|
|
|
|
WINDOWS IS THE WORST OS I HAVE EVER USED. THE
ONLY PEOPLE WHO PRAISE THE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM IN REVIEWS ARE
GUIDED BY MOTIVES UNRELATED TO THE MERITS OF THAT SYSTEM. This is not going to be an exhaustive page. The claims made by Thomson are self-evidently flawed. Below is a screenshot of Thomson's claims made online: "Mac at 25: Why I still hate them The reasoning he immediately proffers is: "Why? Because I hate the things." Hardly a reason. Claiming to justify his hate Thomson makes a number of assertions: "Another screed from this crowd is that Apple must be better because it doesn't get hit by malware. Macs are perfectly susceptible to malware as it turns out, but no-one is bothered to write it for them. Why would a profit-minded criminal try and infect only seven per cent of computers, when he could reach 90 per cent instead?" When I first bought a Mac in December of 1998 I had to buy anti-virus software. Mac was at OS version 8.5 at that stage (roughly equivalent to Windows 98). As far as I know a much smaller percentage of computer users were using Apple in 1998 than are using Macs today, but viruses were being written for Macs! According to Thomson however, despite a massive proliferation of Mac users, there aren't enough Mac users for hackers to bother to write malware for them. Is he serious or plain stupid? Below, one of the anti-virus programs which I used on the (pre-OSX) Mac OS which was necessary because viruses were being written for Macs running the original OS:
Since OSX was introduced attempts have been made to infect Macs on the new OS without success - so far. That virus writers don't write viruses for Macs is because they can't! (Apple itself does not make the claim to immunity to malware.)
Thomson claims: You would imagine that Apple just introduced changes after 20 years! But the OSX "fix" (as he calls it) came out in 2001! As for the ability of Mac users to modifiy their computer's hardware, my G3 (purchased in 1998) had a number of expansion bays, pci slots, memory slots, etc. Why is he comparing Windows machines to ancient Macs as they might have been over a dozen years ago? Thomson also lambasts Apple's lack of compatibility with Windows:
"...software
compatibility. Because the prevailing ethos at Apple was 'our way or
the highway' the company persisted in using an operating system that
couldn't run 90 per cent of the software on the market, and developers
had a tough time coding for it and making a living." What
he is saying is that Apple, by running Apple OS and not Windows, could
not run Windows programs (though Windows can't run Mac programs
either). If Apple were Windows, he wouldn't have a problem. So his
problem is simply that an alternative to Windows exists. As for compatibility, Windows has massive compatibility problems you'll never encounter on a Mac. Anyone who had an IBM formatted floppy disc, or zip disc, or compact disc (CD) could insert it into any Mac from before 1998 and it would mount and could be opened by a Mac. Photoshop files simple ".txt" files etc created on Windows and saved onto an IBM floppy, or CD burned on Windows could be opened on any Mac! Mac-formatted floppies, zips, cds (formatted in the original Mac OS) never worked on a Windows-run machine back then and do not work on a PC now. It was Apple who changed their OS to accommodate Windows. Now any CD burned on any Mac running OSX will open on a Windows-run machine. Even program CDs in Windows (PC) format mount and can be opened on any Mac. Below is a screenshot of the Windows OS version of Flash 4 CD, on my antique end-of-1998 G3 Mac on OS 8.6 (below left) and G4 Mac running Tiger (below right).
What happens when trying to insert the Mac version of Flash 4 into a system running Windows XP?
Is this a joke? Windows can't even read its title, "Flash4" CD. The Windows warning actually reads: "Windows cannot read from this disc. The disc may be corrupted…" This screenshot is of Windows being run through my Mac running on OSX Leopard. <>It was never Apple who were the problem with compatibility issues, but Windows.And the reasoning is that Windows don't want compatibility. Below is a screenshot from http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/03/03/1235842380586.html :
It characterises the Gates attitude which guides Windows. The headline reads: "At Microsoft's headquarters for its Zune music players, which have not yet been released in Australia and have struggled to dent the iPod's market share in the US, an "iPod Amnesty Bin" invites people to throw away their iPods. The bin features a picture of an Apple with bites taken out of it above the tagline 'bite me'". It begs the question: did Windows ever write software intended to work on a Mac or (rather) intended to work in a cross–compatible manner with Mac software or the Mac OS? The answer is no and is still no. To illustrate with an example. Though Windows (Microsoft) has released a Mac version of Word, Word does not import the Mac word-processing program's ".pages" documents, nor the older ".cwk" (Clarisworks/Appleworks) word processing documents. These non-Windows word-processing programs such as Appleworks and Apple's Pages can import ".doc" documents and export ".doc" versions of documents created by them. Pages can even open ".docx" documents and can export as a ".docx" format any document created by it. Non-Windows word-processing programs made for the Windows OS like Corel and Appleworks can import and save ".doc" versions of documents created by them. Why has Windows Word not enabled users to import or to save in alternate word processing formats? The answer lies in the reason that the European Union's anti-competition legal action succeeded against Microsoft (see below). Windows Word is the most used word processing program. If you were not forced to require it you would not buy it. Conclusion:
Though Windows (Microsoft) Word is hardly as good as the Apple
word processing program "Pages", Windows Word continues to maintain its
pre-eminent position because it excludes import features that prevent
users from accessing any document created by a Windows-competitor
program. Incompatibility is good for Windows. The "our way or the highway" credo claimed by Thomson as characterising Apple is actually a Windows credo:
Thomson's claims are a baseless rant which is intended to appeal only to the insular head-up-their-arse Windows users who like Thomson just "hate the things". Was he paid by Windows? Any Mac user, who also runs Windows on their own machine can test his hypothesis. After-all, unlike most Windows users, Mac users don't suffer Windows users' phobias, insecurities, and irrational hatreds. Like many Mac users, I also run Windows programs on my Mac. After experiencing Windows I cannot understand why anyone would use it unless they had no choice in doing so. Below, screenshots of Windows launching, launched, and minimised on my Mac.
I bought Windows XP & Windows versions of various programs to run on that OS because I intended to jettison the Mac, because of Apple's disregard for backward compatibility (Intel Macs don't run "Classic"). Instead, I have learned to appreciate just how much Windows sucks! 2020 addendum - Apple have ceased 32 bit app support in thier current OS. Macs
no longer "just work", and to get programs to work you need to run
a Windows VM ... |
|
© demetrios vakras |
