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

[Thomas Fulton]

I didnt reboot my tibook for over two years except for system upgrades 
and as software installs required it. Never froze up. I have had a 
similar experience with the Albook after replacing some garbage ram.
This Windows reliability is not a reality in my world or the world of 
my corporate clients. You would think that Microsoft would let the rest 
of their users in on the secret of XP reliability, servers or 
otherwise.

Tom

On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Chris Olson wrote:

> 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/
> -------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Titanium mailing list
> Titanium at listserver.themacintoshguy.com
> http://listserver.themacintoshguy.com/mailman/listinfo/titanium
>
> Listmom is trying to clean out his closets! Vintage Mac and random 
> stuff:
>         http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZmacguy1984
>