Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Windows is still worse overall

Ugh, no it isn't. That myth from Windows ME era must die. For as much as the Windows 8 / Metro thing is an annoyance, under the hood it is a solid OS - I am running it heavily loaded - 4/5 HyperV VMs, IDEs, SQL Server etc and it is thoroughly reliable even counting suspend / resume.

Edit: Elaborating a bit - I got a Win 8 Pro license for $39 when it initially went on sale. I run it on my HP Z series Workstation that I got refurbished for $1199+$(Disks+ 16G ECC RAM). It allows me to run with 5 disks, a 8 Core Xeon CPU, 32GB RAM. The OS came with a very good hypervisor that allows me to run older version of Windows in cheap memory footprint, RHEL 7 and Server 2012 - all decently supported.

If I tried doing that on Mac hardware, even ignoring the considerable cost increase, getting a reliable hypervisor on a Mac is itself a challenge. Last time I tried Fusion and Parallels they were complete toys compared to HyperV.

So no, for techies Windows is still a darn attractive ecosystem - if you are just browsing and emailing any OS from 2013 onwards works fine, including Linux if you find the right hardware.



[deleted]


> MS has weird issues where you have to re-install the entire OS just to fix things.

That's a) too vague and b) I know my org runs a 100,000+ install base of Win 7 and unless people do something stupid no one reinstalls their OS ever. The reason you might not see much Mac and Linux calls is people aren't doing the same things they do with Windows in a business environment. Try installing a ton of 3rd party stuff, add a bunch of old software, expect it to work with any hardware you throw at it and you'll find Mac and Linux fail miserably beyond your normal browse/email/code/publish workflows.

If you are talking Enterprise - there is nothing that even comes close to what Windows does - ton of hardware, ton of backwards compatible stuff, ton of manageability stuff and so on. Try doing all that with a Mac or Linux. I guarantee you won't get too far unless you run a startup with people doing just coding and deployment. Windows in Enterprise is an entirely different beast - that it works so well is in itself a miracle. Mac and Linux won't even compete beyond the basics.


> Try installing a ton of 3rd party stuff, add a bunch of old software, expect it to work with any hardware you throw at it

But that's the thing: one the biggest value-adds of the mac ecosystem is that the hardware combinations are all well tested (or, from the point of view of an app/driver developer, they are heavily constrained). While it's not Microsoft's fault that they have to deal with a combinatorial explosion of drivers and it's not 3rd party vendors fault that they have to deal with a combinatorial explosion of hardware configurations, it's still a problem that leads to instability in the Windows ecosystem, users still have to face the instability, and it's still an argument in favor of using the Mac ecosystem if you value stability (outside of enterprise contexts -- we're in complete agreement there, OSX server is a shitshow). My personal anecdata is in a sibling post to yours.


For home use - you can get a MS Signature edition laptop for little more money than you pay for cheap PCs. Everything is stock Windows and you can expect that to work at least as well as OS X if not more. The problems start when you buy dodgy hardware loaded with ton of bloatware or crappy drivers - the signature edition PCs address that.

If you need a UNIX like system and can't live with Cygwin or native Windows tools then yes, having OS X laptop and hardware is the way to go. Admittedly the Mac hardware is still a bit nicer than anything in PC space but the trouble is Windows support is not very great (look up trouble about System Interrupts taking a ton of CPU on both Windows and Linux running on Mac laptops for instance.)


> Signature Edition

Thanks! That's good to know! After 3 or 4 tries, looks like Cunningham's Law pays off again (sorry).

> If you need a UNIX like system...

Yep, that's a big plus for me. A UNIX-like system with a decent terminal emulator and an IDE like Xcode makes my workflow so much easier. Probably enough to keep me in the mac ecosystem regardless.


Is Apple stuff is so well tested why does my Mavericks machine hang with just the cursor on a black screen for five minutes if I happen to move the mouse, or hit a key just as it starts to go to sleep.

Why does my daughters MBP frequently get very hot and the 'genius' in the Apple store tell us there's nothing wrong with it (in the most condescending way possible)

Apple stuff is just as buggy as Windows stuff (perhaps even more so)


Apple's quality has probably worsen in recent years, both software and Hardware, but as long as M$ dont build the software and hardware theselves, the likely hood of Apple Mac having a much better experience still holds. Try upgrading your Laptop from Windows 7 to Windows 8, worked? Try 8.1 and now Windows 10.

