Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?

[FreeSatania]

I would recommend a mac to anyone that needs to run a UNIX based os but doesn't have the skills to run linux. I would recommend linux to everyone else. I would recommend MS to no one.

Linux all the way. That's how I roll. I like macs but they are overpriced for what they are. The laptops aren't so bad, since the case is abs plastic or titanium and you end up paying to get a laptop like that anyway.

I never found the mac all that easy to use - it does work better out of the box than linux or windows but if you need to do anything your quickly googling and hacking just as hard as you would have to if you ran linux. Still I've yet to be unable to do somthing I wanted to on a mac (or linux), but then I don't play games.

[Tekania]

Cedega is so not up-to-date that their last version update was WAY back in the dark ages of last Thursday...

Sure, they can make updates every nights, that doesn't mean it is up to date to the state of the art.

Oh, then who defines "state of the art" in the realm of running applications requiring Windows/DirectX API's under Linux? Last time I checked, the Wine Project and its forks (WineX -> Cedega) were the only ones doing it; so they define state of the art...

StarOffice / OpenOffice is the same as MicroSoft Office, I can create, edit and manipulate any document that MS Office can, so yes it is....

You can create, edit an manipulate documents with notepad too. MS Office is far richer in functionality as StarOffice, it can handle 3 or 4 times more languages, etc... It is also much more user-friendly. The document compatibility in StarOffice is a drama: works only with the older versions of MS Office and I wouldn’t use 'special' features as..oho...tables.

Funny, my OpenOffice works fine with Office2007 xlsx, docx ,etc files... Shit, it was easier for them to make it do it, First time MS has defined something of theirs under an ISO...

No, there is no Visual Studio... there are several hundred IDE (Integrated Development Environments) however... There would never be a Visual Studio, because what would be the point in an application whose only purpose is designing applications for a platform that it is not on....

And there are several thousands IDE for windows as well. But not one, and that's including the Linux variants, are matching the MS version in richness and user-friendly capacities.

Visual Studio is the single reason why most M$ apps are buggy... It encourages people to program, who have no fucking clue what they are doing... And then further encourages them to keep programming. Software industry would be better off without Visual Studio, whether Linux was around or not.

"zillion"? How old are you, 6?

(oh Oh!, we gots like a gagillion-zillion more than you!)

Sure, the flaming starts when we are out of arguments, isn't? Linux girls forget that the developers army on the Windows side is far bigger as on the Linux side. And many of them create free open source software too.

Actually, most of the "Windows Open Source Projects" are Linux projects as well, that are ported to Windows... So it's not a contest between two groups, like you falsely so claim. See, a good chunk are people like me, who work with, and work on, and use multiple systems and platforms... We're not limited such as you are... Our computing knowledge is much wider to handle a larger group of clientele. There are even F/OSS projects which are designed to run in WINE, so as to be 100% compatible to run upon either a Linux or MS Windows... [And SAMBA kicks SFU's ass]

Why? It's quite a capable system... It's also far more fault-tolerant than MicroSoft Windows... We also measure out uptime in years, rather than seconds

So? It's still a niche product with a user base of 1% or even less. It’s very uncommon that my Windows computers are crashing. I worked for dozen multinationals, all of them are using Windows as major OS. Uptime, fault tolerances are nice items, but when you evaluate an OS you have to look to the entire package. A serious business is always looking for the quick buck and they can't be all stupid due they selected Windows as their premium OS. If Windows computers would be ‘exploding’ all the time, those companies would have chosen another OS.

Entire package = TCO, Total Cost of Ownership... Which includes hardware costs, software costs, IT staff and retraining. My Windows based clients spend somewhere in the order of 7 times more per year in maintenance and upkeep costs (OS repairs/fixes, patching, cleanups) than clients based on *nix... And even more importantly... It's not the end-user systems which bring in the high extra costs... It's the servers.... Windows Servers require more maintenance to keep running than Linux servers... And unfortunately most large corps do not do very good TCO's when making plans... Most of the time, the two areas they forget are maintenance and ITstaff-retraining or replacement... Because a MCSE is not going to know how to properly configure and secure a *nix server... Requires much better knowledge of how things work than the M$ tendency to wizard-drive everything does.

super-servers? Not going to have that anymore... Could connect thin-clients to a quad-core dell box and have multiple users on it with linux... Unlike Windows, Linux is an actual multi-user system...

