BattleForums Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Wisconsin Age: 19 Posts: 1,300
| Interesting debate concerning the instablilty of windows
I took this from a private forum, with the permission of everyone involved:
Speaker 1: A lot of Windows "instability" stems from one fact: Microsoft is not a hardware company. unlike Macintosh, they do not distribute computer hardware with their software. They just write the OS. this allows for a much broader range of hardware to be used with the operating system, and they can not design the OS to run effortlessly on all possible hardware configuration avalible. With OSX, it is much easier to design for full compatability, because you have a much smaller range of hardware avalible to the consumer. Apple is a hardware company that makes its OS based on the smaller group of hardware, which it produces. MS is a software company and hardware companies try to make their parts work with the OS, which is not always the case. Hence, it is more a fact of the range of hardware then the programming.
Speaker 2: You're about 10 years too late to claim this as anything new, but now that you're aware, maybe you'll appreciate the genius behind making "the whole widget." That said, Microsoft certainly has their work cut out trying to deal with every possible hardware configuration out there, but there's not much of a reason to pity their predicament, now is there. Also, the company is named Apple Computer, Inc. Also also, that's still a pretty basic dismissal of the completely different kernel bases the two OS's have, not to mention the inherent hardware and differences that, even with Intel Macs, still separate Macs from PCs (EFI is one of them). What about the fact that permissions and multiple user environments in Windows (until Vista) are essentially hacks? Just because Windows is versatile doesn't mean it's bulletproof or sturdy enough to bend without cracking.
Speaker 1: I wasnt attempting to induce pity, I was adding another dimention to the universal argument of OSX or Windows. Is it MS fault that their software becomes sometimes unstable, when, usually, the reason it does is due to hardware manufacturors not meshing their wares with Windows? I thik it adds quite a dynamic to the whole argument myself. Apple is a hardware company that hapens to make its own software. MS is a different type of company that makes its own software and relies on hardware manufacturors to make their products mech with the software. Is one system BETTER? would it be BETTER if MS started making its own hardware? I think its difficult to say. Although I do have high hopes for Vista.
Speaker 3: then again, Microsoft is a lets say an open producer, they don't want to just limit their technology to just certain systems like the OSX, but are trying to get more consumers to buy the product so it becomes more widespread. None the less, it brings in more revenue for the company. But it Microsoft were to limit themselves to say just the Dell corporation, then yes they would have an easier time trying to deal with the hardware issues. So because Microsoft is trying to go widespread, it has a lot on its plate to get each brand of hardware out there to work with its programs. If Microsoft were to make their own system, then that would be a complete downfall of the company because it is now going to compete with the other hardware companies out there that already have consumers in their hands. So to overall answer the question, the only reason that Windows doesn't mesh with all hardware is because it is a widespread market company trying to earn as much money as possible while also dealing with the problems that people are reporting
Speaker 1: I think its more than that. It is a PC wide spectrum. yuou can baisically put any chardware component you want into a Dell (be it on your own or not). and, even if it partnered with Dell, MS is still not a hardware company, they make their poofits off of software. And they would have to buy Dell baisically. Then adjust to working at Dell pants etc...this is if they wanted to become a Hardware company who happens to make software for its hardware (like Apple). But the point I was making is: Can you blame Windows (and ultimately MS) for having an "unstable" OS when it is, 99% of the time that hardware, that is makde by another comany, that makes it unstable?
Speaker 2: Windows was the first OS of the two to implement "smart" memory management (as compared to classic Mac OS, however, not Mac OS X), so, what the hey, I'll give them that one.
Legacy support in Windows, just for the record, is absolutely killing any chance for advancement in the OS. Apple did the "right" thing by emulating old software through Classic instead of building Mac OS X around making old apps run in the new OS, though even they needed to make compromises to that vendetta. On the whole, though, that encouraged developers to get Mac OS X-native bulids out the door as fast as possible. Obviously the Windows market moves similarly to adapt to each new release of Windows, but I daresay that Microsoft has placed far too much priority on legacy support. They should have just run old Windows apps in a "box" the way Mac OS X handled Classic apps.
