hi all-

I had benn recently reading that many ppl say that Mac OS X is better

please give your opinions and comments on this

thanks

well considering the mac market keeps getting smaller and smaller.....

well i have heard that macs softare is built better and is protected from viruses

these discussions / arguments are 'religious' in that each proponent is certain
that the other is 'innate evil' and usually come from blind faith without any factual background.

imo, asking 'what is the difference between X & Y' is far more reasonable than
asking 'which is best', unless you enjoy watching a cat and dog fight

Well put joebeard!

AMD...I've always thought that MAC OS was much better for graphics rendering and the such...I know many people who are graphic artists and illustrators that swear by the MAC OS.

Just my .02 cents.

yes, thank you jobeard for that

This is reason we got a Mac back in '87 for the wife to learn desktop publishing. This is
the niche market where Macs excel. I needed to ensure that I didn't become
her 24/7 help desk, as I was very busy with programming Unix & Mainframes.
While the developers were kicking and screaming at the parochial
requirements to create Mac programs, the end result was a constant
Man/Machine interface that was easy to learn and once learned, that usage
was common amongst ALL Mac programs. Eg, no Mac programs used the
Function keys, keyboard shortcuts were also mandated. My big favorite was
the absence of the registry!!! There wasn't even a $PATH variable or disk
letters to futz with; just drag the program to some other named HD and you
were done(yes, imo, scsi is great).

Today, Mac has FreeBSD at the core and much has changed -- but a lot is also very similar and friendly.

macs are not any less vulnerable to viri.... there's just less viri out there because the mac is less popular......

considering that apple has steadly lost market share in the computing market for years, I'm surpised they're still in business.

I have no doubt that probably some of their software may be superior or easier to use or have other user friendly features, but when you factor in that the IBM compatible market is so vastly huge compared to apple and the fact that the variety and selection of software available to the PC market is so great - why bother with a mac?

Even apple is now running intel based motherboards.... they are having to concede defeat - even if only indirectly....

But for 3D, no...

In fact, it wasn't the OS. Mac was better for graphics because Adobe was apparently running faster on PowerPC. Or, maybe it was because back in the DOS days, Macs had an interface. I think that the "one better than the other" is just a thing from the past.

If more and more persons run Macs, there will be viruses. The thing here is that people make viruses only for Windows.

Better written?
With good hardware, does Windows crash? No. Does MacOS crash? No. Does Linux crash? No. Can very biased person's brain understand this? No.

Well, there might be ONE thing : There are less persons writing program themselves for Mac so it's harder to fall on a PoS. The problem is that you have no app choice.

Btw, I think I know why Mac isn't popular. It's a software reason. I've been told by a guy that he doesn't make Mac programs because Apple never gave them any interesting writing platforms.

Well, you can choose.

Why not to get Windows :
- Security
- Don't like giving money to "Uncle Bill"
- Every viruses, spyware, etc. are made for it
- Cheesy GUI
- A lot of protection bloaty features(Can disable them)

Why not to get MacOS
- You *have* to use it with Macintosh (Mac doesn't come with AMD processors tho. Hardware choice small compared to PC)
- Gaming benchmarks show that it's slower with 3D games
- If you're cheap on RAM and often load big pictures, it uses 300-500MB of RAM at startup
- Software choice kinda limited
- Need to reinstall OS if an Apple-made app f*cks up.

Why not to use Linux :
- With the better looking interfaces, you suck around 250MBs of RAM at startup
- Almost only 3rd hardware drivers / can't always use hardware's full potential
- Popular Mac / Win soft not avail (But Wine and 3rd apps can fix most of the compatibility problems)
- If apps are not in RPM, etc. you have to compile them (Play in terminals)
- Dependencies for software sometimes get annoying. (That's a problem for users, but developers love to have choice)

Just the biggest differences. There are other difference too.

it's all about the $$$. The Wintel segment flew to dominance due to the
killer application, Ms Office. Commercial users needed compatibility for all the
documents, spreadsheets, and presentations they created. This effectively
eliminated both Macs and Unix/Linux platforms. When the OpenOffice suite
finally arrived, the horse was already out of the barn.

Even if Apple were to give away the hardware and software, no commercial users
would migrate --- the cost of deployment, new staff and training would still be the show stoppers.

not so. Prior to OS X, Mac programming was much harder than
the average programmer wanted to tackle. Realtime coding techniques take
a different approach and the payoff was in both performance and reliability.
Heck, even the demo product Hypercard was Visual Programming of the
message passing paradigm (today implemented as OO, C++, and Java).

In a perfect world, the 'best product' (oh I hate to even use this here), would
always win the the market place, but we live here and not there.
Strange circumstances lead to unexpected results -- often times called success or
market dominance.

Se la Guare (apologizes to the French speaking audience).

is it true that the mac enviromwent is easier to learn and retain that knowledge to uise in everyday stuff, and that the interface is much nicer?????

In fact, it looks simple, but there are complicated things.

I personally find KDE and Win easier to use than OS X's UI. The reason is called Finder. If your app is not in the Dock, you have to go in the Finder, wait for it to load, click Applications, wait, then you've got your apps listed in a ± easy-to-use list. I have the impression to return back with Windows 3.1's Program Manager re-vamped...

I state that KDE is easier to use compared to Mac OS because I'm not talking about terminal in Linux. Just the interface.

Depends upon your prior experience
(and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are those that are predicting the Apple desktop will be integrated into Linux.

