Windows 7 vs OS X vs Unix

[Ender]

Probably a lot of threads like this, but I'd like to hear your opinions.

Personally, I've never touched Windows 7. My experience is in OS X and Unix.

I think that OS X is basically a lesser version of Unix. The OS X layer of Unix is very unremarkable - nobody uses or cares about Carbon, Objective-C, XCode, etc. It adds no functional power to Unix, which is sad because it takes a very powerful kernel as its starting point. What OS X does, instead, is make Unix painless. So it's OK for the end-user but useless in a server-side/software dev. environment.

Unix, in its unadulterated forms (BSD, Linux, etc) is small, powerful, and reliable. Its advantage over OS X is basically

      OS X = Unix + Garbage
      => OS X is worse for all its garbage

Its advantage over Windows 98, NT, XP is clear: Unix applications, unlike Windows applications, don't crash the system when they crash. Windows 98, NT, and XP simply allow applications too much access to the operating system so that, when they crash, they often drag the OS down with them.

But what about Windows 7? I've never touched it. If a process is going haywire, is it able to do a better job disposing of the process than its predecessors? Unix is able to do this by restricting kernel access much more than previous Windows releases... has Windows 7 done the same? I wonder how the boot-up and login speed compare to that of Linux.

Furthermore, how is Windows 7 as a server? Does its size (the kernel + its libraries must be at least twice the size of a Linux kernel) often rule it out of consideration? Clearly, Windows 7 is a good platform for Software Dev, since I've been hearing that .NET is basically the best programming environment (overtaking Eclipse/Spring/Java). But what about as a server? Another thing that probably rules it out as a server would be the security vulnerabilities... from all the application vulnerabilities to something like the NetBIOS spoofing that iago wrote about.

[rabbit]

Haven't used it as a server, but W7 does a pretty good job of not exploding when a program crashes.  As for boot up times...I can't really compare, as I run W7 off of a SSD, and haven't done so with XP or Linux.  I also don't really use W7 for programming (I still prefer Linux for that, though I do websites), only for gaming.

[MyndFyre]

Its advantage over Windows 98, NT, XP is clear: Unix applications, unlike Windows applications, don't crash the system when they crash. Windows 98, NT, and XP simply allow applications too much access to the operating system so that, when they crash, they often drag the OS down with them.

That is certainly true about the Windows 9x product line (95, 98, and ME); there was no Ring 0 / Ring 3 distinction (well there is, but it's limited because of the 16-bit programming used in parts of 9x inherited from DOS).  Technet lists some important differences:

• NT-based OSes support multi-processors.
• NT is a true 32- and now 64-bit OS, whereas 9x contained 16-bit code in the kernel.
• NT supports specific security descriptors at a kernel level, including file system security
• NT provides per-process shared memory mapping

The inherent instability of Windows was pretty much absent from the NT line, which is why I've been using NT since Windows 2000 (when it became viable for a gamer).

As far as Win7 goes, I use it at work and at home.  I dual-boot with OS X in both environments - at work I have a MacBook Pro, and at home I have my iMac.

From a usability perspective, I like Windows far, far better.  I just don't understand Mac fans' attachment to their desktop environment.  They do have some pretty cool animation capabilities with Cocoa, but things like only being able to resize windows from the bottom right corner drives me crazy.  Not being able to Cmd+Tab to a specific top-level window, just to an application, drives me crazy.

And of course, I program in .NET.  All of the Mac guys at the office prefer to code in Visual Studio whenever possible - the programming environment is definitely awesome.  

It may surprise you to learn that WinNT and later support a POSIX environment.  With Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications, you can get UNIX-specific services on NT-based systems, including normal POSIX calls, case-sensitive file system support, and I think ksh, among other things.  As someone who doesn't really use UNIX, I can't tell you what all it comes with.

With regard to boot-up times: I start both OS X and Win7 off of an SSD on my iMac.  Their start up times are comparable (in fact, I think Windows starts faster on my iMac).  On my MacBook, startup times for Windows are a bit slower, but when you consider all of the development services I have that start when I log in (like SQL Server)... I think they're pretty even.  The difference between Vista and OS X was much more pronounced.

