The XvsXP comparison is a pathetic joke. The comparison and reasons for giving points is based on pure personal opinion. Giving XP more than a 2 in any regards proves that test is performed by those that know nothing about real OS comparisons

The XvsXP comparison is a pathetic joke. The comparison and reasons for giving points is based on pure personal opinion. Giving XP more than a 2 in any regards proves that test is performed by those that know nothing about real OS comparisons

No, actually, I believe there is merit to what James and Mike (and Dan before them) are doing.  Choosing an operating system is not as cut-and-dry as anybody would like it to be anymore, and if you would actually take the time to read the articles on the site instead of giving a typical fanboy reaction, you would see that there are some places where XP bests OS X (such as when browsing zipped folders).

There are many times that I’m using Windows when I wish to myself that it acted more like the way my Mac does.  But there are also times that I wish to myself that my Mac acted more like the Windows box in a particular regard.  If everything was a complete shut out, nobody would be using XP at all.  Obviously, that’s not the case.

Giving XP more than a 2 in any regards proves that test is performed by those that know nothing about real OS comparisons

And that would be why they are the ones doing the comparison and not people like you. Even I, as a life long mac user, can admit that there are places that Windows is better than OS X

That’s good news.  Never liked the previous owner.

Hopefully the new guys can do something about the scoring as it really needs some work and does not reflect the reason why people like myself have never felt the need to use a Mac.

It all depends on what’s important to you, I guess. One may be “better” according to some shootout, but it’s still a personal preference issue. Even if XvsXP gave the edge to XP overall, that wouldn’t dissuade me from using the Mac. It wouldn’t reflect what some of us choose the Mac over Windows, and quite frankly, it really wouldn’t matter.  The overall scores are helpful to an extent, but the individual section scores are more useful since they are more pertinent to what’s important to different users.

I think the site does a great job at exposing how and why Windows sucks in the areas that are important to me. It could go more into the problems and hassles…

But I never understood why OS X got a 4 for photo management at the same time Windows got a 7 for font management. Hmm. Windows doesn’t have any font management and gets a 7. OS X has no photo management and gets a 4. Hmmmm.

And, and, and...they need to ding the Task Bar for having two completely different behaviors (they only cover SDI and ignore MDI).

And...and...and

Good luck to Dan. I think the new owners will do a great job.

Well, the scores were tallied by an individual who is really using his Mac experience to compare with XP, and doesn’t update the scores when told to.

He doesn’t even include the fact that Windows have always been application friendly with the vast amount of software and emulators available, as well as games support.  And even if they were included, a 10 is not enough to credit these attributes (it would be a whole new category).

Here are others (thanks Rick) :

- price
- frequency of free and paid updates/upgrades
- OS choices
- hardware choices
- computer maker choice
- reseller choice
- third party software selection
- third party peripheral selection
- cost of support
- length of support
- product life cycle
- education and training options
- ease of purchasing the respective platforms
- ease of finding technical support
- free or low cost access to trial software
- consistency of the OS over many years
- backwards compatibility for continued integration with legacy hardware and software
- emulation (and similar) options (Windows Services for Unix 3.5, Virtual PC, VMWare, Cygwin, ...)

Lets hope that these guys can shed a more realistic light on OSX and XP because the last guy had no clue.

I don’t think XvsXP is the definitive end-all be-all resource, but just one resource among many for comparing the platforms.

It would be way too much work to create a site that compares every aspect of the platforms to the level of detail that XvsXP goes into. Just look at Rick’s half-assed attempt that he can’t even finish, much less keep current. XvsXP does a much better job, but even then, the task is daunting (and they only cover the operating systems!).

Besides, “ease of purchasing” may not be a great thing to compare--it varies depending on where you buy from.

“Free or low cost access to trial software”?? People actually use that as a factor for choosing a platform?

The XvsXP comparison is a pathetic joke. The comparison and reasons for giving points is based on pure personal opinion. Giving XP more than a 2 in any regards proves that test is performed by those that know nothing about real OS comparisons

...

