Stability

Now, it's time for the hot button issue, the one issue that Mac users use against PC users (and vice versa) all the time: stability. To put a few misconceptions to rest, I will resort to the timely bulleted list. I hope by this point, I've shown that I can definitely appreciate both a Mac and a PC platform, and thus, readers will view the following statements as pretty darn impartial:
  • OS X crashes
  • Windows XP crashes
  • My G5 machine crashes a bit less than any of my Windows XP machines
Now, let me qualify those three statements - I'll start at the bottom. Apple has it very easy. They have complete control over the hardware and drivers that go into every machine they build, they don't have to deal with multiple chipsets for a particular platform, and they don't even have to deal with multiple video card vendors. Apple controls every aspect of the hardware and software that goes into their computers. There are no strange driver or BIOS revisions out of Taiwan that don't play well with some configurations, and there are no worries about memory timings set too aggressively causing even the slightest bit of instability (without the appropriate timings, DDR400 will not boot in a G5). The PC world is much, much different; everything that Apple doesn't have to worry about or deal with, PC users may not worry about, but they definitely do have to deal with. How many times have you bought a cheaper piece of hardware from a no-name manufacturer because it fit your budget? It's not as common now because prices have gone down so much, but a few years ago, it was definitely very popular - I know. I did it. Sometimes you'd luck out, and other times, you'd have one component in your system that would always cause compatibility problems or stability issues. For me, it was an old Opti sound card; then, it was a no-name 430VX motherboard. And tracking down those kinds of problems can be very difficult because the symptoms don't always point to the culprit. I've always said that if you use the right hardware, a Windows box can be just as stable as any other machine out there - and my systems have supported that. I wouldn't reboot my system for months if it didn't have any problems. It was always a bad driver install, power outage or a program gone awry that forced a restart. People used to complain about Windows NT/2000 as a server platform because of stability; we've actually had more outages on our Linux servers than on our Windows servers. Not saying that Linux is a bad OS, but we know our Windows servers, and we know what hardware works best under them, and thus, once assembled and properly maintained, we had no real issues with them. >br?
OS X is built on a very solid core and it does handle individual applications crashing much better than Windows does. I've never had to reboot the entire system because one application crashed. It's also much better about restarting Finder (the equivalent of Explorer) if it crashes. It is things like these that make OS X a bit more "stable" of a platform than Windows, but also, remember that the tight quality control that Apple has over the components that go into their systems does also play a very large part in assuring stability.

The end result is that my Mac is a bit more stable than my PCs. It's not night and day, and the Mac does crash, just like my PCs do - it just crashes a little less frequently.

As far as hardware stability and failures go, I've heard horror stories about dead/dying G5s on Apple's support boards. I was honestly worried when I started reading through the threads; thankfully, I have yet to encounter any hardware issues with the G5, but I do recognize that there are users out there that have had serious issues with their systems. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) without much experience in this regard, there's not much I can say to Apple's hardware quality control, but I view Apple just like any other hardware vendor - there's no way that everything to come out of a company is going to be perfect. It's how they minimize the imperfections and deal with them when they occur that matter the most.

OS X Bottlenecks and Caching Applications under OS X
Comments Locked

215 Comments

View All Comments

  • addragyn - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    RE: Safari's Speed

    There is a delay built into the browser.

    You can reduce it - http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4924

    David Hyatt is a Safari developer @ Apple, he covered this on his blog - http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004...
  • Zak - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    The biggest problem with the article I sa so far is overlooking the iApps. Also, the apps equivalents are not correct. Entourage is Outlook counterpart and there is Acrobat Reader for OSX as well. Other than that it's a good article, but it's clear that Anand missed some things and got some others wrong, like the mentioned mouse cable, etc.

    Zak
  • azkman - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    This was a very good editorial/experience piece. Compared to other articles by Windows-users trying Macs, it was very open-minded. However, I have to agree with some of the earlier posters. The hardware used was dated, and the reviewer did not mention some of the key strengths of the Mac platform.

    It seems to me that Windows-users are fixated on certain characteristics and define a computer by MHz, framerate, etc, and this came out to a certain degree in the review. The author readily admits that he is used to writing hardware pieces for this type of audience, and again, I applaud him for his open-mindedness.

    Here is some information for posters and readers who want to learn more about Apple's computers and understand the overall value equation:

    price - http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html
    performance - http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36964.html
    proof - http://www.tcf.vt.edu/systemX.html
    http://www.colsa.com/cover_page/news_front/news_de...
    http://www.top500.org/list/2003/11/
    http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke%5C6133.html
    http://www.pcmag.com/review/0%2C2491%2Cs%3D1564&am...
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1369037,00.as...

    Applications & tools included in the price (beyond normal MS Windows offerings):
    video conferencing (high quality, easy to set-up, easy to use)
    music creation
    jukebox / music management / cd burning
    photo management
    movie editing
    dvd authoring & burning
    all-purpose search tool
    PDF export from any printable page
    font management
    full development environment (c, c++, objective c, java, scripting...)
    full unix shell, w/ x11

    Yes, I know a few of these applications are included with Windows, but I work in a tech-savvy Windows-dominant company and none of my co-workers use the bundled programs. In fact, most of them don't video conference or edit videos.

