyone is not a way to influence people.

That IE is junk is about the only thing you've gotten right so far.

Ah, but if you listen to Microsoft, IE is thoroughly integrated into Windows...so what does that say about the OS?

 

[ReverendSlappy]

In my experience, it is. It is that bad in the experience of lots of other folks I know. (My dad now uses a MacBook Pro; he's certainly not someone who is ignorant about how to make Windows work. He just got tired of it.) If it weren't so thoroughly terrible, I'd use it.

Your experience doesn't match mine or anybody I work with now or have ever worked with in the last 15 years. Sorry. Fail.

Perhaps that's related to the multitudes of drivers that are needed, because of the multitude of hardware Windows is forced to support. In any event, a driver is part of the OS - if I have that hardware and that OS, I must use that driver. The only way to get away from it is to change the OS or hardware.

Yeah. Microsoft supports lots of hardware, Apple supports virtually nothing. Shame on... Microsoft?

Then why do Windows experts have the same problems I did?

If they're having those problems, I can assure you that they're not "experts". Sorry.

Your constant statement that people who have problems with Windows just don't know what they're doing is highly insulting. Talk about lowering the level of intellectual discussion.

Look, the only difference between the systems you're talking about (which suck) and the systems I'm talking about (which are great) is the people running them. It doesn't require a deductive reasoning class to figure out what the score is.

Oh, so the fact that experts have the same problems I did means they're not experts after all?

You're catching on.

Indiscriminately insulting everyone is not a way to influence people.

I'm not "indiscriminately insulting everyone". I'm being pretty specific with who I'm saying is incompetent.

Ah, but if you listen to Microsoft, IE is thoroughly integrated into Windows...so what does that say about the OS?

Nothing.

Edit: I don't mean to be harsh here. But if you take two identical sailboats and have them both set off for the same place, from the same place, at the same time and one crew gets there before the other... it ain't a problem with the other boat that made it lose. Same deal here.

 

[Trapper John]

Daily reboots? Monthly reinstalls? What are you doing wrong?

Why display uptime in seconds, unless you're a little unsure about stability?

But I guess 58 days isn't nearly as impressive...

I would have picked fortnights for the time unit, myself.


Trapper John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Why display uptime in seconds, unless you're a little unsure about stability?

But I guess 58 days isn't nearly as impressive...

I would have picked fortnights for the time unit, myself.


Trapper John

Ehh, big numbers are more impressive.

 

[Trapper John]

The fact that a computer literate person can keep a PC working just fine no matter what is analogous to a mechanic buying a wreck because he or she has the skills to fix it.

Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

Ehh, big numbers are more impressive.

Enzyte increase my size by 508,000,000 Angstroms!


Trapper John

 

[jmaynard]

Your experience doesn't match mine or anybody I work with now or have ever worked with in the last 15 years. Sorry. Fail.

So now you're telling me I didn't experience what I did?

Then why do Windows experts have the same problems I did?

If they're having those problems, I can assure you that they're not "experts". Sorry.

Well, then, I guess there's nothing more we have to discuss. The people I'm referring to are folks who I know, and who I know are indeed experts in the world of computing. You're just going to dismiss them with a wave of your hand. I don't know your level of experience, but I'm not going to write it off that lightly.

I'm not "indiscriminately insulting everyone". I'm being pretty specific with who I'm saying is incompetent.

Yeah: everyone who finds that Windows is unreliable. Broad brush there.

Edit: I don't mean to be harsh here.

Yes you do. If this forum had a killfile, this post would have earned you a place in it.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

So now you're telling me I didn't experience what I did?

No, I'm telling you didn't experience it for the reasons you think you did.

Well, then, I guess there's nothing more we have to discuss. The people I'm referring to are folks who I know, and who I know are indeed experts in the world of computing.

"Experts in the field of computing" != Windows experts. I'd consider myself to have expert-level skills with Windows, but I'm not so arrogant and presumptuous as to claim that OS X "sucks" or some such -- despite the fact that I'm not an expert in it. See the difference yet?

If somebody dropped a BSD box in front of me, I could hack my way through it and get stuff working probably. But I wouldn't be able to make it stay running securely, reliably, etc. But I know that I am the problem there, not BSD. Blaming BSD for my shortcomings in that case would be childish. See what I'm saying?

You're just going to dismiss them with a wave of your hand.