No super-servers? Are you sure about that one? Larry Ellison of Oracle is still having wet dreams about it. And in what direction is Chrome OS pushing you think?

They can push there... means nothing... Super-server = old days of Mainframes... Nothing really new... Linux can be a super-server...

Linux is just better designed...

I don't know and you don't know either unless you are one of the chief programmers at the OS department of MS. And even in that case...

Well, unlike M$ Linux (as a community) actually designed their kernel themselves... They didn't steal it from someone else and work it into their system.

Microsoft could be around awhile... still doesn't change the fact that the only reason they are is because the average computer user is a blithering idiot. And the market is driven by these blithering idiots.

Maybe how you look at people is the reason why Linux will never will be welcomed by the so-called blithering idiots.

At MS they try to customize software for the people and with every version they are closing the gap.
In the Linux world, it are the people that have to customize themselves to the software.

Computer users doesn't have to be programmer guru's to work with computers, just like most of us know nothing about the working of a car but still are able to drive around.[/quote]

There is little to no "customizing" with MS... You get what they give you...
Yep, Linux software is customizable by the end-user. That's the idea behind it... You don't have Lord M$ lording over everything you do.
You don't need to be a computer guru to run Linux either. As a workstation it is exactly like windows with more uptime...

My Windows Vista box at home has only one use... It's an expensive gaming rig... Everything else I do on Linux... Including support for all my clients regardless of what OS their systems use... There is far more cross-platform compatibility in Linux than is available for Windows (Short of running a VM in Windows... But hell, I could do that on Linux too so no kudos there either)

[Tekania]

As the thread starter I must ask that you keep nonsense/horrible grammar posts to a minimum. My eyes are burning from the amount of garbage I just read.

But back to the conversation.

After review, I must ask why all people who use Microsoft are considered 'blithering idiots'. I do not understand how using a more user-friendly OS makes someone an idiot. As a Linux user, I must say that this systyem is just as difficult to use as any Windows machine...or Mac for that matter...

No, you misunderstand, not everyone who uses MS is a blithering idiot... merely that blithering idiots make up the average market of computer users, and thus define the market... And define the direction of M$ products... Even MCSE's are not at all that impressive when stacked next to CCNE's, SCNE's, LPIC's (etc), because M$ even encourages their own certified professionals to really not know much about what they are doing...

[FreeSatania]

Tekania I agree with you.

[Fartsniffage]

No, you misunderstand, not everyone who uses MS is a blithering idiot... merely that blithering idiots make up the average market of computer users, and thus define the market... And define the direction of M$ products... Even MCSE's are not at all that impressive when stacked next to CCNE's, SCNE's, LPIC's (etc), because M$ even encourages their own certified professionals to really not know much about what they are doing...

Ouch, I'm currently doing my MCSE qualification.

[Tekania]

I'm waiting for the first that will say that open source programming is communist behaviour.

Oh, it is... It's intercooperative community groups which take part in community development of software...

The difference being, unlike in the Commercial world, where you pay for proprietary software, and then pay additionally for support... Under FOSS software is free-to-little cost, and money is made in support of standardized software. This also means you can shift vendors without encountering the compatibility issues normally associated in the historic "commercial" (hate that term, there are FOSS commercial projects) software world...

This is the future... Closed Development corps like Intuit, Adobe and Microsoft are dinosaurs that will one day have to adapt, or die...

[Cheztope]

I've never had problems with my mac. PC's are so slow. Also, the applications a mac can hold is tremendous. I absolutely love my mac and will never go back to PC's. *Hissing sound while saying PC*

[Tiesabre]

PCs until the day comes I grow a rod out my ass and decide its cool to buy horrifically overpriced MAC computers.

[Neu California]

I've never had problems with my mac. PC's are so slow. Also, the applications a mac can hold is tremendous. I absolutely love my mac and will never go back to PC's. *Hissing sound while saying PC*

Okay, I'd like to see the specs on the PC that gave you the idea that they were slow. Mine, you start it up, in one minute you're on the login screen, click your profile, your desktop's up and ready for use. Older games don't load very fast but newer ones blaze the trails pretty quick

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know. I'm used to using Macs, and always have. I've been told their better as well for video editing and such, which is why as a film student I got one.

