Personal experience (was: Re: Good advice! (was: Re: [Ti] Windows compatable))

[Chris Olson]

On Jan 17, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Ardeshir Mehta wrote:

> I was speaking of *reliability*: not of moving over "from revision  
> to revision"

Reliability includes moving from revision to revision.  Nothing is  
static in the computer world, and most times today's technology, both  
hardware and software, is considered obsolete in 3 short years.

Reliability includes these transitions, and when a transition breaks  
legacy application support, the operating environment gets more  
expensive to support, and less reliable because it's broken.  Having  
software applications break because of a point revision in Mac OS X,  
and core library (OS X Framework) updates, is not reliable.  It's  
happened too many times where software written for 10.x doesn't run  
on 10.x+1 and later because Apple decided to change some Framework on- 
the-fly.

Apple crossed the river from 1990 to 2006 by inviting its users to  
follow along, hopping from one stone to another, often changing  
direction.  Microsoft built a bridge across the river and handed its  
users a roadmap that shows how to get to the other side.

As far as reliability, Windows is every bit as reliable as OS X.   
Windows Server 2003 has demonstrated uptimes over 1 year (reference  
Netcraft) without reboot, while OS X Server never has.  Technically,  
is the Mach kernel capable?  Sure, but due to flaws in design it  
doesn't happen.  So Windows is more reliable on servers, with less  
downtime.  On desktops it takes no more time to fix some little  
Windows problem than it does to reboot a Mac in the middle of some  
important project just because you updated something ridiculously  
simple like Quicktime with Software Update.  It's a wash.

 From a technical standpoint, in my opinion the Windows kernel is  
superior and more stable than Mach.  The Windows kernel demonstrates  
better and faster threading capability, better VM management, a  
superior TCP stack and has a better device driver module implementation.

I my opinion Mac OS has a better overall graphical interface design,  
better integration of application suite components, and a superior  
user experience.  I like OS X just as much as you do, except I  
realize OS X is far from flawless.  It's merely an alternative - a  
choice you make to be different.  Whether or not that choice is  
"better" or more "reliable" depends on the individual.  But for  
business and enterprise deployment reliability Windows is still the  
hands down winner, and will continue to be probably well into the end  
of the decade.
-- 
Chris

-------------------------
PGP Key:  http://astcomm.net/~chris/PGP_Public_Key/
-------------------------