Yes, I am. I can competently administer Windows, they -- by your own admission -- can't. If they worked for me, I'd fire them -- not find a different OS. Get the difference?

I don't know your level of experience, but I'm not going to write it off that lightly.

I've been working in technology since I was 16. But that's irrelevant: I've encountered people with less than 2 years of professional experience that can adequately administer Windows.

Yeah: everyone who finds that Windows is unreliable. Broad brush there.

No, anyone who has that many problems with Windows isn't a competent Windows administrator. Period. Sorry, but that's all there is to it.

Yes you do. If this forum had a killfile, this post would have earned you a place in it.

Well, it's reality, so too bad. It's the people that are the difference: If what you say were really true, running the systems I run as reliably and securely as I do would be impossible. Clearly, it's not just possible, it's easy. So what you're saying is quite obviously not true.

Sorry, but these "experts" you're talking about may have expertise in lots of things, and good for them. But Windows clearly isn't one of those things.

 

[mikea]

Why display uptime in seconds, unless you're a little unsure about stability?

But I guess 58 days isn't nearly as impressive...

I would have picked fortnights for the time unit, myself.


Trapper John

When the company was hell bent on replacing Netware with Windows NT, we saved a screen shot of the server that had been up for 2.5 years. This was when it was assumed as normal that you had to reboot the server every weekend at maximum.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/

BTW, IIRC and I may still have it, the uptime was given in years, months days, minutes, seconds...it might have days, minutes, seconds.

 

[jmaynard]

No, anyone who has that many problems with Windows isn't a competent Windows administrator. Period. Sorry, but that's all there is to it.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of this...but when I say that some of the folks I consulted are developers and integrators and testers and certification managers for Windows at a major computer manufacturer, and you insist on using this broad brush to tar them, then you prove you're not interested in anything but being a Windows fanboy. *plonk*

 

[ReverendSlappy]

When the company was hell bent on replacing Netware with Windows NT, we saved a screen shot of the server that had been up for 2.5 years. This was when it was assumed as normal that you had to reboot the server every weekend at maximum.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/

BTW, IIRC and I may still have it, the uptime was given in years, months days, minutes, seconds...it might have days, minutes, seconds.

We have a Windows server in one of our data centers that has been running for over 3.5 years. It's not in use anymore, and we're decommissioning that DC... It's gonna be sad to see it go.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I'm not going to bother with the rest of this...but when I say that some of the folks I consulted are developers and integrators and testers and certification managers for Windows at a major computer manufacturer, and you insist on using this broad brush to tar them, then you prove you're not interested in anything but being a Windows fanboy. *plonk*

Well, then I guess I and everybody I've ever worked with are more skilled than they are. Either that or you're grossly, hugely, and egregiously exaggerating the problems they've supposedly experienced. It has to be one of the two. Take your pick.

 

[ggroves]

Yeah: everyone who finds that Windows is unreliable.

This statement, today, is analogous to the old adage that "Harley Davidson" motorcycles are unreliable, leak oil, and require constant maintenance". True at one time in their history, but late model Harleys are very reliable, don't leak oil, and are relatively maintenance free.

But...the stigma still hangs on...incorrectly. As VP of IT for a $1 Bil company that runs sophisticated, custom applications on a 100% Microsoft platform, I can tell you that it is indeed a very stable platform....and we do it on a budget of less than 1% of sales. I have a reasonable sized networking staff. Most of the production servers only get rebooted when we apply patches and only if required for the patch. I've had SQL Servers run for months at a time, with no degredation in performance. My shop has been Microsoft since 1995. Before that, IBM mainframe. Has Microsoft improved? Yes...dramatically so.

The mystery behind the anti-Microsoft sentiment is pretty simple. Hard core IT types can't put the hood up on Microsoft software, tweek the kernel, add code, and share snippets. It's just not cool to plug MS software together and configure it. They like Open Source stuff because they can, I believe the word Jay used was "fiddle", with the guts, blog about their fiddling, and contribute to the "community". Frankly, I pay my staff to get things done, and move on to the next project. Not....."fiddle".

Apple has good products, hardware and software. I've used them. We have a small network of them in our system. However, and I find this funny, it seems lots and lots of Apple types are so caught up in the ergonomics of the hardware (size, color, shape)...it's almost like a cult following....it's like its a piece of art is on their desk. Who cares...?

