Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'Compared to Windows ...' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Compared to Windows ...
Authored by: boomer502 on Apr 14, '04 01:41:46PM
I love my mac, but I have learned to refrain from sounding like some school girl gushing over it. Can we get a reality check here? I use both platforms, and this post is just plain elitism/zealotry with very little actual knowledge.

Thus, were you to ask a Windoze user how many open applications they have, they'd have to count down on their taskbar or start closing windows, counting each one as they closed. With my Mac, I look for black arrows showing open applications, but I can easily switch from each to the other, as I can usually see parts of applications that are open on my desktop.

What exactly is the difference between counting the tasks in the Windows task bar and counting the number of apps with black triangles in the Dock? What exactly is the added benefit? What is the big deal about being able to see other apps underneath the active app? Either way, you move the mouse, click th eapp you want active and get to work. On both platforms, you can tab through active apps. If you need the desktop in Windows, you click the desktop icon inthe taskbar. Not exactly rocket science, and pretty much what show desktop in Expose does.

I agree with the comment that Windoze users tend to reboot a lot (thus, shutting down a number of GUI applications). In fact, if you ask a Windoze-trained user, they'll tend to tell you that all computers must be periodically rebooted on a regular schedule in order to remain "healthy." I look at my Macintosh, which has been running continuously with no problems for over a fortnight since I last upgraded the operating system (which did require a reboot) and which ran continuously for around two months prior to that upgrade and I just chuckle. Whatever happened, in the Windoze community, to the concept of "continuous uptime?"

What kind of ill-trained twits are you talking to with PCs? Are we referring to somebody who bought the Wal-Mart HP with 128MB of RAM, no video card and a 4500 RPM hard drive? Yeah, they're going to have to reboot a lot. So is any Mac user running X on a low-end G3 with 128MB of RAM. It wasn't so long ago that I could bring my Mac with OS 9 to its knees with a single bad font or extension, or have we already forgotten about Type 11 errors?

Chuckle if you like, but I've been the "support guy" for the office Macs for years, and you get your share of knuckleheads in that group too. A person with any inkling of knowledge about his/her platform can run it quite effectively without reboots (My Dell at home with XP and 512MB runs two users continuously without a hiccup). Continuous uptime is easy on XP with some commons sense, just like on my Mac.

If you're going to bash on another platform, at least get the facts beyond talking to a couple of yahoos who wouldn't know a mouse from a keyboard. Odds are, they could hose the Mac just as easily. I've seen it done.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Compared to Windows ...
Authored by: hamarkus on Apr 16, '04 07:24:55PM

You're absolutely right in saying that not everything that is different on Mac is automatically better, as some people tend to do.

Just having talked to a Windows user about the full-screen issue, he claimed to feel distracted if not in fullscreen mode, which is offcourse a subjective statement but nevertheless a valid point.

One argument against full-screen mode is the possiblity of using parts of other windows, from the same app or another one, as really big buttons.

[ Reply to This | # ]