Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (62619)	11/5/2001 11:45:03 AM
From: DiViT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Face-off: Mac OS X vs. Windows XP home.cnet.com Round 1: Installation CNET's call: Mac OS X Vote: 6-0 Our jury called this one with nary a peep of debate; it's just that obvious. OS X's installation routine involves a click, maybe two, and you can install it on as many Macs as you want. Meanwhile, XP makes you wade through the Upgrade Advisor, the 25-digit key code, and then product activation, while Apple simply trusts you not to violate its own one-computer license agreement. We wish every round were this easy. Round 2: Interface CNET's call: Windows XP Vote: 6-0 Sure, we're impressed that the Mac has come up to speed with features such as full keyboard support, a column or Web view for its folders, support for the right-click, and a customizable interface. But Windows has had all or most of those tools for years. We also find XP's new, task-oriented interface much more intuitive and powerful than Aqua's baffling directory scheme and clunky, annoying Dock. Round 3: Software compatibility CNET's call: Mac OS X Vote: 3-2, one abstention Our contentious software compatibility argument came down to a discussion of literal compatibility vs. availability. While most of us agree that XP carries a slight edge because of the sheer mass of available titles, we just can't overlook OS X's potential. With support for Mac apps new and old, plus Unix and Linux apps and a development environment that sheds its proprietary roots with a vengeance, OS X's software future shines brighter. Round 4: Hardware compatibility CNET's call: Windows XP Vote: 5-1 While at least one panelist argued in favor of OS X's seamless integration with its proprietary hardware, the hardware is, in fact, proprietary, and the peripherals tend to be few and far between compared to the sheer mass available to XP. As always, OS X suffers from a lack of Mac drivers and software for popular devices, while XP tantalizes with the dizzying array of available and often cheaper PCs, notebooks, keyboards, hubs, speakers, MP3 players, PC cards, TV tuners, and on and on. Round 5: Internet support CNET's call: Tie Vote: 3-3 Our jury nearly suffered apoplexy trying to reach a verdict in this crucial round; we consumed at least a dozen bagels, and the debate came fast and furious. In the end, though, we agreed on a tie. Some panelists said they simply could not vote for XP out of free-market concerns: Microsoft's .Net agenda, its Passport-pushiness, and its commercial aspirations. XP supporters argued that OS X's integrated Apache Web server and built-in FTP client appeal only to a select audience, while all users can appreciate XP's built-in firewall and powerful remote control and assistance features. Ultimately, though, each OS is jammed with Net tools, and we simply couldn't pick a winner. Read the full artice, to see who ultimately won...