Windows won't work? Time for a Mac

By David Coursey, ZDNet US
25 February 2004 08:58 AM
Tags: i've, machine, symantec, crash, window, bought, friend, that
Windows won't work? Time for a Maccommentary Yet another Windows system crash... what's a computer user to do? Turn to trusty Mac OS X, that's what.

In my computing life, there's one constant: the Macs don't crash and the Windows machines do. I mention this because on Thursday I went to see my friend Rob (Enderle, the noted industry analyst) and took along my Fujitsu Tablet PC. I used it at Rob's house to take notes of our meeting.

That went well enough, but when I got home the machine had slowed to a crawl -- and there it's stayed. Now XP is never a speed demon at boot time, but 10 minutes to boot is ridiculous even by XP's standards. The computer works fine in Safe mode, but if I try to log on normally the Task List shows a process called "winlogin" taking 99 percent of processor time. That's why the machine has slowed to below the speed of plate tectonics. And, no, it doesn't catch up by moving really fast all at once as terra not-firma sometimes does.

My bet is that it isn't the hardware's fault, that something corrupted some system file between the time I left Rob's and when I got home. I think I've done about all I can do with the machine short of rebuilding it. I've tried booting with the last known good settings and I've done a System Restore back to the time when the computer was almost new. The next step will be to find the restore disks (if I can find them) and reload the OS -- just what I want to do with my weekend.

Meanwhile, the Compaq Armada M700 that I've been nursing (with help from my friend Big Ernie) has relapsed: I crashed it loading some apps and have finally decided to give up. I'll use the drive and memory I bought for it for some other project. Goodbye, dear friend.

My HP Media Center crashed after Symantec SystemWorks 2004 first failed to install properly and then didn't allow itself to be uninstalled. Yes, the antivirus component was half-installed but has no entry in the Add/Remove Programs Control Panel. There's an antivirus remover on their support site, but it doesn't work with the 2004 version.

I'd say that installation snafu was a fluke -- except that it also happened on the Fujitsu. I'm in the process of switching all my virus protection to Panda's line, which works well and isn't expensive. I'm not sure what I'll do for disk utilities and registry fixers. If you have a recommendation, drop me a line. I'd like to find something besides Norton to recommend. This isn't the first problem I've had with a Symantec installation, but it may be the last. Sad, since I've liked their stuff for so many years.

Symantec has a way of purchasing other utility companies seemingly to cut down on the competition. Remember Central Point Utilities? They were at least as good as the Norton utilities of their day, but vanished after Symantec bought the company.

More recently, Symantec bought PowerQuest, another interesting utilities company. It'll be interesting to see how much of that company's technology finds its way into Symantec products. A friend of mine who swears by PowerQuest's disc tools was really bummed when he heard the company had been bought. (The acquisition occurred months ago, but I just mentioned it to him. Ruined the guy's whole afternoon.)

I'm down three Windows machines right now. I could use Rachel's machine -- I paid for it and she is my assistant, after all -- but there's important stuff on it and just in case it's a bad case of compu-Karma that's crashing these machines, I want to leave hers out of my sphere of negative influence.

So I'm doing what I always do when Windows ticks me off (that's not the word I really want to use, but this is a family show): I grab a Mac. Right now, I'm typing this column on a 15-inch PowerBook G4.

The nice thing about Mac OS X is that it's darn near uncrashable. No matter what programs I install or uninstall or how I use it, OS X just runs. I've been using it since before the commercial release and have had only one serious crash -- and that was during a hardware installation. The machine then booted right up without further incident. Other that that, the OS has been -- at least in my experience -- rock solid. And that's more than I can say about my Windows machines.

Sure, not all the programs I want to use run on Mac, but it's like I tell people: if a Mac does what you want to do, it's a much more stable OS than Windows.

What do you think? Is Windows terminally unstable, and is Mac OS X the answer? Talkback to us below!
Advertisement

Talkback 21 comments

    Keep your i386 hardware and st ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    Keep your i386 hardware and stick FreeBSD, which OS/X is based on or if you must install a flavour of Linux.
    My employees and I have been running FreeBSD on our desktops and notebooks for eons along with OpenOffice.org. I cant remember the last time someone complained of a program crashing.

