Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

No apologies for Microsoft Windows

Filed under

Recently I've had some discussion with colleagues about Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux in comparison to each other. Generally, I've found that most people agree that Mac OS X is more stable than Windows, and those that are familiar with Linux feel that it too is more stable than Windows. But after that being said, they come back with an apology for Microsoft stating that they (Microsoft) have to get Windows to run on fragmented hardware, whereas Apple standardizes the hardware and can therefore provide a more stable operating system for it, because there aren't nearly as many variations in hardware configurations.

I agree that Apple definitely has an advantage because of the consistent and standardized hardware platform to run on. Windows does have an enormous amount of Intel hardware that it must run on, so the argument I commonly hear is that Microsoft can't possibly run consistently for each separate hardware scenario, and that this causes instability issues.

rest here

More in Tux Machines

Leftovers: Gaming

Leftovers: Software

today's howtos

ACPI, kernels and contracts with firmware

This ends up being a pain in the neck in the x86 world, but it could be much worse. Way back in 2008 I wrote something about why the Linux kernel reports itself to firmware as "Windows" but refuses to identify itself as Linux. The short version is that "Linux" doesn't actually identify the behaviour of the kernel in a meaningful way. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the kernel can deal with buffers being passed when the spec says it should be a package. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS knows how to deal with an HPET. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS can reinitialise graphics hardware. Read more