OS X tiger X86 edition

[spyordie007]

I've never gotten the bomb in OS X; but have seen a kernel panic (they have the "black screen" rather than a "blue screen").

Which is about 500 less than when I was a Mac hating PC user.

Blue screens in Windows XP are also very rare, and when the do occur it's more frequently a hardware or driver issue than an issue with the OS. This is a major change from Windows 9x where they seemed to be a regular occurrence (hence the term 3 finger salute).

Of course back before OS X crashes on Macs were quite common also, OS 9 was awful.

Apple makes OS X to sell Macs, if Apple made OS X available to your average Joe for him to run on his $300 eMachine, they'd be killing their hardware business.

Not to mention making their OS a lot less stable. A major advantage that Apple has with their systems is the hardware, since they are a hardware vendor they can stick with good quality hardware in the case (as opposed to Windows which may suffer the fate of getting stuck on a POS e-machine and that Microsoft gets blamed when the thing crashes). Of course the disadvantage to them controlling the hardware is that it tends to be more expensive.

I?ve liked OS X since I first got to play with the beta, it?s an awesome OS and you could (at least at the time) get a bash shell running on it and do pretty much whatever you want.

I wish I still had a Mac to play around with now.
I?m also glad that Apple broke compatibility (or for the things that did work forced them into classic mode).

Microsoft isn't going to want to have Linux with it's support for the Win32 API (called wine) to have superior compatability with older Windows applications then Windows.

That would be pretty funny. I wish Microsoft would do the same thing with Windows Vista that Apple did with OS X and break compatibility; (of course we know they wont, they just have to big of an application base to break it and still try to keep customers happy).

 

[Nothinman]

[sarcasm]Well it's good to see you are a frequent OS X user[/sarcasm]

I happily admit that I'm not a regular OS X user.

I've never even seen an "Error -666" message, or a bomb icon (isn't that in OS9 anyway?) or any kind of a kernal panic. Which is about 500 less than when I was a Mac hating PC user. It just doesn't happen on Macs. Simple as that.

Obviously I made the error number up and they may have removed the bomb icon (I thought they kept it in OS X, maybe they haven't) but the dialog is still annoying. Yes, OS X does have kernel panics, just because you're lucky enough to not see one doesn't mean they don't happen.

nothinman - try it. You might like it.

I have tried it, I couldn't stand the UI. If I ever got some Apple hardware I'd have Debian PPC on it the same day.

 

[EssentialParadox]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
I wish Microsoft would do the same thing with Windows Vista that Apple did with OS X and break compatibility; (of course we know they wont, they just have to big of an application base to break it and still try to keep customers happy).

Well whatever they do is going to be interesting. All the computer engineers I've spoken to have told me Microsoft have just 2 options: create a new OS, or continue with this base, but only have the ability to update every 10+ years (next Wndows version would be 2017.)
Someone suggested they're likely to use Singularity.

But I guess we'll find out soon enough what Microsoft will do, after Vista comes out.

 

[spyordie007]

As I recall it's Blackcomb client in 2010 and Blackcomb server in 2011.

Obviously the dates are subject to change.

EDIT: I just noticed that the winter olympics in 2010 are supposed to be held in Whistler/Blackcomb, an interesting coincidence?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox
Thanks for the very detailed and non-generic description, along with a circumstance on which it's happened (most likely it's OS9)

So a dialog pops up saying the system crashed? .....Seriously? I find that hard to believe.

I didn't write down the message, but that was the jist of it. It's been a while since I've seen it, so:
here's a picture of it from a random google image search
this looks like a different crash

Not to mention the beach balls of death!

Many times it was a driver issue (RALink's USB wireless network driver). I can't remember when else I've seen it, but I've seen it in other circumstances too.

EDIT: Oh, and it was definitely with OS X.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
That would be pretty funny. I wish Microsoft would do the same thing with Windows Vista that Apple did with OS X and break compatibility; (of course we know they wont, they just have to big of an application base to break it and still try to keep customers happy).

I've thought that they could do this by starting with their server line, but I'm not even an armchair expert.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I've recieved a few Kernal Panics. On the eMac I used to own, I only got one Kernal panic. I did the update to 10.3.5 I believe, and while it was restarting, I got a kernal panic. That was the only time I got it.

I got a few on my G4 though. The jumper settings on the hard drives were all wrong, which caused a kernal panic at the beggining of booting up the computer. Changed the jumpers around, problem fixed.

I was on OS 9 for a while. I hated the whole allocating memory to apps. And you can never watch a quicktime movie on OS 9 without it crashing while watching something. It was terrible.

 

[Sunner]

EssentialParadox, I haven't gotten a bluescreen on any Windows computer I regularly use for...don't know, a few years?
No actually I lied, I got a whole load of them a while back, turned out to be a broken memory module.

Your "500 times less" statement suggests you don't know how to operate a Winetl box very well.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: Sunner
EssentialParadox, I haven't gotten a bluescreen on any Windows computer I regularly use for...don't know, a few years?
No actually I lied, I got a whole load of them a while back, turned out to be a broken memory module.