Lets hope that these guys can shed a more realistic light on OSX and XP because the last guy had no clue.

You know, I think you’re doing things right when both Mac and PC users disagree with your findings.

Yes, I agree, the new owners should go through the site with a fine-toothed comb and reexamine every aspect, as well as come up with new scores (if they deem it necessary).  However:

He doesn’t even include the fact that Windows have always been application friendly with the vast amount of software and emulators available, as well as games support.  And even if they were included, a 10 is not enough to credit these attributes (it would be a whole new category).

There may be lots of software for Windows, but that does not mean there is not lots of software for Mac (there is plenty).  And I wouldn’t exactly call Windows software “friendly,” on average.  It seems whenever I want to run a new program on Windows, I have to go through a big installation process; on my Mac, more often than not I simply drag the application wherever I want and that’s that.

Also:

- price - Big point of contention, no?  Some argue in favor of Macs, some in favor of PC’s, and both arguments have merit.  However, the site is comparing Mac OS X to Windows XP ONLY, and the cost of hardware, 3rd party software, support, and so on should not be taken into account because there are too many different possibilities.
- frequency of free and paid updates/upgrades
- OS choices - Again, it’s about OS X and XP only.  Other operating systems and hardware/software manufacturers are not factored in.
- hardware choices - Ditto.
- computer maker choice - Ditto.
- reseller choice - This is an area where Windows-related solutions are greater, but it’s not an issue of the OS’s themselves.
- third party software selection - Also not related to the OS’s themselves.
- third party peripheral selection - Ditto.
- cost of support - Ditto.
- length of support - Unless you’re comparing OS warranties, not much that applies here.
- product life cycle - Not quite sure what you mean here, as applied to an OS vs OS comparison.
- education and training options - Unfortunately, this is definitely an area that Windows has the lead.
- ease of purchasing the respective platforms - I’d say it’s easy enough to buy for either, but there are more options for buying Windows machines.  But still not an OS vs OS issue.
- ease of finding technical support - True enough, there are plenty more service technicians for Windows boxes than for Macs.  Perhaps there need to be?
- free or low cost access to trial software - Plenty on both operating systems, and also not factored in because it’s not part of the OS itself.
- consistency of the OS over many years - Windows and OS X both change from version to version, yet both have lots that stay the same.  OS X and OS 9 are a different story, but I don’t know if you intend for OS 9 to be included (since it’s not OS X).
- backwards compatibility for continued integration with legacy hardware and software - You mean the way my sister’s (formerly my) old 400 Mhz iMac runs 10.3, and could run 10.4 just fine if I installed it for her?
- emulation (and similar) options (Windows Services for Unix 3.5, Virtual PC, VMWare, Cygwin, ...) - There are options on both.  And yet again, it’s not a direct issue with the OS’s themselves because they’re essentially 3rd-party solutions.

So basically, I think he had more clue than you give him credit for, because the site isn’t about comparing one platform to the other, it’s about comparing one operating system (what you get out of the OS box) to the other.  Hence why stuff like iLife isn’t included (or at least, shouldn’t be).

Also, do they still have that little score importance ranking tool available?  That was pretty useful in seeing how the two systems might actually stack up on a personal basis.

He doesn’t even include the fact that Windows have always been application friendly with the vast amount of software and emulators available, as well as games support. 

I would have no problem with a simple “software selection” category and giving XP the advantage. It certainly is an aspect of Windows that is nice—being able to walk into Target or Wal Mart and buy Windows software.

And he should also add “Spyware/Viruses” as a category too.

I think hardware selection would be fair game too.

Consistency of the OS over years is just putting a positive spin on the fact that Microsoft can’t put out a new version in a timely manner. All I hear from Windows zealots is excitement to have several Vista features.

Backward compatibility is going out the window when DirectX 10 comes out as Vista-only and Halo 2 comes only to Vista. And let’s not pretend there aren’t many major software titles that require Windows XP.

I don’t get the trial software thing. Every title I use on the Mac has a trial version for free.