    Oh No - Not another macophile. ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    Oh No - Not another macophile....
    I manage a mixed enviornment of PC's, Unix workstations, Linux boxes and I hate say it Mac's.
    OS 9.2 is a dog and unstable - crashes are a 2 hourly event, OS (Ripoff) X is about as bad as it gets - When are Apple going to give up and go away - they cannot even write a shell for FreeBSD.

    Sorry, but this weak story jus ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    Sorry, but this weak story just doesn't cut the reality test for me. Methinks he may need to clean out the spyware he has collected from trawling the dark recesses of the internet.

    Andrew

    the Winlogin.exe process is us ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    the Winlogin.exe process is used by many IRC viruses and other malware, which could be your problem.

    I find if you keep Windows 2000/XP machines patched and use a decent anti-virus program on them, then the only problems you'll have will be hardware or application related.

    We run Macintosh OS9/X and Linux in our org as well, and they all run stable if you build and maintain them right.

    I personally wouldn't use a Mac or Linux desktop if I had a choice, but they're generally no more or less stable than a XP or 2000 Windows box in my experience.

    At my employer, we have a very ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    At my employer, we have a very mixed environment - Linux e-mail server, Linux-kernel based firewall, Windows NT 4 server, and Windows 95, Windows 98SE, Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro desktops plus a couple of "other" notebooks - one of which is a Mac running OS/X. Additionally, our network is a mixture of 10Base-T, 100Base-Tx and 802.11g with numerous switches and hubs scattered around the premises.

    Apart from XP wanting to use its proprietrary authentication for NetBIOS sessions (which can be wound down), we have no real issues with inter-operability.

    However, having said all that, we regularly have "slow-downs" - one or more PCs that decide to run painfully slow and we sometimes have print issues - particularly where one of the XP machines wants to print to one of the printers shared by a Win9x machine.

    Of particular note is that fact that the firewall is basically maintenance free - we reboot it about once every two months, typically when some update to the kernel (or something similarly "involved") is released.

    Similarly, the mail server is VERY rarely restarted - being taken down more often because of power failures than anything else - our UPS won't keep it running forever...

    Most of the Windows XP machines are VERY fast booting - between 15 and 25 seconds from the time of the BIOS screen disappearing. None of the Windows 98 SE machines come close to that fast, and the Windows 2000 machines are a poor third with the Windows NT 4 server box coming in a rather disappointing last. I excluded the Windows 95 machines from this comparison because they are all running with small memory, low speed processors and slow hard drives.

    In general, Windows 98 SE is our biggest problem operating system, mostly because it is getting harder to keep secure. However, as far as slow downs go, the Windows XP machines are clearly the worst.

    This is looking historically - the cause has never been identified as a virus. While several virii have made it past the border in recent times, none have ever taken any active foothold on our machines - and we run Symantec's anti-virus tools.

    I have always been a fan of Ap ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    I have always been a fan of Apple, away from my job my neighbours are regularly bringing to me dead PC's of various kinds where they had tried to install something or it just flaked out for some reason.

    Funnily enough, I never see the Mac owners...Well, I do see them; they're usually telling me about the latest DVD they've created,or marvelling at the ease of managing their increasingly digital movie, video, photo, music collections and having a grand old time with iChat and iPod!

    They're too busy 'doing' things with their Macintosh as opposed to 'fiddling' with a PC.

    One day, I said to my next door neighbour 'Get a Mac, they just work'. He was incredulous but after a big of cajoling (i was sick of fixing his 'just upgraded' PC) he bought an iMac.. he's never looked back.

    My next home computer will be a Macintosh.

    It took me years to take a serious look and discover the Macintosh and OSX, look past the fluffy hype and realise that there's a rock solid platform there.

    I wish the 'technophiles' who regularly slam anyone who espouses Macintosh and thinking different would spend a few solid weeks with OSX, I think that they too would be seriously impressed.