Like Jesse said...it all takes work. Pick what works best and go with it. But don't paint Microsoft products, in 2008, with such a broad brush. They really are good...."evil empire" not withstanding....

Greg

 

[mikea]

We have a Windows server in one of our data centers that has been running for over 3.5 years. It's not in use anymore, and we're decommissioning that DC... It's gonna be sad to see it go.

What does it do? Print server OR Active Directory backup OR Web server OR File server OR ....

The Netware server did all of that and held 14,000 directory entries. There was second backup directory server in the corporation that worked as hard.

BTW, they were Pentium 1 systems.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

What does it do? Print server OR Active Directory backup OR Web server OR File server OR ....

The Netware server did all of that and held 14,000 directory entries. There was second backup directory server in the corporation that worked as hard.

BTW, they were Pentium 1 systems.

It was an IIS and App server.

Can't really disagree about Netware... Those boxes just ran.

 

[gibbons]

This is fun.

 

[ScottM]

This is fun.

I think I am going back into the SZ. At least the people there get along. Far too many fights here.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I think I am going back into the SZ. At least the people there get along. Far too many fights here.

Yeah, that's where you normally find the hyperbole, baseless xenophobia, and absurdly outlandish claims we've seen here. The SZ has been a tea party lately compared to this stuff.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Look, the only difference between the systems you're talking about (which suck) and the systems I'm talking about (which are great) is the people running them. It doesn't require a deductive reasoning class to figure out what the score is.

Slappy,

Is the point of having a car to DRIVE it, or to work on it swingin' wrenches?

I drive foreign cars (formerly Japanese, now Swedish) because, though I think working on cars can be fun sometimes, I don't want to HAVE to do it.

Likewise, I use a Mac for the same reason. I *can* spend lots of time tweaking, troubleshooting, configuring, installing, securing, etc... I just don't *want* to. People used to find out I used a Mac and say "HUH??? But... But... You're a COMPUTER guy, why do you use a Mac?" And the answer is, that I was getting paid $75/hr to make other people's computers work - My own free time was more valuable.

Windows has come a long way. I'd say that XP is better than much older Mac OS's, it's probably somewhere around the level of late Mac OS 9, or early Mac OS X. That's pretty good, but there's been a lot of improvement in the last 5 years.

Apple isn't perfect - I had some issues with my laptop kernel panicing for a short time after I bought it - After a firmware update, it was rock solid. Likewise, the first couple of versions of 10.5 Leopard caused one problem for me. 10.5.2 and later, rock solid. That's just computing for ya - I remember one of my favorite quotes years ago was "Microsoft - Where quality is job 1.1.2." (back when Ford had the "where quality is job 1" ads.)

It also seems that some of the folks that argue strenuously against the Mac haven't used one in years - You can't compare the Mac LC you used in middle school to the most whizbang Windows machine available today.

The bottom line is, computing should be accessible to everyone. You yourself stated that "No, anyone who has that many problems with Windows isn't a competent Windows administrator." The point is, you should not have to be an administrator. Sure, it's nice to have a good Windows administrator in the corporate world, but it should not be necessary for every user to either be an administrator, or have one.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Pick what works best and go with it.

Like I've said, that's what I don't get: The people who can't just say, "Hey, <insert technology choice here> works for me and I prefer it." and leave it at that... they instead have to tack on "and your preference sucks, moron." I don't get who exactly they think they are -- or who they think they're fooling.

 

[steingar]

This statement, today, is analogous to the old adage that "Harley Davidson" motorcycles are unreliable, leak oil, and require constant maintenance".

Harleys still suck. Don't believe me? Damn things look like they were designed in WWII. Hell, I could probably outrun a current production Harley with 25 year old CB750.

Apple has good products, hardware and software. I've used them. We have a small network of them in our system. However, and I find this funny, it seems lots and lots of Apple types are so caught up in the ergonomics of the hardware (size, color, shape)...it's almost like a cult following....it's like its a piece of art is on their desk. Greg

I like a system that's graphics native, doesn't break down, doesn't crash, and doesn't loose data from viruses. Oh and one I can plug in any appropriate peripheral or software and it just works. I don't give a rat's asset what it looks like, I just want it to work. Speaking of painting with a wee broad brush...

 

[steingar]

And in the spirit of my last post...

