Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Chat about just about anything else

Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby Mattd4AX3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:32 pm

Well, this argument is a pet peeve of mine so I figured I'd post about it, this argument if for computer enthusiasts, for preference of OS.

First, let's look at the stereotypical fanboy of each OS.(There's several types so I'll just refer to the ones I've met personally/know)

Windows: Gamer who obsessively defrags and checks for viruses to keep his system clean.
Apple: Ease of use obsessed hip-person who bought a Mac because it promised no viruses.
Linux: Usually a former-Windows power user or Unix admin.

Every OS has it's advantages, and disadvantages, but first, Mac-bashing :twisted: .

My look on OS X, is quite simple, it's a great OS that runs on x86. My reason for hating Macs is, why can only a Mac run OS X?
It runs on x86, with some simple bios mods and downloading a hacked patch of OSX you can run leopard on a standard Intel computer(AMD in some cases), so why does Apple insist on keeping the public out of the loop that Macs are now the same technology as your average desktop.

And Apple needs to explain themselves as to why I can't buy OSX for my custom-built computer and enjoy it.

It's marketing, if Apple really "Thought different" they'd allow everyone to experience the OS and be the BETTER OS period, instead of hiding behind some marketing facade.

Now, Windows bashing :twisted: .

Look, it's understandable that the OS with 90% of the market share is going to have 1 million viruses for it, what I can't comprehend is how EASY these viruses get into the system. Sure if Linux had that amount of market share the issue wouldn't be "my OS gets so many viruses", the issue would be people not properly setting up their security settings and network security not being properly setup.

Windows needs to tighten up, apparently the completely and utterly useless UAC included in Vista, was made just to annoy us, I'm serious, read http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Designed+Vistas+UAC+to+Annoy+Users/article11464.htm .

I have no problem with Microsofts business model, I love proprietary software that works, what's wrong with paying someone for something that works properly and reward them for their work? Alas Windows does not work properly, they need to incorporate security features similar to Linux by not allowing anybody to just go and DELETE the system32 folder..

Windows could be a great OS if they'd just grow a brain and fix the problems that lurk it. I use it for gaming, and hypocritically almost never boot into Linux since to access steam messaging so my 49 person Team Fortress 2 clan I need to make a virtual Vista machine, which at that point system resources are being wasted than just using everything natively in Windows.... (Steam messaging does not work under wine, go look in the appdb if you don't believe me)

Now Linux bashing :evil: .

There's nothing really to bash Linux for since there's so many choices to choose from for your needs. And it wouldn't be fair to bash Linux because of the lack of support for games and things like Java and Flash oriented products. (Yes I know they're both on Linux, but the support for Linux isn't as good as Windows obviously...)

I guess my only complaint is that there's no serious company making a distro along the lines of Mint as far as ease of use, and configuring/updating/codecs go. If there is could you link me please :P.


I'm a gamer, and I hate consoles, so my only choice is Windows... If I owned a laptop or any general use, or server computer, it would be running Linux.

Feel free to add on to this, agree, disagree, etc, etc.
Custom-Built comp, Mint for desktop, Windows Vista for gaming, shared data partition for personal docs:
AMD x2 4200 2.2ghz
MSI 8600GTS stock OCed
Asus m2n-e mobo
2x1gb, 2x512mb=3gbs ddr2 800
Seagate 230gb drive
User avatar
Mattd4AX3
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:30 am
Location: NH,USA

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby JAK on Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:29 pm

You're preaching to the choir.
Many people would like to see OSX run on any PC (without hacks & patches).
Many people would like to see Windows secure, virus free and stop their DRM nonsense.
Many people would like to see Linux get a bit more user friendly and have support for games.

