"Jen Abildsoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In all fairness, a lot of the stability problems aren't caused by >Windows itself, there are a lot of really crappy drivers out there, >mostly related to video cards it seems. No matter what OS you are >running, if you install buggy programs on it, especially programs >that are working with low level things you are going to run into >problems. Very true... on the other hand, because of the sheer number and variance of devices, many of which are of poor quality or are poorly tested, Windows requires far more third-party drivers than, say, the Mac OS. A lot of stability on the Mac platform stems from the the fact that most SCSI cards, USB devices, FireWire, etc. work without having to install drivers. >The reason that you run into all those problems with brand new cool >hardware is because its in many cases very inadequately tested. There >is a reason its known as the bleeding edge. Also very true. But looking from it from another perspective, one reason Macs have so fewer conflicts like these is that one company makes the hardware, rather than a hodgepodge of components thrown together. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach, but one clear advantage is stability. >Saying that knowing your OS doesn't help any is silly. I primarily >work on Windows machines, and although I do work with Linux/Unix >boxes (and less often Macs) I am almost totally out of my depth when >asked to troubleshoot problems with them. Its like saying that >knowing about your car (or your minidisc player) doesn't help with >keeping it running better. Exactly. Matt is entirely correct when he says that any OS can be made pretty darn stable if you know the OS well. >who is not saying that Windows is the greatest thing, its just >the best current option In your opinion... ;) >ever notice how windows users laugh when Mac/Linux users get >'some' of the software that we do months and months later?) Well, apart from a few games, I can't say that that's happened to me in years... "Matt Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >one more thing about virii and windows and i should be done. if >mac held 90+% of the market they would have most of the virii written >for them. same goes for any other os. it's not exploits/bugs as they >are in every os. While you are absolutely correct that if the Mac OS had 80-85% (just to be a bit more accurate) market share, more viruses would be written for it, it's factually incorrect to say that all other OS have the same security faults. The way Windows and apps such as Outlook, OE, and Office are so tightly integrated, it is FAR, FAR easier to exploit Windows than other operating systems. Mac OS 9 (and earlier) was easily the most secure of the major operating systems. Mac OS X will open things up a bit, because of its UNIX underpinnings, but it still won't be as vulnerable as Windows. "Stuart Howlette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My opinion is that any system other than Windows is hard to get into. >People may call me a lazy bugger for not learning other OS's, but I >think learning Guitar, and also having 6 hours of school a day is a >lot of learning, without the added "bonus" of getting Linux working. Stuart, you said "any system other than Windows," but then all you talk about is Linux, which, while a great operating system, is going the opposite direction in terms of learning and troubleshooting. ;) ----------------------------------------------------------------- To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