Harley Davidson, the most efficient way to convert gasoline into noise
without the adverse side effect of horsepower!


Did you know 95% of all Harleys are still on the road?
The other 5% actually made it home.


Is it true that Harleys are chick magnets?
Yes, but only if the chick has a steel plate in her head.


What's the cheapest way to get another 50hp from your Harley?
Trade it in on a Suzuki.


Why don't Harley riders sit on their bikes when the side stand is down?
They're afraid to lean over that far.


What's the difference between a Harley and a Harley owner's home?
The Harley costs more and has fewer wheels.


How do you know you're riding a Harley?
While coming off an exit-ramp you get passed by a Vespa.


Why don't Harley riders wave at sportbike riders?
Because they don't want to drop their tools.


How do you know all the aftermarket parts you bought for your Harley are worth the money?
You finally break into the 15's in the quarter mile!!!


What do you call a group of Harley Owners with a collective IQ of 120?
Sturgis!


Why don't Harley owners smile?
Once you realized you got conned into paying $25,000 for an outdated piece
of $#!+, would YOU be smiling?


What's the difference between a Harley Davidson and a vacuum cleaner?
The location of the dirtbags.


Why do Harleys have fringe?
So you can tell if they're moving.


How is a Harley Davidson like an old dog?
They both like to ride in the back of pickup trucks.


How do you know your Harley is handling great?
You can almost keep up with the logging trucks when you're riding in the canyons.


Why couldn't the Harley mechanic repair the doorknob?
Some things just can't be fixed with only a hammer and a rope.


What's the difference between a Harley taken to Daytona on a trailer and one that's being ridden there?
The one on the trailer is going about 30mph faster.


Why do all Harley owners have trailers??
So they can go around corners faster!


Where can you find the world's largest collection of Harley jokes?
On the showroom of the Harley mega-store in Milwaukee.
(Alternate answer: At Sturgis)


You know you're a Harley rider if:
You're unable to let your bike simply IDLE at a stop light.


You confuse the word "character" with the more accurate term "engineering flaws".


"Water cooled" means standing on the side of the road, in the rain, waiting for a wrecker.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Slappy,

Is the point of having a car to DRIVE it, or to work on it swingin' wrenches?

I drive foreign cars (formerly Japanese, now Swedish) because, though I think working on cars can be fun sometimes, I don't want to HAVE to do it.

Likewise, I use a Mac for the same reason. I *can* spend lots of time tweaking, troubleshooting, configuring, installing, securing, etc... I just don't *want* to. People used to find out I used a Mac and say "HUH??? But... But... You're a COMPUTER guy, why do you use a Mac?" And the answer is, that I was getting paid $75/hr to make other people's computers work - My own free time was more valuable.

That's all perfectly legit.

Windows has come a long way. I'd say that XP is better than much older Mac OS's, it's probably somewhere around the level of late Mac OS 9, or early Mac OS X. That's pretty good, but there's been a lot of improvement in the last 5 years.

Apple isn't perfect - I had some issues with my laptop kernel panicing for a short time after I bought it - After a firmware update, it was rock solid. Likewise, the first couple of versions of 10.5 Leopard caused one problem for me. 10.5.2 and later, rock solid. That's just computing for ya - I remember one of my favorite quotes years ago was "Microsoft - Where quality is job 1.1.2." (back when Ford had the "where quality is job 1" ads.)

It also seems that some of the folks that argue strenuously against the Mac haven't used one in years - You can't compare the Mac LC you used in middle school to the most whizbang Windows machine available today.

I'm with you on all of that.

The bottom line is, computing should be accessible to everyone. You yourself stated that "No, anyone who has that many problems with Windows isn't a competent Windows administrator." The point is, you should not have to be an administrator. Sure, it's nice to have a good Windows administrator in the corporate world, but it should not be necessary for every user to either be an administrator, or have one.

Here, we start to diverge a little. In most cases, I think you're right: Things should "just work". But complexity increases generally linearly with capability; the more ability you want to give people, the more ability you have to give them to muck with things, and the more likely they are to screw something up. That's just the nature of the beast, and while there's a balance to be struck there, it's a continuum.