    And they might spend less time in tech forums and more time actually 'doing' things...

    Dump Symantec and keep you sys ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    Dump Symantec and keep you system clean of Viruses with Mcafee Anti-Virus & firewall. Win XP works better that way.

    My home network is 4 Intel PCs ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    My home network is 4 Intel PCs running Win2K and WinXP Pro. They run 24/7 doing the crunching for a medical research pogram in USA. Quite stable really for Microsoft Windows machines. At work we use iMac and G5 machines with ArchiCAD, which I regret to say is NOT as stable as the story makes out. Perhaps if the Macs in the story were used for REAL work, his opinion would be different.

    I dream of the day a major cor ...Anonymous -- 25/02/04

    I dream of the day a major corporate might offer its staff something other than Windows.

    Our employer is "soon" moving from NT4 to XP.

    Many older PC's will likely die a horrible death. Those with 128Mb are doomed. And they also have old processors, so memory update wont help much.

    One day I promise myself an iBook.

    Dreams are made of such as these.

    What kind of somewhat knowledg ...Anonymous -- 26/02/04

    What kind of somewhat knowledgable computer person installs any norton product...its bloatware.
    its so easy to blame microsoft and windows...and easier to write a column on it if you have nothing else constructive to write
    sure macs might crash less but the whole environment is strictly controlled, windows has to juggle every half as piece of driver

    A MAC that doesn't crash, you' ...Anonymous -- 26/02/04

    A MAC that doesn't crash, you're lucky!

    Some people are lucky and their systems never have a problem; and that includes MAC, windows or others.

    At the moment being responsible for 45 computers (35 windows, 12 mac & 3 linux), spread around Australia & New Zealand, I've found failure/problem rate to similar across all machines.
    My best success is machines which the user "never" loads any software.
    Windows problems are commonly and widely documented. But I've even had mac software which unfortunately allowed "division by zero" resulting in the whole OS 'totally' crashing.

    To me the problems are not mac vs pc vs linux but the poorly tested software which gets used.
    I would be much happier if companies put more time into securing and bug-ridding their software than putting in features which <5% of people use.

    Is the grass greener on the ot ...Anonymous -- 26/02/04

    Is the grass greener on the other side ? I've used Windows since DOS/Win 3.1 days and only ever had serious problems with Win98 and that was probably because i had too many free/trial/shareware programs on my system. If you keep it up to date and clean, you'll find it works very good. I use Win2K and i'm quite happy with its performance .

    I would give FreeBSD a go on t ...Anonymous -- 26/02/04

    I would give FreeBSD a go on the i386 machines. OSX borrows alot of code from FreeBSD and Apple returned the favour by contributing fixes back. One of the FreeBSD project founders Jordan Hubbard also works for Apple. Linux would be another option but I would wait until the SCO vs IBM mess is sorted out, in any case you don't lose anything by using something other than a Linux distro as almost all open source projects don't rely on Linux anyway.

    At my previous job, I did netw ...Anonymous -- 27/02/04

    At my previous job, I did network admin and desktop support in a mixed-OS environment. There were only two predictable constants: Windows gave me the most trouble, and MacOS gave me the least. And that was before OS-X even came out. Since then, I've mostly gotten out of the MIS environment (thank god) but I still find that the Macs in my work environment give me the least trouble. The IT boys at my new shop still tend to disrespect the Macs a bit out of habit, but if you press them on which platform in our building has the most reliable hardware, the most stable OS, and generates the least number of support calls, they will admit it's the Macs.

    Caveat Emptor.

    It is truly a shame that those ...Anonymous -- 28/02/04

    It is truly a shame that those Windows users are so entrenched in their narrow little worlds and minds that they cannot honestly look at Mac. I've been a Mac power user for 20 years and an engineer and computer trouble shooter and programer since 1962. I still work with and help individuals with their PCs (YUK-someone should add two more letters so PC can truly be a four letter word) and I must say they do have their problems. They range from booting and connecting to the internet to frequent crashes of their hard drives. For the Mac wantabees, they are gaining respect and market share daily.

