Re: Mac OS X Leopard Delay: Perspective

Timberwoof wrote:
In article <461f03b4$0$9921$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jim wrote:
In article <iumt131fb9ojj94ibgcgnomkncfhralfpj@xxxxxxx>,
tom_elam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:12:59 -0400, Derek Currie
<derekcurrie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Also note that Vista is well known to have shipped with ~500 (~FIVE HUNDRED) known and listed bugs when it shipped. If Apple released Leopard right now they would be putting out a much better product than Vista, judging by the number of bugs alone!
The Windows Beta test group was several hundred thousand machines. Of
course they found more issues.


Tom Elam
And M$ had to have that many beta testing given their horrible history with bugs which cause security problems. After all XP has been a mess in that regard.
No. It's because there are literally tens of millions of hardware combinations possible that the software has to support.

There are an awful lot of reasons given that "explain" some quality of this operating system or that, which actually argue the other way for whether to buy a particular computer.

Write in English in the future. This doesn't make any sense.


For instance, the argument given here is that Microsoft's delays in delivering Vista had to do with the testing required on so many different hardware combinations ... which seems to me a reason to go with OS X. It is, after all, deployed on a very restricted set of hardware variations. (... and probably enjoys the same kind of hardware abstraction that usually makes it possible to install Linux on any given combination of hardware.)

Have you ever used the POS aka Linux? It's not even usable,. Heck, they can't even get their window server to run properly with most video boards.


The argument relates to reasons given by Windows fans why there are so many more viruses for Windows: OS X is not really any more secure, it is just less popular among hackers. Well, whatever the reason, it seems that OS Xo is better.

This is common sense and no spinning can fool people that have this nasty habit of thinking on their feet (unlike the Mac zealot/fanboi). Windows, compared to the Mac OS is what hackers, script-kiddies and organized crime attack either via vulnerabilities or social engineering, because it's ubiquitous and tha Mac is quaint, as in unfamiliar and insignificant, in their view. End of story.

--

Nicolas



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Windiots/Wintrolls/WinNuts are getting frisky...
    ... and and Linux distributions and more choices for hardware. ... tailor a system to suit their needs easier than you can a Mac. ... Those who use Windows regularly, and remain with Windows when they don't have ... connector with your old Apple Studio Display when you upgrade to a new Apple? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: When is a Mac no longer a Mac?
    ... > Lots of users care about hardware. ... It didn't come from Windows. ... >>> So what about Mac today is still Mac? ... Local Talk is "dead", Apple Talk isn't. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: List of Applications Not Compatible with Leopard
    ... If there is an equal on Windows I truly would love to know about ... program on the Plasq frontpage was clearly taken on Vista. ... the product is on both Windows and Mac. ... hardware than Vista works on PC hardware is hardly "silly". ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
    ... not because Apple hasn't TRIED. ... You don't think that twice the going rate for hardware is ... >> Except that the $699 Dell is neither equal to nor better than any Mac. ... vendor) box palatable is to run Linux instead of Windows on it. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: printing problems
    ... > Macs are set for a different gamma then Windows and if you are calibrating ... > running a color managed workflow under Windows than with Apple hardware, ... > just to see if it runs any differently under the Mac OS. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Loading