And I simply do not agree that a Windows installation out of the box and properly set up with a few little administrative things (updates, Defender, etc.) will just somehow eat itself. I just have too many experiences (my Mom, not a computer savvy person by any stretch, being one of them) to look to to believe that, left generally un-hosed-around-with that Windows XP will just randomly suck. It just doesn't happen.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But complexity increases generally linearly with capability; the more ability you want to give people, the more ability you have to give them to muck with things, and the more likely they are to screw something up. That's just the nature of the beast, and while there's a balance to be struck there, it's a continuum.

Do you really think you can't "muck with" a Mac? There's a TON of options available, and there's even a bunch of tweaks that can only be done through the command line, believe it or not. (Most of the preferences are actually doing command-liney stuff behind the scenes.) The CLI-only ones are "unsupported" but they work.

And I simply do not agree that a Windows installation out of the box and properly set up with a few little administrative things (updates, Defender, etc.) will just somehow eat itself.

"A few little administrative things" are EXACTLY the problem. Have you ever heard of "Mac Defender?" No. You shouldn't need "defender" software of any variety. But, you'd be pretty stupid to not be running AdAware, Spybot, and some virus software (or an equivalent combination of your choice) on Windows.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Do you really think you can't "muck with" a Mac? There's a TON of options available, and there's even a bunch of tweaks that can only be done through the command line, believe it or not. (Most of the preferences are actually doing command-liney stuff behind the scenes.) The CLI-only ones are "unsupported" but they work.

I'm not saying you can't do that with a Mac. Just that that concept is what gets users in trouble. Windows employs that concept, and add to it much wider hardware support, and it's natural that more issues are going to arise. But that's not a problem with the OS, per se. It's a natural side effect of having good configurability combined with good hardware support. It's my argument that the reward outweighs the risk.

"A few little administrative things" are EXACTLY the problem. Have you ever heard of "Mac Defender?" No. You shouldn't need "defender" software of any variety. But, you'd be pretty stupid to not be running AdAware, Spybot, and some virus software (or an equivalent combination of your choice) on Windows.

I'm sure the point has been made plenty of times, but the reason so many more threats exist for Windows has more to do with its much higher market share; OS X isn't inherently more secure... the two are actually relatively close in terms of number of vulnerabilities. OS X "gets away with it" because there are fewer active exploits out there for those vulnerabilities.

No, you "shouldn't" need a Defender. But that's like saying you "shouldn't" need to put a lock on your file cabinet. It is what it is.

 

[SkyHog]

An example of why Windows is horrible (and what finally drove me to Linux):

One day, I decided to boot my computer, and I got an error message that read:

"Windows is unable to start because a required DLL failed to load."

Which dll? Yikes, there's a lot of 'em! Luckily, there are only about 200 different solutions to that problem, and they're all listed across Microsoft's website. So I went one by one, booting into a recovery console and trying to repair each file and then trying to boot. Each one failed. The problem is that it literally took 5 minutes each time I wanted to boot into the recovery console. After about 1.5 hours, I gave up, decided to boot into Linux and save my data before reinstalling Windows.

Once in Linux, I was unable to mount my NTFS hard drive because it was not shut down cleanly, and Windows likes to lock stuff. Luckily, I figured out how to force a dirty mount to get access to the files. This was the point where I said "screw it" and stuck to Linux.

My desktop runs Linux exclusively, and my laptop dual boots Windows and Linux (but I rarely use Windows...I'm on it now however).

How hard would it have been to include the DLL file in the error trap or error dump that was displayed on the screen? Not very, and its a sign that Microsoft failed me.

That said....why do Apples suck?

A similar reason. Once upon a time, you'd get a sad mac, with some hex code underneath it. Not very useful information. Surely it had to get better right?

Now: "You need to restart your computer. Hold down the power button for several seconds or press the Restart button."

Well, at least it gives advice to try to fix it, but what caused the problem in the first place?

Vague error messages drive me absolutely insane. At least Linux will give you an address or a specific error message.

I am not a Windows fan boy, I am just realistic about things. Apple is not better a company than Microsoft is, in fact, some of Apple's business practices make me sick, and scares me to think that so many people trust them. Closed architecture is NEVER the way to go, regardless of reason, and this is, IMHO, what is keeping Apple from winning the war.

What I find hillarious is people that claim that Apple's marketing strategy is weak and that they don't really advertise their products very well (and that shows just how smart their users are, because they can make their own decisions)....

I guess no one has seen the iPhone commercials, or the Mac commercials that had Jeff Goldblum, or the Mac commercials with the guy from Dodgeball in them, or whatnot. Funny marketing sells, and their commercials are awesome.

