[Bryson]

Hello all,

I'm in a little discussion elsewhere on the web about the use of "normal" computers, as opposed to dedicated controllers, to control time-critical functions (in this case, theatre and concert lighting.) Link to the topic

Anyway, one of the persons involved has just posted this, without substatiation, and I just wondered what your opinions are:

On the flipside, look at Apple. The closed platform, with no real crappy clone quality problems, should still give Apple a reliability edge. That is certainly the reputation, but in non-partisan testing, 10.x is somewhat less reliable than both Win2K and XP (though not terribly so). I think that the problem is two fold. Apple has really given developers a moving target in recent years and, with all due respect to Metrowerks fanatics, etc., the Apple development tools are weaker. I say this as someone who likes codiing for X (though I hated coding for 9).

Has anyone got any thoughts, links or other info? I can't say I can see anything on Google about Windows ever being more reliable that isn't on the Microsoft site.

[Brad]

I've never heard of such a study.

Just ask him to reveal his sources. If he doesn't or they're not from a reliable body, you can trust that everything he said is pure fiction.

Besides, he seems confused anyway. Why would he apologize to Metrowerks fanatics about Apple's tools? Does he not realize that Metrowerks != Apple?

[CitizenTony]

Personal experience follows:

Since Win 2k, then XP, I have had no reliability problems. I only used OS 9 at school so can't comment, but OS X has also given no reliability problems. As long as you take the time to learn to run things properly, a modern OS on up to date hardware should present no problems, regardless of platform.

I feel the problems associated with both OS's stems from a lack of knowledge, and a general disregard for learning new things.

I like and use both OS's on a daily basis.

[Moogs]

Depends on the hardware. I believe many of the instability issues with XP (never used 2K enough to know) stem from crappy hardware and/or peripherals. All I know is, when you plug a device into a Windows machine and it has a crappy driver, expect a crash. You don't get that with OS X.

But the larger issue with Windows is not instability so much as its swiss cheese approach to security (which then breeds stability problems) and the fact that its interface is a clunky, gaudy POS. XP has more inscrutable, modal dialogs than every other non-Windows system put together.

Although as far as the gaudy aspect, if you go into that classic window mode where you get the normal grey title bars without all the lame 3D bevel effects, it's easier to stomach at least.

[Franz Josef]

I used to use XP professionally running on Dell laptops with some pretty heavy Lotus Notes databases and stable was the last thing it was. Add to that the scramble to update security patches and I would have to say it was a pretty shoddy set-up.

[Moogs]

I find that almost invariably, the people who claim to have zero problems with XP are sys admins or individuals with a similar about of experience or expertise. People who know how to build custom PCs, get at the innards of the system, etc. It's rare I see a regular business person or home user who says "You know, I hardly *ever* have problems with my PC." Usually it's just the opposite and nowadays the problems are always about spyware, spy-blockers, virus stuff, firewalls, etc.

Using Windows in a home environment now - especially if you have broadband - seems like a bleeping nightmare from where I sit. I can't help but feel sorry for all these people who think their everyday computer problems are just "normal" and that everyone has to deal with. When I tell people they should try Mac OS X they look at me like I must not understand computers and don't understand that "Macs aren't compatible" (my most commonly heard complaint, although they never say what it is Macs aren't compatible with... lost in Gatespace).