3 ms·

I can agree with you about Word and Excel. I personally disagree about Netscape 4 versus IE 5, and I can remember both. You assertion about XP being better th

by Bud 11y ago

I can agree with you about Word and Excel. I personally disagree about Netscape 4 versus IE 5, and I can remember both. You assertion about XP being better than Mac OS X, however, is hilarious. If that's true, why did XP die, and why was Mac OS X so radically more secure than Windows for the last 15 years running? Why was it more stable? Why did it work better? Why did it have a shockingly better UI? XP was crap and we should all be glad it's dead.

russgray 11y ago
XP came out the same year as 10.0, which was rubbish. OS X wasn't really worthwhile until 10.3.
- 1stop 11y ago
  Didn't XP only get decent after a bunch of service packs? ... is that not the same thing as 10.3?
frik 11y ago
> WinXP Never heard about the Windows NT operating system series? WinNT series: WinNT 3.5 (1988-1994, based on VMS a bit on OS/2 designs) -> WinNT 4 -> Win2000 -> WinXP (August 24th 2001) -> WinVista -> Win7 -> Win8x -> Win10 (2015) [exluding all service packs] MacOS X: NeXTSTEP (1987-1989, based on Unix) -> OPENSTEP -> Rhapsody (1997) -> Mac OS X Server 1.0 -> Mac OS X Public Beta -> Mac OS X 10.0 (March 24th 2001, this is the first MacOS X you know) -> 10.1 -> 10.2 -> 10.3 -> 10.4 -> 10.5 -> 10.6 -> 10.7 -> 10.8 -> 10.9 -> 10.10 -> 10.11 (= El Capitan, 2015)
zensavona 11y ago
You assertion about XP being better than Mac OS X "windows XP was a much better OS than the contemporary Mac OS"
barrkel 11y ago
Netscape crashed way more often than IE. That's what got me to switch. OS X was a worse platform because it didn't support much software - games in particular. XP was extremely solid, coming after ME in the consumer space (I had switched to W2K after 98, I took until SP2 before I switched). So no, I don't agree with you. Even today, I think Windows is a better gaming platform and Linux a much better dev platform - OS X is insufficiently similar to Linux to work well when Linux is used in production.

by Bud 11y ago

russgray 11y ago

XP came out the same year as 10.0, which was rubbish. OS X wasn't really worthwhile until 10.3.

1stop 11y ago
Didn't XP only get decent after a bunch of service packs? ... is that not the same thing as 10.3?

frik 11y ago

> WinXP Never heard about the Windows NT operating system series? WinNT series: WinNT 3.5 (1988-1994, based on VMS a bit on OS/2 designs) -> WinNT 4 -> Win2000 -> WinXP (August 24th 2001) -> WinVista -> Win7 -> Win8x -> Win10 (2015) [exluding all service packs] MacOS X: NeXTSTEP (1987-1989, based on Unix) -> OPENSTEP -> Rhapsody (1997) -> Mac OS X Server 1.0 -> Mac OS X Public Beta -> Mac OS X 10.0 (March 24th 2001, this is the first MacOS X you know) -> 10.1 -> 10.2 -> 10.3 -> 10.4 -> 10.5 -> 10.6 -> 10.7 -> 10.8 -> 10.9 -> 10.10 -> 10.11 (= El Capitan, 2015)

zensavona 11y ago

You assertion about XP being better than Mac OS X "windows XP was a much better OS than the contemporary Mac OS"

barrkel 11y ago

Netscape crashed way more often than IE. That's what got me to switch. OS X was a worse platform because it didn't support much software - games in particular. XP was extremely solid, coming after ME in the consumer space (I had switched to W2K after 98, I took until SP2 before I switched). So no, I don't agree with you. Even today, I think Windows is a better gaming platform and Linux a much better dev platform - OS X is insufficiently similar to Linux to work well when Linux is used in production.