Operating Systems

[Jaredvcxz]

How about we talk about the goods, bads, similarities and differences of the many OSs? Any OS applies!

I'll lay down some rules here.

1) Be intelligent.
I don't want to sift through 100 posts of "Macs r bettur cuz tey has ipod". Every time you make an argument, support it with facts.

2) Don't be a troll.
Self explanitory.

3) Stay calm.
I really don't want this turning into a flame war. Then we get in trouble, this thread gets closed, and I cry or /wrist. Maybe both.

4) iPods and similar products are not computers.
And as such, they should not be mentioned here unless you're talking about how they interface with computers or something. These include all MP3 players, Haldhelds, and gaming systems.

Happy debating!

[emperorempoleon2]

I like Windows because it's compatible with all the programs I need to use. I'd only get a Mac for GarageBand, IMHO.

[piexing]

I wouldn't ever get a Mac because they're too expensive and Apple limits what you can do; you're not allowed to install OS X on anything that's not a Mac, but Apple doesn't even make you aware of that until you've already bought it. I don't have much experience with the operating system itself so I can't say anything about it, but I doubt I'll ever use it because I don't want to buy one of Apple's overpriced computers. I run Windows just because I play a lot of games and they all only run on Windows. Most everything else I use has a Linux version, would be unnecessary in Linux, or has alternatives for Linux. If I didn't play PC games, I would just run Linux. (Sorry, Richard Stallman. GNU+Linux. :3)

[FreezeWarp]

I am a major fan of Linux and its variants myself: I have used Fedora, OpenSuse, Mandriva, and Ubuntu, though only use the latter currently. I have never tried Mac OS X, but do use Linux for the following reasons:

1. Security. Linux is fundamentally AS secure as Windows if it is properly configured (SELinux, AppArmor, etc.), and far greater in security for the fact that people simply don't write viruses for it. From my experience, Linux without AppArmor or SELinux is incredibly insecure, effectively Windows ME.

2. Stability. Linux is more stable than Windows for a variety of reasons: faster updates, greater community-driven development, and general non-ickiness.

3. FREEdom! Linux is not only free to use, but free to dismantle, disgruntle, and reverse engineer in any way your heart so pleases. Updates are free for life, too =D

4. Application Support - Linux has equal if not better support for the top opensource applications in existent, even having seen the origins of GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) and VLC. Plus, Wine is doing some amazing stuff lately.

5. Customization - The KDE and Gnome window managers (especially KDE) are much more customizable than anything Microsoft has ever produced. Anywhere ever seen Compiz or KWin effects?

6. Progress - Linux is making progress much faster than either Max OS X or Windows are. Just years ago you couldn't find a Wireless, TV Tuner, or Printer driver anywhere. Today, driver support for the three is exceptional (albeit TV Tuner support may still be lackluster, while printer driver support only exists for newer prints). KDE 4.4 is visually and stabally equivalent to Windows 7, and Compiz far exceeds the 3D standards (in terms of both sheer awesomeness and memory overhead) of Windows 7.



Now, admittedly, there are still enough short-comings, but have originally migrated from Windows XP to Linux, then finding it even harder to switch back than it was to switch to, they far outweigh the benefits.

[TheRagingTyranitar]

I never used a Mac so I don't know how they are.They are expensive so I don't to buy them.

[LiteTheIronMan]

Yes, Macs are expensive, yes Macs can't run PC games, yes you can't install or custombuild them yourself. But otherwise, I really enjoy using Macs as opposed to Windows. Less buggy, iLife is brilliant, everything is neat and sleek, and the actual hardware just looks awesome.

As for Windows... to be quite honest, Windows and Linux are for those who are either:

A. normal users who are too cheap to buy anything else and don't really know anything about technology

B. Techsavvy people who put together their own computers

C. Gamers

D. Again, techsavvy people, but they only buy Windows because it's cheaper than Mac computers.

As far as I'm concerned Macs can basically solve A and D if you're willing to pay for it (which is understandable).

I really hate this Windows computer I'm on, with a burning passion. It's slow, low memory, and I'm pretty sure it's going to burn a hole through itself and explode in the near future.

[Jaredvcxz]

For your information: Linux has a program called Wine that allows you to run windows programs on Linux. I'm not sure of its stability with games, but I'm guessing it would work.

[LiteTheIronMan]

Does Wine work with Macs? I'm aware of its compatibility with Linux.

[Jaredvcxz]

No. But there are emulators for macs that are similar.

Except they cost money while Wine is free.

[piexing]

I think I'll insert my comments into a quote of your post like I've seen you do, Lite. :3

Originally Posted by LiteTheIronMan

Yes, Macs are expensive, yes Macs can't run PC games, yes you can't install or custombuild them yourself. But otherwise, I really enjoy using Macs as opposed to Windows. Less buggy, iLife is brilliant, everything is neat and sleek, and the actual hardware just looks awesome.
Yes, Macs are expensive, can't run PC games, and can't be custom-built. With my little experience with Mac OS X, I can agree that it's sleeker and less buggy than Windows, but the negatives you've stated are why I don't and won't use them. If I could just get a copy of the operating system and install it on the computer I already have, I'd try it, but Apple won't allow that.

As for Windows... to be quite honest, Windows and Linux are for those who are either:

A. normal users who are too cheap to buy anything else and don't really know anything about technology
I don't think this fits Linux at all; most of these people use Windows because it came preinstalled and they don't know of anything else. These seem to be the people who switch to Macs because they think it's the only other option when they may actually be better off with Linux.

B. Techsavvy people who put together their own computers

C. Gamers
Again, not Linux, though I'm going to assume that you just wanted to make this one list.

D. Again, techsavvy people, but they only buy Windows because it's cheaper than Mac computers.
Now I really think you shouldn't have even mentioned Linux here, because you're only talking about Windows.

As far as I'm concerned Macs can basically solve A and D if you're willing to pay for it (which is understandable).
There isn't much with which to disagree here, but I really wish more "normal users" knew about more than just Windows and Mac OS.

I really hate this Windows computer I'm on, with a burning passion. It's slow, low memory, and I'm pretty sure it's going to burn a hole through itself and explode in the near future.
Eh, that's nice. I really don't know what this has to do with operating systems. Are you trying to imply that it would be better if it were a Mac? And you might want to try formatting the drive and reinstalling Windows if it's been awhile since you've done so or installing a lighter Linux distribution.

I don't think most games (or at least the ones I play) run well on Wine, but there is a version of Wine for Mac OS X.

[Jaredvcxz]

My comments in BALOO!

Originally Posted by LiteTheIronMan

Yes, Macs are expensive, yes Macs can't run PC games, yes you can't install or custombuild them yourself. But otherwise, I really enjoy using Macs as opposed to Windows. Less buggy, iLife is brilliant, everything is neat and sleek, and the actual hardware just looks awesome.
Yes, Macs are expensive, can't run PC games, and can't be custom-built. With my little experience with Mac OS X, I can agree that it's sleeker and less buggy than Windows, but the negatives you've stated are why I don't and won't use them. If I could just get a copy of the operating system and install it on the computer I already have, I'd try it, but Apple won't allow that.
Macs are less buggy because they literally don't allow the user to make mistakes by completely blocking off most of the options used by most windows users. Because I believe I should be able to apply my skills to all computers, this is insulting to me.

As for Windows... to be quite honest, Windows and Linux are for those who are either:

A. normal users who are too cheap to buy anything else and don't really know anything about technology
I don't think this fits Linux at all; most of these people use Windows because it came preinstalled and they don't know of anything else. These seem to be the people who switch to Macs because they think it's the only other option when they may actually be better off with Linux.
Plus: Macs are dumbed down so ANYBODY can use them. Therefore, the people who are technology illiterate are mac users. Have you even touched Linux? If you've had, you would probably die from the amount of hard work that REAL computer users need to run it. Have you ever compiled a program from source just to run it? I think not.

B. Techsavvy people who put together their own computers
Got to agree with you there. You can't build your own mac unless you have the Mac Pro(The only mac I actually like, btw).
C. Gamers
Again, not Linux, though I'm going to assume that you just wanted to make this one list.


D. Again, techsavvy people, but they only buy Windows because it's cheaper than Mac computers.
Now I really think you shouldn't have even mentioned Linux here, because you're only talking about Windows.
Agreed, pie.

As far as I'm concerned Macs can basically solve A and D if you're willing to pay for it (which is understandable).
There isn't much with which to disagree here, but I really wish more "normal users" knew about more than just Windows and Mac OS.
That sentence makes no sense, lite. If they didn't like it because of the price, why would they ignore that important factor?


I really hate this Windows computer I'm on, with a burning passion. It's slow, low memory, and I'm pretty sure it's going to burn a hole through itself and explode in the near future.
Eh, that's nice. I really don't know what this has to do with operating systems. Are you trying to imply that it would be better if it were a Mac? And you might want to try formatting the drive and reinstalling Windows if it's been awhile since you've done so or installing a lighter Linux distribution.

Completely unnecessary statement. The memory is easily upgradable and has nothing to do with the OS. It's slow because it's low on memory. You just don't know how to keep your computer in shape.

In other news: I'm a mod in this forum, too. That makes my dream come true.

[LiteTheIronMan]

Sadfaec D:

As far as I'm concerned Macs can basically solve A and D if you're willing to pay for it (which is understandable).

I should've phrased that sentence differently.

Meh, my computer just sucks whether I manage the memory or not. I could take it apart and outfit it with more, or I could be technologically illiterate and get a Mac.

I would definitely enjoy using a Mac more for editing my LPs than I do using my current computer. Windows Movie Maker has hardly any editing tools that are very creative, it's very crash-happy and dies at random intervals, and the timeline feature is really hard to manage. Sony Vegas takes care of most of that but the render times are abhorringly long. iMovie takes like, half an hour to render a 10 minute video file (which is about the same speed WMM does it) and has all the cool editing faces of Vegas.

I suppose it's just the exclusive software that Macs have that do it for me. My opinions are generally kinda suck and biased, but to each their own. That's why a debate thread exists.

[GuildmasterWigglytuff]

Windows, because all my games and programs are good with my computer even though Vista stinks.

[The Spirit of Time]

I never tried Mac because it is very limited. Seriously, only Apple laptops have Mac, others don't, and Apple lapyops are more expensive than normal ones, so I find this a very serious drawback.


Honestly, I only tried Windows, which I find friendly and helpful. It doesn't need a lot of time to be configured, and is quite easy to use. Along with that, most of the programs work with his OS, which is advantageous. What I really hate in Windows is that it lags a lot, which isn't nice at all. Maybe Windows 7 is better, but c'mon, I am not going to spend my money on buying new Windows every time! They aren't cheap as well!


I never tried Linux, but according to my IT teacher, if Linux didn't have the ability of being programmed by normal users, it would have been the most successful and profitable OS organization. Our teacher said that Linux is very advanced, cheap and helpful. I might try it one day...


I don't know other than these.

[OMGITSJAD]

Mac computers look slick, clean, nice, and don't seem too buggy(Macs don't crash, hahaha, yeah right, EVERY COMPUTER DOES, YOUR ARGUEMENT IS INVALID). However, I've never really used one so I don't have much commentary on them. Taking from what you guys say, it's nice, yet not open and you can't really do what you want with it.

Now, reading up on Linux from what you guys have said, it seems pretty nice, no viruses, great support, constant updates, and such.

But i'm kinda biased towards Windows. I dislike it to an extent(DARN YOU, BSoD!), but I haven't really tried anything else, so I can't really judge. As long as it's Windows 7 it's alright to me I say, the previous editions suck compared to it, really.

Originally Posted by LiteTheIronMan

I really hate this Windows computer I'm on, with a burning passion. It's slow, low memory, and I'm pretty sure it's going to burn a hole through itself and explode in the near future.

You aren't on a Windows computer. You're on a computer running a Windows OS. Just because you have an old computer, with low RAM and therefore power, doesn't mean Windows sucks and that it's the OS's problem. Unless of course you're running 32-Bit which is a 4 Gigs of RAM limit, but my computer is 64-bit and only has 3.75 GB of RAM usable. Did you make a post on the "Post your computer specs" thread in the general computing thread...? *goes to see if it's as sucky as Lite describes*

[Jaredvcxz]

Because my internet is acting up(again) and making the BBCode buttons unusable(AGAIN), I'll just put my comments in bold.

Originally Posted by The Spirit of Time

I never tried Mac because it is very limited. Seriously, only Apple laptops have Mac, others don't, and Apple lapyops are more expensive than normal ones, so I find this a very serious drawback.

Mac is the type of computer. The OS is called OSX. But we group them since OSX only work on macs.

Honestly, I only tried Windows, which I find friendly and helpful. It doesn't need a lot of time to be configured, and is quite easy to use. Along with that, most of the programs work with his OS, which is advantageous. What I really hate in Windows is that it lags a lot, which isn't nice at all. Maybe Windows 7 is better, but c'mon, I am not going to spend my money on buying new Windows every time! They aren't cheap as well!

Win7 is totally worth it. But I suggest you just buy a new computer.

I never tried Linux, but according to my IT teacher, if Linux didn't have the ability of being programmed by normal users, it would have been the most successful and profitable OS organization. Our teacher said that Linux is very advanced, cheap and helpful. I might try it one day...

That's probably true. But we'll never know for sure.

I don't know other than these.
Most people don't.

Originally Posted by OMGITSJAD

Mac computers look slick, clean, nice, and don't seem too buggy(Macs don't crash, hahaha, yeah right, EVERY COMPUTER DOES, YOUR ARGUEMENT IS INVALID). However, I've never really used one so I don't have much commentary on them. Taking from what you guys say, it's nice, yet not open and you can't really do what you want with it.
That's sort of true. When I said that they're not open, I meant for things that tech geeks like me do. The normal user isn't affected too much. Can't custoimize the theme, though
Now, reading up on Linux from what you guys have said, it seems pretty nice, no viruses, great support, constant updates, and such.
There are viruses. They're just rare because the chances of a user using linux is fairly small. The constant updates is good, especially since not many of them require restarts, and even if you need to restart it loads in a short time
But i'm kinda biased towards Windows. I dislike it to an extent(DARN YOU, BSoD!), but I haven't really tried anything else, so I can't really judge. As long as it's Windows 7 it's alright to me I say, the previous editions suck compared to it, really.



You aren't on a Windows computer. You're on a computer running a Windows OS. Just because you have an old computer, with low RAM and therefore power, doesn't mean Windows sucks and that it's the OS's problem. Unless of course you're running 32-Bit which is a 4 Gigs of RAM limit, but my computer is 64-bit and only has 3.75 GB of RAM usable. Did you make a post on the "Post your computer specs" thread in the general computing thread...? *goes to see if it's as sucky as Lite describes*

[FreezeWarp]

Originally Posted by LiteTheIronMan

A. normal users who are too cheap to buy anything else and don't really know anything about technology

Well, I don't think Linux is a cheapness thing, I think its a control thing. You can do anything with it - you're never locked down.

Originally Posted by LiteTheIronMan

I really hate this Windows computer I'm on, with a burning passion. It's slow, low memory, and I'm pretty sure it's going to burn a hole through itself and explode in the near future.

I would almost recommend Linux - I switched from XP to Linux because of how crappy my (now 6) year-old computer was. On Linux, it still is slowish, but a heck of a lot better all the same. Either way, I think you'll be able to make more out of it.

Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz

For your information: Linux has a program called Wine that allows you to run windows programs on Linux. I'm not sure of its stability with games, but I'm guessing it would work.

CrossOver Games has near-perfect emulation game support. It is based on Wine, but costs $40 (and is developed in Minnesota!).

Originally Posted by LiteTheIronMan

Does Wine work with Macs? I'm aware of its compatibility with Linux.

CrossOver Mac and CrossOver Games for Mac do, but together it costs $80.

Originally Posted by piexing

Yes, Macs are expensive, can't run PC games, and can't be custom-built. With my little experience with Mac OS X, I can agree that it's sleeker and less buggy than Windows, but the negatives you've stated are why I don't and won't use them. If I could just get a copy of the operating system and install it on the computer I already have, I'd try it, but Apple won't allow that.

Mac can in theory run on Intel-based PCs, but that might be violating the license agreement. It also is buggy and requires third-party software.

Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz

In other news: I'm a mod in this forum, too. That makes my dream come true.

Oh, *goes to edit previous comment*

Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz

Plus: Macs are dumbed down so ANYBODY can use them. Therefore, the people who are technology illiterate are mac users. Have you even touched Linux? If you've had, you would probably die from the amount of hard work that REAL computer users need to run it. Have you ever compiled a program from source just to run it? I think not.

To run Linux you need to know not to press the shiny yellow button, basically. A little common sense and you can be fine, and will still have a plethora of controls (which is why I so much like Linux). It really isn't hard work when you get used to it, unless you're running Slackware or something. 'Course, compiling programs is a heck a lot easier on Linux than Windows (which does make development easier as well).


Editted:

Originally Posted by GuildmasterWigglytuff

Windows, because all my games and programs are good with my computer even though Vista stinks.

I disagree. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are about 10 times better than Windows XP. They look better, are more secure, are more stable, have newer and more accessible development APIs, have much more powerful (and important) administrative controls, and have a more streamlined user interface.

[Jaredvcxz]

Originally Posted by FreezeWarp

CrossOver Games has near-perfect emulation game support. It is based on Wine, but costs $40 (and is developed in Minnesota!).

There goes my idea of everything in Linux being free...


But, if it's near-perfect emulation, then I can see why it costs that much.



You also forgot Parallels. Although you could just get VirtualBox, which is free, has an OSX port(Intel only), and does pretty much the same things.

Also, Apple has been making intel-based macs for a few years now. You guys are slow with news

[FreezeWarp]

Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz

You also forgot Parallels. Although you could just get VirtualBox, which is free, has an OSX port(Intel only), and does pretty much the same things.

True, though this is native, not emulated (so I misspoke) like Wine is. It also doesn't require a Windows license to run Windows applications (like Wine).

[Magmaster12]

I'm just gonna lay out the pros and cons

PC
Pro:
I can use the Victory Road Chat and most other programs
Cheap
Con:
Freezes

Mac
Pro:
Rarely Freezes
Con:
REALLY Expensive

Linux
Umm it's a computer

I chose PC.

[smartguy01]

Windows has good games, some good programs, etc., but they can crash. Windows also can use some of the better mac programs, and the others are already covered for. It doesn't has as much programming capacity as linux, but neither does mac. Overall, Windows is for games and general use.

Mac is an okay OS, but I don't perfer it. I see Mac as a media creating OS more than anything, but it also has some potential as a general use OS without the extensive amount of good games.

I find linux to be odd, because to me, it seems as only an OS for programming, hacking, etc., but they also add an excess amount of games for all ages. It has compatibility to Mac and Windows, but it's not supposed to be for general use.

Overall, Windows=games+general use, Mac=media+general use, and Linux=programming (to me).

[Ningamer]

I prominently use Windows, but should it fail I have a laptop with Ubuntu on.

Windows is used mainly for games and the internet, not much else.

My sister has a Mac, but despite it's sexiness it's not compatible with the things I play (i.e. ROBLOX).

Ubuntu is a good, fast OS that is pre-loaded with loads of stuff. It is very complicated though, with all the Terminals and stuff, but that's what the internet is for. Using Wine I can get a few games to work (i.e. World of Warcraft), but not many (i.e. ROBLOX and Arx Fatalis).

So my order is:
1. Windows
2. Ubuntu
3. Mac OS X

I'm still yet to use Windows 7 - Should I get it?

[piexing]

Ubuntu? Complicated? I don't think so. o3o Many things seem complicated when you're not used to them. The terminal isn't that difficult to use, and the magic of the Interwebs means you don't even have to memorize anything. I just wish people would develop their games for Linux. (Though I still have to get another hard drive and see what works with Wine.) :/
As for whether or not you should get Windows 7, I don't think it makes too much of a difference; it's still Windows NT, really. I got a free upgrade, but it's not really that different an experience from Vista SP1, or at least I haven't noticed much.
And Smartguy, Linux is intended to be a general-purpose OS, and to those who know what they're doing it does that job better than Windows or Mac OS X.
And and, everything we're saying here is about personal computers, unless you guys are interested in discussing server or mainframe OSes. :3

Mac is the type of computer. The OS is called OSX. But we group them since OSX only work on macs.

Well, there's a German company called PearC . . .

[Jaredvcxz]

Originally Posted by TheAppleFreak

As a Mac user myself, I find flaws with your statement:

• By no means is OS X meant for a first-time computer user. I've been using OS X for years now, and although they try to make it easier for a novice user to operate their computer (and as such, they make it more aesthetically pleasing), by no means are the more advanced functions "easy." To prove that, I raise you the Terminal. Or the Console. Network Utility. Or verbose/single-user boot mode. But especially the Terminal. That's where the fun occurs (I've screwed up and fixed my machine at least twice through the Terminal. It also has a game of Tetris!)
• Any semi-knowledgeable Mac user knows that Mac trackpads can achieve double-click (either through the Control-click or by enabling something in System Preferences and then placing two fingers to the trackpad surface and performing a regular click), Apple mice can achieve double-clicks (by enabling a setting in the Mouse pane of Sys Pref and then clicking on the right side of the mouse where a traditional right-click button should be on a regular mouse), or that OS X does in fact support Windows mice with native two-button clicks.

Yes, the terminal is an advanced feature that even I have trouble with. But there aren't many every-day users that use the terminal much, just like with the command prompt in Windows.

For the mice, the key point in your post is that you have to enable it in the settings. And I am aware of it's usage of Windows mice, since I used one when I used the macs at my school.


I'd also like to note that Macs are, in fact, close-sourced versions of Linux that you have to pay for.

[FreezeWarp]

Originally Posted by piexing

Ubuntu? Complicated? I don't think so. o3o Many things seem complicated when you're not used to them. The terminal isn't that difficult to use, and the magic of the Interwebs means you don't even have to memorize anything. I just wish people would develop their games for Linux. (Though I still have to get another hard drive and see what works with Wine.) :/

And the terminal is rarely used for anything you would do on Windows, anyways. Its just meant for the advance stuff.

...Course the locate command doesn't have a great front end.

Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz

I'd also like to note that Macs are, in fact, close-sourced versions of Linux that you have to pay for.

The reverse is arguably more true: Linux is an opensource derivative of Unix, where as Mac OS X is a more restricted derivative.

[NismoZ]

Since I own a Mac and use it all the time, I will talk about them first.

Well, Macs start out lightning fast, and while mine doesn't have much memory left, It's only a bit slower. To get a PC that fast would probably cost a bit more than mine at the time that I bought it, at $600. They're getting more affordable as well. I own a very basic one (I can't even run the Sims 3 properly), but it's fast, and that's really the point where it wins. They don't crash, either. At least mine hasn't yet.

Now PCs, I'm not gonna immediately say that they suck just because mine does (Although I did upgrade from ME to XP). There are excellent gaming PCs out there, but they're expensive as hell. Windows 7 seems pretty good, although the only people in the family that use it are my dad and my sister, on their laptops. So if you can get a fairly new PC with Windows 7, you're good to go.

I don't know much about Linux, because only my dad uses it, although he's on Windows most of the time. Apparently a basic version is extremely hard to set up (It took him two days to set it up). It seems, through ads on the Internet, that only the really necessary things (such as Internet browsers) Are available for Linux, and I don't really know how well Wine works.

Overall, I'd have to say Mac OS X wins, for being fast and reliable.

[Jaredvcxz]

Originally Posted by NismoZ

Since I own a Mac and use it all the time, I will talk about them first.

Well, Macs start out lightning fast, and while mine doesn't have much memory left, It's only a bit slower. To get a PC that fast would probably cost a bit more than mine at the time that I bought it, at $600. They're getting more affordable as well. I own a very basic one (I can't even run the Sims 3 properly), but it's fast, and that's really the point where it wins. They don't crash, either. At least mine hasn't yet.

Now PCs, I'm not gonna immediately say that they suck just because mine does (Although I did upgrade from ME to XP). There are excellent gaming PCs out there, but they're expensive as hell. Windows 7 seems pretty good, although the only people in the family that use it are my dad and my sister, on their laptops. So if you can get a fairly new PC with Windows 7, you're good to go.

I don't know much about Linux, because only my dad uses it, although he's on Windows most of the time. Apparently a basic version is extremely hard to set up (It took him two days to set it up). It seems, through ads on the Internet, that only the really necessary things (such as Internet browsers) Are available for Linux, and I don't really know how well Wine works.

Overall, I'd have to say Mac OS X wins, for being fast and reliable.

Speed has to do with hardware, not the OS. I can also probably build a computer as fast, if not faster than yours, for 600$ or less.


And pure gaming PCs have to be expensive because they're using the best of the best hardware. Unlike macs.

[FreezeWarp]

Originally Posted by NismoZ

I don't know much about Linux, because only my dad uses it, although he's on Windows most of the time. Apparently a basic version is extremely hard to set up (It took him two days to set it up). It seems, through ads on the Internet, that only the really necessary things (such as Internet browsers) Are available for Linux, and I don't really know how well Wine works.

Any modern Linux distro usually takes less than an hour (Ubuntu installation averages for me @ 30 minutes). Debian could be different, but most distros are far in a way faster.

Also, Linux is free because its developed by a largely volunteer community: its not "Ad-supported" or anything: ads on the internet aren't there because of Linux and are entirely irrelevant (don't think I'm attacking you, just want to set the record straight). Linux has a large array of business software, just not games: OpenOffice.org, everything KDE, KMyMoney, just to name a few.

[TheAppleFreak]

Originally Posted by FreezeWarp

Any modern Linux distro usually takes less than an hour (Ubuntu installation averages for me @ 30 minutes). Debian could be different, but most distros are far in a way faster.

Also, Linux is free because its developed by a largely volunteer community: its not "Ad-supported" or anything: ads on the internet aren't there because of Linux and are entirely irrelevant (don't think I'm attacking you, just want to set the record straight). Linux has a large array of business software, just not games: OpenOffice.org, everything KDE, KMyMoney, just to name a few.

Most operating systems install in less than an hour, from my experience. I installed a fresh copy of Snow Leopard from a DVD to my Mac, and that took only about half-an-hour. I Hackintosh'd Leopard onto a Dell Mini 10v, with about 45 minutes worth of wait (it was running off of a flash drive, btw, with custom extensions that were only meant for getting the basic functions in operation). Windows 7 installed on both of my computers (three copies in total: DVD, flash drive, and ISO directly to a virtual machine in VMware) all in less than an hour. Ditto for Ubuntu and Solaris, but whatever. The time-consuming part is setting it all up...

For a business user who is only concerned in getting the basic stuff done, then obviously Linux is superior. OpenOffice, on all operating systems, is a very reliable suite. Those other programs you mentioned, I don't know. However, for a home user or a gamer, forget about it. Even with WINE and its derivatives (CrossOver), Windows program compatibility is still somewhat shoddy. I use the Mac port of WINE (they do have it; it just requires X11), and it works well enough for some of the smaller programs like Advance-Map and Pokésav that don't require huge frameworks, but trying to run a major program like Word will fail. Epically.

[FreezeWarp]

Originally Posted by TheAppleFreak

Most operating systems install in less than an hour, from my experience. I installed a fresh copy of Snow Leopard from a DVD to my Mac, and that took only about half-an-hour. I Hackintosh'd Leopard onto a Dell Mini 10v, with about 45 minutes worth of wait (it was running off of a flash drive, btw, with custom extensions that were only meant for getting the basic functions in operation). Windows 7 installed on both of my computers (three copies in total: DVD, flash drive, and ISO directly to a virtual machine in VMware) all in less than an hour. Ditto for Ubuntu and Solaris, but whatever. The time-consuming part is setting it all up...

For a business user who is only concerned in getting the basic stuff done, then obviously Linux is superior. OpenOffice, on all operating systems, is a very reliable suite. Those other programs you mentioned, I don't know. However, for a home user or a gamer, forget about it. Even with WINE and its derivatives (CrossOver), Windows program compatibility is still somewhat shoddy. I use the Mac port of WINE (they do have it; it just requires X11), and it works well enough for some of the smaller programs like Advance-Map and Pokésav that don't require huge frameworks, but trying to run a major program like Word will fail. Epically.

Hm? Wine can emulate Microsoft Word 2003 (not sure about 2007 or 2010), Internet Explorer, Firefox and Safari, etc. Its only poorly built applications that don't run: and guess what? They usually have trouble running when MS releases a new version of Windows. Heck, you can always run Windows with a Virtual Machine. Plus, you simply install Linux; I have never heard of anyone needing to get it "set up". Installing applications is usually faster, and you never need to set anything up on Ubuntu or OpenSUSE or Fedora or whatever. Driver support is far-in-away better than Windows in terms of having to not "set things up". Newer printers almost always support Linux, too.

Games are the only argument I see valid.

[Jaredvcxz]

Oh Freezewarp, I checked out Crossover Games, and have you even seen its compatibility list? There are more incompatible games than there are compatible!

[FreezeWarp]

Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz

Oh Freezewarp, I checked out Crossover Games, and have you even seen its compatibility list? There are more incompatible games than there are compatible!

There's a few reasons for this:
1. Emulation of DirectX is very hard and is never hardware accellerated. If more applications, like Google's Sketchup, were built with OpenGL, this wouldn't be a huge problem.
2. Games are really, really complex and often use many undocumented APIs. This is one reason they often take a long time to be updated to work with newer Windows versions.
3. Games use poor programming practices. While this isn't always true, it makes it harder to emulate with CrossOver or Wine.

In contrast, most office applications don't use DirectX (and plain OpenGL is very common for use with office applications), they often follow better practices and usually play by the book. Heck, even Microsoft's own applications fit that description: I can freakin' run the Internet Explorer 8 shell (so, think of IE9 in IE8 form) on Wine!

[Jaredvcxz]

Too bad Virtual machines are too much of a hassle to game with

[Jaredvcxz]

I guess its been long enough for me to doublepost. If not, I'll merge them if told to.

Apparently when Steam was released on Macs, a little problem that was shown. Mac's expensive graphic cards are not as powerful as the cheaper windows cards. So, apple is being forced to get stronger cards to lessen the embarrassment and satisfy their new gaming customers.

Here's the source article.

Its not really something to be held against macs, though, since for the longest time they weren't used as gaming rigs, but it does help put things into perspective as far as hardware power goes.

[.name//Technomancer]

Linux. Hands down. :l

Nothing beats the ability to fully mod one's script without hindrance. Unlike Windows, which has specific failsafes to prevent modification.

[NismoZ]

And now to contribute a much better post to this thread than last time. I'll start with what Technomancer said.

Originally Posted by .name//Technomancer

Nothing beats the ability to fully mod one's script without hindrance. Unlike Windows, which has specific failsafes to prevent modification.

I admit, only Linux can do that. But that brings up another subject. You see, Windows simply hides all of the system32 files until you press a button, probably to prevent children from messing with them. If you try to enter Macintosh HD on a Mac, it asks you for an Administrator password, like they really don't want you to get in it.

Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz

Apparently when Steam was released on Macs, a little problem that was shown. Mac's expensive graphic cards are not as powerful as the cheaper windows cards. So, apple is being forced to get stronger cards to lessen the embarrassment and satisfy their new gaming customers.

Here's the source article.

Its not really something to be held against macs, though, since for the longest time they weren't used as gaming rigs, but it does help put things into perspective as far as hardware power goes.

You see, Macs weren't built for gaming, so much as general software. For example, you can easily get most Internet browsers or image editors for Mac.