    I should firstly state that I ...Anonymous -- 29/02/04

    I should firstly state that I have always been a Windows user, even [shudder] the 9x series except [thankfully] ME.

    I am a software developer. In the two years I have worked for my current company, we have NEVER been asked for a Mac version of our program (however we have been asked for a Unix and MS DOS 6 port). In fact we don't even officially support the 9x series anymore (the software still works on 9x, but we don't want the blame for unstable systems).

    Sadly, this means that I can not seriously consider a Mac for my work, now the disclaimer is out the way, this is my experience with XP;

    System lock ups (blue screens / frozen cursors / half drawn screens with no response) are a thing of the past for me. The XP box I am writing this from was built in October 2002. It contains 200 odd programs in the Start Menu using up about 70GB. No is doesnt boot in 15 seconds anymore, but it is only 35 seconds.

    In fact the last time it crashed was when I was stuffing around with low level CPU calls (and normal people don't do that).

    My virus scanner automatically downloads updates (and I wont use Norton) and critical updates are automatically downloaded.

    Of course if you install spyware applications, or continuously install uninstall shareware and freeware, your system will suffer, but moving to a Mac or any other platform will not handle that sort of thing any better. Let me assure you that developing and testing of uninstall programs isn't a high commercial priority. I don't blame Microsoft for bugs in other software. I do expect that its kernel is resistant to crashes in other apps. So I am happy with XP.

    'I should firstly state that I ...Anonymous -- 29/02/04

    'I should firstly state that I have always been a Windows user, even [shudder] the 9x series except [thankfully] ME.' - so what you are saying is that you have no idea if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. In fact I would guess you have little knowledge of any platforms beyond those described in populist media. Start with a few basics - Open Source does not mean non commercial, Linux does does mean open source, and there are more than two commercial (MS+Apple) and one open (Linux) desktop operating systems available.

    --quote so what you are saying ...Anonymous -- 29/02/04

    --quote
    so what you are saying is that you have no idea if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. In fact I would guess you have little knowledge of any platforms beyond those described in populist media. Start with a few basics - Open Source does not mean non commercial, Linux does does mean open source, and there are more than two commercial (MS+Apple) and one open (Linux) desktop operating systems available.

    --quote

    *Sigh*, I really didn't want to bore people with the details, but I had that be ready to be flamed feeling when I posted. Yes people, there are some good alternatives to Windows and Mac in both Commercial and Open Source breeds. Note that the fact I use Windows is significantly influenced by the fact that I need to write software for windows boxes because thats what all my clients are running.

    FYI, I am running Red Hat on my local firewall here. I like it because unlike Windows it blocks all incoming ports you dont use, and it runs on an old PC I set aside for the task. I have found it quite stable, and when it has crashed (3 times in the past year), a simple reboot (through SSH) has fixed the problem.

    Actually, the reason I am surfing around at the moment is because I am waiting for Fedora to finish downloading (3 CD isos). I have used from the Windows series 3.1, 95, NT4, 98, 2k, ME (once), 2k, 2k Advanced Server, XP, and I am responsible for maintaining a Win2003 Server. From Mac, I have only used 7, 8, 9 (I know X is better, I have just never used it). I have programed on Solaris, and did some admin work on Netware 4 and 6.

    Oh and the commercial software I write has a Firebird (Open Source Interbase not Mozilla) backend.

    If you bothered to read my post, you would have discovered that

    1. I stated up front that my experience was mainly with windows.
    2. I never claimed that Mac's or any other OS's were inferior, but instead noted that my personal experience with windows XP was a pleasant change to my experiences with Win9x and Novell 4 (in particular)

    So lets stop with the you dont know jack attitude. The grass may be greener on the other side, I really don't know. I just don't think my grass is that brown.

    But even if the only OS I was familiar with was XP, would it really make a difference? I think its time we heard from people who only use Windows about their experiences (good / indifferent / horrible) and people who only use Macs (good / indifferent / horrible). Then instead of finding out which one is better, the respective OS's can work on their weaknesses and we will all come out winners.

