I use a Windows. But I want a MAC.

Windows, but I want a MAC. There are 2 topics of this. -__-.

hm... windows i guess i've never tried a mac so yea...

Macs are more stable...I've never owned one myself though. I just don't like my Windows.

merging.

It can be a lot like Windows.

http://www.kde.org/screenshots/images/3.2/snapshot11f.png

That's a KDE desktop. It's not that much different now is it?

What distros do you run?

Well, Linux can be made to look like Windows, certainly, and even behave like Windows in some ways (such as with the use of a desktop environment like GNOME or KDE), but the underlying system is still very different. A perfect example is in the way Linux handles drives: every drive on a Linux machine, from the internal hard drive down to the floppy drive, is mounted under a unified file system. For example, I have an account on a Sun workstation running Solaris (which is a Unix-based OS, like Linux). My home folder, where I store all my files and binary executables, is mounted under that workstation's filesystem; but really, it's on a networked server. In Windows this would appear as a separate networked drive, but in Linux, it's treated as being right there, at my computer. (In fact, in Linux, there are only a few directories that need to be stored locally: /boot, /root, /etc, /bin, and /sbin are the most crucial ones).

Linux also lacks a registry as in Windows (although GNOME has something like the registry, unfortunately), and even handles file permissions differently.

Linux also lacks the unified structure of Windows. Windows has only one desktop environment/window manager: explorer.exe. (Technically you can install other ones, but for all practical purposes, explorer.exe is the only one that is completely compatible.) Linux, on the other hand, has numerous desktop environments: GNOME, KDE, and Xfce are three. It also has myriad window managers: Sawfish (default GNOME window manager), kwm (default KDE window manager), Enlightenment, Fluxbox, and AfterStep, to name but a few. I can even mix and match environments and managers; for instance, I often run GNOME with Enlightenment. Linux can also be run completely from a command line, which is nearly impossible in Windows. (And when logging into my Linux machines remotely, I often do run only with a command line, as it takes a lot of bandwidth to run a GUI session.) In fact, many things that require a GUI in Windows can be done in with the command line in Linux.

As I also noted, Linux software often must be compiled from source code, or is packaged as an RPM that is generally installed via the command line. Software is rarely packaged as a neat GUI installer as it is in Windows. You also often times have to "play" with software, especially drivers, to get them to work in Linux.

There are, of course, a lot of under-the-hood differences in terms of architecture, such as the way memory is handled and files are written to the drives, and how the OS'es recover from errors. Basically, though, Linux can be made to appear like Windows, and if you only play with it a bit, you might not notice a lot of differences; but if you dive deeply into it, you'll notice some big changes.

As far as distros go, I personally use Fedora Core 3 on my main workstation, and Ubuntu Linux on an old iMac (I really don't like Ubuntu, but it's the only decent PowerPC distro I have found). I also often use a Sun UltraSPARC running Solaris, which is similar in nature to Linux (especially since I run Solaris in GNOME, not Sun's yucky Common Desktop Environment).

Mac panther was good, tiger is too much stuff on screen.
now Linux on the other hand...
Debian = Greatness
Red Hat = really really awesome.
my favorite is linux, and my favorite Distrubiton of Linux is Ubutnu.

Windows definately, Mac is okay but it's harder to manage (that's my opinion p_p;)

Have you tried Kubuntu? Cause if you like KDE more than you like Gnome, Kubuntu is better.

i tried Kubuntu Two days ago. installed it on my comp, said couldnt install remaining packages, messed up my comp, tried to download them manually didnt work. Re-Installed Ubuntu, And now it says the same thing, so my laptop is dead thanks to Kubuntu.

You should still be able to log in to your Linux account in GNOME, or run it from a terminal, to fix KDE. If you edit your X-Windows config file, you should be able to log into GNOME by default again.

I forget the exact procedure. I remember that Enlightenment creates a .xsession file at the root of your home directory; KDE might do the same, but I can't remember (I don't like KDE much, so I rarely use it). If so, deleting that file should allow you to log in using GNOME by default again. You can find the file by opening a terminal and doing the following:

If you see a file called .xsession listed, delete it with this:

Might work. It works if Enlightenment gets messed up and you need to log into GNOME; don't know if it will work for KDE or not.
You can also take a look at the window manager config files, which should be stored in /etc by default:

Windows XP is better.

Your like god with 40 posts. I'll try this becuase my computer is KILLING ME. i even put in a live CD and formated it and it still said same thing, ok trying it now, thanks

mac even though everyone hates them. they may be foreign to a lot of people but thats because people are use to figuring out the stupid ways of PCs and when they go to macs they're confused at the simple minded way it works : )

thats right.

this is why people don't try macs. because of elitists like you.

YOU ARE NOT BETTER BECAUSE YOU USE A MAC. END OF STORY.

plus, you have a one button mouse. so take that :p

go linux.

That's kind of harsh. I don't think she was saying she was better than anyone because she used a Mac. She was just noting that a lot of things are simpler and more intuitive in the Mac OS.

Besides, if you think that's elitist, you should listen to some Linux users talk.

I'm a member of Slashdot, I know how elitist some linux/bsd users can be. In fact, when I was first learning about linux, i was treated pretty harshly by some of the people on various #linux channels.

That was pretty elitist sounding to me. She called the PC stupid, implying that PC users are stupid for using a stupid architecture and being unable to use a "simple" interface.

Pretty patronizing to me.

i use windows... because that's what i have...

hmm... i wonder.. if my dad will let me instal linux on an old computer...

i think the main thing is compatablilty. as long as windows still comes standard on most computers, and developers develop on windows (then port to otheres)(i'm talking popular, sold in store programs, not the sourceforge ones, which are undoubtably good. )

personally, i want to see a program and a comptuer that can handle all three OSes on it, by fooling each into thinking they're a separate computer... and such...

Meh...I think you're taking her personal opinion a bit too personally.

windows xp :)

i dont really care which one.... they both do the same sorta thing i guess.....
i have a windows...but at skool they have mac...
i like the mac layout beta tho...its more high tech n shit....but windows has more choice of layouts....

I'm sure about 99% of the people in this forum are unqualified to say what operating system is better than which.

Even though, I agree with you, Kryogenix, I prefer Macs over anything. There are many Mac elitists out there, that's for sure. But then again, there's elitists for every OS and just about everything else in the world.

Linux is a close second in my eyes, followed by FreeBSD.

Windows is somewhere at the bottom.



It's quite possible to have multiple operating systems on one computer. Simply set up more partitions or install more hard drives in your box.

Anyone is qualified to say what operating system is better, there the consumers of them - there the only ones that keep the companys going.

Plus, why so many partitions, your only going to slow that PCs HD down, and I dought you could put a Mac OS on a PC built for Windows or Linux, I would like to see it done.

It could be possible. OS X runs on Intel processors, so with a bit of code hacking, it might be entirely possible to get Windows, OS X, and some flavor of Linux to run on the same machine. Difficult, but not impossible.