Let me start by saying I hope my previous rant was not considered a personal attack. I was atempting to respond politely (without coffee) in a tongue in cheek way.
Appleissue, the main thing I would suggest is that if you want to take the side of Windows on a Mac board you need to back your arguments better.
applepissue said:
I stand by what I say.
The network guys at my Uni tell me the Macs are crap for networking?
They are network professionals so I believe what they say.
While I am a programmer by trade (Java/C++ mostly, some Objective C and C#) I have done quite a bit of network related work over time. I have on multiple occasions been contracted to do a network design or assessment for SMB operations. So while it is not my favorite thing in the universe to do I suppose you could call me a network professional. I have been doing it long enough to be able to say that I know how to set a vampire tap and remember when token ring networks were "it." (I was young at the time though.)
I am not the purveyor of all knowledge on the subject by any means, but to say that Macs are crap on networks is not true and too vague to even counter effectively.
The primary weakness of Mac networking lies in VPN connectivity. The Cisco VPN fiasco being one problem, and the default PPTP implimentation approaches useless. IPSec on the Mac is acceptable though.
From an end user standpoint the Mac is much more approachable for configuration and troubleshooting.
applepissue said:
We started Uni 7 weeks ago and all but the Mac users in my class still like Windows better then Macs, After 7 weeks of using Macs.
So that’s 22 people out of 25 that still like Windows better after using Dual Power Mac 2.0Ghz G5's with 2Gig Ram and Tiger for 7 weeks.
Does that tell you anything?
No really. People like familiarity. OS X is different, it requires different usage patterns and workflows. It is only natural that a user prefer the patterns he/she has been using his whole computing career. It does not make it better though. Further you are using the Macs in a classroom environment, for how long each day? For what?
I have never claimed that OS X is for everyone. Merely that if a person works to learn how to use both in a non-gaming standpoint OS X is more intuitive and generally easier to use. You don't have the plethora of programs to be sure, nor is gaming performance there. However the usage is cleaner and generally more intuitive. The key word here is intuitive, not learned.
Even then though you and I are talking personal opinion, not technical advantages. The claim which raised hackles was that X was more advanced than OS X. What a classroom full of young computer users prefer is not a good argument for which is more advanced.
applepissue said:
How long do they need, surely if Mac osx was so much more advanced and better they would prefer it?
It’s not like they are ignorant now. They use the G5's everyday (weekdays) and still they prefer windows. None of them are rushing out to buy a Mac anytime soon.
Oh yes, they are still ignorant. Almost all Mac users are ignorant. That is one of the strong points of OS X, understanding is not needed.
applepissue said:
Have you ever wondered why the overwhelming majority of consumers business and enterprise don’t take Mac osx seriously?
Maybe you should ask yourself that.
Don’t try to use ignorance as an excuse because I already told you students in my class after using Macs for long enough to know if the like it, still prefer PC's?
Why?
Actually having lived through the history of both OSes and seen the marketing and development of both since MS-DOS I know the reasons quite well.
I am not using ignorance as an excuse. Do not try and take offense at the next statement, it is truly not meant to be insulting. I am using ignorance and laziness as the reason. People resist learning something new when the way they already know works. Ignoring mainstream Operating Systems for the desktop, AIX and BSD are far superior to Windows in a server environment that there is not even a contest. Why then does Windows dominate so many server rooms? Do a little investigation and you would know as well as I. Popularity of something does not rest on technical merits alone. To ask why it is more popular in Enterprise as a counter argument for technical superiority is a strawman. Dominance is not based upon technological superiority alone, many would argue it is not based on it at all. Marketing, cost points, brand name familiarity, and inertia are all very important. Look at the endless debate between Intel and AMD in the x86 world.
OS X is an infant OS, well I suppose at this stage it has reached adolescence. It has just come to market against an incumbent who has dominated the destop computing world for quite a while. Windows reached this point predominantly through superior business practices and lower cost point. It keeps it due to inertia. XP, and the upcoming Vista, are strong OSes. So were NextStep and OS/2 Warp, both superior Operating Systems to the Windows OS available at the time. The best OS does not always win. Indeed some would argue it never has, "nice guys finish last" and all that.
applepissue said:
Oh im 14 ,hey ,hey! cant thinks of nothing to say, losing the agument so i resorts to personal attacks sslkkgh ;sodh
And I am not 14, and can think of many things to say.
For a 14 year old your arguments are OK, but you are not backing them up nor are you researching your assertions. The key here is to back your statements with facts. The opinion of a tiny sample in a classroom environment is not really a strong argument. Choose concrete and definable elements to enforce your assertion that XP is a better OS from a technical perspective. I will then gladly debate and even graciously lose. User opinion is not a valid argument for a number of reasons though for technical superiority.
Go into a Mac shop (as in a business that uses Macs, not one that sells them) and try and get all the Mac users to use Windows for an hour or two a day for 7 weeks. At the end of the time which do you think they would prefer?
If I were to take the side of Windows in this debate I would argue a couple of points. First is the superiority of the development tools, it is a tack that is winnable though open to debate. "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS" etc... from a sweaty balding dude.
While comic and a little disturbing there was an importnat message being delivered. When you undestand that reference and why it is important you will be a lot farther along. Next is the efficiency of draw operations on the desktop and the ability for single applications to more tightly control the environment (such as a 3d game and video acceleration). The third argument would be on the ability to support 3d party hardware and the established driver architecture. Finally you have the argument of XP Media Center versus Front Row. (Fair warning, I already know how I would counter all these arguments, though it would be a mitigation rather than refutation in these cases.)
Arguing comparitive security would be a bad tack however. As would memory management or ease of installation of applications. Cost has nothing to do with techinical superiority in either direction and is a completely separate debate that raises many hackles.
Well if you made it through this far, thanks for reading. And remember, there is no clear winner overall for what OS is best. It is a matter of opinion, needs, and usage patterns. I don't argue that OS X is superior to XP. I argue that it is superior and more intuitive for me in many of my daily uses for computers.
(Just as a final note. I always attempt to not attack the individual, his age, experience, intelligence, hairstyle, handedness, or virility. I attempt to argue strictly based upon the statements made. I don't always succeed, but I try. If we can all stick to debating facts rather than doing comparisons of age/experience I think we can keep this debate polite if not completely civil.
My general rule is I do not respond to attacks or debates upon myself personally. By restricting myself to responding simply to the things that are not personal in nature I find that it keeps the conversations on a much more even keel. In the process I have found myself formulating ideas and learning new things from younger people who may not have years of experience but do have enthusiasm. So I would never dream of using the argument "Well I have been doing this for 10/20/30 years and so I know better than you how it should be done." It simply serves no purpose.)