    I use both platforms quite ext ...Anonymous -- 12/03/04

    I use both platforms quite extensively and I will say that both Win XP and OS X are much improved over the old systems (OS 9 and WIn 9X) I usually run a PC (custom built P4 2.0, 512DDR) right next to my iBook (G3 700 640MB) And they are both very stable but I would say the Mac edges out the PC in that regard but not by much. For me usability is so much better on the Mac because of the OS and also the hardware is much better.
    It is true though that with my Mac I just get things done and don't worry about the computer getting in the way.

    Here here Steven Culliver! Pr ...Anonymous -- 02/11/04

    Here here Steven Culliver! Properly configured, properly protected, and DON't load software unless really necessary, Don't agree to popups.

    It's not hard to keep a WinXP system running well, and those who can't use a MAC!

    It's not Microsoft's fault your PC is slow Samir -- 09/06/09

    Apples run very smoothly and quickly compared to a PC. But why, we must ask?

    Mostly because they are good at the little they can run and by running only that the speed and reliability remains higher. But being compatible with the rest of the world is important too, which Apple's are not. So installing garbage like Google Toolbar and having useless programs load at startup by your manufacturer will of course slow it down. Disable what Dell, HP, and these others install for increased speed. Or get a business edition like Sony offers which has everything clean. Apple claims it does not do this yet when iTunes is installed on a PC it also installs 5-6 other useless, unwanted programs/services in the background that PC users never asked for.

    And stop using freebie or weak Internet Security software to protect yourself (anyone, not you personally). Macs don't need virus protection you say? Viruses are not the only threat to Internet users. Families need website blocking from adult content for their kids. Gullibles need Phishing and Pharming protection for fake websites. Illegal torrent downloaders need hacking/virus protection from the sites that give them stuff they should be paying for but can't afford cause they bought a Mac. So yes, people do need good quality Internet Security software. Macs aren't as attacked in the world because they are so much less popular being so much less compatible.

    Only 6% of the world is on Mac...for a reason. Would you rather drive on a highway that is only one lane but very smoothly paved, or a very wide highway where you are free to drive as you wish and not be restricted or limited? A few more bumps on the wider highway because more are using it, but more are using it because it's what most people want and need. Apples cost waaay too much for what they offer, which makes that single lane,a toll highway - even worse.

    Similarly, using an Apple is like only eating 3 of the same dishes for the rest of your life. They are very well made, mind you, but very expensive and only those three are available. Would you not rather the freedom to choose between 20 different meals? Perhaps slightly less tasty than the three at times, but at least you're not limited in what you can have and can afford them in a difficult economy.

    Lastly, almost everyone that complains about PCs and move to Mac end up emulating a PC environment to run software that Mac can't. If Mac is soooo much better then why do you need Microsoft to complete it? Add the extra cost of Windows and the proper emulator to run it, along with the Windows software within that emulation, and an already overpriced Mac now costs a person even more. If it wasn't for iPods being so popular people wouldn't be attracted to Macs for reasons they do not know. My friend wanted to add 4GB of RAM to his iMac - $1000CAD. Sure, he can buy RAM from another source but Apple doesn't tell you that. Yet, non-Apple companies charge less than $200 for good RAM. He also wanted to buy a large monitor for his tiny Macbook. $899 for a 14ms response time Cinema Display. You can get 2ms response time monitors that are 1920x1200 for less than $499 of Samsung and others. If Apple stops being so greedy, maybe even have something called a Sale once in awhile, and become compatible with everything instead of just some things, they could have a bigger share in the market that overpowers them.

    To Mr. Anonymous who has always been a fan of Apples because you spend more time 'doing' things, obviously those things do not include gaming, non-graphic related business applications, or using third party hardware and software that Apple can't run. If Macs are so stable then why aren't banks and governments and the Ministry of Defense using them? Mac focuses more on looks and pretty than anything. As if computers are necessary in this world for the sole purpose of pictures and videos. Keep your PC updated and you will not need to empty

Add your opinion

Reviews by category

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

Tags

Back to top

Featured