Oh, and I’m excited to get Windows Vista too, since I own a PC. However, I don’t know if my 1 Ghz PC will run Vista well and I also already know that Vista won’t solve my biggest problems with the user interface, but actually makes things worse in some areas (Flip 3D????)

And I can’t wait to see xvsxp when it compares Vista to Leopard. Vista will have “Saved Searches” and the Windows fans are going to have to pretend that they didn’t criticize Tiger’s Smart Folders as “only saved searches”.

Oh yeah, thanks for that correction.

Windows has better legacy support, that’s for sure, based on the fact that I need to have Classic to run OS 9 applications in OS X and I don’t need Windows 3 to run those applications in Windows XP.

If you still want Photoshop 3 to run in OS X, you’d have a problem. The subjective aspect of this is I don’t want to run Photoshop 3. I’m using Photoshop CS2, which runs great.

I find some of these criticisms of OS X to be coming from the “Macs aren’t poor friendly” camp. Some of these comments just don’t mean anything to me since I’m not poor.

And I don’t know that Windows is “all that” in this regard. There are plenty of DOS applications that don’t run well in XP. That’s why there is a DOS emulator that supposedly runs DOS applications better than Windows XP does. But I don’t run DOS applications on XP. I run current Windows applications.

most if not all of those are outside of the scope of the site. If they were to be included, the site would take an army of full-time writers.

Not really.  The site says OSX vs XP, that is to compare every features essential to the average user’s need and more.  It started out with one guy doing the comparison with a little help from his online buddies.  A real comparo would get both a Mac and PC enthusiasts to get down and do a proper job.

You know, I think you’re doing things right when both Mac and PC users disagree with your findings.

How does this even make sense?  If the comparison doesn’t meet either party’s expectations, then its a subpar comparo.

The general perspective I get from that comparo is more on aestetic evaluation than real world needs and usability.

For example, does the OS meet my needs for my PDA device and connectivity?  How about my Samsung phone?

Does the OS meet my needs for gaming?

Does the OS read my WMV encoded DVDs that I recorded from my DVD/VHS combo recorder?

Does the OS let me customise the way I want my desktop to look and operate?

Does the OS give me plenty of freedom to tailor it the way my business runs?

Does the OS accomodate legacy software and hardware of which
a lot of businesses out there are still using?

Does the life of the OS end whenever I change my hardware such as the motherboard or CPU?

Is the OS affordable and long lasting?

The site takes into account every changes that have been made to OSX, but does not accept the vast additions (free of charge too) for XP.

And I wouldn’t exactly call Windows software “friendly,�

Maybe you misunderstood.  I meant application friendly as in there are so many applications out there that were designed for Windows.  Take into account of the Japanese, Korean, Chinese, SE Asian, Swedish, German, Russian Arabic etc etc software that has been created on the Windows platform, XP is indeed very application friendly.  Doing an internet search and finding an application to meet your needs can be met in an instance.

- price - Big point of contention, no?  Some argue in favor of Macs, some in favor of PC’s, and both arguments have merit.  However, the site is comparing Mac OS X to Windows XP ONLY, and the cost of hardware, 3rd party software, support, and so on should not be taken into account because there are too many different possibilities.

So if the site wasn’t comparing OSX and XP only, then why does it compares the updated OSX with XP?  How much has users had to pay since the first OSX?  $500++?
That is a yearly $120++ upgrade fee that a lot of people are not willing to pay.  Think poor college students who would rather hack than pay, or businesses who would rather use yesterday’s Mac than pay $$$$$ for today.  Factor in the hardwares involved and you have a losing situation using a Mac.

- frequency of free and paid updates/upgrades

As explained, OSX loses with their “yearly” OS subscription.

- OS choices - Again, it’s about OS X and XP only.  Other operating systems and hardware/software manufacturers are not factored in.

- hardware choices - Ditto.

XP allows greater flexibility in having practically any hardware you want, and in any arrangement you want.  The Mac offers little choices because its not the scalable OS that XP/Windows is.  OSX is terrible for hardware support.

- computer maker choice - Ditto.

Macs only comes in white or silver, and are un-upgradable (iMac and mini).  OSX don’t run on any other computer other than a Mac.  Nuff said.

- reseller choice - This is an area where Windows-related solutions are greater, but it’s not an issue of the OS’s themselves.

But it has a lot to do with how much I can get out of my OS.

- third party software selection - Also not related to the OS’s themselves.

Again, which one has a stronger unit of 3rd party software?  That says a lot about what an OS should be doing, allowing unlimited choices. 

- third party peripheral selection - Ditto.

I’ve answered this.

- cost of support - Ditto.

Pretty obvious which one requires less money for upgrades and support.

- length of support - Unless you’re comparing OS warranties, not much that applies here.

- product life cycle - Not quite sure what you mean here, as applied to an OS vs OS comparison.

I’ve already explained this.  In short, the product that lasted the longest without costing me money is the superior product.

- education and training options - Unfortunately, this is definitely an area that Windows has the lead.

- ease of purchasing the respective platforms - I’d say it’s easy enough to buy for either, but there are more options for buying Windows machines.  But still not an OS vs OS issue.

XP creams OSX for platform scalability.  See the bigger picture, then you’ll realise why Apple only has 2% of the computer market.

- ease of finding technical support - True enough, there are plenty more service technicians for Windows boxes than for Macs.  Perhaps there need to be? wink

- free or low cost access to trial software - Plenty on both operating systems, and also not factored in because it’s not part of the OS itself.

XP accomodates more free or low cost software.  A lot of them to fill in the gaps that MS could easily do themselves if it wasn’t for the DOJ.

- consistency of the OS over many years - Windows and OS X both change from version to version, yet both have lots that stay the same.  OS X and OS 9 are a different story, but I don’t know if you intend for OS 9 to be included (since it’s not OS X).

Apple/OS had to take drastic measures to stay in the game.  MS/XP haven’t.  I’ll take consistency over short term solutions any day.

- backwards compatibility for continued integration with legacy hardware and software - You mean the way my sister’s (formerly my) old 400 Mhz iMac runs 10.3, and could run 10.4 just fine if I installed it for her?

Not quite.  Running legacy software and hardware on an existing system.  Does Photoshop and all your old software from your old iMac work on your existing system?  A good OS supports this, thus saving you a lot of money from having to make all your old stuff obsolete and buy replacements.

- emulation (and similar) options (Windows Services for Unix 3.5, Virtual PC, VMWare, Cygwin, ...) - There are options on both.  And yet again, it’s not a direct issue with the OS’s themselves because they’re essentially 3rd-party solutions.

How does this even make sense?  If the comparison doesn’t meet either party’s expectations, then its a subpar comparo.

Fanboyism. ‘Enough said.

“XP doesn’t have a lower score?/OS X doesn’t have a higher score? XvsXP sucks.”

“OS X doesn’t have a lower score?/XP doesn’t have a higher score? XvsXP sucks.”

XP creams OSX for platform scalability.  See the bigger picture, then you’ll realise why Apple only has 2% of the computer market.

Gee, I never knew my mom or my sister needed an OS that scaled up to mainframes. I think the bigger issue is ignorance. People don’t realize that they have a choice.

XP accomodates more free or low cost software.  A lot of them to fill in the gaps that MS could easily do themselves if it wasn’t for the DOJ.

You’re not familiar with the high-quality shareware, freeware, and open-source Mac software, are you? Did I mention that I have access to a large library of X11-based apps as well?

Apple/OS had to take drastic measures to stay in the game.  MS/XP haven’t.  I’ll take consistency over short term solutions any day.

Short-term solutions?? Mac OS X has set Apple up for ten years at least. That’s not short-term planning. Mac OS 9 was not a short-term solution either. It served Mac users well for over 15 years.

Does Photoshop and all your old software from your old iMac work on your existing system?

Um, yes? I’m running Photoshop 4for crying out loud!

splitting post…

In short, the product that lasted the longest without costing me money is the superior product.

Yes, and for me that product bears an Apple logo. I have a perfectly good 4+-year-old iMac to my right that has at least another year in it before I need to put it out to pasture. In terms of actual repair costs, the only money I’ve ever had to spend on the thing is like $45 for a new hard drive. My previous Macs have also lasted me many years.

Pretty obvious which one requires less money for upgrades and support.

Yeah, and for me it’s the Macintosh platform.

That is a yearly $120++ upgrade fee that a lot of people are not willing to pay.  Think poor college students who would rather hack than pay, or businesses who would rather use yesterday’s Mac than pay $$$$$ for today.

1) It’s more like every 18 months not every year. Apple did not release a version of OS X in 2004 and 10.5 won’t be out until the end of the year at the earliest, or about 16-18 months after 10.4’s release.
2) Students can purchase Tiger for $69. for most students (like myself), it’s not a problem.
3) Apple does do site licenses for schools and businesses.

Macs only comes in white or silver, and are un-upgradable (iMac and mini).  OSX don’t run on any other computer other than a Mac.  Nuff said.

The last time I checked (which was, oh I don’t know, the last time I helped a customer), upgradability is not a pressing issue for a lot of people. The biggest hang-ups people I’ve worked with have are either ignorance, reliance on certain applications for work (by the same token, Mac users become reliant on certain apps for work too), or fear of leaving their comfort zone. People I work with are absolutely blown away by the iMacs, and many buy them, lack of expandability or no.

Again, which one has a stronger unit of 3rd party software?  That says a lot about what an OS should be doing, allowing unlimited choices. 

Define stronger. Does stronger mean better or just more?

XP allows greater flexibility in having practically any hardware you want, and in any arrangement you want.

Your reality is distorted; you see things through a geek’s eyes, not an average consumer’s eyes. That’s not what really goes on. Work in sales for a few weeks and you’ll find out.That’s not a priority for everyone. Not everyone builds their own systems. The majority of average consumers buy the DellCheapo special and don’t give a rat’s ass about being able to mix and match.

By the way, did I mention that roughly half of all computers purchased by UC Berkeley students, staff, and faculty from the campus computer store carry an Apple logo?

Gee, I never knew my mom or my sister needed an OS that scaled up to mainframes. I think the bigger issue is ignorance. People don’t realize that they have a choice.

I’d say the bigger issue is that people don’t care about the other choices nearly as much.  Apple often refuses to build the types of computers that are most popular with consumers ( for instance, low priced ATX sized towers and $1200 or less 15 inch laptops) and they keep their margins far higher than nearly every other computer company on the market.
They don’t have sales on their machines, and their product refresh cycles are anemic.  They shun the gaming community, they often ignore some of the most popular features in an attempt to put form over function (example: no card readers although every pc laptop and desktop has one), and they ignore much of the PC enthusiast community by not providing more upgradability and certain options like higher resolution screens on laptops.

And last but not least they shun the business community by not releasing product roadmaps or giving business level support.

Oh yeah, and they rarely advertise Macs to the general public.

That’s why Apple has 2% marketshare.

Your reality is distorted; you see things through a geek’s eyes, not an average consumer’s eyes. That’s not what really goes on. Work in sales for a few weeks and you’ll find out.That’s not a priority for everyone. Not everyone builds their own systems. The majority of average consumers buy the DellCheapo special and don’t give a rat’s ass about being able to mix and match.

It’s not always about the consumer building their own system so much as the fact that they can get a custom built system from Dell, or HP, or Gateway, or a local manufacturer.

XP’s flexibilty allows for consumers to have more buying choice in terms of hardware selection and even preloaded software selection.

Apple/OS had to take drastic measures to stay in the game.  MS/XP haven’t.  I’ll take consistency over short term solutions any day.

See: XP SP2, IE team being woken up to build IE 7, the feature’s that have dropped out of Vista in order to get it done in time.

All of those are short term solutions. XP was way, way, WAY out of the security game. If Firefox hadn’t have existed we’d still be looking at IE 6 being the default browser in Vista. And if MS hadn’t have postponed certain features shipping in Vista then they’d have had to wait another year or two, which they don’t want to do when they have Linux and OS X gaining market share all the time.