Mac OS 10.4 Vs. Windows

geekboy1500 · Post by **geekboy1500** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:37 pm

PLEEEAAAAAASSSSEEE try to refrain from flaming if you MUST please use "Flame on" and "Flame off"

also i know mac OS 9 sucked i am talking about the NEW macs

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:45 pm

Can't answer with any significant response without having used both extensively.

But...

Windows:

-Buggy

-Insecure

-Often a royal headache to work with

Mac

-Incompatable with the games and programs I want to use

-Menu's and overall user display often too flashy and shiny for it's own good

-Often a royal headache to work with

Winner= NoOne

...and Linux is just too user un-friendly for anyone who is not a budding computer programmer.

Scott Gardener · Post by **Scott Gardener** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:15 pm

I'm more familiar with Windows because of its ubiquity, and because that's what I've been using. My sister is one of those die-hard Mac people who wants to know when I'll "get a real computer." Still, I've test-driven some of the newer Macs, and I'm pretty impressed. And, there was a time about twelve years ago when I favored Mac use and almost ended up a Mac person instead myself. I almost did again several times during the Windows 98 years. And, I've given them a look again several times recently--most recently when I learned that the switch to Intel processors paved the way for Macs to dual-boot Windows and OSX. (Has anyone ever done an OSX / Windows / Linux treual-boot system? Maybe two different distros of Linux, for a quadreul-boot?)

I'll review the two OSes, and Linux, for that matter, and go by categories:

Ubiquity:

Windows: So ubiquitous that everyone assumes that's what you're running, much to the chagrin of anyone not using it. Yes, you're vulnerable to viruses, but when you get a new USB whooplah adapter, you've already got the drivers for the thing. If you're buying software, you have to go out of your way for it not to be designed for Windows.

OSX: The Mac platform is the Osteopathy of the computer world. It can do everything that Windows does, but it does it its own way. You have to search a little harder to find stuff, but there's Mac software that can do anything Windows software can, except for a number of games--which is a shame, given that a PowerMac G5 with the right configuration can make even Alienware and Falcon Northwest feel inadequate. Still, it's only a matter of time before Intel dual core PowerMacs come out, and for only the price of a new Hyundai Accent, you'll be able to get one with eight processor cores.

Linux: It's everywhere, and it's free. The only catch is, you have to be a geek to use the thing. It's popular among people who hate Microsoft, but for people like me, it's more of a second OS to tinker with, because I don't have enough time in my life to install manually from .tar.gz files into such-and-such folders, type Klingonese comand lines, and then spend an hour and a half trying to figure out why it's still not working. Still, the philosophy of the open source movement is good enough to keep me intreagued and continuing to experiment with it.

Winner: Windows. These days, all three can do everything that I do on a day-to-day basis--except that Linux seems to have this thing about playing DVDs without getting calls from the FBI. But, if I want to do something more unusual, or I'm getting a new thingy, all the instructions are written in Windows.

Daily use:

Windows: Since the coming of Windows XP, the days of crashing every hour are gone, so the single biggest loss of points here is fixed. I still get glitches here and there--my tablet PC in particular is a bit screwy, in that sometimes it'll hang while booting up, and I have to restart it. I could just do a complete restore to factory defaults, but I'm too lazy to reinstall everything. At least Windows supports tablet PCs; where's OSX, Tablet PC Edition, eh, Mac die-hards???

OSX: From what I've experienced with Macs, they're the model that Windows has sought to follow since day one. The first versions of Windows were indeed a direct rip-off of the Mac, and they've continued to be "influenced" by Macs ever since. Macs parallel Windows systems on ease of use, and even trump them in a number of daily tasks.

Linux: I've yet to install a single distro that can do everything right up-front. One distro wouldn't work with my sound card. Another wouldn't recognize my laptop mouse. Others have had problems playing video files. I like open source, and it's fun to boot into an alternative OS and brag about on sites like this one. But, I shouldn't have to learn a new language to get a computer to work; it's not 1982 any more.

Winner: OSX. It's the most invisible OS--that is, you don't have to spend time with it, feeding it updates and drivers. You can spend more time instead using the computer to do stuff.

Cost:

Windows: $99 for the cheap version, and only as an upgrade; upwards to $299 for one with everything. Price will change when the next version comes out, but I don't get the feeling it'll get any cheaper. But, if you get a new computer, you'll get Windows with it. But, that's one reason why you'll never see a brand new computer, no matter how bareboned, priced less than $400. (That "Lindows"/"Linspire" thing Wal*Mart tried was a nice try, though.) But wait! You also have to buy antivirus software, a firewall, and a spyware blocker. To Microsoft's credit, they've just now introduced a new service that will do all three for up to three computers, for $50, but if I remember correctly, you'll have to renew annually. (It's called Windows Live OneCare.) Oh, I just had a psychic vision; I think they'll bundle it with Windows, and put Symantec and Computer Associates out of business, only to get sued for monopolistic behavior after the damage is done.

