Re: Re: Mac vs Pc: Why OSX Rules and PC Fanboys dont

[justinjoboyle]

horrasucky video quality...

[jaymes2k8]

to be honest windows 95 is more stable than vista !! what where microsoft at when they released it??personally ive had a mac for bout 2 years got sick of it went to serious slow downs boot time was terrible i got a old comp from 1999 with xp trying to upgrade from sp2 to sp3 and it crashed my windows install ..also had an old win 98SE computer and found it to be very good then got vista well hell to it crashed about 30times in a day no joke!!my current laptop had xp (crashed) hav win7 now :):)

[JamesManes]

Linux uses Xorg which is async. That means the full frame is not updated at once. This is good over a network but terrible on the desktop. Photoshop runs under wine but it wont get the performance boost that it will running natively on a non linux system because OS X and Windows do not have async window servers.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

One is far more usable than the other so much so that it is main stream and the other never will be.

Yeah, Final cut, photo shop, logic, Office, do I need to go on?

Tell me about all the movies that have been made using Linux. Tell me about all the games made on Linux.

[TheGeekNProud]

OS X is great for a certain market. It provides a nice look, sane defaults, many comforts like resource limits and a simple DAC system for security.

The vast majority of OS X was dependant upon Free Software when it was first created (using parts of the BSDs and eventually KHTML for Safari) and it's moved beyond that now =]

But everything it can provide can be provided to power users on Linux, FreeBSD and Windows too. The features are available for OSes outside the two main commercial ones.

[emperordarius]

OS X is not SUPPOSED to be Linux. OS X is supposed user friendly (which Linux certainly is not), compatible (you don't have to run everything emulated under OS X, while under Linux? The whole Adobe suite is missing! The second most used pro video editing software, is missing. Logic is missing. Aperture is missing. A whole lot of software is missing. And native applications run and will always run better than emulated ones.

So really, you cannot compare Linux with OS X.

[TheGeekNProud]

* Linux Unified Kernel isn't emulation, it's a kernel-level integrated API/ABI

* Wine is not an emulator (the recursive acronym for WINE) is a userland API/ABI

Under Linux there is support for more platforms, there is a whole host of FLOSS software which runs on multiple platforms - full 64-bit support for donkeys years, Mandatory Access Controls for security and better uptimes.

As I said before Mac OS X is great for non-technical users. But is not good for power users.

[emperordarius]

Depends on what you mean by "power user". What, dragonballjiujitsu, for instance, is not a power user?

What about graphic designers, video editors, musicians, and 3d modellers (Linux is usually only used on slave machines).

Basically, Linux is better only for those who have nothing else to do than tweak and experiment, and learn all those things you've learned. Basically, geeks and nerds. Perfect for you guys. But not that good for pretty much everybody else. No offense intended.

[TheGeekNProud]

Power Users are the people who customise and tweak their systems. Those who use an equivalent amount of knowledge to a professional system administrator to customise and tweak to their hearts content.

Graphic designers, video editors, musicians, and 3d modellers are normal, business end-users.

Linux is used by Google, IBM, HP and many other companies on their servers and workstations for day-to-day uses. These companies are all IT-related, hence power-users.

As I already said - target market!

[TheGeekNProud]

I do agree that Mac OS X is supposed to be user-friendly. I think I touched on that point earlier with the example about network daemons and target market. =]

Linux has many different video editing tools which work (like Cinelerra, Kino etc.), also there's more FLOSS apps available then there are platform-specific proprietary apps in general - an assertion that hasn't been challenged yet.

Disney used Photoshop and other Adobe tools with Wine-based technology in production. It's not emulation

[dragonballjiujitsu]

OS X is very user friendly, thats one thing it has over Linux. Also you seem to think just because its user friendly that makes it less useful to power users, it does not. We still have the terminal in OS X, all the power features are still there.

The next thing OS X has over linux is programs. Let me ask you this. Can you run photo shop in Linux? How about final cut? Logic? Microsoft Office?

Don't tell me about Open office and gimp either.

[TheGeekNProud]

It is less powerful to power users. I cant control the exact behaviour of all applications at the kernel level, to the point of modifying syscalls etc. with Mac OS X. I can't modify the TCP/IP stack in any way I please; most importantly I can't do what I like with the hardware (there isn't full access to CD/DVD drive, meaning some Win32 games will never run on OS X legally).

I'm also not free to 100% study how the system works, or run it on non-Apple hardware. That is a problem.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

All of that, but when I install OS X my sound works. Oh, and my wireless.

All of the stuff you named off means nothing to 99.999% of people who will touch a computer.