What it comes down to is this: If you cannot successfully run an operating system of any sort without having problems requiring a reboot more than 1 time a day, you are not a "power user" nor a "super user" or even a "knowledgable user." You are a user that gets confused when the crazy whiz-bang gadgetry asks you to press the "any" key. Eject the cupholder and call tech support for help fitting the 5.25" floppy into the 3.5" drive. There's nothing wrong with not being a geek, but geeks don't use Macs, for that exact reason.

Harsh? Perhaps, but jeez, how are you guys crashing operating systems like this?

 

[jmaynard]

Now: "You need to restart your computer. Hold down the power button for several seconds or press the Restart button."

Well, at least it gives advice to try to fix it, but what caused the problem in the first place?

Check out the Console application, in /Applications/Utilities. The entire panic report is in there, and can be used to find out why it crashed.

There's nothing wrong with not being a geek, but geeks don't use Macs, for that exact reason.

I'm a geek. Even geeks have times when they're more interested in getting things done than in tinkering with the tools.

Harsh? Perhaps, but jeez, how are you guys crashing operating systems like this?

In my case, just trying to get work done with them.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

In my case, just trying to get work done with them.

I, like Nick earlier, am calling shenanigans.

How exactly? I don't think I've had more than 2 or 3 BSODs, for example, in the last 3 years. What are you doing exactly that causes all these problems?

Edit: My mom doesn't even have that many problems with her Windows PC, and believe me, she's no geek. What are you doing that she and I and virtually everybody else I know aren't?

 

[gprellwitz]

Well, my XP system was very stable.

My new Vista system; not so much so. There's some problem whereby when I go into Microsoft Media Player to watch a video and change between full-screen and "normal" it frequently shuts down the computer. By that I mean that the screen goes black, I can hear the sound for a little while in the background, and it doesn't appear to respond to any inputs. Yes, I know that it is probably a driver problem. It's just been easier so far to go with a non-Microsoft viewer than to try to figure out just what driver is bad and try to get an update. (Yes, I did check that the video driver is at the latest version.) An end user shouldn't have to deal with this stuff!

Maybe I'll just go load Linux on the box and put Windows in a partition.

It's been so long since I worked on a Mac that I can't say anything knowledgeable about them. I'd love a nice MacBook Pro, though!

 

[mikea]

....
Yes you do. If this forum had a killfile, this post would have earned you a place in it.

Oooooohhh, Old School. Try the Ignore List

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=ignore&match=all&titlesonly=0
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist

 

[jmaynard]

Oooooohhh, Old School.

Yup...I was on Usenet before killfiles existed. At one point, my lowly 286 and 2400 baud modem was the main Usenet trunk into Houston. I could get a feed of every group and read it all, and still have plenty of time left over.

Try the Ignore List

Oh, is that what that does? I see. Done.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what's so bothersome about anything I've said. It's been my role in the past to assess company's technology operations and gaps and shortcomings therein, and I can tell you that the problems I've identified have been the people at least as often as they've been the technologies used. And I can assure you that "<insert technology here> just sucks and it's unstable and it crashes all the time and <excuse excuse excuse>!" is a line of BS that has never once saved anybody their job.

There are plenty of people out there who can squeeze very stable operations out of the most outdated, underfunded, decrepit infrastructures one could imagine, and I've seen that done (and been a part of it) too often to consider the kind of whining I just mentioned anything other than cowardly CYA. Blaming the technology -- whatever it may be -- and not taking personal responsibility for the failings of a given operation rings very, very hollow with me.

Anybody can ignore that simple reality if they want, but it is what it is. Ultimately, I'm quite sure that's their loss.

 

[mikea]

Yup...I was on Usenet before killfiles existed. At one point, my lowly 286 and 2400 baud modem was the main Usenet trunk into Houston. I could get a feed of every group and read it all, and still have plenty of time left over.


Oh, is that what that does? I see. Done.

Youngster. My first model was a 300 (where it would be connect to say Baud vs. bps *) and it the only advance it had was that it direct connected to the phone line instead of having an acoustic coupler....and I used it on a typewriter.

I later splurged for a 2400 to use with my "PC." It cost nearly $500. Got me my first IT job at USR.

* (2400 bps modems were 1200 baud)