Microsoft's other problem – they're always playing catch-up. Apple was ready to counter "Longhorn" with Tiger and now that shell of its former metamorphosis still won't see the the shelf until 2007 – in the meantime, Apple will have Leopard ready to strike shortly before or shortly after this "highly anticipated" release with absolutely nutty enhancements, one of which involves GPU-accelerated 2D drawing, another of which could involve Windows virtualization within the OS itself. Vista, meanwhile, as especially evidenced by the ridiculous amount of "shiny crap" – a.k.a. Aero, will be starting off in some places where Mac OS X was 5 years ago (as to Aero – Mac OS X 10.0 had all kinds of cutesy graphical effects such as window transparency, shadows everywhere, 3-D-ness, etc. The GUI evolution of Mac OS X will show you that Apple realized that none of that matters – the GUI has gotten flatter, sharper, simpler, and less shiny because it works better.)
All this in perspective, I'm sure I'm playing right into your Mac fanatic stereotype by flaming you on the rest of Windows outside of your original argument – and for that I sincerely apologize.
Speaker 3: nope, you just said it yourself, 99% of the time its the out of country products that screw you over, so no its not Windows' fault, it just needs to get around it/work with it like the others
Speaker 2: Your point about Microsoft being at the mercy of hardware manufacturers – not true. They could "easily" (in reality, it's not that simple since they wouldn't) revoke, say, Dell's Windows licensing agreement and force them to produce better, more consistent hardware. They sort of did that already by giving Vista (back in the Longhorn days) ridiculous hardware requirements, but that OS is long dead by now. The reason they cannot do this, however, is because Dell is a parts-in-a-box computer manufacturer. They aren't developing any of the infrastructure or hardware advancements that their boxes may or may not employ. Like Microsoft, they, too, are forced to commit to legacy support in the form of floppy disk drives (recently dropped from new models...Apple did so in 1999 and has now dropped built-in 56k modems) and other such crap. Somebody's gotta do it, but that somebody isn't Apple, and that certainly gives them a leg up on the race towards the bleeding edge at the end of the horizon. Intel even said that Apple's business especially interested them because it would allow them to showcase their newest technologies (c.f. Core Duo and, later this year, their Pentium 4 killers) without looking back.
That said, back to running these two OSs on varying hardware configurations. Mac OS X also runs on a variety of hardware setups, including AMD chipsets, but not without hacking the kernel drivers first. Apple also has little incentive to begin selling Mac OS X for non-Macintosh hardware because doing so would cannabalize their hardware sales (which would be a shame because they're so good at designing it) because of what it would entail – they would become a software-only company. As mentioned, Microsoft certainly doesn't make Windows hardware, and this could very well be because they simply can't. Apple certainly doesn't want to find itself in that position anytime soon, and with the first batch of Intel Macs performing so well, less thanlittle reason for them to be going down the software-only road.
Speaker 1: To the point of revoking lisences: Microsoft has no reason to do so. In all fairness it is a buisness issue. sure, they could revoke Dell's license until they make some hardware upgrades (I can see a logical reason for not dropping floppy drives/56k modems) but why would they do that? What increase in buisness would Microsoft gain? If Apple were, like Microsoft, a software comany, they could do something like this because they hold a small enough portion of the market (around 5% now?) to actually expand their user base from an upgrade in hardware requirements. (and I dont agree with you that Vista is dead, but personal preference, what can I say?) Also, what is "other such crap" that they keep on as "legacy"? CD-Rom drives? I agree on the course of Microsoft is too focused on legacy. I would love for them to branch off and expand their OS, however, its back to the buisness portion. They have no reason to. people are, generally satisfied with the performance they are getting from their Windows whatever edition they have. And if Microsoft did that, they would have toruble getting people to join up with it. It is the reason why Apple only has 5% of the market. "Why would I switch over and basically throw away 219.00 for XP (Home) and 129.00 on office 2003 (student/teacher edition)" thats is also if they only had those two programs on it.
Names are withheld per request from the posters. also forum link is withheld, as it is a private forum.
ANy thoughts? perosnally i thought it was interesting, and more than just your usual MACS ARE BETTER1 WTF NOES PC WINNSS! |
Sponsored Links 
Linear Mode