Just because you can modify every aspect of the system does not make it better. Its still less user friendly ( more for those who like to tinker) It has no pro apps, and I repeat it will never be main stream because of all of its weaknesses.

This is not a forum, post a video.

[TheGeekNProud]

What did I say in the beginning?

I'll say it again.

For the target market of non-technical users - Mac OS X is great. It's better than Windows and it's better than Linux, it costs more but the centralised support is worth it.

For power users on the other hand, it is not as good. You speak of the terminal. Windows has a terminal (command prompt), so does almost every other OS.

"Pro apps" is pretty vague. For a handful of apps that are a matter of personal preference, it's not worth it.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Post a video and I'll post a response, Otherwise You will risk getting blocked.

This is a video site, not a forum.

[TheGeekNProud]

Almost forgot, Parallels biggest product is OpenVZ. It's Linux-based and is used widely. There's also OS-level containers integrated into the kernel based on namespaces (look at liblxc).

And there's no need for a "Boot Camp" with a PC because of GRUB and LILO loaders allowing chainloading =]

Sorry, can't help with the virtualisation stuff. Linux is widely-regarded as having the most virtualisation options - outside of a niche OS that I can't remember the name of.

[TheGeekNProud]

Example: Windows has everything excl. kitchen sink listening on external network interfaces, Mac OS X only has services which need to be listening if the user is making use of the functionality (running a webserver, sharing files across the Internet).

Also, the Mac hardware comes fully-supported by the OS, unlike with Windows on PCs newer than the Windows release.

This means less maintenance for non-technical users. Thus, Apple's target market benefit more from a Mac than a PC, at a cost.

[tylerzackmcnell]

MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC

when i put my hands on a mac i get an orgasm

[free35style]

Dude, I have used Macs and Win machines both quite a bit. No one will ever convince me that Mac is superior. ALL of the macs I have used, and I've used some very nice high end ones, are slow and just unappealing, Don't say I don't know computers either cause I'm running Ubuntu OS on my laptop, if u even know what that is, and it kicks Mac OS's sorry ass. U can't tell me that Macs aren't expensive either, go to Best Buy and price a Mac compared to a Win machine. Seriously...

[dragonballjiujitsu]

So because you run Ubuntu you know computers? lol

I run XP and Ubuntu on my Mac and all three are fast and responsive. How can you say Windows is better than Mac and then say Linux is better than OS X?

Why would I buy a Mac or a PC from best buy? I can get the Mac from Apple and the PC I can build.

[free35style]

The best buy thing was a just a reference. Yeah, it is cheaper to build a pc than to buy one, but there u just contradicted yourself. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Linux is better than both of the other OS's. I don't really like Windows or Mac OS. If I had to pick between Mac or Pc though I'd take the Pc. There just more compatible and normally better built.(Macbooks don't even have fans)

[dragonballjiujitsu]

I have no problem with the PC, I own 3 and dual boot my Mac with Windows. I also run Ubuntu inside VMware.

I disagree that PCs are better built. My Macbook has a fan, in fact you can hear it running in this video.

[free35style]

That's pretty cool. I really had no idea Macs had fans. All of them I've ever used have just been solid on the bottom. One thing I do like about Macs is the Solid state memory. I bet that's so much better than a disk hard drive.

[emperordarius]

They're called Solid State Drives and they ARE hard drives, it's just them they're built in a different way (without a rotating disk). And not every mac uses them. In fact, only macbooks/pro/air can be ordered with one. SSD are faster and more efficient than rotating harddisks however are a lot more expensive.

[free35style]

I know they're hard drives, DUH! That's y I said they're better than disk hard drives. I didn't know that just the high end macs had them though, so thanks for that. Anyway I'm done arguing so later dudes. `~'

[TheGeekNProud]

Most important point, PCs have also had them for ages ;-) Maybe not from mainstream OEMs but still...

[TheGeekNProud]

Firstly, GNU/Linux is better than Mac OS X because I have full access to all the source code to my OS and associated applications. Mac OS X cannot compete with this because it doesn't supply the full and complete source code.

Secondly, look at netcraft. (news . netcraft . com) Oh damn, OS X isn't listed! If Mac OS X is more stable than Windows then why is a Windows Server system listed in the top 10 for (June, as of this writing) the latest news?

.........

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Just because you have access to the source code does not make Linux better.

Also Linux is very limited in the programs you can actually run.

Don't misunderstand, I like Linux just fine. I just don't think its right for most people and I don't think you can really compare it to OS X.

[TheGeekNProud]

Actually, having access to the source under the GPL makes Linux better, just not better for everyone. I've taken advantage of being able to add hacks to any software I like on many occasions ^_^

There's more POSIX-compliant FLOSS software available than there is platform-specific proprietary software - so it's by no means limited. Unless you disregard that software altogether, which makes a Mac equally as limited (one of it's big advantages is a UNIX core and the compatibility that grants!).

[TheGeekNProud]

The target market for a Mac is a non-technical user who wants a machine without a high maintenance burden or to get a specific job done with simple, centralised technical support.

However, it's not targetted at power users, who'd be better off with a PC.

Inexperienced users and non-technical users get their money worth with a Mac, if they don't have someone to provide them with constant advice and tech support - because all the defaults are sane and choices are made already for them.

[TheGeekNProud]

Also, I do not have to pay for Linux, I get it free of charge and can do anything I like with it - no EULA!

Finally, a lot of the software available for a Mac can run on Linux, FreeBSD or any other UNIX-based/UNIX-like OS. What's the point in OS X if the vast majority of software that works with it also works with other systems too? For the minority of apps that are made purely for a Mac? Hah!

Until the change to x86, Macs didn't even have the benefit of Wine/CrossOver! Seriously..........

[dragonballjiujitsu]

So you can run final cut on Linux? How about Microsoft Office? Logic? VMware?

[TheGeekNProud]

VMWare has full Linux support. VMWare ESX - their product for enterprise use, makes use of Linux to work.

Microsoft Office runs in Wine and/or CrossOver Office - as does countless other pieces of software.

Final Cut is one of the handful of proprietary applications that are locked to a single platform. As is Logic Pro.

Can OS X run paravirtualised in Xen? Nope. Can OS X run Xen as a Dom0? Nope. This can never be done not due to technical reasons, but due to licencing.

[TheGeekNProud]

Also it may be worth noting that Linux can run within Windows as a co-operating kernel, and that Linux Unified Kernel is an implementation of Linux with support for some Win32 syscalls. Very soon, Linux will be 100% Windows compatible on a kernel level too w/ LUK

Btw can Mac OS X Snow Leopard run on a PowerPC Macintosh? Nope. Linux still supports this platform and many others.

But these points are only beneficial to power-users, not the target market. OS X is great for the target market =]

[frigginjoe]

Mac's memory management is frickin' awesome.

Blows away Vista for that reason and others.

Ubuntu's runs great, I give you that, it's the Linux distro ready for the typical user and deep enough for the expert. (the same can be said for OS X).

Vista just blows, thank god at least Windows 7 is here in some form.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Agreed on all points.

[slayerbilly]

the funny thing is yes vista and most windows stuff releases quite rough, but has always gotten tweeked and caught up and surpassed mac OS, ALL tech mags mention this, ALL consumer mags say this, and even apple says they dont update MaC OS as much, and fact remains it takes TEAMS and TEAMS to write and perfect software AND MONEY, where vista has tons of ppl using it, mac remains a disposable market , and a religious one,

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Well, Vista has yet to catch up with XP so me thinks it has a ways to go before being anywhere close to OS X.

Most tech mags agree OS X is far better than Vista. Also notice how Mac sells have doubled sense Vista came out. Also note that Apple has surpassed even Dell in education.

Given another 2-3 years and another SP, Vista may be pretty good. But its not there yet.

Vista has tons of people using it because it comes on every new PC, not because people go out and buy it.

[slayerbilly]

GAME ON A CONSOLE? HAHAHH consoles are updated not till a 8 yr average, meanwhile pc games have advanced about double, triple even what consoles are doing by then, then yet another group of consoles come out, and break even and stay even with pc or mac gaming, for maby 2 yrs, yet its an average of 5 6 7 8 years for the next gen. PERIOd

[ALIENation51]

The only problem I have with mac is their HARDWARE, I mean come on $200 for 2 extra gigs of ram? If I did like OSX better than vista, then I would buy a pc twice as fast for the same money and just dual boot vista and osx.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Thats why I buy my RAM from Newegg.

If you can dual boot Vista and OS X on a PC without some serious hacking I wanna see it.

[ALIENation51]

serious hacking? It's so easy ANYBODY can do it, there are at least 50 you tube videos showing you how....

It only gets complicated if you don't want to buy a legitimate copy of osx.

I'll send you one from C-net if you don't believe me.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

I know it can be done, I've seen it. Again, you have to hack the OS. Plus its not legit.

The point of boot camp is: I can have my Mac and still run all of my PC program.

At the end of the day the only half way legit argument you can make against a Mac is that you can't play all your games at their highest settings.

[ScruffyBarker]

Well... there is the lack of hardware customization. That's outside of the OEM range of development for Mac, but it is a category of computers that shouldn't be ignored. Actually, if you could build your own custom Mac from scratch then a lot of the custom build arguments would dissolve... plus I'd genuinely consider trying them out again given I have a lot of fun putting the hardware together and Linux'll run anywhere.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

I will agree with some of what you say. I also enjoy building custom PCs. The simple fact is most people don't. Either the don't know how or they are just too lazy. Either way most people buy off the shelf and the only thing they are likely to upgrade over the life of the machine is maybe the RAM.

If you enjoy building your own computer and gaming, the Mac is not for you. Neither is an off the shelf HP or Dell most likely. Just because its not for you does not make it a bad product.

[ScruffyBarker]

Well... I like building, but I'd rather game on a console unless it's something online like Diablo 2 or an RTS. Even then, I have a life so gaming isn't exactly conducive to my schedule outside of maybe a few hours every now and again.

As for off the shelf, HP and Dell are just the most notable names. Personally, I'd prefer Acer if I had to get something off the shelf simply because they're usually better media stations. But you're right, just because it's not for me doesn't make it a bad item.

[ALIENation51]

yes, that and macs are too overpriced...

btw, have you seen the new macbooks??

go check em out.

[ALIENation51]

windows ME doesn't have DX10 and neither does leopard....it seems like they have more in common then you think

[dragonballjiujitsu]

And if you really don't care about playing the latest FPS at max settings, this matters why?

[ALIENation51]

Macs aren't even within shooting range of playing any descent games...both in software and hardware...

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Really? How about all those youtube videos of people playing crysis and COD4 on their Macs?

They will play games just fine. Also, there is more to life than games.

[devo85x]

Mac OSX is stable because it doesnt support CRAP, if you can find a mac with an Nvidia GTX 280 then please show me, 2 "its hard to write a program for mac"... doesnt that mean that Vista is easier to use? and that takes away half of the "mac lovers" arguments... im gona stop here with my comment

[dragonballjiujitsu]

To an extent I will agree with you. OS X is very stable in part because it does not have to support every possible combination of components on earth. Nothing wrong with that.

Vista being easier to program for does not mean its easier to use. Thats like saying because car A is easier to work on, that makes it easier to drive than car B. Using and programming for are two very different things.

[ScruffyBarker]

To be fair, OSX isn't hard to program by coincidence... it was made to be hard to program for. This isn't all that attributes to the stable environment, but it is largely the reason for many internal programs (and some lack of compatibility).

Lack of programmability has consequences of its own. Being hard to program makes it easier to use in basics, but denies advanced access as a rule. The file system and other incompatibilities do the same. Basically the user determines usefulness.

[ScruffyBarker]

And... last point, bootcamp doesn't make the Windows OS native. Despite the Intel chip, it's not the processor alone that makes an OS native.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

The point of boot camp is that it allows me to run Windows and OS X. Something not easily done on a PC.

[ScruffyBarker]

Sorry, apparently I'm not being clear. You're explicitly saying that you can take a Windows XP disk and have it run natively on a Mac at 9:39. Bootcamp allows you to make the partition, but that is not a native installation. I won't argue that you can't run Windows easily on a Mac, because you can (still a few compatibility issues, though). I'm simply stating that doing so isn't a native installation as you claim.

[bdog2be]

My Question to you is have you ever used vista. I'm sick of all these stupid Steve Jobs lovers that think there crapple products are superior. o boy you have fancy moving icons and have only two viruses. that's because they only 9% of computers are macs there's no use to make a virus for such a small amount of users. and all these programs that you mac user love have equal if not better counter parts for free in windows. and before you go and start yelling at me yes i do have a mac it sucks.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Yes I have used Vista, see my 5 vids called "My 11 months of hell with Windows Vista" I also work with it daily

Second thing, I don't love Steve Jobs.

you say OS X security is only because so few people use it. I'll agree thats a big reason, another reason is because its Unix based. But its still more secure.

"equal if not better counter parts for free in windows."

same can be said here.

Why does you Mac suck? What kind is it? How old is it? Do you not like it because it wont play games?

[Mondorus]

Mac rules, u are totally right.

[devo85x]

got a good reason for that, cause you cant mean software rules, you can put mac os on a PC. so i guess you mean hardware, which sucks on a mac (and before you get mad cause i said that look up the fastest mac specs)

[egg357]

I agree, keep the games away from the pc...I dont want my pc data crashing with a game..thats what xbox and ps3 are for where you can run a game in a more stable environment..i like my mac and I dont need to play games on it

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Funny how all my third party software worked perfectly on xp, and osx.

[Atheist18505]

lol Windows ME, was a monolithic kernel, based on Windows 9x, Windows Vista is Hybrid Micro-Kernel based on Windows NT, Windows NT Kernel is super stable, it is the 3rd Party drivers, and software.