The Great Windows/Linux/Mac Debate!!

PsychicHeart · Wed 08/11/2006 05:05:59

Well, the Title is pretty self explanatory.
What do you think is the greater OS, Windows, Linux or Mac?
I'm going to say Windows, but this may not be fair to Linux, as i have spent plenty of time with Mac and Windows, but only about 5 hours messing around with Linux.
What's your opinion, Windows Linux or Mac??
Cheers,
Fluke

BOYD1981 · Wed 08/11/2006 05:38:49

so basically you want to start ANOTHER operating system debate?
well i haven't used a mac (i don't particularly want to either), but i have used linux (ubuntu) and windows (versions 95 to XP, exluding ME, and i hate XP), and for me i'd definitely have to say Windows simply because of the great ease of use, software support and how it has revolutionised the PC market, making PCs available to more people thus creating more demand therefore creating lower prices.
linux is too command line oriented and just down right confusing to a first time user (i got a headache the first day i used it), it's a nice distraction from windows and has some nice features, but it's also missing some nice features that are standard in windows, and there's always the zealotical "it's free and open source" side to it, but that doesn't make it a great alternative as nearly all computers are bundled with windows these days anyway.
basically this thread isn't going anywhere other than the path of personal preference and eventual flame war.

PsychicHeart · Wed 08/11/2006 05:41:34

Hehe, no flame war intended, just a polite discussion of which System people prefer!

DGMacphee · Wed 08/11/2006 06:51:02

i saw on an advert that macs wear cool clothes and pcs are all square and businessman like

i base all my future purchases on such ads because i am a hip consumer

yo dawg g mofo word BUY A MAC

PsychicHeart · Wed 08/11/2006 07:38:20

Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 08/11/2006 06:51:02
i saw on an advert that macs wear cool clothes and pcs are all square and businessman like

i base all my future purchases on such ads because i am a hip consumer

yo dawg g mofo word BUY A MAC

Heh, we consumers are such sheep.

SSH · Wed 08/11/2006 09:25:34

HPUX ROX U ALL

Babar · Wed 08/11/2006 11:22:35

A friend who works at Microsoft told me that Vista will cause a LOT of problems in pirated versions. No idea how reliable his information is, but if it is true, then there will be a lot of problems.

I guess I should start trying to figure out Linux.

Sam. · Wed 08/11/2006 13:33:19

or *gasp* buy it?

ManicMatt · Wed 08/11/2006 13:41:43

I kinda miss my Amiga Workbench OS, actually. Not only did the computer boot up about twenty times faster than a PC did at the time(And still would beat it), but it left me alone, and that was nice. And it multitasked better too.

Tuomas · Wed 08/11/2006 14:01:00

yeah, Amiga's workbench used to be so simple and all...

Privateer Puddin' · Wed 08/11/2006 14:14:18

Always a fan of OS/2 myself, good times...

Babar · Wed 08/11/2006 16:06:22

I'd love to buy it Zooty, but from where? Definitely not from here. I don't think there is a single unsold original CD in the whole country. You want me to order it? Ahhh...to give customs a treat?

Darth Mandarb · Wed 08/11/2006 20:00:29

As funny as I think the new Mac/PC commercials are (and they are humorous!) the over-all point of them irritates me.

When that guy says "Macs are better for creative stuff" I just feel the urge to punch him. There is nothing he can do on a MAC that I can't do just as good (if not better) on a PC. Maybe 15 years ago Macs were better for graphics stuff but, not sorry to say, that's just not the case anymore.

Now-a-days it more depends on the skill of the user, not the computer.

I can't wait till the people those commercials actually get to buy a Mac realize that, basically, the message is "If you're too stupid/unable to work a PC, buy a Mac!" They're basically insulting their customers.

Don't get me wrong ... I don't dislike Macs. They're very pretty and fully functional. But they aren't, in my opinion, any better than a PC.

Now I know some will say "But macs don't get viruses!!" to which I reply, "yeah ... and when Macs are 99% of what computer users are on (rather than 1% as they are now compared to the 99% using PCs), they will have just as many viruses as PCs do." To say that Macs are more secure is just silly. Silly I say!

Oh wait!! Mac's power cords just *plop noise* pop right off. Riiiightt ... 'cause I know that is handy as I have ALL my power cords laid across heavy traffic areas. So clever!!

Let the Mac-addicts ranting begin

enkerro · Wed 08/11/2006 20:18:35

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 08/11/2006 20:00:29
As funny as I think the new Mac/PC commercials are (and they are humorous!) the over-all point of them irritates me.

When that guy says "Macs are better for creative stuff" I just feel the urge to punch him. There is nothing he can do on a MAC that I can't do just as good (if not better) on a PC. Maybe 15 years ago Macs were better for graphics stuff but, not sorry to say, that's just not the case anymore.

Now-a-days it more depends on the skill of the user, not the computer.

I can't wait till the people those commercials actually get to buy a Mac realize that, basically, the message is "If you're too stupid/unable to work a PC, buy a Mac!" They're basically insulting their customers.

Don't get me wrong ... I don't dislike Macs. They're very pretty and fully functional. But they aren't, in my opinion, any better than a PC.

