Mac vs Windows vs Linux

[JAK]

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.
.

[MALsPa]

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.

[JAK]

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.
.

[lakehousetech]

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.

[belovedmonster]

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.

[MALsPa]

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.

[JAK]

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?
.

[belovedmonster]

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

[belovedmonster]

Your still not getting my point

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.

[belovedmonster]

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".

[r1bby]

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)

[Ookami]

Microsoft's philosophy is “to get a computer in every home”. And believe it or not, they have done a damn good job of getting computers into the household market.
Granted, there are now an increasingly large number of people who either plump for Mac's fashionable offerings, or use other operating systems on their computers, but in most retailers, computers are sold with Windows preinstalled. Any computer sold with Windows counts as a win for Microsoft.

[Fred]

Microsoft is a marketing company. Always has been.

Fred

[kanishka]

Pingu, your view is very balanced and I agree with you 100%

[Zwopper]

@belovedmonster: Regarding your thought about Apple being primarily a hardware company...
Movieclip!
8.08 minutes in Steve says: Apple is FUNDAMENTALLY a SOFTWARE company!

[belovedmonster]

A PS for Mr Ookami

my apologies for a slip of the memory ... your name in japanese means "Great God" and not "Great Mountain", when i first saw the word, i had a visual flash of mountain and sky, of a majestic force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ookami