[edit]
One thing I do recognize as a big advantage of Mac over Windows is that Apple is not beholden to umpteen thousand vendors correctly writing drivers for OS X.  Apple strictly controls the systems on which OS X can run, and so the systems generally appear "more reliable," because they're not really out "in the wild" like Windows systems are.

[nslay]

Probably a lot of threads like this, but I'd like to hear your opinions.

Personally, I've never touched Windows 7. My experience is in OS X and Unix.

I think that OS X is basically a lesser version of Unix. The OS X layer of Unix is very unremarkable - nobody uses or cares about Carbon, Objective-C, XCode, etc. It adds no functional power to Unix, which is sad because it takes a very powerful kernel as its starting point. What OS X does, instead, is make Unix painless. So it's OK for the end-user but useless in a server-side/software dev. environment.

OS X is the first BSD-based OS to be given the official title of UNIX from OpenGroup. It is more UNIX than any open source Unix-like system! I'd say Linux and *BSD are less UNIX than OS X. You can't get more UNIX than UNIX ... it's just not possible man!

If you're annoyed by Aqua, just install Darwin. That's basically OS X without the fluff ... the UNIX system under the hood.

Unix, in its unadulterated forms (BSD, Linux, etc) is small, powerful, and reliable. Its advantage over OS X is basically

      OS X = Unix + Garbage
      => OS X is worse for all its garbage

Its advantage over Windows 98, NT, XP is clear: Unix applications, unlike Windows applications, don't crash the system when they crash. Windows 98, NT, and XP simply allow applications too much access to the operating system so that, when they crash, they often drag the OS down with them.

NT-based systems do not allow applications to do anything. Microsoft's default configuration allowed applications to do anything ... every user was an Administrator until recently!
Windows 98 is DOS-based and has no restrictions ... correct me if I'm wrong, but 9x doesn't even have virtual memory correct? I know that processes in 9x could access another process' memory.

I don't know about your statement about applications crashing the OS. I'm pretty sure an untuned UNIX could be crashed, or at least rendered disabled/useless if some process (and its child processes) infinitely forked itself. Same can be said about Windows.

But what about Windows 7? I've never touched it. If a process is going haywire, is it able to do a better job disposing of the process than its predecessors? Unix is able to do this by restricting kernel access much more than previous Windows releases... has Windows 7 done the same? I wonder how the boot-up and login speed compare to that of Linux.

Linux is a really bad example. Linux likes to take its time starting services and probing hardware. Unless you compile your own custom kernel specially configured for your system, Linux is going to suck at boot speed. Windows 7 boots very fast. Windows XP boots fast too ... but the catch is that it is unusable for the first 10 minutes while it really finishes "booting."

Furthermore, how is Windows 7 as a server? Does its size (the kernel + its libraries must be at least twice the size of a Linux kernel) often rule it out of consideration? Clearly, Windows 7 is a good platform for Software Dev, since I've been hearing that .NET is basically the best programming environment (overtaking Eclipse/Spring/Java). But what about as a server? Another thing that probably rules it out as a server would be the security vulnerabilities... from all the application vulnerabilities to something like the NetBIOS spoofing that iago wrote about.

You mean Windows Server 2008? It seems like a nice system. However, it's apparently not very good. It's too expensive. 90% of corporations are not renewing their volume licenses with Microsoft. Microsoft is doomed. Oh, and they're also behind everyone else. Their new Windows phone commercial was showing its innovative built-in camera ... WOW!

P.S. Unix doesn't belong in the title. Linux distributions introduce the misconception that Unix ought to be like any other Window'd OS. It's NOT, it is its own thing! Windows 7 vs OS X vs Unix is like Mickey Mouse vs Roger Rabbit vs Japanese Godzilla.

[nslay]

Its advantage over Windows 98, NT, XP is clear: Unix applications, unlike Windows applications, don't crash the system when they crash. Windows 98, NT, and XP simply allow applications too much access to the operating system so that, when they crash, they often drag the OS down with them.

The inherent instability of Windows was pretty much absent from the NT line, which is why I've been using NT since Windows 2000 (when it became viable for a gamer).

You mean, the inherent instability of Windows was pretty much absent from NT 5.1 Service Pack 2 and later right? Windows NT, Windows 2000 and early versions of Windows XP were extremely unstable relative to Windows XP SP2 and later. Even Windows Server 2000 Server and Advanced Server were less stable than Windows XP SP2.  I commonly saw BSODs on all Windows NT versions, all Windows 2000 versions, and pre-SP2 Windows XP all on 5 different computers. I stopped seeing BSODs in Windows XP SP2 and later and Windows 2003 Server and later.

It may surprise you to learn that WinNT and later support a POSIX environment.  With Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications, you can get UNIX-specific services on NT-based systems, including normal POSIX calls, case-sensitive file system support, and I think ksh, among other things.  As someone who doesn't really use UNIX, I can't tell you what all it comes with.

Not really ... it has some support, but very little. Any POSIX it might fully, even partially, comply to (if any) is also likely ancient. There isn't even, for example, gettimeofday(3) which is commonly used in benchmarking.

The Services For Unix (which is now supposedly part of Vista+) is also notoriously flaky.

[edit]
One thing I do recognize as a big advantage of Mac over Windows is that Apple is not beholden to umpteen thousand vendors correctly writing drivers for OS X.  Apple strictly controls the systems on which OS X can run, and so the systems generally appear "more reliable," because they're not really out "in the wild" like Windows systems are.

Not to sound like I'm trying to contradict you, but doesn't Microsoft play driver dictator ever since Vista? I hear you have to get Microsoft to approve and sign your drivers before they can be loaded into the NT kernel. Am I remembering correctly?

Microsoft is also developing Singularity which is a microkernel OS. Theoretically, drivers shouldn't be able to crash the system in Singularity (only a very small portion of the system runs in kernel space). I sure wish popular open source OSs were microkernel-based ... it would make so much sense for such chaotic development.

[Joe]

Not being able to Cmd+Tab to a specific top-level window, just to an application, drives me crazy.

Cmd+Backtick.

[Joe]

Microsoft is also developing Singularity which is a microkernel OS.

2008 called. It wants it's cancelled project back.

[nslay]

Microsoft is also developing Singularity which is a microkernel OS.

2008 called. It wants it's cancelled project back.

I can't find any indication that it's canceled. If it was canceled in 2008, wikipedia doesn't know about it yet.

We don't want Singularity to be canceled. This would be a leap forward in operating system technology where most of the computing world is still using monolithic (and variations) kernels. That design sucks in comparison!

[Joe]

I couldn't find it with a quick Googling, but I think I read something. But I can't find anything that said Microsoft has touched it in the past two years either.

I tried downloading and running the livecd and found out it supports like.. one motherboard. They've got a ways to go for a 8 year old project, if they're still working on it.

[Ender]

The inherent instability of Windows was pretty much absent from the NT line, which is why I've been using NT since Windows 2000 (when it became viable for a gamer).

As far as Win7 goes, I use it at work and at home.  I dual-boot with OS X in both environments - at work I have a MacBook Pro, and at home I have my iMac.

From a usability perspective, I like Windows far, far better.  I just don't understand Mac fans' attachment to their desktop environment.  They do have some pretty cool animation capabilities with Cocoa, but things like only being able to resize windows from the bottom right corner drives me crazy.  Not being able to Cmd+Tab to a specific top-level window, just to an application, drives me crazy.

And of course, I program in .NET.  All of the Mac guys at the office prefer to code in Visual Studio whenever possible - the programming environment is definitely awesome.  

I'm starting to think now that I should get Windows 7 on my Macbook Pro as a second partition. (Or maybe VM?) I didn't think the drivers would work out that well, but, you seem to have it running smoothly.

I was planning to build some computers when I get the money for it... and I was thinking about putting some SSD drives in there. From what I know of SSD, it is a million times faster in reads (exaggeration) but also a good deal slower in writes. Is this true in your experience? Does the time you save on reads beat the time you lose on writes? And is it really that bad on writes?

Also, are you able to get Starcraft, Starcraft II, etc. working on your iMac and Macbook Pro?

[deadly7]

I was planning to build some computers when I get the money for it... and I was thinking about putting some SSD drives in there. From what I know of SSD, it is a million times faster in reads (exaggeration) but also a good deal slower in writes. Is this true in your experience? Does the time you save on reads beat the time you lose on writes? And is it really that bad on writes?

IIRC it's during random-write that SSDs struggle. If you're doing linear-write (eg: a primary hard drive on which your OS and software are installed) it's still faster.

