Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP All Models What is stopping you from using Windows?
- Thread starter Konvictz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’ll use whatever to get the job done fast. In my case I’m using FCP which is really fast when it comes to exporting videos.
If Adobe Premier is as fast, I may switch to Windows mainly because of cheaper hardware. BUT Adobe is a monthly subscription and FCP is not so I’ve actually saved a lot of money with FCP over the years.
If Adobe Premier is as fast, I may switch to Windows mainly because of cheaper hardware. BUT Adobe is a monthly subscription and FCP is not so I’ve actually saved a lot of money with FCP over the years.
How do you learn what to do if you avoid tonymac? (Never built a Hackintosh, but my compute needs do not tend in the Mac Pro direction.)
My assumption was the users application was consuming all of the available memory due to the size of the dataset it is processing and not a bug in the software. The example given was the user using the same software and dataset on Linux, Windows, and macOS and it was causing the Linux and Windows systems to fall over but macOS "works effortlessly". Until I see something to support that I am not buying it.
[automerge]1576759519[/automerge]
Updates always have the risk or causing issues and Microsoft has a more challenging job given the almost limitless number of hardware and software configurations Windows runs on.
Having said that the number of problematic patches is, relatively, low. This sounds like another 1990's argument that has been greatly reduced.
How did this functionality break?
I feel there could be some changes to the patching process and the forced installations are something I would prefer they do away with. However this goes back to what I said earlier: People were not applying the patches. This also has nothing to do with patches breaking things.
With that said Microsoft did provide the means to delay installation and define working hours when that reboot would occur. Just make sure to save any work before leaving your computer for any length of time (a good practice regardless of patching policy).
Last edited:
Every time I use a Windows machine there’s always something that messes up. Sometimes when you plug in headphones you have to restart your apps to hear sound. When there’s an update available sometimes it just restarts without notice while I’m working. It’s just in general a not very pleasing experience. There’s nothing special about it.
Windows shouldn't be just restarting your system while you're using it. Also, you can set active hours which will prevent Windows from restarting a system during those hours. If you're having problems with it restarting while you're using it I would suggest you set those hours. You can even let Windows determine what are the best active hours based on your usage habits.
Worked with both for over 30 years.
Summary:
You WORK on Windows
You DO WORK on MacOS
(At retirement, the company Windows laptop was FedEX'd back. I was finally free!!!!!)
Summary:
You WORK on Windows
You DO WORK on MacOS
(At retirement, the company Windows laptop was FedEX'd back. I was finally free!!!!!)
I'm not a creative type and can not comment on the music or video professionals that rely on MacOS but a Sales Engineer who has worked by myself for the last 29 years and had to do tech support for myself since day 1. Left Windows after the '95 mess and was gone until Win 7 always having a Mac or two in my office on duty. Now however I have found if I really want to get work done it's on a Win 10 box and not one of my Macs. Sure for cruising the web and email my Mac and MacBook are great but for the 90% of the time I'm working on CAD or generating quotes its a Win 10 box doing the heavy lifting. I see all sorts of comments about how bad Win 10 is with updates and such but I have no such issue. Not sure if some of the comments are from actual users or simply heard from a friend of a friend about how bad the experience would be. I'm using Windows by choice and not as being dictated by an employer, it's nice to have the Macs as well but if forced to choose one desktop as a work computer it would not be a hard choice.
Last edited:
What‘s wrong with tonymac? I just updated my Hackintosh doing a reinstall following tonymac. Not saying it‘s perfect, but I got the task done. What forum/site would you recommend instead?
Vista was pretty freaking awful as well.
Yeah I’ve never had a problem with that site.
Vista on a six year old computer wasn't a pretty sight. It needed more memory and CPU power than an older system from the 20th century would typically have.
On a current (for 2006) system with generous amounts of RAM and cores, it wasn't a bad experience. (Well, during the beta days there were some stability issues around the new graphics driver APIs
)
Last edited:
It made MS access databases fail to open via a query, claiming database corruption.
The databases were not corrupted, it was a broken patch.
ref:
Fix for Error 3340 in Access 2016 (Update KB4484198)
[German]On November 18, 2019, Microsoft released update KB4484198 to fix error 3340 with database accesses in Access 2016. Further fixes for other Access versions will follow soon. Addendum: Also…
borncity.com
...November 2019. Not the 90s. And this is just the most recent example.
