do you think macs are more stable than even Windows XP?

[Apokalipse]

the G5 has pretty much left Microsoft in the dust

 

[Cherubimon_3.20]

mac_mogul would definetely agree with this. I had a mac once, OS 7.1 and I accidently put the mac icon thinggy in the trash and the mac never started again. LOL It was one of those Classic Macs from 1992

 

[mac_mogul]

Hmm, that's strange... I have three 'classic' macs and one of them is on 7.1... I dragged the mac icon 'thinggy' into the trash and it popped right back where it was at and the system said 'this item cannot be put in the trash because it is used by the system'

So i don't see where you're goin with this...

BTW apokalipse happy 1000th post!

 

[spfd]

i want to try the mac os but i wouldnt pay for a new computer

 

[Apokalipse]

there are about 4,500 viruses in total for Mac's (last time I heard) and none of these affect the OS X

 

[gordon-guru]

no pc is more stable than any other, it's just that they run better when configured certain ways

 

[Apokalipse]

I used to have Windows 98, it crashed every half hour or so
I got Windows XP, it was much better but it still crashes about once to three times per week, maybe if I'm lucky it won't crash in 1 week.
My neighbour has got an Imac and I don't recall it ever crashing
I used to have a Mac 128 (128kb of hard disk space) and in its 15 year life it never crashed once - actually my parents got it a few years before I was born.

 

[Apokalipse]

we rate a computers stability to its level of immunity to crashes; how often it will crash most of the time

 

[chalk]

Someone said Macs are based on Unix?! I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote, but I don't think so...

Macs are based on being people friendly - Unix is not people friendly, it is admin/computer engineer/programmer friendly. Macs with one mouse button(usually), and the centrally located configuration, and zerox park 'rip off' gui simplify things for end users making them 'friendly.' ANd make them require TWICE the RAM a PC would...damn resource hogs!

[this, of course, is all IMHO and in the spirit of a small bit of MACbashing]

I'd like MACs a lot more if Apple let others make them, and then went through the 'clone wars' the PCs did, but I do like them - I worked at several companies where graphics artists swore by them, especially at Corbis. They used a weird color suction cup attachment for the macs to calibrate their color which was pretty weird - but the color capablilty and the graphics software, MAC Monitors and various fancy smancy 'ergo' input devices really made the MACS stand out...for hippie types who take reputation of hardware and software over actual hands on use of other operating systems and hardware. Mostly I think the greeners couldn't handle more than one button on a mouse. I swear that there were granola crumbs in the MAC keyboards, burkenstocks on the floor and attitude toward anything other than a $5000.00 min MAC being used. RAM was the most ordered upgrade. It is much, much cheaper to updgrade 300 outdated company PCs than to upgrade/replace 300 outdated company MACs.

For trade show kiosks, I'd have to say PCs are better. Mostly because of moving the bulky hardware around, and replacing stuff. Mr. Gates bought several small digital stock companies for Corbis that mostly had MAC products - and we didn't tell them to get rid of them... Awww...such a nice company!

MACs are cool, but I would not go exclusively with only a MAC at home. I could and do get away with having a PC exclusively at home, or two or three - and if I had the bucks I'd get a MAC too.

In HS we had 2 Macintosh Plus', like 30 Apple ]['s(e,+,c etc) and ONE PC Junior...lol. Times sure have changed.

Oh yah, Stability...umm.. I think MACs could be a bit more stable than PCs...mostly because of the number of files on a Typcial PC is probably more - more files, more chance of instability. The MAC that sits in the corner of the office, that gets used less - has less random software/scripts/files etc installed by users in general..IMHO will be more stable than the PC that has everything from some guy's weird downloaded screen saver, pop-up explorer java ads, huge numbers of files in many cache directories that never get cleaned out effectively, and the 'tweaking' done by 'professionals' (users with enough knowledge to break stuff and blame MS).

 

[sonjay]

Someone said Macs are based on Unix?! I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote, but I don't think so...

Um.... where have you been for the past 2 1/2 years? OSX came out in early 2001. The operating system that powers OSX is Darwin, a customized flavor of FreeBSD, which most certainly IS Unix.

Macs are based on being people friendly - Unix is not people friendly, it is admin/computer engineer/programmer friendly.

Ah, the beauty of OSX. Macs are both: A user-friendly interface to the FreeBSD core. I can turn my Mac into a Web server by clicking a checkbox called "Web sharing" in my system control panel, or I can launch the cli-based terminal and use pico to edit the httpd.conf file. It's all there: user friendly, and geek-friendly.

MACs are cool, but I would not go exclusively with only a MAC at home.

I would in a heartbeat. What do you do on a PC that you can't do on a Mac? (Or, more likely, that you think you can't do on a Mac?)

I think MACs could be a bit more stable than PCs...mostly because of the number of files on a Typcial PC is probably more - more files, more chance of instability.

Yep, that would be it. My two Macs put together, with their, literally, millions of files, have not a single dll anywhere in existence. So, yeah, the PC probably has three times as many files as the Mac, because of its billions of dlls. I'm sure the number of files, all by itself, is the reason Macs are more stable. It couldn't have anything to do with the instability problems inherent in the Windows operating system, or the stability of Unix that has been developed over decades of refinement.