OSX: $599 minimum, but bought this way it comes inside a Mac Mini. You can only get it with a Mac computer. (Microsoft kind of tried this strategy with Windows XP Media Center Edition and Windows XP Tablet PC edition, but they appear to be dropping that model with Vista.) Macs right now come in four basic sizes: dinky, impressive, really expensive, and holy crap! A typical configuration most people would use might be either an iBook laptop for about $1300 with all the configuring and warranties, or an iMac for close to $2000. The laptops are actually cheaper; haven't figured that out.

Linux: It's free, and there's literally hundreds of versions out there from which to choose. Some are bundled with enough software to fill up a DVD. Others take up less than 64 Megs which still manage to include a graphic interface, full featured web browser, and an office suite. The only Linux virus I know of works on the honor system; if you get it, you're asked politely to email a copy of it to all your contacts and then to erase your hard drive manually.

Winner: Linux. Forget the "total cost of ownership" stuff that Microsoft may try to tell you. For the price of Windows and all the security software I have to add, I could build another computer, find the right Linux distro, and do most of the stuff that normal people do with their computers. Maybe if I were running an Enterprise-level business, it might make a difference. But, what I'm running is more like a Galileo-shuttlecraft-level home office, with personal use on the side.

Final thoughts:

As usual with computers, the present state of things is just about to change. OSX is always coming out with new versions, each named after a different giant cat. (We haven't seen "Lion" yet, so I bet that'll be next.) Meanwhile, Windows will be coming out with "Vista." (Windows Vista--sounds like my next address. I live at 1337 Windows Vista.) Linux is always getting updated as well--but usually as a reaction to new features showing up or about to show up in the other OSes. There are noteworthy exceptions, like alternative browsers. The elegance of Firefox and its trumping of Internet Explorer with tabbed browsing and RSS feed support is a demo of how the open source movement backing Linux could suddenly rock the world.

For now, I'm running mainly Windows. But, I'm keeping the other OSes in mind.

And now, your moment of Zen...

http://www.youos.com

geekboy1500 · Post by **geekboy1500** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:21 pm

OSX: $599 minimum, but bought this way it comes inside a Mac Mini. You can only get it with a Mac computer. (Microsoft kind of tried this strategy with Windows XP Media Center Edition and Windows XP Tablet PC edition, but they appear to be dropping that model with Vista.) Macs right now come in four basic sizes: dinky, impressive, really expensive, and holy crap! A typical configuration most people would use might be either an iBook laptop for about $1300 with all the configuring and warranties, or an iMac for close to $2000. The laptops are actually cheaper; haven't figured that out.

uhhh no
actully u can get the mac OSX 10.4 for somthing like 129, and i think you can install it on any computer

edit: the reason the laptops are cheaper is that they are slower, Apple pricing is the faster the more expensive (but in reality [unless ur a diehard gamer] a slower macintosh can do the same things at the same speeds as a faster windows

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:41 pm

In my view...

ALL MACS SUCK!!! and WINDOWS RULE!!

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:53 pm

Anubis wrote:In my view...

ALL MACS SUCK!!! and WINDOWS RULE!!

You say that, and yet you've posted no less than four threads about your computer
breaking.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:35 pm

Thats McAfee's fault

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:20 pm

And the other two?

geekboy1500 · Post by **geekboy1500** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:34 pm

dude macs dont NEED ANY VIRUS SOFTWARE

thats why they are infinately superior

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:34 pm

geekboy1500 wrote:dude [s]macs dont[/s] UNIX doesn't NEED ANY VIRUS SOFTWARE

thats why they are infinately superior

Fixed.

That's the nice thing about the UNIX permission system. It works correctly.

Scott Gardener · Post by **Scott Gardener** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:39 pm

Immunity to viruses may be an advantage, but to be infinitely superior, Macs would need to have an infinite speed processor or a hard drive with infinite capacity. Linux technically is infinitely superior to OSX and Windows in terms of price, because it's free.

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:13 pm

Scott Gardener wrote:Immunity to viruses may be an advantage, but to be infinitely superior, Macs would need to have an infinite speed processor or a hard drive with infinite capacity. Linux technically is infinitely superior to OSX and Windows in terms of price, because it's free.

Well, that depends on your definition of 'price'. There's no monetary cost, but there's still an opportunity cost, since linux has a steeper learning curve than Windows/OS X.