    Anyway, the Mac is really an "experience" in that the traditional concept of a computer disappears and the Mac becomes an extension of what the user wants to do. That is of course unless the user wants to work specifically with Windows issues. The value of a Mac comes from its ability to empower the user to do terrific things straight out of the box without thinking about things like viruses and security while also being a supercomputer-class piece of equipment.
  • rxmz - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    Thanks, very good article.

    I agree with some earlier posts that the Unix aspect of Mac OS X is a big advantage over Windows. I have a company web server and mail server (with IMAP and web mail access) running on the same G4 tower that is used as a desktop (not an ideal setup, I know, but it has to suffice for now ;-). I have PostgreSQL, cvs, and Subversion installed on my PowerBook. I can ssh to the office to administer the mail or web server. The Unix foundation is a terrific aspect of the OS.

    Anand, you might want to take a look at Camino for web browsing. And if you have a chance, check out the capabilities of AppleScript; it's cool now and only going to get more accessible to non-power users when Tiger comes out.
  • mjtomlin - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    oops one other point to make on the GUI responsiveness ...

    OS X GUI is timed. Things happen at a constant rate based on time not on CPU speed ... a lot of bench-markers like to use the scrolling test ... to see which system is faster. This is not a vaild test, because Mac OS X times the speed. This is actually a feature of the system. The whole point of scrolling was to quickly skim through a document. If the system scrolls through the document too fast, how do you know what you're missing?

    A lot of the GUI is designed like this ... that is, someone actually thought about the purpose of the feature and made sure it remained useful.

    To get to the end of a document, just drag the scroll bar down to the bottom or press the "end" key on the keyboard ... you'll be there in less than a second, that was those were designed for.
  • mjtomlin - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    A couple of points...

    #1 - i thought it was a fairly good article. You have to remember he was not writing a definitive guide to OS X/PowerMac. This was his take on the system from a Windows user perspective. There is obviously going to be a lot of details left out and many misunderstood "features"

    #2 - poster #60 regarding patching security issues... Apple has been releasing security fixes for OS X ever since it was released. I believe we're up to a couple a month in fact. Most OS X users update their systems without incident and continue on... The biggest difference between OS X security patches and those for Windows is that all the security fixes for OS X are for issues that have NOT been exploited yet.

    THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SECURITY ISSUES IN ANY OPERATING SYSTEM.

    But because of OS X's open source base (Darwin/BSD) most security issues are discovered before they're ever exploited. The opposite of this is true under Windows.

    #3 Dual CP's are not necessarily faster than a single CPU ... You have to remember, this is only true if the application that you're running is multi-threaded. And the OS itself is highly tuned for multi-tasking.

    The GPU in the PowerMac does the screen drawing, so it doesn't make a difference how many CPU's are in the system.

    #4 GUI responsiveness ... OS X using buffering to draw the GUI, Windows does not. This is obvious as seen under slower systems when trying to move windows around... XP will leave screen "artifacts" (garbage) ... OS X windows appear to "jerk" and "jump"

    the end.
  • shuste73 - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    I'm a Linux user (Slackware), and one of the biggest challenges to Linux continues to be the very people that are trying to promote it - poor, misguided zealots that reflect poorly on the entire community.

    Judging from the feedback to this article, I see that the Mac users are generally no different. It's a shame.

    I thought the article was very good, personally, from the perspective of a long-time Microsoft user-turned-Slacker.
  • indd - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    Although this is experiential writing I'm really surprised at the understatement of the difference between the OS's. The effort Apple has put into usability results in a very solid feel for the OS. Windows really feels very unsophisticated in comparison, especially in error handling.

    Which brings me to the fact that I'm disappointed to see the page on crashing so glossed over. Need examples of the Mac crashing to back it up! It really appeared like something was omitted here.

    Reading the article leaves me with the feeling he really loves Windows, and still brought a lot of old anti-mac feelings into the experience. I don't want to sound harsh here, just relating my reactions to the article.

    At least he tried :)
  • asimuth - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    One of the hardest things I have ever tried to do was explain to someone why I use a Mac and why it is a different experience. In the end the explanation always comes down to "it is the little things". Your article was the best review I have read. You had a clearly stated experiential bias and you refused to let past predjudices get in the way of a thgoughful review.

    As a softcore geek I am disappointed that my platform of choice did not knock it out of the ballpark for you. Having said that, I think your criticisms are very valid. I will certainly want to refer people to this article to give them some idea of why I'm a Mac user.

    In my working life I am the development manager for a small software company - windows only. You cannot imagine how frustrating it is to be without the small thoughtful additions that make my OSX experience.

    : )
  • BopTop - Friday, October 8, 2004 - link

    Great article, I haven't touched an apple computer since the powerpc days.
    An article like this will always have detractors, that apple hardware and pc hardware weren't comparable, dual cpu or single, etc. All I can say is re-read the first page - this wasn't to compare hardware, or really software. It was to compare the "experience" of using a system that has a different work method.
    That's exactly what the article did, and did it excellently.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now