This is especially true on Laptop where no drivers update ever get released.


The black screen with mouse cursor hang was fixed for me in Yosemite.


> expect it to work with any hardware you throw at it

I have an external USB3 1TB hard disk drive that boots into Ubuntu 14.04. I'm using it right now.

So far it boots with all my computers and several work laptops and desktops and recognizes all the hardware I have used so far. I does it much better than windows, because for some stuff like add on video and network cards, Windows needs the boring 'go to manufacturer's website, download and install' additional drivers.

In fact, if Windows was installed into the external drive, it would have failed to boot in a second computer. Linux can.

I also use and enjoy Windows and friends, like MSSQL Server and Visual Studio, but let's be realistic here:

Linux is much more from what it used to be a decade ago.


Well in fairness, Windows 7 was a pretty awesome OS, Windows 8 ... not so much.


You can't confuse the OS with the shell, though. Metro is the most immediately visible part of Windows but it probably represents 1/10000 of the overall OS code base. I can't think of any reason why a Windows 7 user wouldn't be fine with 8.1 plus ClassicShell.


Here's a reason.

My fiancee has had her PC updated to windows 8. Now she can't play solitare on one side of the screen in a window with a video playing in a window on the other side of the screen.

She's forced to 'split' the screen in half, with solitare taking up a full 50% of the monitor.

Now if she wants to bring up a web page, it only loads up in the 'desktop' half of the screen.

This type of interaction is infuriating for someone used to XP, 7, etc.


Hence my mention of ClassicShell.


tldr: anecdata supporting "Windows is still worse"

I switched to the Windows ecosystem from the mac ecosystem in 2012 because two things happened: I kept hearing that windows had gotten better, and I finally grew up enough to admit that none of the windows complaints I made as a mac fanboy were actually based on experience. Windows did nothing but disappoint and embarrass for a year and a half before I finally gave up and moved back to mac. I've got a list of "small" complaints the length of my arm and a large list of big complaints that were "my fault" in the weak sense that with foreknowledge I could have avoided them. I won't post those. Here are the big complaints that happened after I adopted a "don't do anything my mother wouldn't do" policy in an attempt to improve stability:

* An update broke the dynamic linker or something: every time I would try to launch a .exe I would get a segfault in ntdll. Needless to say, rollback didn't fix the problem, all checksums appeared fine, and I had to reinstall.

* During the Win 7 generation, the shut-down process broke. All process would appear to exit, but the computer would then spin up its fans and never actually shut off. Every time I restarted the computer would want to spend the better part of a day on fsck. Naturally I habitually canceled it; day-long reboot times aren't acceptable. Eventually this led to blue-screens on reboot. Reinstall!

* After months of normal functionality, Windows 8 decided to forget my serial number. Upon entering the number again, it refused to re-activate. After 5 hours on the phone running remote diagnostics, they had me reinstall the OS.

* Most recently, sound and/or keyboard would stop working on wake from sleep. I installed fresh drivers from the laptop vendor (they mentioned a similar problem in the release notes) and it didn't work. I uninstalled those and installed fresh drivers from the sound card manufacturer; those didn't work either. What kind of a laptop is a laptop without sleep?

* The battery life got down to 20 minutes on a year old laptop. That was the last straw.

I've been told that this isn't normal, but I've caught the same people who told me that I simply purchased from the wrong manufacturer living with huge wake-from-sleep bugs so I don't know what to think. I'm sure that there exists hardware on which Windows is as stable or more stable than Mac OS is on my mac, but I don't know how to reliably find it.


So, this kind of list of complaints seems to be really common among folks who don't like Windows. Some times the list varies and wonders from one category of problems to another, but the core theme is still the same: The end user isn't capable of using the computer.

Now, it isn't fair to say, 'You must have 5 years in desktop support to use this product', but it harkens back to the problem of that people are making judgements about an OS that aren't really caused by the OS. You can say, 'I had issues with drivers' and 'I felt that the UX here and there was poor', but to say, 'Windows is broken. Here's the problems I had that say it's broken' is dead wrong.