[Joe]

I'm starting to think now that I should get Windows 7 on my Macbook Pro as a second partition. (Or maybe VM?) I didn't think the drivers would work out that well, but, you seem to have it running smoothly.

Mac's run Windows 7 awesomely.

Also, are you able to get Starcraft, Starcraft II, etc. working on your iMac and Macbook Pro?

I'm not sure I understand this question. All Blizzard games are Mac-native.

[Ender]

Also, are you able to get Starcraft, Starcraft II, etc. working on your iMac and Macbook Pro?

I'm not sure I understand this question. All Blizzard games are Mac-native.

Actually... Starcraft does not run on my model of Macbook. Has to do with the video card or something (this time I am using "video card" correctly :-)

I think this might describe the problem:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080902171037AAkPQrB

[Blaze]

Also, are you able to get Starcraft, Starcraft II, etc. working on your iMac and Macbook Pro?

I'm not sure I understand this question. All Blizzard games are Mac-native.

Actually... Starcraft does not run on my model of Macbook. Has to do with the video card or something (this time I am using "video card" correctly :-)

I think this might describe the problem:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080902171037AAkPQrB

It's not a video card issue, it's literally just Apple deciding to drop support for an old graphics mode, which Starcraft uses.  Entirely Apples fault.

[MyndFyre]

2008 called. It wants it's cancelled project back.

4th grade called.  It wants its correct possessive punctuation enforced.

Not to sound like I'm trying to contradict you, but doesn't Microsoft play driver dictator ever since Vista? I hear you have to get Microsoft to approve and sign your drivers before they can be loaded into the NT kernel. Am I remembering correctly?

I don't believe *Microsoft* signs the drivers.  I think they simply (unless overridden) require an Authenticode signature, so that if malware attempts to install a driver into the kernel, it can be tracked to the publisher.

You mean, the inherent instability of Windows was pretty much absent from NT 5.1 Service Pack 2 and later right? Windows NT, Windows 2000 and early versions of Windows XP were extremely unstable relative to Windows XP SP2 and later. Even Windows Server 2000 Server and Advanced Server were less stable than Windows XP SP2.  I commonly saw BSODs on all Windows NT versions, all Windows 2000 versions, and pre-SP2 Windows XP all on 5 different computers. I stopped seeing BSODs in Windows XP SP2 and later and Windows 2003 Server and later.

No, that's not what I meant.  I've commonly seen BSODs on any Windows computers; however, given the choice between 2000 and 98/Me, the choice was easily 2000.  The choice between NT 4 and 95 was a little more difficult, because at that time of my life I was primarily still running my DOS-based applications, and NT didn't quite completely support the real-mode kinds of access that Windows 95 supported.

I'm starting to think now that I should get Windows 7 on my Macbook Pro as a second partition. (Or maybe VM?) I didn't think the drivers would work out that well, but, you seem to have it running smoothly.

I was planning to build some computers when I get the money for it... and I was thinking about putting some SSD drives in there. From what I know of SSD, it is a million times faster in reads (exaggeration) but also a good deal slower in writes. Is this true in your experience? Does the time you save on reads beat the time you lose on writes? And is it really that bad on writes?

Also, are you able to get Starcraft, Starcraft II, etc. working on your iMac and Macbook Pro?

I would *highly* recommend going with it on a second partition.  I don't know what it is, but it's unbearable to work for any length of time, at least on my MacBook, with a VM running.

I haven't tried to put any games on my MacBook Pro, because it's my work computer.  On my iMac, however, I can run Starcraft II easily on both OS X and Windows.  I run it predominantly on Windows at max resolution (2560x1440) with all the settings at "Ultra," and I get 45-60fps.

The reason SSD tends to be slower on writes is that, it's truly a "random read," but in order to write, the entire block to which the system is writing must first be cleaned and deleted, and then if necessary, some of the data must be recreated.  These drives are only optimally supported on Snow Leopard and Windows 7/Server 2008 R2.  The biggest cost factor, as well, comes down to the controller.  Check the benchmarks online, and read up on sites like Tom's Hardware.  My iMac is one of the new 27" iMacs that come with the SSD, and like I said - I love it.  But, I think that when I bought it, the Apple SSD that came with it was the second fastest on the market.