Debate Operating Systems

I; a Mac user, will of course debate on the side of OSX. OSX is an operating system that fails in the lines of true customibility, but that is because the transition to Apple computers has been a quick one. Most developers do not know OSX as much as Windows or Linux. Once developers and programmers are familiar with OSX, I'm sure there will be a lot of customization at the everyday user's fingertips. Until then, OSX is like a pretty version of a desktop in safe mode.


Mac OSX > Windows. (I'm not too knowledgeable on Linux).



Windows has too many bugs to count.

 

I agree...Mac's have always been apart of me and even though I am forced to use a pc most of the time a would jump at any chance to get a mac

 

PC, because it is the least shitty of the bunch. Windows undoubtedly has alot more bugs than Macs, but that is just because the OS is so much more versatile. The reason alot of programmers and developers choose to work with windows is because they can do more with it. Macs, on the other hand, appeal to everyday people who want less to do with technological stuff and more to do with checking your email and listening to legally bought music.
I think that alot of apple's marked is simply seduced by the 'ooh!' factor. I am a great example of that. I bought an ipod touch because it had safari, google maps, and youtube build right in. I have now realized that even though they seemed like great ideas, you never really need to use them and if you do, your usually sitting next to a faster and better computer to do it for you.

 

My computer runs Windows Vista. My sister's runs Mac OSX. We bring this debate up every once in a blue moon. Our look on this is that Mac OSs are better for media like Music, Videos, Animating, etc. On the other hand like RabidZergling said, Windows is more versatile. You can achieve a bit more than a Mac.

Now everyone says Vista sucks right? Wrong! Vista is so much better than XP. The people that say it suck have either a) never used it or b) have a shitty computer that doesn't run it as well. Vista takes a tad better computer to be able to run. But in the end Vista can do all that XP can do and then some.

 

Vista is beyond win.

The same easy program search from the mac, combined with Microsoft=win.

However, on less nice computers, vista sucks.

 

Now, im not a fanboy, but i have my prefrences of price, and functionality. I been a windows user forever, and i love it, Mac as never appealed to me, macs more of im ***** who can afford this 2000 paper weight called the mac book. You see, to me macs are useless, why pay a large sum of cash for a laptop thats only good for multimedia, and not only that, but WINDOWS is just as good for multimeda as a mac, and windows can do so much more other than multimedia. See, when im working in photoshop, sony vegas, and after effects on my vista laptop, what would be the diffrence of working in those same programs or finalcut instead of vegas, on a mac? Nothing, hell atleast i get to right click when working in photoshop, that must be a ***** in mac.

Windows media player? Its awesome, not only does it look good, but if you have Combined community codec pack installed, you can play 96% of all video, and music files on it. And i wont have to use a processor hog like quicktime or itunes.

Those people who say macs look awesome, to me they look rubbish, I LOVE windows vista, I love glossy graphics, and how 98% of vista is glossy, makes me happy.

Id like to point this One thing PC users can do that Mac users can't...
out to everyone because, he brings up some good points about macs in the most humorous way.

To true, my laptop runs vista flawlessly, and I love it to death. Another reason people say xp is better than vista is because xp has had 7 years to develop. In a few years as the updates, and patches are tweaked on vista, it will too become a greater os than Xp ever was, its all about time.

 

The first thing everyone needs to understand with a debate like this is that everyone has a personal preference. Usually depending on how versed they are with computers in general.

Typically you will find new computer users on a Mac or Vista.
Generally well adept computer users will be on XP or VIsta, sometimes both [Dual Boot]
Then when you start getting into the smaller group of people that know computers well, they will be using a Windows machine and some form of Linux. Usually Ubuntu as it is the most popular, free, version of Linux.

I'm not saying this is how it is, but rather how I've generally noticed it to be.

Now on to the actual OS's themselves. When it comes to internet security, each one is just as easy or not as easy to get a virus on or hack. The reason Ubuntu or Leopard don't get viruses as much (or generally at all) as Vista/XP, is because of the market share. As Nemi stated. Basically put? Windows is more popular then the others.

Windows can pretty much do anything all the other operating systems can do. Whether it be built in or 3rd party, Windows accepts it all. Now it's pretty self explanatory that Windows Vista is better then XP. Look I don't care about all the fools that say it's worse then XP because it simply is not true. I have used both and switched back and forth from XP to Vista and I always fall back to Vista because it just works better.

I would also like to mention at this point that I do not use a 3rd party Firewall. Windows Vistas built in firewall (plus the routers firewall) is plenty of protection from anything that you might find on the net. Of course this plus your common sense. I mean if you're stupid enough to download something that is quite clearly a virus, then that's your own fault, not the computers.

Yet another argument against Vista is that it copied everything from Mac. Sure this may be true to some degree but using that as an argument to say that Vista is worse then Mac because of this is completely ridiculous. All this means is that Vista took the good parts of Mac and added it to it's system to improve Vista. Rendering the competition usless.

I am somewhat disregarding Ubuntu in this whole debate and with good reason. Ubuntu really does not have anywhere near as much support as Windows or Leopard for that matter. Sure it does still have a huge base of supporters but just no where near as much as the others, and without that you just can not compete as well. Although give it more time and the odds may tip.

Now let's switch to Macs. Leopard, and all previous version, are so closed up. The best you can do when it comes to customisation is the Wallpaper. I'm talking out of the box here. Not 3rd party. Vista comes with the option to make the window theme solid or clear. You can change the colours to any colour in the rainbow. You can change the width of windows and many many other options. Vista even comes with quite a few 'different' cursor options. Sure they might be ugly, but still.

Now when it comes to 3rd party customisation Vista still wins out. VistaGlass is just one program I can name off the top of my head. All this does is patch a couple system files then you can Google or search through devArt for some very attractive themes. Not to mention that this option is not an application overlaying a them onto Vista as you used to have to do with XP, which slowed things down a hell of a lot.

Now as far as I know Leopard does not even have the ability to be themed at all yet. Which just goes to show how Mac likes to stay exactly the same across the board. For a company the prides itself of breaking off from the sheeps and following the trends they certainly don't show it. They don't practice what they preach. Another great example of this is the iPods. The batteries for all these devices are in built, non detachable. What? Anyway, that's beside the point.

Now Ubuntu's customisation is incredibly high, I do have to admit. From what little I Have seen of Ubuntu, it's customisation options are much higher then all of the other OS's, and that's about all I have to say about that.

All this, however, doesn't really factor into the usabilty of each OS. Simply put, Vista does it all, and that alone is why it's the best. ​

And to be completely honest, I was just rambling and not really following any set structure, so if that giant wall of text confuses you... I say meh​

​

​

 

I think they all suck.
Really. In this day and age, in 2008, there are certain things people can't do with computers easily (or at all) these days. And that's just not acceptable. I think computing needs a clean slate, right back down to ones and zeroes.

But out of all of the current platforms, I would say that Mac OS X and Windows are equal, ahead of Linux.

Mac OS X
The Good

• Built Strong (Very High Quality OS)
• Very Good Multimedia Support
• Very User-Friendly (A monkey could figure it out)
• No Viruses (But that leads me to...)

The Bad

• Closed System (No Viruses, but very non-versatile)
• Pricey
• Not Eco-Friendly

Windows
The Good

• Need an app to do something? It exists.
• Leet gamezorz
• Runs on pretty much anything
• Very Customizable by a savvy user
• Cheap
• Open System (But...)

The Bad

• Viruses. Way too many. Damn script kiddies...
• Comparatively Unstable
• 5 Different versions of Vista, which one do you get?

I might be a bit biased and uneducated about Linux, but...
Linux
The Good

• Comes in many delicious flavors
• It's what we need for a GNU Dawn!
• Runs on ANYTHING. Like, your watch.
• If you know what you're doing, the possibilities are endless.

The Bad

• Very non-user friendly.
• If you don't know your way around code, you're going to have a tough time. Even with Ubuntu.
• Not too much mainstream stuff works with it. Luckily, some people have good luck with "Wine."

(Mac OS X = Windows) > Linux, IMO

 

I would have to say that OS X Leopard is a better operating system, just because of it's boot camp feature which allows macs to run on windows just by holding the option button while starting the computer.

The downside to that is that you would have to purchase both operating systems.

 

Running Windows on a mac is actually pretty annoying, because it is really slower than it should be.

Running OS X on a PC, however, works fine. It's not legal, but there's a project called OS X86 which can do it successfully with some BIOS editing.

 

Ok, if you want customization, it seems like vista or ubuntu would be fine for you, but I want computer power and performance. And my mac delivers. It lets me run a lot of good apps and I still can play some games on it. It's great for movie making also

 

Vista... yeeeeeaaah... I dun think so. How many years did they waste on that? They practically released a package of bugs.

 

You make some good points Nemi especially about the hardware, but I'm not talkin about shitty iMovie lol. I'm talking about Final Cut Pro, the real deal. Like actual movie making, not school project type stuff. I do sometimes wonder why they don't make some less corny effects for iMovie.

I'm not trying to make a big debate here, just sayin wat works for me.

 

When it comes to software like Garbageband, Macs suck terribly, you are better off buying Protools and an Mbox, (protools comes with the mbox2), that will run you like $500 though.

And of course Vista is much better for running games on, because simply of better hardware, and certian games are not even Mac compatable. Try running Crysis on a Mac, (or anything for that matter).

 

nemi, I'm going to argue your first points because I don't have the energy to read the rest of the thread

Actually, you can get around this relatively easy. Sure, you shouldn't "have to", but you can. There's a program out there for it that lets you run it on computers under these standards.

I didn't think the standards are all too high either if you consider that the OS is made only for macs:

512MB of memory
9GB of available disk space
867 MHz
G4 processor or later

My four year old iBook G4 meets these standards relatively easy. Now tell me, who updates the OS on a 4 year old laptop all too often? And I'm almost positive older models of the G4 can run this as well. I run OS 10.4.11, not leopard, but it's just fine. I'm not going to pay $ to update an outdated computer

I agree with you there. You can edit the "themes" and default dock icons with several apps, and you can hide the menu bar or change it's opacity if needed, and several other custumizations that are irrelevant, but all require a download of an app, none is default besides positioning the dock and hiding/showing the dock

The lower market share of macs (now 10%) is PART of the reason they have less viruses, but it is not ALL of the reason. I think that you would agree that most comprimises in Windows is through Internet Explorer, which is integrated into the OS too deeply and it's vulnerabilities are easy to break through at. Which is why most people use firefox if they know much about viruses (that and it's faster... ).

However, at it's root, Linux and OS X are more secure then Windows. No OS will be completely secure in the near future, but...


I'd also like to bring up the look and interface of the OS's. I think it's the general consensus that OS X looks better then Windows (or maybe not...). But even if this weren't true, why are apps like rocketdock so popular? They mimic the very basic app launcher in OS X. That's more functionality then interface, but I'm just pointing it out.

 

I use both a PC and a Mac, and while each has their ups and downs, I think I will side with the Windows OS. For several reasons.

• When it comes to affordibility, PC prevails. Macs with decent hardware (memory, hardrive, etc.) cost around the $2000 price range. My PC, however, excels in that departement, and only cost $1000. In addition, Mac programs are typically more expesnive, and their market is limited. For video editing (what I do) it is either iMovie, or Final Cut Pro (There is FC Express as well, but trust me when I say just get Pro), which is quite the difference.
• With a Windows upbringing, I am comfortable with it. At first, I loved the Mac, everything felt easier. However, I realized that easy was hard, and since learning on a Windows and then going to a Mac is like learning how to ride a bike, and then attempting to ride with training wheels, my taste in the Mac began to become bland. For example, download simple text from dafonts.com is a major task on a Mac for me. It is supposedly easier, but because it does the stuff for you with various little programs, if you are missing those, or what-not, you are in for an awakening. There is no real way around this either, you do it the "simple" way they intended. You can't do it the old fashioned way, of downloading the text, unzipping the file, and then clicking and dragging it into the Fonts folder like you can with Windows.
• The real appeal for Mac, for me at least, is the programs. I do enjoy Final Cut, it is professional and simple at the same time. The things about the Mac OS itself, though, un-interest me.
• I brought up about how Mac attempts to make things easy, which is fine, but it drives people like me nuts. I can't figure out how to defragment and clean up the disk on my own. I move my mouse to the edge of a browser, to get the scroll bar, and it thinks I am attemtping to switch windows, and does such for me. While stuff like that can be turned off, it does not hide the fact that it is un-needed and annoying.

So ya, their is my basic argument. This thread was a bit resurrected, but I say let it slide, since this is an oftern discussed subject.

 

Idk about your mac, but on mine to download a font I click it and it downloads...