Now I know some will say "But macs don't get viruses!!" to which I reply, "yeah ... and when Macs are 99% of what computer users are on (rather than 1% as they are now compared to the 99% using PCs), they will have just as many viruses as PCs do." To say that Macs are more secure is just silly. Silly I say!

Oh wait!! Mac's power cords just *plop noise* pop right off. Riiiightt ... 'cause I know that is handy as I have ALL my power cords laid across heavy traffic areas. So clever!!

Let the Mac-addicts ranting begin

Oh, don't get me started on this...

I, myself, prefer Macs.
Why? I'll tell you why..
OS X is more stable than XP.
It's much nicer (and a hell of a lot easier) for me to make music, work, surf the 'net and chat on OS X.
As for AGS editor and some windows-only games.. I just use bootcamp for that

.
I haven't installed any antivirus program on this Mac, because there's no need.

I remember someone asking me on IRC, that do macs have any kind of task manager -like program..
Well, yes there is an app called Activity Monitor which is same as the Task Manager on windows.

Oh and Mandarb, that magnetic power chord is pretty nice

I've had many situations where a normal powerchord would've made my laptop fall down

Anyways, those are my thoughts.

ManicMatt · Wed 08/11/2006 20:58:00

"I haven't installed any antivirus program on this Mac, because there's no need."

Just like an Amiga! (Online, yes)

Darth Mandarb · Wed 08/11/2006 21:19:11

Quote from: Enkerro on Wed 08/11/2006 20:18:35OS X is more stable than XP.

And when OS X has the massive amount of users that PCs have (and it needs to be 'opened up' more, to allow for the flexibility needed with such a massive user-base, I assure you it'll be just as (if not more) unstable than XP.

Quote from: Enkerro on Wed 08/11/2006 20:18:35It's much nicer (and a hell of a lot easier) for me to make music, work, surf the 'net and chat on OS X.

I'm not really sure how it can be easier to surf the 'net and chat? IM and MSN and all those chat programs could be used by a 3 year old. As far as music/work being nicer and easier I just don't buy it. I've worked on both and saw no real difference. Just two differring ways of accomplishing the same thing. Sorry, just sounds like a mac-fan jumpin' on the bandwagon of "things just work better on a mac" and all that hooey.

Quote from: Enkerro on Wed 08/11/2006 20:18:35I haven't installed any antivirus program on this Mac, because there's no need.

Did you know that the Titanic was unsinkable?

BOYD1981 · Wed 08/11/2006 21:36:08

i don't get how people rate OS stability, the only time i've seen a BSOD on Win2k is when i was using Shareaza, but now i can go weeks, even months without having to reboot, and the only reason i usually need to is because some other programme stops working (such as VLC).
so if your pc keeps crashing for no apparent reason it's more likely you're doing something stupid or have duff hardware, it's just easier to say "BLOODY MICROSOFT UNSTABLE WINDOWS!".
which brings me to my next point, if it is a piece of hardware that has failed it's much easier to replace and even actually upgrade it for a PC than for a mac.
also, viruses have nothing to do with the operating system, it's the stupid pricks that are making the viruses that are to blame, there shouldn't be a need to make an operating system secure, but because there are dickheads out there they have to be.

TheYak · Thu 09/11/2006 10:40:54

Linux is certainly less bloated and more capable than Windows. However, once you attempt to add on ease-of-use GUIs, plug-ins, emulators, et al, it approaches the same bloat as XP. It's certainly more secure.

Macs are more secure, partially because of the lack of hacker/virus-writer interest, but also because of the basis of its user setup. Vista will partially remedy this with its removal of a reliance upon admin/root rights for general use, but it will likely be a PITA for system tweakers.

My beef with Macs more revolves around how dumbed-down it all is. The OS is easy as hell to use, but trying to customize system settings can be a bitch unless you resort to console commands. Things I should be able to do by default, I find I have to score some shareware/open-source bit of software to remedy. Given the availability of free software for Macs, it usually ends up wasting hours of my time. Of course, if I just played games, surfed, and did some multimedia stuff with it I'd probably appreciate the simplicity.

As for power, by all Mac user accounts I should be impressed w/ the 2Ghz Intel Core Duo w/ 1.5GB 667mhz DDR I'm using, but it feels at most about half as fast as the home machine I've had for a year and a half (A64 3200+ @ 2.44ghz, 2GB @ ~446 DDR), and is definitely a hell of a lot slower with Adobe PS CS2 (loading, saving, filters). I'd really like to spend more time with a non-iMac Core Duo for a better assessment.

enkerro · Thu 09/11/2006 19:36:43

It's slower because Adobe Photoshop isn't Universal yet. It's still the old PPC version so Intel OS X has to run it through Rosetta to run it and blargh

I don't know, but is Adobe supposed to release a Universal version of Photoshop next year?

Kweepa · Thu 09/11/2006 20:03:20

Quote from: Hooey on Thu 09/11/2006 19:36:43
I don't know, but is Adobe supposed to release a Universal version of Photoshop next year?

Yes, the next version of Photoshop will be a Universal binary. After that, Universal binaries of Elements etc. You will have to upgrade though. I guess they're taking so long because it uses a lot of plugins that have to be converted? The switch from Codewarrior to XCode shouldn't be that bad.