Your "500 times less" statement suggests you don't know how to operate a Winetl box very well.

I got my first blue screen of death the other day. I was trying to upload a video on a site. The upload seemed to go no where. Then all of a sudden, the blue screen came up for like 1 second then my computer automatically restarted. All I remember seeing was a bunch of numbers and words. COuldn't read it because it went away too fast.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Ronald McDonald

Originally posted by: Sunner
EssentialParadox, I haven't gotten a bluescreen on any Windows computer I regularly use for...don't know, a few years?
No actually I lied, I got a whole load of them a while back, turned out to be a broken memory module.

Your "500 times less" statement suggests you don't know how to operate a Winetl box very well.

I got my first blue screen of death the other day. I was trying to upload a video on a site. The upload seemed to go no where. Then all of a sudden, the blue screen came up for like 1 second then my computer automatically restarted. All I remember seeing was a bunch of numbers and words. COuldn't read it because it went away too fast.

Love your sig

 

[Link19]

As far as memory management and such Windows 95 kicks the crap out of OS 7, 8, and all versions of 9.

That is not at all true. Windows 95/98/ME were horrible at managing memory. MAC OS 7, 8, and 9 may not have been good either, but by no means does Windows 95/98/ME kick the crap out of any other 32-bit OS. Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, OS/2 WARP, Linux, and Unix flavored operating systems kick the pants out of both Windows 95/98/ME and MAC OS 7, 8, and 9.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Link19

As far as memory management and such Windows 95 kicks the crap out of OS 7, 8, and all versions of 9.

That is not at all true. Windows 95/98/ME were horrible at managing memory. MAC OS 7, 8, and 9 may not have been good either, but by no means does Windows 95/98/ME kick the crap out of any other 32-bit OS. Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, OS/2 WARP, Linux, and Unix flavored operating systems kick the pants out of both Windows 95/98/ME and MAC OS 7, 8, and 9.

Actually they did, earlier MacOS versions had beyond horrible memory management.

 

[EssentialParadox]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Your "500 times less" statement suggests you don't know how to operate a Winetl box very well.

Well I'm sorry I don't have a degree in Windows computing and just a national diploma.
Why should people even need to be experts about viruses and crashing just to run Windows. It's ridiculous.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Ronald McDonald

Originally posted by: Sunner
EssentialParadox, I haven't gotten a bluescreen on any Windows computer I regularly use for...don't know, a few years?
No actually I lied, I got a whole load of them a while back, turned out to be a broken memory module.

Your "500 times less" statement suggests you don't know how to operate a Winetl box very well.

I got my first blue screen of death the other day. I was trying to upload a video on a site. The upload seemed to go no where. Then all of a sudden, the blue screen came up for like 1 second then my computer automatically restarted. All I remember seeing was a bunch of numbers and words. COuldn't read it because it went away too fast.

Love your sig

Haha thanks.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox

Originally posted by: Sunner
Your "500 times less" statement suggests you don't know how to operate a Winetl box very well.

Well I'm sorry I don't have a degree in Windows computing and just a national diploma.
Why should people even need to be experts about viruses and crashing just to run Windows. It's ridiculous.

You don't need to be an expert about viruses and crashing to run Windows. I wouldn't consider myself an "expert." I haven't had a problem with viruses on any of my Windows PC's for a very long time. My PC hardly ever crashes too.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox
I know I said I wouldn't participate in a Windows vs OS X argument, but there is one big fact you Windows people can't deny, that I will just point out: Microsoft need to begin building a brand-new OS from the ground up. It's necessary for all Operating Systems. Apple took the massive plunge with losing the old OS's and starting a-fresh with OS X. There were initial problems, but now they're past that transition and they are now easily able to update frequently.
However Microsoft have kept the bloated Windows base for a long while now. The last update has taken 7 years. After Vista, another update would likely take 10 years, and so on. Whereas OS X is updated almost yearly.
Soon MS are going to need to start on a replacement, and considering Apple are already ahead, it's likely they'll get an even greater lead when this that time comes.

Yea i know this is back on page 3, but i had to respond. What do you think windows XP was? Its radically different than the other windows os's, windows me was a godsend for me as it was easy to re-install..... now reinstalling an os is a thing of the past. It wont corrupt itsself it wont crash or blue screen simply because a program locks up, its solid as a rock. Why do they need to start from scratch? XP is a great OS. Besides this was starting afresh from the mainstream point of view. Things from windows ME etc werent compatible with XP for a lot of people, i didnt have too much trouble, but the switch from the old 95 kernal to the NT one was microsofts plunge! It was a damn good one at that.

 

[Wuzup101]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

One of the main advantages of OSX is it just works, increasing productivity in many fields

Right, because no one's every complained about the little dialog with the bomb on it with the ever so descriptive "Error -666 occurred" or the need to "force quit" an app. Hell I think at one point in OS X's history if you mounted too many SMB shares it would kernel panic.

