Talk:Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 October 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Contents

[edit] Moving page

Please do not change the title to include XP for Windows unless you also change it to v10.4.7 for Mac OS X —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alegoo92 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then change it to just "Mac OS" 71.34.10.45 21:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased?

If you are going to give this page a NPOV tag, please explain why after doing so. I reverted the tag, if someone disagrees than please explain.. --Alegoo92 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is filled with statements that either show a clear bias...:

  • Windows, though, cannot always be quite as reliable as Mac OS X.
  • Apple's Mac OS X makes instant messaging even simpler than Windows with iChat.
  • Windows-based computers commonly freeze when heavily multi-tasking

...or statements that don't really make sense:

  • Also, Windows will not recognize a device such as a mouse, keyboard, or camera until restarted: showing that the kernel does not check ports regularly.
  • When talking about uptime, Microsoft is a much more secure OS.
  • Unlike Mac OS X, installing a new version of Windows relies on the old version, or will not complete correctly.
  • Mac OS X has custom pre-made configurations on installation CD's.
  • the Windows command prompt is more commonly used to see the status of things and the Mac OS X terminal is used for alterations to the system

I'm sorry but I say we take off and nuke the entire article from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. AlistairMcMillan 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV ?

Yes, some parts of the article may be incoherent, but they can be easily fixed: as they are just incomplete thoughts that may have been interrupted and not revamped. As for the NPOV, no there will never be complete neutrality; but I wrote this article being as un-biased as possible.

  • Windows, though, cannot always be quite as reliable as Mac OS X. <-- Stating that Windows users have more issues with running mutltiple programs smoothely, while Mac OS X usually has simpler ways of avoiding/fixing these problems
  • Apple's Mac OS X makes instant messaging even simpler than Windows with iChat. <-- with iChat, one does not need AIM, ICQ, and other messangers running separately: because they can all be put on one buddy list and function in form.
  • Windows-based computers commonly freeze when heavily multi-tasking <-- It was explained that this was many times because a virus/worm has infected the computer.
  • Also, Windows will not recognize a device such as a mouse, keyboard, or camera until restarted: showing that the kernel does not check ports regularly. With Mac OS X, the motherboard will recognize a peripheral device once connected: windows machines need to restart and therefore only check for new devices (besides USB) at startup
  • When dealing with uptime, Microsoft is a much more secure OS. Average uptime for Windows without instability: 32 days. Mac OS X: 22-24
  • Unlike Mac OS X, installing a new version of Windows relies on the old version, or will not complete correctly. When upgrading Windows 98 or ME to XP, the old system files are implicated in the New OS, while Mac OS X deletes/overwrites these for new ones
  • Mac OS X has custom pre-made configurations on installation CD's. Configurations on how to install: as shown in this image
  • the Windows command prompt is more commonly used to see the status of things and the Mac OS X terminal is used for alterations to the system. This may be too incoherent: it is supposed to explain the main differences in common functionality of the Terminal and Command Prompt

Most sources came from Wikipedia or 1st person experience with the two operating systems.

Why delete the article? It is a common and interesting one, and any rocky sections of it will definately smoothe out over time. - Alegoo92

Okay. First, from Wikipedia:Citing sources... Note: Wikipedia articles should not be cited as sources.
I'm sorry, I looked up sources from many various websites and did not always keep track of them. I also did not know that Wikipedia can't be cited as a source. --Alegoo92 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, have you actually used a Windows machine? If you plug in a USB device you do not have to reboot for Windows to notice.
Yes, I have an iMac G5 and a Dell XPS Notebook PC. I mentioned that devices besides USB are not recognized. --Alegoo92 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but most modern PCs only have a parallel port besides USB/FireWire/Audio ports, and at least my printer is recognized without a reboot when I hook it up to my parallel port. Of course, you shouldn't even do this as parallel ports where not designed to be hot-pluggable. Neither were PS/2 mouse and keyboard ports for that matter. So I would say that Windows deals perfectly fine with that hardware by only recognizing it at boot time. Hence, this isn't really a valid point of comparison. -- Koffieyahoo 01:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thirdly, upgrade installations of Windows do not depend on files from previous installations. You can install Windows to a blank disk with an upgrade CD. It'll just ask to check for a valid CD from a previous installation during the installation.
When installing Windows XP home on a barebones PC; you will get the error message "missing previous system files". --Alegoo92 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There are two versions of Windows XP: a full version which you can install on a "clean" PC and an upgrade version which you can only install if you have a previous Windows version of the same language locality. I guess you have the second one. Hence, again not a valid point. -- Koffieyahoo 01:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Fourthly, the iChat being simple and supporting multiple networks thing. This is what is required to talk to people on the MSN network with iChat... is that what you call "simple".
I did not mention anything about MSN Messanger. iChat runs using AIM, ICQ, and Jabber simultaneously. --Alegoo92 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
iChat is an apllication and applications have nothing to do with the OS per se. If you want to get into this you should also include a comparision of IE and Safari, Notepad and whatever basic text editor MacOS comes with, the calculators of both OSs, etc. Hence, once again not a valid point. -- Koffieyahoo 01:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Fifthly... I'm going to stop there. AlistairMcMillan 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually one more thing. Where do you get those uptime numbers from? Do you actually have a source? AlistairMcMillan 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to the "uptime" numbers, I looked up various blogs about these and averaged the numbers I saw, as the companies do not post their own information --Alegoo92 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
My numbers for the marketshare % came from news.softpedia.com --Alegoo92 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For both OSs these up-time numbers seem rather on the low side. I've run both OSs for much longer while "heavily abusing" the OS in the mean time. Hence, you want to back your claim up with sources. -- Koffieyahoo 01:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitely Biased