However, their are so few good games for Macs. That's the one big draw back for me. That, and Macs are more expensive I believe.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Okay, I'd like to see the specs on the PC that gave you the idea that they were slow. Mine, you start it up, in one minute you're on the login screen, click your profile, your desktop's up and ready for use. Older games don't load very fast but newer ones blaze the trails pretty quick

I'm currently sitting in front of a fairly new WinXP machine. My normal computer is an EeePC -- in every way inferior from a spec point of view. It still boots faster, loads the desktop faster, starts a browser faster, etc. And that's including my time typing where needed.

[Dakini]

I challenge you to a right click duel.

Sure. *pushes the touchpad with two fingers instead of one*

Macs can right click.

Between mac and windows, there are ups and downs to both. There are more compatible programs with windows, however, os x is unix based which means I use all the same commands on the command line as in linux. In addition, the terminal does not crash on os x nearly as often as cygwin and similar programs do on windows so if I want to work remotely on a linux machine, it's more reliable to do in os x.

Also, I wouldn't bother with a windows operating system past xp.

[Western Mercenary Unio]

I use Windows, but want a Mac for creative stuff.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

I use Windows, but want a Mac for creative stuff.

what "creative" stuff would you like to do but feel you cant on a windows machine?

[Dakini]

A trained monkey could assemble a PC these days...

and that is why PC's will outsell Macs and other 'systems'.

because the PC is for the larger audiences. the common user.

and why, for all it's problems, the PC will continue to outsell the rest.

Yep... Also why Linux gets its "difficulty" myths... It's easier to "install" Windows (by install they mean, when they open their Dell box, Windows is already been installed on it)... Most people who have issues with Linux installs, can't make it through Windows installs too...

Have you tried installing Gentoo?

It's not trivial. But then I guess if you were looking for trivial installs and easy operation, you wouldn't be going for Gentoo.

[Getbrett]

I use Windows, but want a Mac for creative stuff.

what "creative" stuff would you like to do but feel you cant on a windows machine?

Historically, Macs were better for things like Photoshop. Now, not so much. It takes a very powerful Mac machine (and therefore very expensive) to use Photoshop on that platform now - and it still runs slower than on a cheaper, less powerful PC machine.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

I use Windows, but want a Mac for creative stuff.

what "creative" stuff would you like to do but feel you cant on a windows machine?

Historically, Macs were better for things like Photoshop. Now, not so much.

That's not entirely true. In professional graphic design circles Macs are almost exclusively used. This isn't because they are more powerful or more efficient (quite the opposite, actually). This is because the colors you see on your screen won't match up with the colors you see when you print them out and publish your work. For some reason Macs are better at displaying your colors true to what they will appear when you print them out.

If you're messing around with family photos or a personal website or blog, or even doing amateur movie making, Windows is just fine.

[Tekania]

No, you misunderstand, not everyone who uses MS is a blithering idiot... merely that blithering idiots make up the average market of computer users, and thus define the market... And define the direction of M$ products... Even MCSE's are not at all that impressive when stacked next to CCNE's, SCNE's, LPIC's (etc), because M$ even encourages their own certified professionals to really not know much about what they are doing...

Ouch, I'm currently doing my MCSE qualification.

Nothing wrong with getting the cert (I have it)... Just that it doesn't actually require as much working knowledge as others... I hold multiple certifications...

[Getbrett]

That's not entirely true. In professional graphic design circles Macs are almost exclusively used. This isn't because they are more powerful or more efficient (quite the opposite, actually). This is because the colors you see on your screen won't match up with the colors you see when you print them out and publish your work. For some reason Macs are better at displaying your colors true to what they will appear when you print them out.

If you're messing around with family photos or a personal website or blog, or even doing amateur movie making, Windows is just fine.

It should be noted that I am a professional illustrator/designer. I use Windows. The issue you've brought up about colour representation has nothing to do with the OS, it's entirely to do with the monitor and its calibration.

Historically, Photoshop, Illustrator and other design programs originated on the Mac platform. However, in my professional and personal experience they work much better on Windows now.

[Dakini]

I use Windows, but want a Mac for creative stuff.

what "creative" stuff would you like to do but feel you cant on a windows machine?

