View Single Post
Old 01-23-2008   #20
kloneman
Super Moderator
 
kloneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 161
Default Re: Why Apple hasn't put a bluray or hd-dvd player in their computers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
I own multiple Falcon NorthWest computers (PCs) and they lock up/crash about once a month if that. There is definately something to be said about a quality built PC over say Dell or HP. I'd also say it's never locked up while "working," but while playing poorly coded games.
A properly designed system should not "crash" when running applications, even "poorly coded' ones. The only thing that should cause a true system crash is a hardware failure. This is pretty much unavailable with the unstable commodity systems foisted on consumers today - This poor system design is now making its way to home theater components, as evidenced by the HD playback equipment that needs "software upgrades" to function properly (play the content without misbehavior). The constant exposure to unstable systems (mostly windows), has conditioned most people to accept this as standard behavior for a computer-controlled device, even though prior-generation A/V hardware never exhibited this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
I also fully believe in keeping my system clean of un-needed programs running in the background.
This is a good practice for performance, but again, application programs should not impact the stability of the system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Also locking up and crashing is not a PC only symptom. My sister complains regularly about her Macs doing the same thing before she just goes out and buys a new one. She get a new Mac about every 12 to 18 months. I've got an 8 year old Falcon that still runs strong and rarely if ever crashes.
I've got a 333 Mhz Beige G3 tower that is connected to the internet, and direct dial-in as a multi-network BBS server (HTTP/SMTP/POP3/TELNET, FTP, NNTP, etc), as well as a local file server, that is under constant attack by infected windows PCs, and it has been running continously for YEARS. Prior to that I had a 601 based tower that I gave away still operating flawlessly in the same role, and a Mac II that did the same thing until lightning took it out. Alongside those are SGI systems that never crash until the HD fails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
I fully believe both systems are likely just as stable as the other. It's what you do with it and allow to run on it that changes that.
I do not believe this, because the underlying operating system on the Macintosh has over 30 years of multi-user/multi-tasking design maturity underneath the hood, where as the Microsoft product is poorly concieved mix of legacy code (C\:, anyone??) and feature theft from other operating systems. The Macintosh user interface to this operating system is a recent creation, as is the applications intefaces and most recent hardware - There is not much differentiating an Intel based Mac hardware from Intel based PC hardware, but there is a hell of difference in the OS.

I do believe the aggregate stability of the Mac is not as high as it used to be, because of (1) the commodity parts now used to lower the price and remove any perceived "clock frequency" disparity between them and PCs of the same vintage, and (2) the newer user and application binary interfaces.

My perception may be wrong, but it is a perception based upon the experience I've had using the crap out of the Mac platform, beginning with a Mac 512 under Finder and "MultiFinder", through a Mac II running System 6.0x to System 7, an 8100/80 AV running System 7.5-8.x, until now, running a PowerPC G3 running MacOS 9.1, a PowerPC G4 tower and laptop under Mac OS X v 10.4.x. I have a small amount of experience with G5 and Intel based macs, too.

Last edited by kloneman; 01-23-2008 at 08:54 PM..
kloneman is offline   Reply With Quote