Mac or Pc ?, hmm... Options

[artislife90]

Ok, hi people. I am totally all for Mac, but most people are stuck on Windows, and thats like sad... So yea, How many Create Bloggers have made the switch to Mac? And if your still on windows...WHY?!



...yea this is a lame topic, I bet no one really cares...but oh well..


MAC > Windows

[*mipadi*]

I've been using Macs since 1994, and before that I exclusively used Apple IIe's, so I haven't really switched from Windows--although I do have a few PC's running Windows, too, and a computer running Linux, which I use mostly as a router these days.

[largosama]

I love Macs; they keep technology beautiful

but I haven't had one since the first G4; they've gotten a bit expensive for everyday usage.

[*kryogenix*]

but I haven't had one since the first G4; they've gotten a bit expensive for everyday usage.

http://www.apple.com/macmini/

$500 is not that expensive.

I'd buy it if I wasn't saving up money for other things. I really need to get a job.

[*mipadi*]

The Mini isn't really a great computer, though, and there's no room for expansion.

[FailedSense]

you can expand the mini a little, and it is a decent machine if you get the high end.

i use Macs at work, but I have a PC at home. I like them both, but I like Mac OS better than Windows.

Of course, I hate windows with an extreme passion....>.>

^.^

[*mipadi*]

How can you expand it? You can replace one stick of RAM, but even that's a pain in the ass.

[FailedSense]

didn't say it was easy. ^.~

you can swap out bits and pieces. upgrading rather than expanding, i suppose.

*shrug*

I suck at communicating.

I want a mini, though. They are decent enough machines for what I do. I don't game or anything, you see. ^.~

[artislife90]

Yea, Mac Mini is ok for just using it for everyday stuff.

I to extremely hate windows. And I paid 2,200 to get out of windows. It was totally worth it!

So yea. Yay for Apple and Os X

[*kryogenix*]

Yea, Mac Mini is ok for just using it for everyday stuff. 

I to extremely hate windows. And I paid 2,200 to get out of windows. It was totally worth it!

So yea. Yay for Apple and Os X

you know you could have just used linux, and you would have saved $2200.

[*mipadi*]

Except that, in terms of a desktop OS, OS X is far more mature and useable than Linux at this stage.

[sadolakced acid]

Except that, in terms of a desktop OS, OS X is far more mature and useable than Linux at this stage.

a bike is more matured and useable than a car.

does that mean it's better?
(now that OS X moves to intel it's biggest downfall is it can't be installed on existing computers)

(they should make a mac that fits in a 5.25 drive bay and uses existing stuff)

(i don't think it can be done)

[*kryogenix*]

Except that, in terms of a desktop OS, OS X is far more mature and useable than Linux at this stage.

Bah, Ubuntu/Kubuntu are easy enough for the average person to use/install and understand.

[*mipadi*]

Bah, Ubuntu/Kubuntu are easy enough for the average person to use/install and understand.

Compiling software from source is easy for the average person to understand? I think not. Linux itself might be easily installed with some distributions, but adding additional software can be a pain in the ass. Adding hardware can be a pain, too. Drivers can be hard to find. For example, if you have an ATI graphics card, it can be a pain in the ass to get it working, especially if its "old". (That is but one example.)

[sadolakced acid]

Compiling software from source is easy for the average person to understand? I think not. Linux itself might be easily installed with some distributions, but adding additional software can be a pain in the ass. Adding hardware can be a pain, too. Drivers can be hard to find. For example, if you have an ATI graphics card, it can be a pain in the ass to get it working, especially if its "old". (That is but one example.)

well, macs aren't nessicarily better. they just make you buy all new hardware if you want to switch- i don't see that as ease of compatibility.

[*mipadi*]

My post mentioned OS X because it was specifically being talked about; I meant to say that Windows and OS X are far more mature and functional than Linux is for the desktop at this point in time.

Of course, I have an old computer running Linux as a router, and it works great for that duty.

[*kryogenix*]

Compiling software from source is easy for the average person to understand? I think not. Linux itself might be easily installed with some distributions, but adding additional software can be a pain in the ass. Adding hardware can be a pain, too. Drivers can be hard to find. For example, if you have an ATI graphics card, it can be a pain in the ass to get it working, especially if its "old". (That is but one example.)

What software does the average user need that isn't already included in KDE?

[artislife90]

I tried linux. But, there is not nearly enough software for it. No adobe.

also, I really don't find Linux to be as much of a pleasure to use. I really enjoy Mac. I don't think Linux is really supported enough by 3rd party companys like Adobe right now.



Yea. I still love my G5, and as far as moving to Intel. It is going to be a very gradual move. For a while there will be a choice. Intel and IBM based computers as well as a Intel or IBM OS X. And then slowly the IBM computers will kinda go away. Personaly I think it is a good move. Macs will become so much cheaper now and they will get a wider user base because of that.

[*mipadi*]

What software does the average user need that isn't already included in KDE?

If you use a Linux-based computer for more than just a few basic things, you will need to get other software.

Here's a short, incomplete list of some software I use on my Unix terminal at work, and my Linux box at home:

1. Router software
2. gcc
3. Blue Fish
4. GNUplot
5. gzip/gunzip
6. tar
7. chmod
8. chown
9. emacs

Now a lot of that stuff is things that don't work at all similarly to Windows, like a lot of KDE apps do, but they're things you have to use. Using a Linux box will force you to move out of the supplied apps eventually, once you've used it a while.

The problem with Linux is that it is not as mature as OS X or Windows. Part of that is due to its lack of standards. An application written for GNOME, for example, may or may not function properly under KDE, and vice versa--even though it's a Linux application. Some applications might not allow something as simple as cut-and-paste functions to work across applications. And have you ever tried installing new fonts under Linux? It can be a real bitch to get them to work right in all applications.

Granted, Linux is on its way--it's growing--but I don't think it's there yet. It's great for a lot of server/high-performance workstation apps, but I don't think it's worked its way into desktop apps yet--although it is making inroads.

Of course, the reason I prefer OS X is because it packages the power and stability of BSD (similar to Linux)--not to mention all the cool command-line tools--into an operating system that is simple to use and just works. And, hey, if I find a cool Linux app, I can probably get it to run under OS X's X11 system, too.

[*kryogenix*]

If you use a Linux-based computer for more than just a few basic things, you will need to get other software.

Here's a short, incomplete list of some software I use on my Unix terminal at work, and my Linux box at home:

1. Router software
   
2. gcc
   
3. Blue Fish
   
4. GNUplot
   
5. gzip/gunzip
   
6. tar
   
7. chmod
   
8. chown
   
9. emacs

Now a lot of that stuff is things that don't work at all similarly to Windows, like a lot of KDE apps do, but they're things you have to use. Using a Linux box will force you to move out of the supplied apps eventually, once you've used it a while.

I had a friend who's hard drive failed, so I gave him a Knoppix disc to use while he was waiting for a new drive. He was able to use it for what he needed without needing any new software (this was even while school was in session!). Everything he needed was supplied by KDE and the distro.

The problem with Linux is that it is not as mature as OS X or Windows. Part of that is due to its lack of standards. An application written for GNOME, for example, may or may not function properly under KDE, and vice versa--even though it's a Linux application. Some applications might not allow something as simple as cut-and-paste functions to work across applications. And have you ever tried installing new fonts under Linux? It can be a real bitch to get them to work right in all applications.

What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength. The beauty of multiple distros is the range of choices. Don't like gnome? Pick a distro with KDE, or vice versa.

Granted, Linux is on its way--it's growing--but I don't think it's there yet. It's great for a lot of server/high-performance workstation apps, but I don't think it's worked its way into desktop apps yet--although it is making inroads.

K/Ubuntu is probably going to be the distro that makes Linux hit critical mass for the average desktop user. The only thing holding it back is the lack of apps that people recognize. And Microsoft's campaign to discredit Linux isn't helping either.

I understand what you're saying though. The reason's you've cited are why I don't have linux currently installed (seeing a bootloader would make my family panic as well). I'm waiting till next year for next Mac OS to come out for x86 so I can really try it out for myself (the last mac I used was a G3).

[wayne]

macs are better.. cause.. windows is.. fragile.... to put it nicely

[Eryi]

I'd choose a Macintosh over a Windows.

[*mipadi*]

I had a friend who's hard drive failed, so I gave him a Knoppix disc to use while he was waiting for a new drive. He was able to use it for what he needed without needing any new software (this was even while school was in session!). Everything he needed was supplied by KDE and the distro.

Perhaps if you are doing basic word processing and basic Internet stuff (IM, email, web) you can do it without any additional applications, but if you used a Linux computer full-time, you'd eventually grow beyond that (I hope). I mean, you've added programs to your PC, haven't you? It's highly unlikely a distro would have all the programs to suit your needs included. If it does, you're probably not doing a whole lot with your computer, and in that case, any computer would suit your needs.

The problem in Linux arises in getting more software. Sure, it's easy to find, but often it's packaged as source, requiring a compile (which can take a lot of time for large programs). Even compiling can be a pain in the neck, especially if you encounter errors due to a lack of certain libraries. Some package-management solutions in some distros have alleviated most of those problems, but it's still not as easy as downloading and installing software on Windows or the Macintosh.

What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength. The beauty of multiple distros is the range of choices. Don't like gnome? Pick a distro with KDE, or vice versa.

The availability of options in Linux is one of its strengths, but paradoxically, it's also one of its flaws. The problem is that I can get a program for "Linux" and install it on my Linux box, and it may not work. Why not? Well, what if its written for KDE and uses, say, kdelib or the Qt widget set. I don't have KDE on my computer, so I can't use that program--even though it runs in Linux. Similarly, a program designed for GNOME uses the GNOME libraries and the Gtk widget set, which won't work properly if you don't have GNOME installed.

So in the end you have a system with a number of different API's, which gets annoying to write software for, because who knows what API's the end-user will have. It gets annoying to get software for the system, too, because then you try to compile it and end up with a bunch of dependency failures because you don't have the right libraries.

Alternatively, on Windows or OS X, a developer knows exactly what his end-user will have in terms of libraries and API's. A Windows developer knows that a program written in the Win32 API will run under Windows. An OS X developer has more leeway--his end-user will have four API's: Cocoa, Carbon, BSD, and Java. Any application written in those API's will run under OS X.

A Linux developer...he has no idea what the configuration of the end-user's machine will be. So in the end, that which is a great strength of Linux--its customizability, is in turn its greatest downfall. Hardcore computer users love customizability, yes, but the average consumer? He just wants a box that will work. He'll be happy with what he gets, as long as it does the job. Unfortunately, Linux doesn't always do the job, or at least not easily.

I also don't look at the open-source model as a great strength for Linux in terms of getting it onto the desktop. It's a great idea, but the average user doesn't care about that--the average user isn't going to fiddle with code. Honestly, kryo, how often have you taken apart KDE, or Firefox, or any other program, and changed the code around to fix something? I'm making an assumption here, which is dangerous, but I am willing to bet it hasn't been that often, if ever. Many users tout the advantages of the open-source model on Linux, but they don't do a good job selling it--because the average computer user doesn't care about being able to take apart and modify his software. As a programmer, I like the open-source model--but hey, a large percentage of OS X's software is open source (including the entire kernel and many other components of the OS) so I get to play around with source code on OS X, anyway.

[karrar]

Wow, i remember having to defend me using a Mac about a year ago. It was on this very section of the forum. Now i see there are many who have switched.

[*kryogenix*]

Wow, i remember having to defend me using a Mac about a year ago. It was on this very section of the forum. Now i see there are many who have switched.

A big reason is that Apple is switching from PPC to x86. That means we won't need new hardware.

I'll get to you in two days mipadi.