Historically, Macs were better for things like Photoshop. Now, not so much. It takes a very powerful Mac machine (and therefore very expensive) to use Photoshop on that platform now - and it still runs slower than on a cheaper, less powerful PC machine.

You are aware that Vista tends to require higher specs to just run (let alone run well) than os x, correct? The operating system itself is so bloated that you need a fast computer to just get it to work. So I find it very unlikely that you need higher specs to run photoshop on a mac than on a computer running windows.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

That's not entirely true. In professional graphic design circles Macs are almost exclusively used. This isn't because they are more powerful or more efficient (quite the opposite, actually). This is because the colors you see on your screen won't match up with the colors you see when you print them out and publish your work. For some reason Macs are better at displaying your colors true to what they will appear when you print them out.

If you're messing around with family photos or a personal website or blog, or even doing amateur movie making, Windows is just fine.

It should be noted that I am a professional illustrator/designer. I use Windows. The issue you've brought up about colour representation has nothing to do with the OS, it's entirely to do with the monitor and its calibration.

Historically, Photoshop, Illustrator and other design programs originated on the Mac platform. However, in my professional and personal experience they work much better on Windows now.

I dunno. My gf is a graphic design student and they make all of them get macs, I thought that was why.

[Getbrett]

You are aware that Vista tends to require higher specs to just run (let alone run well) than os x, correct? The operating system itself is so bloated that you need a fast computer to just get it to work. So I find it very unlikely that you need higher specs to run photoshop on a mac than on a computer running windows.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Photoshop and (especially) Illustrator work slower on a top of the range 24" iMac (costing £1199) than on my shitty little Vista laptop (costing £300).

[Getbrett]

That's not entirely true. In professional graphic design circles Macs are almost exclusively used. This isn't because they are more powerful or more efficient (quite the opposite, actually). This is because the colors you see on your screen won't match up with the colors you see when you print them out and publish your work. For some reason Macs are better at displaying your colors true to what they will appear when you print them out.

If you're messing around with family photos or a personal website or blog, or even doing amateur movie making, Windows is just fine.

It should be noted that I am a professional illustrator/designer. I use Windows. The issue you've brought up about colour representation has nothing to do with the OS, it's entirely to do with the monitor and its calibration.

Historically, Photoshop, Illustrator and other design programs originated on the Mac platform. However, in my professional and personal experience they work much better on Windows now.

I dunno. My gf is a graphic design student and they make all of them get macs, I thought that was why.

Macs come with better monitors as standard. The platform itself is shit, though.

[Dakini]

You are aware that Vista tends to require higher specs to just run (let alone run well) than os x, correct? The operating system itself is so bloated that you need a fast computer to just get it to work. So I find it very unlikely that you need higher specs to run photoshop on a mac than on a computer running windows.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Photoshop and (especially) Illustrator work slower on a top of the range 24" iMac (costing £1199) than on my shitty little Vista laptop (costing £300).

Yes, so what you're saying is that photoshop is a magical program that works in a way opposite to games in terms of processing power and system requirements. I've definitely seen computer spec requirements for games where the processor speed required was higher for a vista machine than for xp or os x (Sims 3 exists on all of those).

I mean, I'm not going to claim that buying a mac desktop is a good plan (because I don't think it is unless you buy a tower model), but that I find your claim dubious at best.

[Getbrett]

You are aware that Vista tends to require higher specs to just run (let alone run well) than os x, correct? The operating system itself is so bloated that you need a fast computer to just get it to work. So I find it very unlikely that you need higher specs to run photoshop on a mac than on a computer running windows.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Photoshop and (especially) Illustrator work slower on a top of the range 24" iMac (costing £1199) than on my shitty little Vista laptop (costing £300).

Yes, so what you're saying is that photoshop is a magical program that works in a way opposite to games in terms of processing power and system requirements. I've definitely seen computer spec requirements for games where the processor speed required was higher for a vista machine than for xp or os x (Sims 3 exists on all of those).

I mean, I'm not going to claim that buying a mac desktop is a good plan (because I don't think it is unless you buy a tower model), but that I find your claim dubious at best.

Photoshop works slower on Macs than on comparable PC hardware running Windows. This is simply a fact I've come to recognise in my professional experience. I don't know if it's because the Macs I typically use aren't as efficiently configured as my own machine or because Photoshop/Illustrator on those platforms is simply less efficient. That's my experience, though.