I've only ever seen 3 kernel panics in OSX. All were due to a defective external enclosure for a DVD burner. The same DVD burner caused windows XP to bluescrean/crash/restart also. I've never seen a kernel panic running 10.4 and I've been using it since the day it came out 6-8 hrs a day since then. I could care less about what OSX has done in the past. The bottom line is it keeps improving and getting more refined. Don't compare OS9 to Windows XP, I wouldn't use OS9 either...

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Link19

As far as memory management and such Windows 95 kicks the crap out of OS 7, 8, and all versions of 9.

That is not at all true. Windows 95/98/ME were horrible at managing memory. MAC OS 7, 8, and 9 may not have been good either, but by no means does Windows 95/98/ME kick the crap out of any other 32-bit OS. Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, OS/2 WARP, Linux, and Unix flavored operating systems kick the pants out of both Windows 95/98/ME and MAC OS 7, 8, and 9.

Actually they did, earlier MacOS versions had beyond horrible memory management.

WHich earlier ones? I remember MAC addicts as far back as 8 years ago praising how much more stable a MAC was than a Windows machine? Why would that be if the memory management was so bad it was worse than even Windows 95?

Were MAC OS 9 and prior a true 32-bit operating system? Or were they native 16-bit operating systems with 32-bit extensions? Just like Windows 95/98/ME were native 16-bit operating systems with 32-bit extensions.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox

Originally posted by: Sunner
Your "500 times less" statement suggests you don't know how to operate a Winetl box very well.

Well I'm sorry I don't have a degree in Windows computing and just a national diploma.
Why should people even need to be experts about viruses and crashing just to run Windows. It's ridiculous.

Well, my parents have a Wintel as well, and they don't complain about crashes either.
Most of the people at work are utterly computer illiterate, and they don't crash either.

Windows, OS X, Linux, BSD, all are stable systems.
I have many reasons for not liking Windows, but stability isn't one of them.

 

[Nothinman]

Well I'm sorry I don't have a degree in Windows computing and just a national diploma.

Apparently you don't have one in mathematics either, 500 x 0 is 0 so if you've had 0 crashes in OS X and you had 500 more bluescreens in Windows than that, you've still had 0 in both. =)

I've never seen a kernel panic running 10.4 and I've been using it since the day it came out 6-8 hrs a day since then

I use Windows every day at work and I haven't seen a Windows bluescreen in probably 2-3 years, that doesn't mean they don't happen.

Don't compare OS9 to Windows XP, I wouldn't use OS9 either...

I don't believe I ever mentioned OS9...

WHich earlier ones? I remember MAC addicts as far back as 8 years ago praising how much more stable a MAC was than a Windows machine? Why would that be if the memory management was so bad it was worse than even Windows 95?

Because they're zealots.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: EssentialParadox
Thanks for the very detailed and non-generic description, along with a circumstance on which it's happened (most likely it's OS9)

So a dialog pops up saying the system crashed? .....Seriously? I find that hard to believe.

I didn't write down the message, but that was the jist of it. It's been a while since I've seen it, so:
here's a picture of it from a random google image search
this looks like a different crash

Not to mention the beach balls of death!

Many times it was a driver issue (RALink's USB wireless network driver). I can't remember when else I've seen it, but I've seen it in other circumstances too.

EDIT: Oh, and it was definitely with OS X.

OS X is still backwards compatable, they built in a compatabilty layer, it ain't the greatest but it works, sorta simlar to Wine in linux

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: drag
On the other hand OS X's filing system sucks.

What leads you to this conclusion?

 

[CTho9305]

My point is that it is taking Microsoft longer and longer to put out new OSes because Windows has become too large and unmanageable to update with any ease now.

Do you know that for a fact? Did you work with the code, or talk to someone who has? If you haven't, you can't make that claim.
(It just bugs me when people say companies have trouble with <something> and I know for a fact that they don't - I don't know about MS, but it happens often enough that I have to wonder)

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I don't believe I ever mentioned OS9...

Well, you did happen to say:

Right, because no one's every complained about the little dialog with the bomb on it with the ever so descriptive "Error -666 occurred" or the need to "force quit" an app. Hell I think at one point in OS X's history if you mounted too many SMB shares it would kernel panic.

The bomb and the error do in fact mean you did mention OS 9.

Because they're zealots.

LOL

 

[Nothinman]

What leads you to this conclusion?

Because it's a mishmash of Apple history and unix semantics. They should have just jumped straight to UFS (since they chose Mach and FreeBSD as their core), but instead they decided to extend HFS. It apparently works, but it's not the best solution from a technical standpoint. That and the stupid directory names like /Users is really annoying.

The bomb and the error do in fact mean you did mention OS 9.

Whether the dialog has a bomb on it or not is irrelevant, the error dialog with the meaningless error codes still exists I'm sure.

LOL

Laugh if you like, but it's true. Compared to Mac zealots most Linux zealots seem calm and collected.