Furthermore, a lot of people do this kind of stuff on 500 dollar laptops and other equally crappy hardware and expect the same kind of quality as they got from a $2000 MPB. You want a rock solid PC? Buy a Dell Precision. Comparing the cheap hardware put in the budget-line laptops to the (mostly) decent hardware put in the line of portable Macs is pretty foolish, and again comes back to the idea that it's not Windows that's broken, it's your crappy hardware.

Windows is unbelievably stable and while it isn't without it's problems, 99% of the problems that people actually report as 'problems with Windows', aren't.


> people are making judgements about an OS that aren't really caused by the OS

That's why I add the word "ecosystem." I'm sure that most of the big problems I complained about can be traced to a 3rd party, but the fact that something isn't really Microsoft's fault doesn't mean it isn't their responsibility in the sense that it would be different in the mac ecosystem and therefore should affect my purchasing decisions.

* Broken activation: maybe a 3rd party program overwrote a registry key, maybe I reinstalled the damn OS too many times and their servers locked me out. Either way it's not Microsoft's "fault" per se, but Mac OS X doesn't have an activation mechanism to break, so it's a win for the Mac ecosystem.

* Broken fsck: there was really no excuse for this, it falls squarely in the MS's-fault bin.

* Broken major updates: I didn't mention the broken 8.0->8.1 update because it's evidently common knowledge in the Windows ecosystem that updating without doing a clean install approximately never works and it was therefore "my fault" that I tried it. Guess what? It approximately always works in the mac ecosystem, and that's a win for the mac ecosystem.

* Broken linker: Undetected virus? Registry overwrite? Clearly it didn't affect everyone, so it must have been something specific to my computer, and therefore probably wasn't MS's fault per-se. Still, during that install I had been extremely careful about being gentle by not installing non-default drivers, system tools, etc, so it must have been the fault of an app, possibly one I downloaded by fumbling while running the download-button gauntlet. Guess what? That kind of BS simply doesn't exist in the Mac ecosystem, at least not nearly at the levels that it exists in the Windows ecosystem. Microsoft's fault? Not really, but I'm not a charity or a judge, so I don't really care. If things are better on the mac side of the fence, that's reason enough for me to return.

> Comparing the cheap hardware put in the budget-line laptops to the (mostly) decent hardware put in the line of portable Macs is pretty foolish

Fair enough, but once you're buying the expensive PC hardware the Microsoft ecosystem no longer wins by default on price so it comes down to personal preference and things that are Microsoft's fault.

> 99% of the problems that people actually report as 'problems with Windows', aren't.

True but irrelevant.


> So, this kind of list of complaints seems to be really common among folks who don't like Windows. Some times the list varies and wonders from one category of problems to another, but the core theme is still the same: The end user isn't capable of using the computer.

Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause ntdll to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause Windows activation to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause shutdowns to take hours instead of seconds. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause suspend to spontaneously bork.

You're blaming inexperience for things that are fixed on pretty much every modern operating system. Yes, those problems are caused by the OS, because it's really the only OS that chronically has those kinds of issues in those quantities.

Let's go through and demonstrate exactly why blaming the user for broken software is inaccurate at best:

* According to jjoonathan, the ntdll segfaults started happening after an update - something which should be routine. Do you expect users not to update their software? Especially when Windows will happily do the update and reboot automatically (and annoyingly, I might add).

* Shutting down isn't that hard, yet somehow Windows pretends that it is. It's rather hilarious to watch Windows take twice as long as, say, openSUSE to do something as basic and fundamental as shutting down. This isn't even including Windows' hilariously-convoluted method of installing system updates; if my laptop's openSUSE installation can install updates without having to drop down into some sort of maintenance mode, why can't Windows (for the record, though, OS X annoyingly has the same problem). I shouldn't have to sit through 100 updates installing when all I want to do is shut off my laptop and continue with my life.

* Activation problems with Windows are very common. I've run into them repeatedly with clean installs and multiple Windows versions. I shouldn't have to open a command prompt and type in arcane commands in order to activate Windows so I can customize the homescreen. Hell, I shouldn't have to do something as silly as activating my rightfully-purchased copy of my operating system, period, but that's another story.

* Really? You're going to blame Windows' fragility when it comes to power management on the user?

These sorts of problems are common with Windows. They aren't common with modern operating systems like GNU/Linux and BSD (and even OS X, no matter how hard Apple tries to mangle it and force it to be as poor of a product as Windows).

Yeah, "unbelievably stable" and "Windows" don't belong in the same sentence (except for this one, obviously). You're delusional if you sincerely believe Microsoft's shoddy programming to be the fault of their customers* of all people.


You are the person I'm talking about when I say that people that blame Windows for problems are their own worst enemy, and it's way worse when Dunning-Kruger is in full effect as well...

> Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause ntdll to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause Windows activation to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause shutdowns to take hours instead of seconds. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause suspend to spontaneously bork.

Inexperience causes all these things. Listen, my experience goes way, way beyond 'anecdotal' when it comes to managing end users running Windows. Never, ever, ever with the exception of a small handful of updates, does Windows fundamentally break itself. When you see a bluescreen, 100% of the time it is your fault or it's your hardware's fault. 100% of the time. Sometimes it might look like it's not your fault. Sometimes it's McAfee removing important files that break the OS because it's being stupid, but that's not a Window's problem.

If shutdowns are taking awhile, something is broken. Your inability to diagnose that isn't the fault of the OS. Ever.

If your computer 'suddenly borks', then your hardware failed, or you are bad at computer. 100% of the time.

If you can't manage to upgrade Windows, than I can't help you. Someone did it from 1.0 to 6.2 in a straight shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WP7AkJo3OE

When stuff like this happens:

> According to jjoonathan, the ntdll segfaults started happening after an update

It usually means that some third party software, usually legacy/dated drivers or your AV solution, has fucked up. The aforementioned McAfee bug is pretty famous for that, which you can read about here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/mcafee_false_positiv...

Your inability to diagnose the problem isn't the fault of the OS.

The half dozen Windows computers I own and the close to 600 I manage never, ever have these problems that seem to plague other people who seem to insist 'it's just Windows'. So, why is it that my customers never have these problems that you insist are ubiquitous to the platform? It'd be because I can manage them. I can leverage GPO to make sure my AV solutions at least report when it's doing something fishy. I monitor my computers so when something bluescreens, I get a copy of the dmp file and I can peel through it immediately. I don't let my users have unrestricted access to absolutely everything. I can use and manage the OS and leverage the extremely potent tools Microsoft gives me to diagnose problems and use that knowledge to prevent problems in the future.

And here's the thing: I don't really enjoy white-knighting Windows, but I also really don't enjoy people in the field of IT acting like Zealots in regards to products and platforms they don't know anything about.

I'm not a huge fan of Linux. I'm not a big fan of how esoteric the OS is and how management is unintuitive and complex. I'm not very good at fixing the problems that show up on the platform because quite frankly, I'm just not experienced enough to take any problem and pave a path to a solution. I've sworn more at my SAN running Openfiler because of Openfiler than I care to admit and if I could do it all over again, I'd never have put Openfiler on that box, but here's the thing: I'll never say, 'Linux is bad' or 'Linux isn't stable' or 'Holy shit I'm so mad at OpenFiler because if you have an iSCSI implementation and your boot device fails, your arrays are fucked unless you can rebuild', because I'd be speaking from misunderstanding, inexperience, and an incomplete understanding of the tools I'm using and I might look like an idiot by saying as much.


My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.


My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.


My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.


My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.


My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.


I've used linux since 2003, and windows before that, on PC hardware. In 2012, I was looking for a good laptop, and could not freaking find one that wasn't an Apple Macbook something. So I got a Macbook Air and installed linux on it.

Your case is extreme. But on every windows install I've seen at least one of these kind of inexplicable un-fixable problems you just have to re-install to fix or live with.

I like linux because every file is owned by a package, or it's a plain text config file in /etc, or it's in my home folder and has absolutely no effect on another user. It's just generally more under control. Files are not just modified by patch installers etc. So I love OS X app-folders, but many things for OS X use pkg installers, including stuff from Apple, so it's kinda the windows situation again, just a bit more transparent because it's mostly unix.

My tips for Windows: don't do what your mother would do. First things first, go into Programs and Software in the control panel, and uninstall stuff, even stuff you don't recognize. Check the Device Manager to see if you've accidentally uninstalled a driver, and if so re-install it (get it from the laptop manufacturer's support website). Don't install or run Microsoft or Adobe (or Apple) software, stick to the open-source windows software where possible, like 7-zip, sumatra-pdf, Libreoffice, Firefox or Chrome, etc. Also go ahead and disable System Recovery on all drives, to save disk space and performance, since if something goes wrong you'll have to re-install anyway.


"if something goes wrong you'll have to re-install anyway."

This is probably one of those things where experiences will vary but for me most of the time on my old win7 laptop when a bad install broke stuff system recovery worked fantastically.


System Restore's been a toss-up for me. Sometimes it's worked wonderfully. Other times, it makes the problem worse. Still other times, it just doesn't help, or something caused the restore points to be nuked (sometimes that something is the user him/herself).

I've been experimenting with NixOS lately, which has some very nice features along the lines of System Restore done right; being able to roll back any change to system configuration is pretty awesome.


Were the first two on the same hardware? Because the second one just screams "failing hardware" to me, and could easily be tied in with the first.

Startup "chkdsk" on a Windows machine that simply didn't finish shutting down should be very quick - basically the last thing Windows does is write a "clean shutdown" flag to the drive. On startup, if the disk doesn't have that "clean shutdown" flag set then Windows sees the drive as "dirty" and will prompt to check the disk. Chkdsk for this should take less than 5 minutes and will generally not find anything (since almost all processes had ended & almost all files should have been closed). If chkdsk in this scenario is taking a very long time or is making a lot of corrections, that's a very strong indicator of disk problems.

I have no particular guidance on sound issues.

There are a bunch of things that could impact battery life, but if you have hard drive issues and it's constantly remapping sectors, etc. then that would definitely have an impact.


> I'm sure that there exists hardware on which Windows is as stable or more stable than Mac OS is on my mac, but I don't know how to reliably find it.

IMO? You already own it. Boot Camp is the best way I know of to run Windows on a portable machine. (I still prefer to do Visual Studio work through Fusion on my 2012 15" rMBP, but I'll reboot to play games when away from home.)

I don't know if I'd call Windows "worse", I think you happen to be a serious edge case, but I like having both at hand for different things. There's no better environment for what I want to do with regards to game development than VS2015 on Windows, there's no better general-purpose dev environment for me than OS X.


Most of these anecdotes cry RAM issues. Broken memory creates weird issues in pretty much all operating systems, that's why you want to have ECC RAM in places where you don't want weird stuff.


Are there less support calls per capita for Mac & Linux users because the *nix users are more tech savvy? For example, I'd expect developers who manage their own machines to ask for help less often.


I switched from PC to Mac in 2014 and it has been shocking. In 20 years with Windows I've rarely had issues, but I've got a long list of problems with my new Mac. The MacPro hardware feels great, but the OS crashes every few days. I've already had the logic board replaced once. I'm seriously considering selling my mac and getting a new broadwell pc this year.


Windows are getting better and better.

95/98 crashed all the time, xp crashed if you really tried. Windows 7 hasn't crashed once after two years of daily usage, and/or keeping it running without a restart for months. Even when the system locks up due to user abuse( me ), and would require a reboot on anything older, you just wait a minute and it recovers.


I'd like to throw in my experience with Linux here. My backround is that I used Windows 2000 and XP from 2001 to 2003 after that Linux for three years and then OS X until 2013, now back on Linux.

I bought a used ThinkPad because I heard that that is the hardware which would work best with Linux now and I installed Ubuntu on it. Everything worked ok but just the OS filled up half of my small 128 GB SSD and running only Firefox for browsing got up the load to over 0.5, which made everything not so snappy.

A couple of months ago I moved to archlinux with Gnome 3.x, it was a bit more complicated to install, that I admit, but it was so worth it! After installation the system used less then 3 GB of my SSD, and now running just firefox the load is on about 0.01 which makes this ThinkPad from 2010 one of the snappiest computers I ever used. All animations are smooth, not a single application ever crashed or hanged itself and so on. But yeah admitedly I mostly only do development, email and websurfing on it.


As an experiment, all of my daily work is done in a Virtualbox VM guest (Win 7) running on a Win 7 host. I'll spin up some CentOS VMs when I need something Linux-like and usually putty into them. I have a couple other machines one my network I RDP into (the lack of an RDP equivalent on OS X is one annoyance, VNC is just not as good).

It works pretty well. There's some occasional performance issues, but that's mostly due to the amount of RAM and cores I have configured for the VM. But snapshots and full-system backups means that the next time I move machines all I'll really have to do is move my image over and install Virtualbox again to get up and running.


I've had the opposite experience, typically. At an old job, I was trying to use a Windows 7 workstation for the same tasks as I'd use my GNU/Linux-based home workstations (and the Macbook I'm using at my current job): running VMs with VirtualBox, running local installations of PostgreSQL, etc. Windows was the more painful one, for me at least.

Granted, I'm not a fan of OS X by any means; far from it. However, the one redeeming quality is the fact that it's Unix underneath all the buggy Aqua and Finder and Cocoa and such, so at least I'm able to set it up with MacPorts (and/or Homebrew) and get some proper work done with it just like I would on any other Unix-like OS. You can't do that with Windows, at least not easily (and certainly not as painlessly).

That said, the presence of virtualization extensions in one's CPU would make a significant positive difference; if the Mac you used lacked VT-x (which could be checked by running "sysctl machdep.cpu.features" and seeing if there's a "VMX" entry somewhere in the output of that), it would certainly explain your difficulties with VMWare and Parallels.

It's also worth mentioning that HyperV isn't exactly equivalent to VMWare Fusion or Parallels; it's more equivalent to VMWare ESXi, Xen, or KVM.


Agreed, windows 8.1 isn't that bad. I hated it to death when I migrated to it due to the dreadful metro shit, but thankfully you don't have to deal with that if you spent some time making sure it's out of your way so booting to desktop and a quicklaunch bar is in place. the rest you get used to. I moved from XP to windows 8 and I missed the start menu a week or so, as I already used a quicklaunch bar for ages in XP.

Now, windows server 2012 R2 on the other hand... aargg...


Is that with client hyper-v? How does it compare to vmware workstation?


Yes, the version that ships with Win 8 Pro. It is hands down better in most aspects compared to VMWare workstation. The integration is better, the footprint is smaller, performance and reliability is great and you get it for free. VMWare might have an edge in the OS Support department - it supports more host and guest OSes than HyperV. But I have had very good experience running DragonFly BSD, Various Linux distros (RHEL7, Centos 6.x, Ubuntu LTS etc.) and Windows 7 of course. Sure you don't get as many bells and whistles compared to VMWare but if you don't need them then HyperV is great.


Really? Last I checked, HyperV couldn't do video acceleration nor did it have UI integration (drag from one VM to another, or unity). It didn't seem to have a way to flip from one full screen VM to another. I'm not sure if it can completely redirect USB, either. Nor shared folders, without exposing a network share.

The video thing is probably the killer part though. If I could get essentially penalty free GPU inside multiple VMs at a time and easily flip, then I'd have reason to dump VMware Workstation, which is essentially in basic maintenance mode - v11 literally has no improvements, just s few bug fixes.

What did you mean by better integration?


The GPU acceleration ends up not mattering for Windows guests which you can RDP to. RDP to localhost with all effects turned on is more than good enough for non-gaming, developer type of work. For Linux too it isn't a problem where most work happens in ssh - for the occassional X11 program you can either use the local console (which sucks agreed) or install Xming and run via SSH X forwarding.

Hyper-V on Windows Server 2012 R2 supports GPU acceleration (need certified GPU), Full RDP-Over-VMBus, USB-Passthrough etc. though.

By better integration I meant my VMs are saved and auto restored between shutdown/reboot cycles without me even noticing, dynamic memory assignment works great and keeps total memory foot print down, I can mount VHDx files outside of the VMs etc. They may be small things but for my workload it feels pleasantly seamless. Workstation always felt heavy and in-your-way and besides as you noted the last few updates have been money for bug fixes essentially.


Thanks for the response. I basically want to run a Linux desktop (XMonad... How'd I live before it?) but also have Windows available for VS/Office, an occasional game, and some hobbyist pro audio stuff. With the security of everything as a guest OS. If Windows had any sort of real containerization it'd be a lot less of an issue.

Unlikely, but if MS ever got serious about making the client great, I'm sure they'd leave Workstation behind right quick. But it's still pretty much a server oriented with a few bones tossed to client use.


Glad to hear it's working well. Have you tried storage features like reverting to snapshots/checkpoints (e.g. reset a disk to known state on each reboot), or shrinking of unused space in thin-provisioned disks?


Snapshots/Checkpoints yes. I have even tried the differencing disks feature and liked it quite a bit. Haven't tried the shrinking unused space part as I never needed it up until now.

The only one issue I had relating to saved VM state was that after a BIOS upgrade restore of VM State failed due to may be the Microcode update I think. But other than that, all good.


Where did you get the refurb HP workstation?


Straight from HP. Many people don't know it but the HP Business outlet has really good quality hardware (Laptops, Desktops, Workstations and Options) for a really good price. You can browse the list of available hardware and prices here - https://h41183.www4.hp.com/pps-offers.php - it's updated daily and if you keep an eye you will find what you need one day or the other.


I second this. I'm still running an HP Workstation that I got as a refurb in 2008. Yes, it's really old, but it has been solid as a rock this whole time. I got that computer because I had really good experiences using HP workstations at work before that. The cases are (or at least were) really well engineered and very quiet. I haven't kept up with their latest models because this one has been so solid, but I would expect that the new ones would be similar quality.


>I would expect that the new ones would be similar quality.

I can say that in my case they've only gotten better - went from a XW6600 to Z series and couldn't be happier!


Yep we have about 10 xw8600/8400 with HP P400 SAS controllers. Disks come in and out as they fail but the machines just never seem to die. I have never seen one crash either.


>under the hood it is a solid OS

As someone who used to get paid to find bugs in low-level windows software, I must emphatically disagree.

At least on the hardware side of things (USB stack, included hardware drivers, etc.), the quality is really quite poor compared to the Linux equivalents. I can't speak to the quality of the OS X equivalents.


Did you just espouse Linux hardware support as a paragon of quality?

...wow.


>Did you just espouse Linux hardware support as a paragon of quality?

Please re-read my comment. I simply said that Linux drivers tend to be better constructed than Windows drivers. That doesn't imply that Linux drivers are particularly good.

I'll say without too much conviction that the best drivers I've seen have come from the BSD family, but I don't have a lot of experience there.


Sorry, my snarky comment was more aimed at the linux problem of driver installation and configuration complexity, and lack of drivers entirely. I'm way unqualified to comment on the quality of individual drivers.


Perhaps you haven't used Linux in a while? It runs on almost any hardware I can throw at it. Just upgraded to a brand new laptop, and just swapped in my old SSD, and everything just worked.


I'm running it right now. It's great when it just works, but that's rare in my experience, especially when it comes to video drivers.

I'm praying for the light of gaben to descend upon the driver ecosystem and make *nix gaming a thing.


To add something, I actually like Windows 8 and their Metro stuff. I have a 55' LED screen hooked to a PC that I use as my 'media center'. Metro looks gorgeous on it, most of the time I use it for playing music but it had proven useful for other things like opening the allrecipes app and having the recipe displayed while I'm cooking [1].

Aside from that, that PC is always on and being used for days at a time and it never becomes snappy, never drops out of the internet, not anything. And it does it all while using ~2GB ram, I know it's not little, but come on, OS X barely makes it with 4GB.

[1] http://imgur.com/lKYss9D - Check it out, notice the smile on my face.


That sounds cool, and I can really see that working well. But I'd argue that you're not really using Windows 8 strenuously in the way that people who complain about it do. It's like claiming Windows XP is stable because Solitaire never crashes.

I completely agree with your final OSX comment, it takes up way too much memory.


> I completely agree with your final OSX comment, it takes up way too much memory

To be fair it got bit better with 10.10 - the compressed memory stuff seems to do well under memory load. But still not close to Win 8 which by the way also has same page merging.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: