switch to Mac or stick with Windows

By AMDIsTheBest010
May 1, 2006
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 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
  2. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 10,074   +13

    well considering the mac market keeps getting smaller and smaller.....
  3. AMDIsTheBest010

    AMDIsTheBest010 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 546

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

    Mictlantecuhtli TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    Where did this come from?
  5. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 13,352   +301

    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:)
  6. halo71

    halo71 Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,289

    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.
  7. Fiziks

    Fiziks Banned Posts: 229

    yes, thank you jobeard for that
  8. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 13,352   +301

    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.
  9. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 10,074   +13

    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....
  10. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster Newcomer, in training Posts: 430

    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.
  11. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 13,352   +301

    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).
     
  12. AMDIsTheBest010

    AMDIsTheBest010 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 546

    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?????
  13. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster Newcomer, in training Posts: 430

    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.
  14. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 13,352   +301

    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.
  15. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster Newcomer, in training Posts: 430

    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)
  16. AMDIsTheBest010

    AMDIsTheBest010 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 546

    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????
  17. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster Newcomer, in training Posts: 430

    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.
  18. clcrow9705

    clcrow9705 Newcomer, in training

    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
  19. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster Newcomer, in training Posts: 430

    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.
  20. AMDIsTheBest010

    AMDIsTheBest010 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 546

    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
  21. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,489   +292

    Eh? I don't know what hardware you were using when you expierenced this. I've got a pretty high end PowerPC Powerbook with 1.5 gigs of RAM and I never have to wait to open finder or the applications directory in there. But my sister has a G3 iBook 600mhz I think with something less than 768 megs of RAM and she has no wait times either.
  22. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    I've seen this behaviour only when the computer has just been restarted, and these things aren't in memory yet.

    Actually, Software Update checks updates for all applications in Applications folder.

    And please, people (not just DragonMaster), educate yourself about OSX memory management. It's different from Windows.

    Memory Management in OSX

    An Overview of Memory Usage in Mac OSX

    Mac OS X: Reading system memory usage in Activity Monitor

  23. DragonMaster

    DragonMaster Newcomer, in training Posts: 430

    But not 3rd apps : Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, OnyX, Monolingual, etc.

    Read the sites. It's much like Windows /w a registry tweak except that it uses more memory.
  24. WinDoWsMoNoPoLy

    WinDoWsMoNoPoLy Newcomer, in training Posts: 269

    I really do hate Windows because it eventually always crashes. You could have a computer running Windows not connected to the internet for years and it would eventually get the BSOD.

    Theres alot of really stupid problems i've had with windows, such as: Integrated video, going to put in a new one. Turn the integrated video off in BIOS, put new card in. Won't boot because the integrated video driver is still there. Now if you turned it off wouldn't you think Windows being the high-tech OS it is would remove that driver? Nope, you have to remove it, turn off the integrated and then put the card in. And even after that Windows on a few occassions put that driver back.

    One of the main downfalls of Windows is that it never changes priorities. You can load a full screen game where you can't even see the GUI and the priorities DO NOT CHANGE. It should decrease the priorities for the GUI, and turn off the services in the background that do things that are useless when your in a full screen game. Instead they stay the same and your game is left with what is left over.

    I hate autodetecting to. It constantly monitors for new devices using RAM. Linux autodetects stuff like your monitor, mouse, keyboard on the install, everything you need to get into the GUI and set everything else up. Now you could make Windows like that and save RAM. And in Windows it would be easier to do. Add New Hardware, put in your driver disk, there ya go.

    I have also heard people say that Windows BSODs eventually because it gets lost with in the mass amount of code and files it produces. Look at all the files windows builds up, icon cache, prefetcher, indexing, the MFT, System Caching (which can be changed in the registry) using all the available memory to cache by default. Think about that, having say 2GIG of memory and your systemcache using all the extra and your program loading slow. I have a batch file made to clear most of these though.

    Then the crapload of useless services that run in the background on windows eating RAM as well.

    Windows has the idea really, they just have stupid setting for most of these options (which really aren't options if you dont know what regedit is like half the people that use computers). Most of those options can be changed. Sadly prioities can't be. If it could i'm sure i could run games on Windows just as good as i do on Linux.

    I have no opinions on Macs.... never used one. I've seen the GUI and it looks pretty sexy.

    Speaking of GUI everyone talks about how KDE or GNOME or whatever are so customizable. Well if you've ever tried the Windows GUI is to, My desktop has a toolbar underneath the regular one with all of my drives, run, my documents, ect. on it. Then my quicklaunch has 17 icons in it(i just counted them) with all of the programs i use in it. They say the most common button clicked in windows is the start button, well not for me.

    Windows is more customizable than you think, hell my start button says "Stop" i thought that was amusing.... Editing the explorer.exe :p.
    Theres even a way to get rid of the recycling bin. I always hated that because XP almost offered a clean desktop with no icons but you always had the recycling bin. It can be done through regedit :p

    The only thing windows really lacks is different sizes icons for toolbars and more color choices for the toolbars and transparency. Which probably eat RAM as well. I have my taskbar set to autohide so it looks like image preview when i dont have anything up.

    But really you get my idea, if Windows made a new edition that was made for performance with all of the things i've stated changed that way and probably a hundred or more more than that it would be a great OS. I mean hey the computer illiterate might have a hard time getting used to it(or they could stay with XP) but i would get high FPS in my games :p

    Ok i'm done blabbing.
  25. TonyGuitar

    TonyGuitar Newcomer, in training Posts: 92

    Switch to Mac or keep Win? RE: lost time -Malware??

    First person who offers a basic bundle of browser, Email client, word processor and data base that is malware resistant for $49.95 is going to make LOTS of money.

    Call me spoiled, but twice daily headlines like this are getting tiresome.
    =================
    Critical Word Vulnerability Uncovered
    By Nate Mook, BetaNews
    May 19, 2006, 5:47 PM
    Security researchers have discovered a zero-day vulnerability in Microsoft Word, which is already being actively exploited by hackers in China and Taiwan. Microsoft's Security Response Center says it is working with antivirus vendors to prevent attacks and plans to release a security patch on June 13.
    =================
    Windows has certainly become THE target.

    Mozilla is part way there.

    They just need to add a W.P. and database that are bulletproof.

    What is your idea of a RELIABLE alternate suite to Windows?

    Billy Gates is doing his best to be nice to me, [the little guy], but he is too successful and thus a main target.

    I need a low profile alternate so as not to waste so much time on cleaning malware.

    I see a mess of unfinished possible alternates out there, Redhat, Ubuntu, Mac, Mozzilla, what would you choose? TG
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.