0

Windows VS Mac - The War No One Cares About

Ok, first I want to make one thing clear; I am and have always been a PC user, that is just what has always been available to me. But this does not mean that I have not used any other OS. I had (and plan on having again soon) a Linux box that i used regularly. I do not think that Windows is an amazing OS, or that it is even the best OS available, but I also do not think that moving to the Mac OS is going to make things better either.

Now I know we have all seen the Mac vs PC commercials on tv, and to be honest, I love those commercials, they are really funny and well done. But for the most part that mislead alot of people, and because of that there is an increase in the sales of MAC PC's. For god sakes my brother (who know nothing about computers) was talking about purchasing a Mac machine soon. So far I have heard 2 parts to this argument, One is that Mac is a better system for creating video, pictures, music, blah blah blah and the other is basically a "grass is greener" type argument; and for the most part I disagree with both.

I am a programmer by Trade, and a artist by hobby (I draw, animate, ect...) And I have been told my many people (friends and Sales Clerks alike) that I should purchase a Mac if i work alot with photo editing and blah blah... and i say the same thing every time. "No, I am use to the way that Windows crashes, I do not want to spend another year figuring out how a new OS is going to crash on me". Which is how it goes, it is true Mac fixes alot of the problems you have with windows, but there is also problems for Macs that you have never encountered. I know this for a fact because I have received 12 emails in the last 3 weeks about my friends new MacBook crashing (for the most part my friend are computer illiterate so they email me for help).

I got no general problems with Macs, or with Mac user. I just do not fall under that set of gullible people who see something new and go "OH, this must be better, it's shinier!" yeah, no thanks. I have yet to hear a decent argument that would suggest a reason why I (or anyone) should switch from a OS I am use to, to one I am not. So there is my challenge: convince me. Or agree with me, either way should be a interesting discussion...

Yours Truly

19
Contributors
83
Replies
85
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by joshSCH
Featured Replies
  • 1
    Aia 1,977   10 Years Ago

    >but that is besides the point. What's the [I]point[/I] again?...where's the [I]point[/I]?. I like [I]points[/I]. I collect [I]points[/I]. C'mon, pass me the [I]point[/I]. I live for [I]points[/I]. Life is full of [I]points[/I]. ...I see...[I]dead[/I] [B][I]points[/I][/B]. Read More

0

>So there is my challenge: convince me.
Okay. You can run Windows as a virtual machine while running Mac OS at the same time. With the incredible memory magic of Mac OS, you can run both simultaneously without any noticeable performance penalty. Congratulations, you now have the best of both worlds.

Consider yourself convinced.

One of my friends is a professional photographer, and the selling point for him with Mac was that he could finally edit extreme resolution images with multiple layers and not hit the memory limit for a single application. Photoshop always crashed because of that and there was no solution. He's also thrilled that Mac OS actually uses available network bandwidth.

0

Whats wrong with linux? I think its far superior to both Mac and Windows.

Mac:
Treats you like a moron. Too many graphical effects. People think your "cool" if you use a mac. Not fully open source. (granted its kernel is open source but that is not enough) Against choice. Obviously the best hardware support.


Windows:
Slow, buggy, unstable. Everyone uses it. Not open source. Against choice. Hard to program with. Good hardware support.

Linux:
fast, sometimes unstable. Easy to program with. Not very user friendly. Powerful bash shell. Open source. ok hardware support.

freeBSD:
very stable, fast. Easy to program with. Not very user friendly. Powerful shell. Open source but not gpl'ed. Really crappy hardware support.

0

Why dont MS make a BSD or UNIX based windows (Lol Windows NNT - new, new technology)?

Yeah, it wouldnt run many apps but IMHO it wouldne be that hard to port the windows GUI to a unix-like OS and it would be popular with buisnesses for its stability (new windows server line anyone?)

0

I'm not totally certain on this, but to your comments...

1)BSD: Isn't there a specific BSD liscence that Micro$oft would have to adhere to?

2)UNIX: I vaguely recall hearing that Micro$oft tried to support a unix-esque setup some time back...I think the name was Xenix, although I can't recall for certain.

0

>I think its far superior to both Mac and Windows.
I disagree, and you've noted the point that I disagree with:

Not very user friendly.

It could be the best OS in the world, but if you don't encourage users to use it, they won't. Most users aren't programmers, and they don't run servers. Linux is and has been a poor choice for a desktop system. It's gotten better, but Windows still beats Linux in usability and Mac blows them all away.

@Mac:

>Treats you like a moron.
On the contrary. Apple dumps money into designing for usability. Just because the interface is simple doesn't mean it's dumbed down or weak.

>Too many graphical effects.
And why not? If the hardware can handle them, and people like you can turn them off, I don't see a problem. This isn't a good argument against any OS.

>Not fully open source. (granted its kernel is open source but that is not enough)
You know what? People don't give a rats ass about open source. If you go to just about any average person and explain what open source is, then ask them if they care, here is the answer you'll get: "Yay. I can read the source even though I can't understand it. Whatever."

>Against choice.
Yea, that's stupid. If you're going to comment on choice, at least be consistent about it. Right now you look like a hypocrite who bashes what he doesn't like and praises what he does...using the same argument.

@Windows:

>Slow, buggy, unstable.
All of those involve poorly written applications in the majority of cases. Do you really think the OS is the only program that breaks things?

>Hard to program with.
I'd love to hear why you think so.

@FreeBSD:

>Open source but not gpl'ed.
I hate how some people think that the GPL is the end all be all of open source. The license really isn't that great.

0

Why would I want to go out and buy a MAC so I can run windows? That does not seem to make much sense to me, I understand why they put it out there. I mean it would make the transition easier for Windows to make if you had a virtual machine to run, but still. If I am going to run windows anyways why not just buy a PC and leave Mac out of the whole equation.

And I never said there was anything wring with Linux (I had a Linux box that i used regularly). Linux is an amazing OS that is quick and I find the new fedora is great and simple to use. I plan on getting Fedora and a new machine soon and previously when I was running it (once i had set it all up) my Family and friends did not have much trouble doing what they normally do on Windows with Fedora OS. I currently still run Knoppix off a DVD from time to time.

Narue.

I would not say that I am convinced of anything. I have heard numerous MAC lover make the same comment about the ability to run high end programs and visual blah, blah. And i agree for the most part, MAC is better if you a processing large images, videos, music, etc... But that does not make it perfect (far from it)
At one of my last job they use to process and edit alot of large videos through 4 or 5 MAC machines they have had for a few years. (This is one of the few times I have actually used the Mac OSX) And I have to say I rarely heard them say a nice thing about those machines (again, not that things would be better on a windows platform). They bog, they break, they fail, basically they are a computer.

0

If you've already made your decision (and it's obvious you have), why did you waste our time by asking to be convinced?

0

>And why not? If the hardware can handle them, and people like you can turn them off, I don't see a problem. This isn't a good argument against any OS.

I hate graphical effects. They take up cpu time, they take up ram, and they fill my harddrive with crap. They make a OS unstable and complicated. They also hide whats really happening in the system. For example, I run all my applications from a terminal because I like to see the errors and warning most applications generate. With fancy effects and WMs thats impossible.

>You know what? People don't give a rats ass about open source. If you go to just about any average person and explain what open source is, then ask them if they care, here is the answer you'll get: "Yay. I can read the source even though I can't understand it. Whatever."

So? Non-open source software is immoral and wrong. (that doesn't mean I don't use it.. ;-) Non-open source software hurts the community, the country, and the world.

>All of those involve poorly written applications in the majority of cases. Do you really think the OS is the only program that breaks things?

I also said that linux was unstable, you apparently did not feel you had to comment about that. Linux also has many poorly written applications. (cough cough firefox) But some OSs are more stable than others. Linux is more stable than Windows, less stable than mac, and a lot less stable than BSD.

>Yea, that's stupid. If you're going to comment on choice, at least be consistent about it. Right now you look like a hypocrite who bashes what he doesn't like and praises what he does...using the same argument.

How are windows and mac pro choice? Both by default you have to install a graphical server. Does that sound like choice to you? Sometimes you want just a command line system. But does windows or mac let you do this? No, therefore they are both against choice.

>Hard to program with.
>I'd love to hear why you think so.

Its _a lot_ easier to add a library in linux than it is in windows. I want libstdc++5? Its just one command away. With windows if you want a library its 1) really hard to get 2) its really hard to make it work.

0

If you've already made your decision (and it's obvious you have), why did you waste our time by asking to be convinced?

I don't feel like that is a fair statement, just because I was not convinced by your argument (or lack there of) does not mean that I have made up my mind on the subject. There is a great deal of difference between the two. For instance I read what you wrote, i thought about it and I replied to why I did not feel that you made a valid point that was strong enough to convince me that switching to a MAC OS is not a giant waste of time.

Now If you had come and said " I feel that the MAC OS is a much better system then windows because it is faster, cleaner, less buggy and can cure cancer." Then I might have replied with "MACS CAN CURE CANCER?!!? I had no Idea that was possible, I will have to research this alittle more"

Not to say that the only reason i would switch to another OS is the fact that is offering me some miracle cure that is can not possible provide; But what I am saying is you did not make any argument that I have not heard before.

0

I'm not totally certain on this, but to your comments...

1)BSD: Isn't there a specific BSD liscence that Micro$oft would have to adhere to?

2)UNIX: I vaguely recall hearing that Micro$oft tried to support a unix-esque setup some time back...I think the name was Xenix, although I can't recall for certain.

Yes MS made Xenix back in like the 80s. It was a licenced version of UNIX.
(they paid $$$ to at&T in order tomake it based on System V)

And MS are free to use BSD as they wish. All it says is :

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
 
[LIST]
[*]Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.[/LIST] 
[LIST]
[*]Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.[/LIST] 
[LIST]
[*]Neither the name of the oragnisation nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.[/LIST] 
 
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
0

>I hate graphical effects.
Yep, that's a great way to objectively compare operating systems.

>So? Non-open source software is immoral and wrong. (that doesn't mean
>I don't use it.. ;-) Non-open source software hurts the community, the
>country, and the world.
I can't properly respond to this without getting an infraction.

>I also said that linux was unstable, you apparently did not feel you had to comment about that
I also didn't repeat myself on other points, like easy to program with, or against choice. But apparently you felt you had to put some kind of conspiracy theory spin on my intentions.

>How are windows and mac pro choice?
I'm not willing to debate that with you. You're obviously an open source zealot, you have strong opinions about subjective topics and use them as if they were facts, and I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.

>With windows if you want a library its 1) really hard to get 2) its really hard to make it work.
Wow. You wouldn't last ten seconds on a debate team. "One command" versus "really hard" doesn't constitute a convincing argument in any technical forum. ;)

>I don't feel like that is a fair statement
The world isn't fair. Deal with it.

>just because I was not convinced by your argument (or lack there of)
>does not mean that I have made up my mind on the subject
Wrong. You've clearly done enough research to know what you're talking about. It's unlikely that someone will bring up a groundbreaking feature that astounds you enough to buy a Mac. If you still need to be convinced, then you've already made up your mind. QED.

And of course, my argument was that is Windows is good enough, and Mac clearly has benefits, having both at the same time is a good thing. Though I wouldn't recommend you do that unless you already plan to get a new computer. Throwing away your current Windows box just to get a Mac so that you can run windows on it is silly.

0

>You wouldn't last ten seconds on a debate team.
That sounds like hypocrisy to me. You are the one refusing to debate any of my comments with lame statements like " I'm not willing to debate that with you." and " I can't properly respond to this without getting an infraction." I suspect it has more to with the fact that you cant find anything wrong with open source software than anything else.

>With windows if you want a library its 1) really hard to get 2) its really hard to make it work.

ok fine ill revise what I said and give a personal example.

windows experience:
When I was a windows user I was programming with dev-cpp. I was happy for a while but than I wanted to start graphical programming. So I found out there was a borland library called graphics.h that I could use to start graphical programming. So I followed the tutorial on how to use this library in dev-cpp. Needless to say, I could not make it work. I also tried to get SDL to work, but I could not.

linux experience:
I wanted to get into graphical programming on linux with SDL. So I just type in pacman -S SDL . Now I have SDL! Now I can program with SDL! No need to fiddle with anything!

0

Gee. Calm down people.

My (balanced) views on operating systems

Macs are nice and easy for beginners (but Vista is catching up with OSX on that front) but are pricey and have limited upgradablity.

Windows is a general all rounder. Yeah it crashes and gets viruses but it supports 99% of all modern hardware and software and is a lot less restrictive than OSX

Linux. Its free in mentality and usually in price. More stable than windows and better for older hardware or Power users (servers, developers) but a pain in the ass for the regular desktop user to set up.

BSD. Even more cryptic than linux. Not for the everyday user BUT is extremely stable and can use both its own Ports system as well as running most linux apps.

0

> My (balanced) views on operating systems
lol
I agree BSD is superior in almost everyway to linux except hardware support but I really do not feel like compiling my own software.

0

I agree with Jbennet completely, very well put; And I also second the "calm down" statement, this is suppose to be a discussion, and i think it might be getting a bit to heated. There is really not a need to fall back onto the Message board habit of "counter attack through 2 words" which I am sure we are all aware of.

but Vista is catching up with OSX on that front

ha, Vista makes me angry, I never understood why they came out with that. It was like here, people seem to like MAC OSX and we added a bunch for security features that should have been released in patches for XP; now give me $200 bucks.

0

So? Non-open source software is immoral and wrong. (that doesn't mean I don't use it.. ;-) Non-open source software hurts the community, the country, and the world.

Immoral, no.. open source is great for the users.. but how are programmers supposed to make a living when everything is open source? We do need non-open source software so people can make a living.. Besides, it isn't hard to illegally download and use software instead of paying for it..

Gee. Calm down people.

My (balanced) views on operating systems

Macs are nice and easy for beginners (but Vista is catching up with OSX on that front) but are pricey and have limited upgradablity.

Windows is a general all rounder. Yeah it crashes and gets viruses but it supports 99% of all modern hardware and software and is a lot less restrictive than OSX

Linux. Its free in mentality and usually in price. More stable than windows and better for older hardware or Power users (servers, developers) but a pain in the ass for the regular desktop user to set up.

BSD. Even more cryptic than linux. Not for the everyday user BUT is extremely stable and can use both its own Ports system as well as running most linux apps.

I agree. I would also agree that MACs are better for video and graphics (South Park is made on a MAC). However, the fact of the matter is Microsoft is a lot more compatible than MACs.. How much software/hardware is available for PCs, but not MACs? TONS! The PC is the computer of choice, and the most popular by a long shot. How much software/hardware is only available for MACs? Uh, not much.. Besides, do you think Microsoft cares if it loses home users to apple? Not really.. Microsoft OWNS the business industry.. Almost every business in America uses PCs.. or linux servers..

ha, Vista makes me angry, I never understood why they came out with that. It was like here, people seem to like MAC OSX and we added a bunch for security features that should have been released in patches for XP; now give me $200 bucks.

Vista is a huge jump from XP. It is like the huge step to XP. Microsoft completely reprogrammed their OS (all previous versions of Windows still had programs and components from other Windows versions even if they were no longer used). However, people are happy with XP, and not many people will switch to Vista for a while..

0

Yeah, also IMHO vista is great for new users but its too steep a change for people who have gotten used to XP. Im an XP power user but i must admit that i know absolutely nothing about vista.

0

Vista is a huge jump from XP. It is like the huge step to XP. Microsoft completely reprogrammed their OS (all previous versions of Windows still had programs and components from other Windows versions even if they were no longer used). However, people are happy with XP, and not many people will switch to Vista for a while..

agreed, also a new OS is alot like any new Gaming System it needs alittle bit of time to work the bugs out. Like any programmer will tell you there is no way Q&A can test for everything, sometimes things need to be discovered when people start using the system. I am not ready to move to vista yet, i figure i can easily wait a year or 2 for them to make it better and more stable. Remember 98SE, god i loved that operating system. If i wasn't a corporate whore i would still be using 98SE.

That and aside from visual aspects and some security issues have the really done anything? (seriously is a question i have not heard of anything else they have done)

I like my idea of a Unix based Windows.

really? cause that kind of sounds scary to me. Kind of like the fountain of youth wrapped in a volcano. You keep thinking "i could just reach in there and be young forever" then you do and your hand gets melted off because of the molten lava...

...... so bored at work, must some up with more random nonsensical analogies...

0

haha.. that was pretty random ;)

"aside from visual aspects and some security issues have the really done anything?"

eh, not really.. It's more robust.

0

better h/w support. Vista out of the box detected every piece of hardware I havever owned. XP needed drivers for everything

0

True that. You can install multiple hardware components at once, and Vista does well recognizing them all quickly.

0

I also like the windows updater in Vista. Its much better than XPs (they did away with the web interface and its much faster)

0

better h/w support. Vista out of the box detected every piece of hardware I havever owned. XP needed drivers for everything

unfair comparison. Out of the box XP had drivers for most any hardware available when it went Gold as well, it's just that in the last 5 years (yes, it's been 5 years since XP was launched) there's been a lot of new hardware released that of course isn't handled as standard by XP (how can it, when it didn't exist to be included back in 2001?).

Your statement is like blaming DOS 1.0 for not having support for XVGA videocards out of the box when there were no videocards at all when DOS 1.0 was written.

0

He was just stating what had changed in Vista. And better hardware support is something that had changed..

0

No really, XP didnt. I installed XP SP2 retail on a machine which originally ran ME (hardware circa 1999/2000). I had to find drivers for nearly everything.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.