Now, backwards compatibility. I don't know about Linux, but Windows has great backwards compatibility; I can easily install The Incredible Machine, a Windows 3.1/DOS program, on my Windows XP machine. Mac OS X has excellent backwards compatibility. Simply put, Mac software works for a version of Mac OS and higher, so you don't have to deal with all of that Compatibility Mode and stuff (although it may not work very well, as my sister discovered with Oregon Trail 5).

This is going to be a short one; compatibility. Windows works with almost everything, Linux works with Linux stuff and has Wine to work with all of the Windows stuff, and Mac works with nothing at all.

Macs come with their own hardware, so this part talks about it. Macs are small. So small, in fact, that they usually come on the back of a monitor. They're also quite fast. This thing has one gigabyte of RAM and most of its disk space used up, yet it still runs almost as fast as my sister's brand new laptop. (and yes, don't forget about the rubbish graphics on existing Macs)

I would post more, but my computer's being hell to me right now, so I'll stop here.

[Searinox]

I'll have to make a point on XP vs Vista/7. I embraced a lot of the features brought on by the new Windows versions, and I am currently a move-off-XP avocate. Yet I don't like the way a few things were changed, and I do remark a few good features, such as the old set-file-associations, being removed. Nowadays there's many freeware apps to modify these hidden settings but I wish they hadn't removed them. DX10 had a bug with some gfx cards including mine, that made ANY fullscreen game go windowed the moment a messenger toast would pop up, and Vista had removed System Restore size config from sight. My only real complaint with vista/7 is user account control, which is the first thing I disable of windows after install. Compatibility issues were there, but less severe than when I switched 32bit for 64bit. As for performance, I can't lie, without at least 2GB RAM it's more sluggish than it should be, where XP requires 1/8 of that. But Windows 98 required 32MB of RAM, and was a leap from 8MB of 95, so there's no real argument there, newer Windows WILL require more RAM. But considering Vista a generally slow OS, once its specs have been met, or unstable, or bad is NOT something I do. Up until SP1 all my Vista issues were solved. And it was not because of the patches that came out, but because of the software third parties finally made. I still remember how hard it was to find a working security suite with Vista, and again it's not Microsoft's fault here.

[Serenade]

I personally prefer windows, though I have used a mac before. My main problem with macs is the limited state of being, and low compatibility. I personally believe, that OSX goes slower than does windows 7, as my own PC has gone faster than macs of similar standards.

I haven't messed with Linux, though I am building a PC that will have Ubuntu on it, so I will know if its good or whatever in the future.

[Will]

I like Windows 7, I have used Macs and Apple computers before but Windows 7 does fine for me, in terms of aesthetic and functions, because of my epic custom theme and everything. As a web developer many say Macs are better but I do fine with Windows 7, including video editing, designing with photoshop and Flash.

[Quadcentruo]

I can't really say.
Everything has its positives and negatives.

Windows is fairly simple to use to the average family member, but is more suspect-able to viruses.

Linux has a very small amount of viruses, but is a bit more complex to use if your unfamiliar with it (know this from experience).

I don't know much about Mac, but what I do know is that is has little amount of viruses and is meant mainly for computer artists and musicians, but isn't a very good choice for families that aren't computer a family of musicians.

Overall, I can't make a decision. Probably Windows because it's simpler to use (for someone that isn't huge on computers) and there are a bunch of different anti-virus soft-wares you can use.

[Dinospy]

I use Mac OSX mainly because it's what I've grown up with. My only experiences with Windows were in middle school when I played Starcraft at the teen after school center, so I didn't get a very wide representation of what they can do.

Since then, every computer my family has owned has been a Mac, all the computers at my high school were Macs and the main comp lab in the library here at college is made up of really big fancy iMacs. (That run Windows and OSX). I grew familiar with the feel of Macs while editing all my films on Final Cut Pro in high school. Plus, I don't need tons of PC games, the selection on Steam is enough for me.

I don't really hate Windows, but I don't like it that much either. It's confusing to me, and I know how to do "techsavvy" things on my MBP. I've had no experience with Linux or any of the other independent OS systems, so I have no opinion on those.

[Ender]

Personally, because I tend to conserve my money I'm often left with a computer that's about 15 years obsolete. This gives me problems, because 15 year old computers from 1995 literally crackle and pop when you turn them on. But luckily, there is Linux. You would be very surprised at how a 1995 computer will run when it's under any lightweight distro. Almost as good as any current laptop (you know, aside from the graphics). So Linux definitely has points for the recycling/hand-me-downing department.

Oh, and it's fun to run 10 or so OS's at the same time within each other.