I would recommend it for a first time user (like my wife) without requirements for
heavy compatibility with other users. Those with experience on other platforms
may wish to 'stay with what they know' (makes good sense).

btw: dbl-click on a document will always launch the application that created it,
regardless of the location of the program or the document itself. This will be true
even if the first save is performed as a SAVE AS some format other than the default.

The only 'feature' of OS X I dislike is the File Sharing.
Each user as a Profile (like Windows XP) and a Public/Drop_Box therein.
The Drop_Box can be shared easily, but getting access to other folders
is another story.

Yup, at the same time, I can tell you that when I switched to Win95, I was amazed with that Start Menu, which isn't present on OS X.

Well, it's sure that understanding drag&drop is easier than using a setup installer in Windows, but when you understand how the path / directory structure works, you find it much easier to click Next, Next, Yes, Next, Finish than Finder, Applications, open image file, drag&drop file(The hard part), close Finder, eject image.

I always hate Drag & Drop. I don't like to move the mouse while holding a button. (Maybe more a laziness reason)

There's one very convenient thing with Linux. When the app is coming with the OS, you just update it and the apps do at the same time! Yes, Windows Update updates WMP and IE, but that's about just it. MacOS updates Java, Safari, iTunes and QuickTime, but that's about just it. Linux, in my case, updates OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Wine, all my media players('cause you've got LOTS of choice here), and everything! The only exception is for other packages that Fedora didn't include in the repositories (That's the not-so-simple part of Linux. As long as you stick with the apps you can get from the OS, it's a real pleasure).

There are pros and cons to every OSes in fact. Some OSes are very basic to learn, but maybe that you can be more productive with an other OS with a more complicated interface. In fact, it's like A/V components : The best performing home theater receiver is generally the most complicated to use. The lower-end models are the ones you know on which button you have to press to use them. At the same time, you might be more satisfied with the high-end one once it's setup and you understood how it works. Maybe you'll then find it even simpler for you to use it.

What are you looking for? You know how to use Windows to call yourself like this so you're not a starter.

An other example : I'm so used to Linux that I find it easier to do file manipulations in the terminal rather than the interface. Sometimes there are just too much clicks to do everywhere... Yes, clicking to copy is "simple", but when you have to browse between every directories in a graphical "explorer" rather than just using a "small"
"cp ~/doc.txt ~/Documents/doc.txt" is longer.

I love Linux for it's filename auto-completion. When you're in a terminal(Well, in bash), you just press Escape twice and it
-1 Completes the name
-2 Gives you the possibilities that start with these letters

Much easier than browsing in tons of files, no? (Similar features exist in graphical file managers, but you have to leave the mouse to go on the keyboard type the letters and then return to the mouse clicking it)

I was thinking of buying one of the new mac minis with the intel core duo but they are so darn expensive 699 for the duo, for that much I can buy a Dell E510 Media center desktop with a 17" LCD Windows XP media, and a 160GB HD with 1GB RAM, it makes no sense y they are more expensive, i know that apples have always been expensive, mainly do to powerpc, buteven woth the intel swicht, the price has gone up on the mini with PP they were 499 starting out, the intel solo is 599!!! and the duo is 699. y would someone pay that when you can get an AMD Athlon 64 3500 in am emachines for 549, or a P4 w/HT in an E510????

When we consider that Dells are expensive... (Get yourself a locally-built system, or build one, and $ave!)


I recently did an approximate calculation of what custom PC you can buy at NewEgg for the price of a MacMini, and EVERYTHING was double spec. Twice the RAM, twice the HDD space, dual core processor, ATi X300 video(Compared to Intel video -> If you get the cheapest Mac Mini, and you decide to put Windows on it, games are gonna be slow), 7.1 sound, ... Macintosh is not a cheap machine. (If you take the smallest Mini, the RAM is too small for the OS to stop runnning in the swap file)

Wait a few months for AM2 to be there, get a good dual graphic card mobo, put a small CPU and graphic card in there and you will be able to get AMD 45nm quad-cores in 2007-2008.
or
Wait for AM2 and get yourself 939 CPUs which will get cheaper and cheaper as well as DDR400.

I am new to this forum so if it "sounds" like I am interupting the previous "conversation" my appoligies.

Windows is very unstable... although it can use any program out there it is still just too unreliable and unstable. Mac is somewhat reliable/stable considering it uses a lot of ram to boot up. And Linux is cool its pretty reliable/stable considering it also uses a lot of ram to boot up and there are a limited amount of programs that can run on it.

These are the reasons I use VMWare. I can experiment with different OS's at once.

Thats just my two cents.

clcrow9705

I think it's mostly due to hardware. There are some computers that run Windows and Linux without ever crashing or whatever, while there are some where Linux runs fine but Windows like a PoC.

MacOS is stable, but if something happens to the included software files, a reinstall (At least with OS X Darwin) of the complete OS is requiered.

Linux depends on everything, since you can change between different interfaces, kernels, drivers, and all. Linux can as well run on a 8MB RAM 16MHz computer or the latest one. If you use the KDE graphical interface, at least 512MB of RAM are needed to be able to do something. (A Linux distribution with KDE uses 200-300MBs at boot) But there are different graphical interfaces and some run even on 64MB of RAM well. It's the most complex OS to learn for some things, while it's simpler for others. There are a limited amount of popular native programs for Linux(There's Adobe Reader, Real Player and Macromedia Flash tho) , but you can solve this partially with 3rd apps or Wine / Crossover.

Idont know what hardware or softwafre u r using, but my current windows amchines is aboiut 2 yeard old an windows has crashed on my 3-4 times maybe