If your main complaint is that Windows is too buggy and Linux is not supporting your games, get yourself a game console such as Xbox, Playstation, Wii, etc....
Just a thought.
.
User avatar
JAK
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Central Florida

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby MALsPa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:33 pm

I feel kinda lucky because I never got very interested in any gaming. But when it comes to Mac vs Windows vs Linux, the biggest things for me are money and freedom. Using Linux costs me little or nothing; and, just as importantly, it gives me the freedom to do what I want with the operating system. It's mine, not Microsoft's or Apple's. I don't think I could ever be happy with a Mac or with Windows because they make me feel tied down.
User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby JAK on Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:14 pm

MALsPa wrote:I feel kinda lucky because I never got very interested in any gaming. But when it comes to Mac vs Windows vs Linux, the biggest things for me are money and freedom. Using Linux costs me little or nothing; and, just as importantly, it gives me the freedom to do what I want with the operating system. It's mine, not Microsoft's or Apple's. I don't think I could ever be happy with a Mac or with Windows because they make me feel tied down.


I agree. I've wasted my time on a number of things, but thankfully gaming isn't one of them (except for a short addiction to the original Zelda game). My son on the other hand, he's hopelessly addicted. Ah well, it keeps him off the streets.

As for the Windows vs. OSX vs. Linux argument, there really shouldn't be any. Just as Linux has many flavors each with its niche of what you are looking for in an OS, so is OSX and Windows. The each serves a usefulness in their own way. While I do spend most of my time at home using Linux, I still switch over to my Windows XP box for certain tasks, and at my job I have no choice but to use Windows. I am not too familiar with OSX due to monetary reasons, but my brother-in-law bought an iMac a few months back. Honestly, Linux is so close to OSX I don't really see the point in shelling out so much money for what is nothing more than a stylish computer with *nix on it. Maybe someday if I have extra funds lying around I may get a Mac, but right now I am more than satisfied with my Linux box (Mint) that is setup to mimic OSX.
.
User avatar
JAK
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Central Florida

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby lakehousetech on Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:49 pm

I wish gaming was more capable on linux as well. I won't bash any of the systems because as JAK said they each are good for certain people. There is no way I could get my mom or dad to try linux because it's still too difficult to configure. Macs on the other hand are wicked expensive, and to me don't offer enough configuration options. Windows Vista is a terrible offering from Microsoft, but I gotta say I think XP really is a good OS. It's a shame that they are talking about stopping support on it soon. I use it to play most of the intensive games I have. On the more mild games I don't have too many issues. Wine is getting better everyday. I'm really excited about the future of Mint.
User avatar
lakehousetech
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:34 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby sundayrefugee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:00 am

Hmm. My turn I guess. I don't have any problems with Microsoft. It bugs me when people say "Winblows" or "Microsucks". It makes it look like 13 year-old pimply-faced MySpace teens run the F/OSS movement :evil:

That said, their software has some serious faults, many of their own making. Granted, at the beginning, it was designed to be a non-networked, single-user OS, and everything since has been ad-hocked onto it. Still, some decisions, like a central registry, .dlls, activeX, non-password-protected, root-equivelent accounts, shipping with all ports open, etc..., are almost brain-dead, flashing neon signs saying "Hack me, please!". It's true to some extent that market share dictates the target, but when you make it so damned easy, it's hard to resist ;-)

On the converse, I use Windows alot. I use Vista, because I don't *personally* run into any of the bugs that haunt so many users, and visually, XP is just painful on the eyes now. I use it for gaming, but the wife still needs a "real" windows environment for her work. I don't like many of their strong-arm, shady tactics, but I don't have a problem with people making money for their product in general, just many of their tactics in particular. That doesn't mean I dislike their products, however. The products are just a series of 0's and 1's, and aren't capable of being inherently good or evil :roll:

Macs: I think the reason Apple is so restrictive of OSX is twofold: 1) probably some sort of agreement d/t the cash infusion from MS some years ago, and 2) they've found a niche in which to survive. Windows PCs are like Hondas: Cheap, tunable, and anyone can afford one. Apples are more like a Jag or Porsche - not everyone can have one, they're a luxury item, a sign of lifestyle. It may irritate many of us that would like to use OSX, but it's a place they've found to survive, and even thrive.

Also, tying their OS down hard to 1 controlled platform ensures quality control and support costs, and helps perpetuate the fanboi reputation that "Macs just work". Well, of course they do - you can only get them in one flavor, with an OS designed specifically to match it :lol: These would be hard to maintain if unleashed on the myriad and plethora of options available in the Wintel world ;-) Then they wouldn't be able to do those cutesy commercials :lol:

That said, I adore OSX. It's simply elegant, and a pure joy to compute in. However, I wish they wouldn't hide behind the "we're unhackable, no viri here, etc..." lines. Fell in less than two minutes the other day. How's that for unhackable? Apple has a long history of burying security flaws and pretending they aren't there, because it might affect marketing, instead of being honest about them and securing their users. This makes me a saaaaaaaaaaad Panda :lol:

Linux - Love it, obviously, for the freedom of choice in every possible aspect. I *hate* the attempt to "Windowize" it. Wine is running more and more Windows viri all the time, and viri are starting to become wine-aware and able to replicate into the .nix system through it (cites available upon request, no problem ;-) ). In order to replicate the functionality of Windows, wine has to also replicate the bugs, flaws, and security holes. The better they get, the more vulnerable your *nix machine becomes, if you have it installed. If you want Windows, run Windows. If you want to run Windows programs but are too cheap to buy it, then suck, or install wine on your own. Don't stick it in my Linux. Also, it seems like more and more distros are going with the "Vista" look. Vista is beautiful, but where is the imagination? Why not be different?

It doesn't bother me that Linux doesn't run Windows games, either, for the reasons mentioned above. It would bother me if Linux didn't run *Linux* games well. Linux should rise to world domination by being a better *OS* than Windows, not by running Windows better than Windows ;-) A modicum of learning isn't a bad thing, either. Instead of making distros so Windows-cloned that windows-castoffs feel right at home, how about we teach them about the wonderful things they are missing out on in the .nix world?

I also don't like that "Ubuntu" and "Linux" are becoming interchangeable. Ubuntu is one of the last distros I'd give to a beginner. I'd start with Mint, PCLOS, or MEPIS. From there, I can name off another 2 dozen I'd recommend before Ubuntu. It's buggy, their bug-fixing policy is absurd, and it often times just doesn't work. There are *so* many other distros that are so much more beginner freindly, easier to set up and maintain, more intuitive to navigate and use, it just goes to show what a few billion dollars to throw at marketing can do for you ;-)

There. I've ranted enough :lol: Someone else's turn :lol:
sundayrefugee
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby belovedmonster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:25 am

Anyone who thinks that Apple withhold their software from generic hardware just as a marketing ploy "don't get it". Apple are a hardware company not a software company!! The difference is Apple's design philosophy is that if you care about your hardware then you will care about the software it runs, and this is why they go out of their way to have really great software in a way another hardware manufacturer like Sony wouldn't. This hybrid approach of caring about the software that your hardware comes with confuses people, but all you gotta realise is that Microsoft and Apple are two completely different sorts of company.
User avatar
belovedmonster
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:34 pm

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby BlahBlah_X on Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:48 am

I would have to agree with the above post.

There are two main reasons OSX is mac only:

1) Apple wants to sell hardware! I mean, if they sold OSX for PCs, they would get some sales, but it wouldn't be enough. Thats like saying they should make iTunes compatible with every mp3 player, and have the ipod or iphone GUI available for the other mp3 players too! Then, their iPod sales would drop, and they would lose money. Also, selling software is much less of a goldmine than hardware. Hardware needs to be repaired and updated, while OSX is only upgraded once every 2 or 3 years.

2) Support. If OSX was to be available on PCs too, then how could apple possibly make sure it worked? How could they guarantee it would even boot? Windows doesn't even work that well on the large range of computers it can be installed on, and it was built to do that! Every piece of apple hardware is customized to integrate perfectly with the OS.

So for now, Apple is leaving the questionably legal hackers to play with OSX on the PC.
User avatar
BlahBlah_X
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Walrus Teeth

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby MALsPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:53 am

I also don't like that "Ubuntu" and "Linux" are becoming interchangeable.