That was released to the world without sufficient QA. Sufficient QA would have been to actually try and open a front/back end database in Access 2016 (or indeed, ANY access version).
There was a hot-fix within 24 hours, but of course the hot-fix was not in a format that was easily pushed via SCCM's update process and required creation of a new package, etc.
People applying or not applying patches is (or should be) the user's prerogative. Not Microsoft's. If you're willing to think that Microsoft knows best, well... go ahead.
However given there are still known 25 year old security holes in various parts of the OS, and they're busy screwing around with the frickin' calculator instead (for example), good luck with that.
[automerge]1576801504[/automerge]
Vista was fine once it hit SP1 or SP2. And also if you actually gave it sufficient resources.
I ran it.
The big problem with Vista is that Microsoft told OEMs for a couple of years in the lead up that it would need 512 MB of RAM, whereas it needed at least 1-2GB to run properly at all. And OEMs stuck "Vista ready" stickers on their stuff when the hardware spec was completely inadequate.
Also, hardware vendors dragged their feet with hardware driver support leading to crashes due to driver instability that Microsoft got the blame for.
I'll take a dump on Microsoft as much as the next guy, but the Vista hate was massively overblown and mis-directed. I agree that ME was far, far worse. It combined all of the stability of Windows 98 with the incompatibility with old software of Windows 2000.
You were far better off running Windows 2000 Workstation, but again... that needed more RAM. Assuming you had enough, Windows 2000 was my favourite MS operating system ever. It's been mostly downhill from there.
[automerge]1576801761[/automerge]
Yeah, i would in fact argue that on modern (for the time) hardware, Vista was a BETTER experience than Windows XP once drivers caught up.
Which leads me to my top tips for a stable, crash free Windows experience:
- Don't by bottom of the barrel cheap garbage hardware, because no matter how good the hardware is, the drivers will be written by idiots
- get plenty of RAM. Take microsoft's suggested requirement and double it (at least - then add your applications' requirements)
that's basically it.
[automerge]1576801797[/automerge]
Yeah, i would in fact argue that on modern (for the time) hardware, Vista was a BETTER experience than Windows XP once drivers caught up. More stable, more secure, much better audio system, user-space drivers (*most* drivers would not cause a total system crash with a driver problem), etc.
Which leads me to my top tip for a stable, crash free Windows experience:
- Don't buy bottom of the barrel cheap garbage hardware, because no matter how good the hardware is, the drivers will be written by idiots
- get plenty of RAM. Take microsoft's suggested requirement and double it
- every time you think about installing some third party software ask yourself if you can do without it. if you can, don't install it.
that's basically it.
Last edited:
The argument is from the 1990's, not any specific examples. I have no doubt that others, who didn't experience this issue, are going to jump on this as proof Microsoft patches have issues.It made MS access databases fail to open via a query, claiming database corruption.
The databases were not corrupted, it was a broken patch.
ref:
Fix for Error 3340 in Access 2016 (Update KB4484198)
[German]On November 18, 2019, Microsoft released update KB4484198 to fix error 3340 with database accesses in Access 2016. Further fixes for other Access versions will follow soon. Addendum: Also…
...November 2019. Not the 90s. And this is just the most recent example.
Which begs the question: Why didn't your QA testing catch it?
There was a hotfix available within 24 hours (I assume of the faulty patch) why was the original patch applied so soon after release (i.e. less than 24 hours)?
I agree, it's one of the changes I'd like to see Microsoft make. However it is my opinion Microsoft chose this path because they felt it was in the best interests of their users compared to not forcing them. For years (decades?) Microsoft left updates optional and people succumbed to malware because they weren't applying security patches. It's definitely a balancing act.
Last edited:
The patch was rolled via windows update a FULL WEEK after Microsoft released it. We do this specifically in the hope that any brain damage this bad is PULLED by Microsoft in the following week.
The "fix" was a hot-fix that was not made available via windows update infrastructure.
Microsoft did not pull the broken patch.
As to why our internal testing didn't catch it? We do not have enough dedicated staff for internal testing.
However - we aren't the software vendor. Software is not our core business. Having your own software unable to open your own software's data files though is pretty weak. Microsoft's QA since 2015 is atrocious.
This isn't a 1990s problem. Their QA is worse today.
Why are you using Windows Update to install patches? If you're concerned about patches causing issue you shouldn't be using Windows Update to install patches. It sounds as if your patching strategy is to just let Windows do it.
Perhaps because it affected such a small number of users?
It's your opinion Microsoft has the resources to test every configuration for their patches?
I work for a company where software is not our business. My role in this company is to secure our systems and, ideally, I would like to have every patch applied to every system the moment it is released. However I understand there are resource constraints and issues with doing so. Out patching process requires rigorous testing to ensure potential issues are identified before deployment. Do you care to make a guess as to whether this testing is perfect or not? Which is why we have a rigorous change management process which requires a back out strategy. Do you want to take a guess as to how successful every back out strategy has been?
The reality is that systems are complex and there are going to be issues. That's the unfortunate reality of any modern computing system. No matter how careful you are, no matter how well developed your processes, no matter how much testing you do patches (and configuration changes) have the potential to break things. Windows is not immune to this. Linux is not immune to this. macOS is not immune to this.
Can you provide data to support this?
I'm sure the modern day Windows is absolutely fine, but it just looks dreadful – like it was design by four groups, none of which was in contact with the other. My Mac Pro (soon to be new 24-core Mac Pro) and macOS do what I need, and they do it elegantly and without any issues – I have no desire to swap at the moment. Maybe in the future, if Apple totally loses its way.
ProRes encoding across all pro video apps, more than anything.
But also, I despise Windows 10’s Frankenstein of a UI, and just how undependable it is overall. I ran a Windows 10 workstation as my primary machine for two years, and just got so sick of all the annoying small things that together made the experience utterly miserable: such as hard drives not ejecting, buttons randomly moving around, settings menus in illogical locations and in multiple places, the crazy bright white search bar, the insufferably bad Windows Updates system, no iMessage or AirDrop, and so many other small things that really add up. Using a computer shouldn’t be a chore, but with Windows 10 it is.
But also, I despise Windows 10’s Frankenstein of a UI, and just how undependable it is overall. I ran a Windows 10 workstation as my primary machine for two years, and just got so sick of all the annoying small things that together made the experience utterly miserable: such as hard drives not ejecting, buttons randomly moving around, settings menus in illogical locations and in multiple places, the crazy bright white search bar, the insufferably bad Windows Updates system, no iMessage or AirDrop, and so many other small things that really add up. Using a computer shouldn’t be a chore, but with Windows 10 it is.
With the release of the 2019 Mac Pro the recommendation to move away from the Mac platform is severely weakened. Prior to its release there was no strong option for those who wanted an internally expandable, headless, and powerful Mac and those seeking such a solution had no choice but to move away. The 2019 has essentially neutered that argument. IOW my recommendation was not because I felt Windows was a better choice but rather one forced on the user by Apple themselves.
There are still some reasons someone may want to move away from the Macintosh:
- Cost - The price of the 2019 Mac Pro may not be affordable to some who want an internally expandable, headless Macintosh.
- Questions about Apple's commitment to the professional market - The six plus years Apple neglected this market and their unwillingness to provide anything to help professionals understand how Apple will support them in the future may be of concern.
- Having the absolute latest and greatest hardware - The 2019 Mac Pro doesn't use all the latest technology but it certainly offers a powerful solution. IMO professionals don't need the absolute top performance, they need highend performance. I feel the 2019 Mac Pro offers such performance even if it's not the top (though I'm waiting for benchmarks of the MPX GPU solution which, at least initially, may offer some outstanding performance).
No. I don't like Windows. I have screaming fast hackintoshes with enough power to spin up a windows VM and some VR. There are some excellent solutions out there, hardware wise.
I absolutely agree with jasonmvp; been using UNIX for years (and FreeBSD) and its a joy to be hold. Windows is an absolute laugh; "powershell?" really? try where (oops, don't know that command??) whereis (oops, don't know that command??) ssh (oops, don't know that command??) Why do people think there sooo many aggressive window users?? I use macOS now and its bliss on a daily base
Worked on Mac since the early 1990’s.
Why change a whole computer ecosystem for the sake of saving a few pennies over the life of the computer especially considering the considerably higher resale value of a Mac.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it.
Why change a whole computer ecosystem for the sake of saving a few pennies over the life of the computer especially considering the considerably higher resale value of a Mac.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it.
Last edited: