Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Tip

Mac OS X vs. Windows 7

Jan 18, 2012 1:17AM PST

<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> Apple
has always been an innovative company. They usually set the standards for the
computer industry. Apple introduced graphical user interfaces for their
computers long before Microsoft (Dickinson, John). Without them, most people
today would not know how to even operate a computer. For an average computer
user that doesn't know a lot about computers, but can use it for basic tasks
like text editing and internet use, buying a Mac is a better choice than a
Windows pc. </font></font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">A
Mac computer compared to a Windows pc of similar specs, is faster for most
activities, like media conversion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> CNET
did a comparison of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, the previous version of Apple's
Mac operating system, and a RTM build of Windows 7 64-bit edition, which is the
latest build of the operating system. Snow Leopard was faster than the pc in
multimedia multitasking, boot up and shutdown speed, iTunes encoding, and
QuickTime converting tests (Ngo, ****). That means people can get to their files
faster, modify or use the files, and shutdown their machine long before a
Windows user would be able to. On a computer with a 2.5GHz Intel Core Duo
processor, 4GB of RAM, and a 512MB video card, A Mac boot up, encoded music,
converted a video file and music at the same time, and shutdown in roughly 4
minutes and 51 seconds less than a Windows pc with the same specs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Although Windows 7 is faster when it comes to
3-D rendering (Ngo, ****), that won't matter to the average consumer. 3-D
rendering is mainly used in computer games, and 3-D modeling software, like the
software used by professionals to make computer animated movies. Unless someone
is a hardcore gamer or a professional user, the 3-D rendering provided by Mac
OS X will be sufficient for their needs. </font></font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Mac
computers are also a good choice for the average consumer because they support
windows programs and peripherals. That means content from previous computers,
keyboards and mice they already have or want, and programs written for Windows
are supported. For instance, there are Mac versions of Photoshop and Adobe
After Effects available for the Mac. Other programs like Firefox and Google
Chrome are also available. The majority of computer users use Windows, so its
likely they will already have things from previous computers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Plus, if there were a situation where the
user absolutely had to run Windows, they still could using Bootcamp, which is a
part of the Mac OS X operating system that lets users install Windows on a Mac
alongside Mac OS X. (Why you'll love a Mac It's Compatible ) In the future it's
likely that iOS, Apple's operating system for its mobile devices, like the
iPhone, and Mac OS will combine (Savitz, Eric), creating one ecosystem for
applications and content. That means that people will not have to buy multiple
copies of software for different devices, and that something that works on one
device, will be able to work on the other. It also means people will not have
to learn how to operate different devices because they will all be essentially
the same. Only small hardware differences like screen size will be present.
Some people will argue that Windows is better because you don't really have to
worry about compatibility, and will say it's less expensive, but the price of
the machines directly correlates with the quality of the machines. Windows
machines can be built by anyone, which means they can be of very poor quality.
Since the software on every Mac is created by Apple, and Apple makes the Mac,
the system is fully integrated. You can purchase it with the confidence of
knowing the hardware and software will work together because they are built for
each other. </font></font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Macs
are also better computers for the average consumer because they are less likely
to have problems throughout their lifespan or get a virus. Because Windows has
market dominance when it comes to operating systems, most viruses and attacks
are directed towards the Windows operating system. And because the system on a
Mac is fully integrated, Apple can guarantee the software will work well with
the hardware, which lengthens lifespan of the computer. OS X works with a Macs
processor and other hardware to deliver maximum performance. OS X also gives
the Mac a long battery life by dimming the screen and regulating processor
activity between keystrokes (Why you'll love a Mac Better OS). That means an
average user doesn't have to worry about optimizing their machine for
performance or battery life. On top of good performance, Mac OS X also defends
against viruses and malware. It uses a process called sandboxing, which is restricting
what actions programs can perform on your computer, like accessing system
files. It also controls what normal files programs can access, and what other
programs they can launch, to prevent hackers form obtaining personal files or
damaging your system. Mac OS X also utilizes Library Randomization, which
prevents malicious commands from finding their targets, and Execute Disable,
which protects the memory in your Mac from attacks (Why you'll love a Mac
Better OS). Some Windows users may argue Windows also has built in security
support, but that software is next to useless. You pretty much have to buy
antivirus software if you plan to surf the web with a Windows pc. </font></font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Macs
are the better choice for the average consumer. They are faster for most
activities, they support PC programs and peripherals, and are less likely to
experience issues throughout their lifetime. They are good computers and
definitely the better choice for the average computer user. So, please, consider
getting a Mac for your next computer. You won't regret it.<span style="'color:" rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 200%; font-family: "Lucida Sans Unicode","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;'><?xml:namespace prefix =" o" ns =" "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"" /><oSilly></oSilly></font></font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font><oSilly><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"> </font></oSilly><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font>

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Next time?
Jan 18, 2012 4:00AM PST

Please click the box to the right of the Happy so when you paste your content it's not trashed.
Bob

- Collapse -
References.
Jan 20, 2012 1:46PM PST

So far nothing you have said holds any credibility. You should really point out some references to the claims and broad generalizations you're making regarding system performance. And there is really nothing special about OSX, it's just a hacked up version of Darwin Linux Apple customized and made proprietary, and licensed so you can only run it on Apple hardware. If I were to ever find an IMac in the trash, first thing I would do is wipe it clean and put one of the many flavors of Linux on it and a Hypervisor.

- Collapse -
Speaking of credibility
Jan 20, 2012 9:51PM PST

Speaking of credibility -- and as a side note, with such poor formatting I didn't even bother reading the OP -- Darwin is based on FreeBSD not Linux. The two are cousins of a sort, but FreeBSD can claim to be an actual Unix, tracing its roots back through 386BSD all the way back to the original BSD Unix. Linux was developed from scratch to be Unix-like, but it shares no real common ancestry. It was by design that there's a great deal of source compatibility for programs between Linux and various other *nix operating systems, but Linux can't claim to be a Unix OS.

I believe Apple actually had 10.5 officially certified as a Unix OS, probably for some contract with a large customer with a poorly written policy about how they can only buy official Unix stuff, but that's getting well off the topic.

In any case, Darwin itself is still open source last I checked, and Apple makes fairly regular code dumps which the FreeBSD developers try and integrate back into their code as much as possible. Apple's under no obligation to do this, as the BSD license would permit them to just take the code and make it completely proprietary if they wanted, much as Microsoft did when they took the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack to make Winsock. All completely above board. However, you're confusing the Aqua GUI and the Cocoa API with the OS, which isn't that uncommon a mistake to make. The core OS for Mac OS X, Darwin, is free and open source. If you want Apple's GUI, Aqua, that's what you're really paying for when you buy Mac OS X. Of course even the Cocoa API is based on the older NeXTStep API, which was made into OpenStep not long before Apple bought NeXT, and there's the GNUStep project which is aiming to create a fully open source implementation of it. As I understand it, it offers at least some degree of source compatibility between Mac OS X and other *nix platforms for GUI apps. However, progress is generally pretty slow. They've been at implementing just the OpenStep spec, which AFAIK, doesn't include any of the changes Apple has made with Mac OS X 10.1-10.7, for about the past decade or so and I think they're only around 75-80% done last I checked.

Now, without making any kind of comment about the OP's post, since I never read it... You may want to make sure your own facts are straight if you accuse someone else of being incorrect.