I agree with AlistairMcMillan. The article is biased on the basis that portions of text are clearly favoring Macs as the above user stated. Also, not to bring personal preference into the issue but on his User page he clearly shows a favoring of Macs. Thus, the article should A)Be totally overhauled by several unbiased Wikipedians or B)Deleted and re-written totally. The page is well written cosmetically but is not NPOV.-Andrewia 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this user did not read the article when posting his opinion. My personal feelings are not expressed in the article, and even if they were they would be corrected by other users. --Alegoo92 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, okay, but just the basis of a comparison article is going to be just a little biased in its beginning because the person that started the article needs more input to make the article support the overall consensus of other editors on Wikipedia. More people's contribution will make the article sound neutral, but you never know. Look at the Windows and Linux article. Hasn't that been tagged POV since its start?-Andrewia 23:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't agree with this at all. The article is clearly biased in favour of OS X. The most neutral thing in the article is the first paragraph of the introduction to Mac OS X, which I wrote myself, and you copied into this article. Why you didn't simply do the same for Windows XP is a mystery to me (I wrote large swaths of that, too, for what it's worth)...you sure did have a good go at highlighting problems with Windows (the EULA, security vulnerabilities, WGA, effects of viruses), instead of simply describing the product in a fashion consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality.
I used the introductions for each operating system from Comparison of Windows and Linux, and did not write either. --Alegoo92 00:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The complete lack of sources is distressing as well. Where did this "13% of the desktop PC market" number come from, for example? Did you make it up? Did you read it on some unabashedly pro-Mac web site like Daring Fireball or MacNN? Readers shouldn't have to guess at these things -- the onus is on you to provide your sources upfront.
I'm going to go ahead and remove everything from this article that is either unsourced, or doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view. -/- Warren 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consoles and desktops/Stability

Although I've used both windows and some *nix variants quite extensively, the second paragraph of the Consoles and desktops section is completely beyond me. What is being said here? That you can change environment variables from the windows console but not from the Mac or *nix console? For a *nix console at least this is incorrect. -- Koffieyahoo 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the stability section Both Windows and Mac OS X are generally regarded as stable systems. Compaired to some embedded OSs, which need to run (and a running) for several decades without reboots, both Windows and Mac are highly unstable. So maybe rephrase Both Windows and Mac OS X are generally perceived as stable systems by their users. -- Koffieyahoo 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what a *nix console is: but yes that is what is trying to be implied. --Alegoo92 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
In Linux/Solaris, whatever, you can use xterms, kterms, etc (console windows) to change your environment variables. So what is stated in the article is wrong then? -- Koffieyahoo 05:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future

If this article survives it's AFD I suggest we start it from scratch. And focus completely on other people's comparisons. Only mention things that other people (Paul Thurrott, John Gruber, whoever) have brought up when comparing the two. Make sure every single sentence is sourced. Especially since that is supposed to be policy around here... Hopefully that way we can avoid the article being tagged with NPOV for all time. AlistairMcMillan 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a purpose for this article other than to incite a flame war. If a reader wishes to compare the different operating systems they should look at the pages for each operating system and make their own decisions. 24.254.82.121 01:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Against

they both operate similarly and can execute the same functions, even in different operating environments

I am against this line. This line is a bit vague (different operating environments???). And sure enough they do have overlap in functionality (as expected, considering both are OSs). But operate similarly? Both are closed source, how are we to tell that they work similarly, unless we do some research ourselves. --soumসৌমোyasch 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Both operating systems are very well documented, by Mark Russinovich and Amit Singh for example. So we do know how they operate. However most of the language in this article is vague or confusing, so it would need to be re-written, if it survives. AlistairMcMillan 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error Messages section

I removed this section entirely. It was biased towards Mac OS X, grammatically messy, and completely unsourced. It could possibly be a useful addition to the article, but I tried fixing it up myself and couldn't do anything much with it, so I removed it entirely. I'm still new to Wikipedia, though, so feel free to reinstate it if I was wrong to remove it. :-) Nuite 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the Error Messages section back up, only because I feel it will improve through time. --Alegoo92 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X_4f68.html"