I've seen a few comments along these lines lately, but haven't been noticing anyone talking as if Ubuntu is all there is to Linux. Maybe I just haven't noticed.

Ubuntu is one of the last distros I'd give to a beginner. I'd start with Mint, PCLOS, or MEPIS. From there, I can name off another 2 dozen I'd recommend before Ubuntu. It's buggy, their bug-fixing policy is absurd, and it often times just doesn't work. There are *so* many other distros that are so much more beginner freindly, easier to set up and maintain, more intuitive to navigate and use, it just goes to show what a few billion dollars to throw at marketing can do for you


I like others better than Ubuntu, too, but Ubuntu is the only one that I know of sending out FREE live/install CDs, postage-paid! Ubuntu's far from perfect, but those free CDs give it a lot of exposure, and make it a pretty nice deal for lots of people.
User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby JAK on Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:07 am

belovedmonster wrote:Anyone who thinks that Apple withhold their software from generic hardware just as a marketing ploy "don't get it". Apple are a hardware company not a software company!! The difference is Apple's design philosophy is that if you care about your hardware then you will care about the software it runs, and this is why they go out of their way to have really great software in a way another hardware manufacturer like Sony wouldn't. This hybrid approach of caring about the software that your hardware comes with confuses people, but all you gotta realise is that Microsoft and Apple are two completely different sorts of company.


I agree a bit with that. Apple's focus is to sell stylish hardware with an integrated OS that "just works". It happens to be a *nix OS, so there's no surprise there. Both Microsoft and Linux distros on the other hand deserve more kudos because you can run either on just about any hardware-- a more difficult task to accomplish. Sure there's bound to be driver problems here and there if you don't buy an off-the-self box from a store.

Then again, after second thought on this; Apple deserves a bit of applause as well for making their OS (essentially a *nix flavor) run on nothing but their hardware (without hacks and patches). It's a bit of a self-fish business philosophy if you ask me. Imagine if Microsoft or even the Mint developers decided one day that you have to buy a certain computer from a certain manufacturer if you want their OS to run properly, and there will be no support for anything other than that. You wouldn't like that, would you?
.
User avatar
JAK
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Central Florida

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby BlahBlah_X on Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:25 am

JAK wrote: Then again, after second thought on this; Apple deserves a bit of applause as well for making their OS (essentially a *nix flavor) run on nothing but their hardware (without hacks and patches). It's a bit of a self-fish business philosophy if you ask me. Imagine if Microsoft or even the Mint developers decided one day that you have to buy a certain computer from a certain manufacturer if you want their OS to run properly, and there will be no support for anything other than that. You wouldn't like that, would you?
.


Yes, but apple is one company! This is their philosophy. But other OSs like Windows and Linux are made especially to run on a range of computers (not saying that Windows fulfills that :) ). You realize, that is why Macs have so little of the market share. Any idiot (or genius) with half a company can sell fully functioning computers, using Windows. Every time that happens, it adds to the daunting Windows market share.

You know, I think they should use a new statistic, how many consumers buy and install the OS themselves. Not to many people buy windows and install it on a computer, unless it is an upgrade, and that is rare. Macs, well there are a few hackers who install it on their PCs, and then some that upgrade their old macs. Linux however, would actually show up, because almost all of its users didn't buy linux preinstalled. And how about the server *nixes, like Solaris, Unix, the *BSDs, etc... People install those on any hardware under the sun.

That would be interesting.
User avatar
BlahBlah_X
Level 4
Level 4
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Walrus Teeth

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby Mattd4AX3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:29 pm

BlahBlah_X wrote:I would have to agree with the above post.

There are two main reasons OSX is mac only:

1) Apple wants to sell hardware! I mean, if they sold OSX for PCs, they would get some sales, but it wouldn't be enough. Thats like saying they should make iTunes compatible with every mp3 player, and have the ipod or iphone GUI available for the other mp3 players too! Then, their iPod sales would drop, and they would lose money. Also, selling software is much less of a goldmine than hardware. Hardware needs to be repaired and updated, while OSX is only upgraded once every 2 or 3 years.

2) Support. If OSX was to be available on PCs too, then how could apple possibly make sure it worked? How could they guarantee it would even boot? Windows doesn't even work that well on the large range of computers it can be installed on, and it was built to do that! Every piece of apple hardware is customized to integrate perfectly with the OS.

So for now, Apple is leaving the questionably legal hackers to play with OSX on the PC.


Apple doesn't use PPC processors anymore, and they run on x86.

There's nothing stopping Apple from making deals with hardware manufacturers to make different "models" of Apple hardware that perform just as good, example: a Acer branded Mac.... There's also nothing stopping them from certifying components.
Since Apple is a "hardware" company they seemed to have no trouble switching off PPCs to Intel, they'll have no trouble certifying parts, motherboards, and other things to run OSX.

Apple wouldn't touch PC hackers with a ten-foot pole because if any press station picked up on it Apples marketing would be questioned because CNN just loves to eat that stuff up :P.
Custom-Built comp, Mint for desktop, Windows Vista for gaming, shared data partition for personal docs:
AMD x2 4200 2.2ghz
MSI 8600GTS stock OCed
Asus m2n-e mobo
2x1gb, 2x512mb=3gbs ddr2 800
Seagate 230gb drive
User avatar
Mattd4AX3
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:30 am
Location: NH,USA

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby belovedmonster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:14 am

Microsoft are a software company ala Adobe, the difference between them and Adobe is MS also make an OS as well as software than runs on top of that OS. Aside from recent times with MS getting into the mp3 and gaming markets Microsoft has never been about hardware. Apple on the other hand have always been a hardware company which has always sold hardware (which can run software by companies like Adobe and Microsoft) Back in the early days Microsoft was one of the biggest software makers for Apples hardware. I cant stress this enough, Apple make hardware.

If you still dont understand the difference between Apple (hardware) and Microsoft (software) watch this entertaining video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3FUOCRXPo
User avatar
belovedmonster
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:34 pm

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby Mattd4AX3 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:44 pm

belovedmonster wrote:Microsoft are a software company ala Adobe, the difference between them and Adobe is MS also make an OS as well as software than runs on top of that OS. Aside from recent times with MS getting into the mp3 and gaming markets Microsoft has never been about hardware. Apple on the other hand have always been a hardware company which has always sold hardware (which can run software by companies like Adobe and Microsoft) Back in the early days Microsoft was one of the biggest software makers for Apples hardware. I cant stress this enough, Apple make hardware.

If you still dont understand the difference between Apple (hardware) and Microsoft (software) watch this entertaining video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3FUOCRXPo

Your still not getting my point :P.

Apple doesn't actually "make" the hardware. They get it from company's like Foxconn and Intel, they just package it up(if they even do that). There's no reason why they can't have other company's make Apple models that follow the same specs/settings. And it wouldn't be a matter of checking whats wrong with the mac, if there was a defective board procedure would be the same since computer parts are interchangeable. It's just annoying that Apple hasn't tried to drive prices down, whatsoever. I could understand them not trying to get into the enthusiast market because of their philosophy but Apple needs to do some things to actually become a major player anymore instead of a gimmick.
Custom-Built comp, Mint for desktop, Windows Vista for gaming, shared data partition for personal docs:
AMD x2 4200 2.2ghz
MSI 8600GTS stock OCed
Asus m2n-e mobo
2x1gb, 2x512mb=3gbs ddr2 800
Seagate 230gb drive
User avatar
Mattd4AX3
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:30 am
Location: NH,USA

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby sundayrefugee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:46 pm

I think that's the whole point. Apple doesn't really *want* to be a major player. They've faced the Beast from Redmond and don't want to go down that road again. They've found thier niche, and they not only survive there, they thrive. They have no intentions of becoming *alot* bigger than they are now, lest they unleash the wrath of MS and get into that battle again.

They've reached a truce-standpoint with MS in which both sides seem happy. MS gets the masses, Apple gets the high-brows. They poke fun at each other, etc... but in the end, still make software for each other. I even think the "I'm a Mac" commercials were really just aimed at keeping the Mac faithful with the program vs. actually convincing anyone else of anything ;)

Apple gets cheap hardware (THEY DON'T MAKE HARDWARE) and sells it at a premium, bundled with thier absurdly fine OS. Doing this they keep compatibility at near perfect, keep support costs to almost zero, and keep OSX a luxury item that you must pay through the nose (read: buy thier hardware) for. It makes perfect sense, for Apple.
sundayrefugee
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby belovedmonster on Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:42 am

Mattd4AX3 wrote:Your still not getting my point :P


I get your point, I just don't agree with it. Just because Apple have switched to Intel chips for their macs doesn't mean they are now becoming a software company. For one thing Apple make a lot more than just Macs, they make mp3 players, tv media players, phones, servers, keyboards etc. Yeah I agree with you that their hardware for Macs is essentially the same as regular "PC" hardware but this doesn't mean they are suddenly going to give up on hardware and just sell software.

Imagine if Nintendo just decided that from now on they will release Mario games for the Playstation as well as continue to sell their own Nintendo hardware. Not going to happen, everyone would tell them that is the dumbest thing ever. Same with the Apple situation. So long as they are still making hardware, regardless how good or bad that hardware is they are going to keep OSX exclusive.

That is reason number 1; the business reason.

Reason number 2 is that opening up the platform would tarnish it's perfection... sundayrefugee got it right when he said that Apple doesn't really care about being the dominant player. All they care about is creating the best computer experience humanly possible and selling that to people who appreciate that attention to detail. This is why Apple has this cult of fanboys that follow them around. It's not because they are all brainless sheep who love the glossy advertising, it's because a lot of people tap into that philosophy that "we are going to make the best experience ever whatever it takes".

This is why people don't get Apple, they think it's just a trandy brand and people buy into it because of that, but it's far deeper than that, it's a whole design philosophy, maybe even a whole philosophy of life. This is why Apple go to stupid lengths like having fake wall sockets in Apple stores just so the walls look symmetrical.

My point being, regardless of the hardware/software argument Apple are never going to open up this beautiful creation to just any hardware. To use another analogy that would be like Ferrari spending years designing the ultimate sports car and then letting Ford mass produce it. It's not going to happen.
User avatar
belovedmonster
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:34 pm

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby Mattd4AX3 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:50 pm

belovedmonster wrote:
Mattd4AX3 wrote:Your still not getting my point :P


I get your point, I just don't agree with it. Just because Apple have switched to Intel chips for their macs doesn't mean they are now becoming a software company. For one thing Apple make a lot more than just Macs, they make mp3 players, tv media players, phones, servers, keyboards etc. Yeah I agree with you that their hardware for Macs is essentially the same as regular "PC" hardware but this doesn't mean they are suddenly going to give up on hardware and just sell software.

Imagine if Nintendo just decided that from now on they will release Mario games for the Playstation as well as continue to sell their own Nintendo hardware. Not going to happen, everyone would tell them that is the dumbest thing ever. Same with the Apple situation. So long as they are still making hardware, regardless how good or bad that hardware is they are going to keep OSX exclusive.

That is reason number 1; the business reason.

Reason number 2 is that opening up the platform would tarnish it's perfection... sundayrefugee got it right when he said that Apple doesn't really care about being the dominant player. All they care about is creating the best computer experience humanly possible and selling that to people who appreciate that attention to detail. This is why Apple has this cult of fanboys that follow them around. It's not because they are all brainless sheep who love the glossy advertising, it's because a lot of people tap into that philosophy that "we are going to make the best experience ever whatever it takes".

This is why people don't get Apple, they think it's just a trandy brand and people buy into it because of that, but it's far deeper than that, it's a whole design philosophy, maybe even a whole philosophy of life. This is why Apple go to stupid lengths like having fake wall sockets in Apple stores just so the walls look symmetrical.

My point being, regardless of the hardware/software argument Apple are never going to open up this beautiful creation to just any hardware. To use another analogy that would be like Ferrari spending years designing the ultimate sports car and then letting Ford mass produce it. It's not going to happen.


Well, I get what you're saying now, don't agree, but I gotcha. Also, it'd be more like letting Ferrari make Lamborghini's :P.

Also, Fiat owns Ferrari, and Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen. So the examples you give are just them manipulating the market to make more money(I could care less about Apples philosophy so you can stop trying to pound that in my stubborn head ;)), which is basically the kind of deal MS made with Apple.

Regardless, I just don't agree with Apple so I don't think we'll agree since we have different viewpoints so I'll just take the "Agree to disagree" option here.

Also, this is a interesting news story that's very relevant to the current discussion. http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Hopes+To ... e11495.htm
Custom-Built comp, Mint for desktop, Windows Vista for gaming, shared data partition for personal docs:
AMD x2 4200 2.2ghz
MSI 8600GTS stock OCed
Asus m2n-e mobo
2x1gb, 2x512mb=3gbs ddr2 800
Seagate 230gb drive
User avatar
Mattd4AX3
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:30 am
Location: NH,USA

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby belovedmonster on Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:02 pm

What I find interesting is that in my mind Apple has an ethos, a philosophy behind its products, you might not agree with it but its there. That whole "we are zen designers and we want to make the best designed experience possible". And obviously Linux also has an ethos and a philosophy behind it, the idea of shared knowledge and absolute freedom.

But what is Microsofts philosophy? What sort of a person do you have to be to become a Microsoft fanboy? I really cant think of what Microsoft stands for or evokes except capitalism and big business. Maybe the MS mantra is the famous Gordon Geko line "Greed is good".
User avatar
belovedmonster
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:34 pm

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby Mattd4AX3 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:42 pm

belovedmonster wrote:What I find interesting is that in my mind Apple has an ethos, a philosophy behind its products, you might not agree with it but its there. That whole "we are zen designers and we want to make the best designed experience possible". And obviously Linux also has an ethos and a philosophy behind it, the idea of shared knowledge and absolute freedom.

But what is Microsofts philosophy? What sort of a person do you have to be to become a Microsoft fanboy? I really cant think of what Microsoft stands for or evokes except capitalism and big business. Maybe the MS mantra is the famous Gordon Geko line "Greed is good".

Microsoft has been well known for supplying a good developers work enviroment. Microsoft's philsophy though? Microsoft makes Windows, which even though Windows isn't the greatest thing in the world you have to give Bill credit for making himself the richest man on earth, and it's not just that he got lucky, he got lucky at the right place, right time, and right person.

There's nothing wrong with MS, if you have any company that large and with that much money involved your bound to hit some bumps.

Again, I can't really think of a philsophy behind Windows, because Windows doesn't really need one since they're top of the bunch. Whereas Apple still needs to cling to their marketing, and Linux is for hobbyists and servers.
Custom-Built comp, Mint for desktop, Windows Vista for gaming, shared data partition for personal docs:
AMD x2 4200 2.2ghz
MSI 8600GTS stock OCed
Asus m2n-e mobo
2x1gb, 2x512mb=3gbs ddr2 800
Seagate 230gb drive
User avatar
Mattd4AX3
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:30 am
Location: NH,USA

Re: Mac vs Windows vs Linux

Postby r1bby on Wed May 14, 2008 10:46 am

Also, Fiat owns Ferrari, and Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen.


Lamborghini is owned by Audi, Bugatti is owned by Volkswagen
Audi / Volkswagen are the same company but trade as two seperate companies
(much like Microsoft software & Microsoft Xbox do)
User avatar
r1bby
Level 2
Level 2
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:59 am
Location: England

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 
Next

Return to Open chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests