I hate sodding Windows XP and I hate PCs
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Conor on 21 May 2010 04:46 On 21/05/2010 09:33, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Windows XP was a mature product > with decades of development behind it. Really? So they were doing builds of Windows XP before they'd moved to 32 bit Windows releases? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: TOG on 21 May 2010 04:46 On 21 May, 08:45, {$P...(a)womar.co.uk (Paul Womar) wrote: > The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Woody <use...(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > It's the kind of crappy comparison that > > > > does nobody any favours. > > > > True, but it is a valid direct comparison, as he has lost his Mac and > > > got a XP machine > > > Not hard to understand, is it? > > It's one thing to let off a bit of a steam about having an inferior > replacement but subsequently we seemed to be going in the direction of > trying to draw direct comparisons between different operating systems > from different era - hence why my reply was to Steve reply and not your > original message. If we are moving away from a rant and others are > getting involved trying to make direct comparisons, can we try and chose > a level playing ground, just to distinguish it from every other advocacy > thread that has ever appeared on the Internet? Oh, I wasn't having a pop at you, believe me. You're right about the OSs being years apart. I was just hopping mad at having to go from a reasonably modern (10,4) Mac OS to a horribly clunky old PC OS and quite the nastiest version of MS Office I've encountered. I've wasted to much time on: "So how do I do this simple task now everything's changed?" and "Where the hell hsave they put the XYZ button on this version?" Plus, of course, having to do tasks in what seems like half a dozen stages when previously only one or two were needed....
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 May 2010 05:06 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: [..] > > The OP did explicitly mention XP but it's hardly fair to compare > > features of the current Mac OS with an OS released almost 10 years ago. > > We had Mac OS 10.1 when XP went to retail, and I don't recall any > > Expose-type functions in that. It's the kind of crappy comparison that > > does nobody any favours. > > It is fair. > 10.1 was a paying beta, > Windows XP was a mature product > with decades of development behind it. > (in so far as things from M$ ever get mature) Erm, Windows came out in 1985, but was really rubbish - did anyone actually use V1.0? The first popular version was 3.0, which came out in 1990, but it didn't really start to look like the GUI we have now until '95 came out. XP came out in 2001, which was about the same time as Mac OSX 10.0. However, the root of OSX goes back to 1977. OSX is essentially a much more mature OS - the GUI is much older than Windows too. IIRC, OSX and XP had pretty parallel issues when released, XP was by no means 'mature' when released, it was riddled with bugs, and hardly any hardware worked with it at first. It wasn't that different from OSX then. Neither were particularly stable, although 10.1 was a big step up in that respect, it took years for XP to become stable - I can recall that many users were switching back to Win 98 and Win 2000, much like Vista users have been switching back to XP. I used OSX from 10.1 onwards, and found it good enough to make the switch from Classic quite early on. Once hardware drivers had starting appearing at least. > You should compare back from the present, > two steps, so Windows XP and Tiger. Features wise perhaps, but stability, no. > There can be little doubt > that Tiger is vastly superior to XP, > even when looking at worker productivity only, Can't argue with that. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 May 2010 05:07 TOG(a)Toil <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [..] > Oh, I wasn't having a pop at you, believe me. You're right about the > OSs being years apart. I was just hopping mad at having to go from a > reasonably modern (10,4) Mac OS to a horribly clunky old PC OS and > quite the nastiest version of MS Office I've encountered. I've wasted > to much time on: "So how do I do this simple task now everything's > changed?" and "Where the hell hsave they put the XYZ button on this > version?" > > Plus, of course, having to do tasks in what seems like half a dozen > stages when previously only one or two were needed.... So, you like the 'ribbons' then? ;-) -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Chris Ridd on 21 May 2010 05:15
On 2010-05-21 10:06:24 +0100, Andy Hewitt said: > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > [..] >>> The OP did explicitly mention XP but it's hardly fair to compare >>> features of the current Mac OS with an OS released almost 10 years ago. >>> We had Mac OS 10.1 when XP went to retail, and I don't recall any >>> Expose-type functions in that. It's the kind of crappy comparison that >>> does nobody any favours. >> >> It is fair. >> 10.1 was a paying beta, >> Windows XP was a mature product >> with decades of development behind it. >> (in so far as things from M$ ever get mature) > > Erm, Windows came out in 1985, but was really rubbish - did anyone > actually use V1.0? I had to use Windows/386 a bit, which Wikipedia reckons was Windows 2.1. 1.0 must have been *really* bad. -- Chris |