I really hated economics.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:21 pm

Lupin wrote:And the other two?

the others was my family's computer, and McAfee is scewing around with mine.

psiguy · Post by **psiguy** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:42 am

I'm going to favor windows with this one. For the following reasons as to why windows rox over Macs...

1) I actually can use a mouse that has more than one button. I've tried a mac back when I was in middle school and being limited to one button also limited my ability to interact through the computer.

2) I just know windows. Viruses never come knocking at my door. Networking windows based computers is a breeze and the administrator functions and operating system registry give me the ultimate power of my computer. I may be different because my family knows all about IT security and networking, but my windows computer does not bug out all of a sudden, crash, waste needed cpu proccesses, or do anything out of the ordinary.

3)Osx may be famed to be "the place" for graphical applications. But Windows is king reguarding games. And to top that off, like Scott Gardener said, almost every kind of app is made for windows.

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:42 pm

psiguy wrote:1) I actually can use a mouse that has more than one button. I've tried a mac back when I was in middle school and being limited to one button also limited my ability to interact through the computer.

That's really not an issue as you don't actually have to right click as much in OS X. Either way the mouse that comes with the computer isn't the mouse you're forced to use. I know someone with a Mac and an 8 button mouse.

2) I just know windows. Viruses never come knocking at my door. Networking windows based computers is a breeze and the administrator functions and operating system registry give me the ultimate power of my computer. I may be different because my family knows all about IT security and networking, but my windows computer does not bug out all of a sudden, crash, waste needed cpu proccesses, or do anything out of the ordinary.

I do IT professionally and I'm still annoyed that I have to block off ports 135-139 plus 1024, 445 and some others I'm probably forgetting because of dumb practices in Windows.

psiguy · Post by **psiguy** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:53 pm

woa, that looks interesting. Is that a menu for clicking? looks kinda keyboard based there.

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:18 pm

Morkulv · Post by **Morkulv** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:07 pm

geekboy1500 · Post by **geekboy1500** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:08 pm

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:11 pm

Morkulv wrote:The biggest problem I have with Windows XP is that its too 'automatical'. It wants to do everything on its own, and that annoys me.

You'll hate Vista, then.

Morkulv · Post by **Morkulv** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:25 pm

Morkulv · Post by **Morkulv** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:26 pm

Lupin wrote:
Morkulv wrote:The biggest problem I have with Windows XP is that its too 'automatical'. It wants to do everything on its own, and that annoys me.

You'll hate Vista, then.

I'll need a new PC first.

geekboy1500 · Post by **geekboy1500** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:50 pm

i DID read your post i just didnt understsand what u ment. you can turn that off

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:07 am

Lupin wrote:
geekboy1500 wrote:dude [s]macs dont[/s] UNIX doesn't NEED ANY VIRUS SOFTWARE

thats why they are infinately superior
That's the nice thing about the UNIX permission system. It works correctly.

Scott Gardener wrote:Immunity to viruses may be an advantage, but to be infinitely superior, Macs would need to have an infinite speed processor or a hard drive with infinite capacity. Linux technically is infinitely superior to OSX and Windows in terms of price, because it's free.

Your are being Naive.

Macs are not "Immune" to viruses. (Nor is Unix, or any of it's other derivitives) There are plenty of exploitable holes in Mac software for hackers to take advantage of. The reason why you don't see it is...why bother?

There is about 1 mac user out there for every 1367 PC users. If you are a hacker, and you are trying to get information from, take advantage of, or otherwise mess with someone elses computer, then you are going to write a virus that will get into the vast majority of computers...not waste your time writing a virus that will only effect a measly small percentage of the big Pie.

If Mac's held a higher percentage of the market, I guarantee you, that you would hear about Mac viruses and worms all the time. ...these are the words out of the mouth of a good friend of mine who tests new hardware and software for a living, both mac and pc, and knows how to hack into OS X quite easily. ...he explained to me how (though I didn't understand most of it)...

...Apple computers would LOVE for you to believe that thier computers are "Immune" to viruses though...

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:38 am

Vuldari wrote:Macs are not "Immune" to viruses. (Nor is Unix, or any of it's other derivitives) There are plenty of exploitable holes in Mac software for hackers to take advantage of. The reason why you don't see it is...why bother?

If they would, they could. The boxes most Unix machines tend to run on have more CPU power, disk space, and bandwidth than most home machines.

While there may be exploitable holes in various programs that run on UNIX they do not occur with the frequency or magnitude that they do on windows. Furthermore, given a filesystem with the correct permissions, the maximum damage a non root user can do is to ther own home directory, and to files owned by them in /tmp. To corrupt the filesystem one would have to be root.
Unlike windows however, very few programs need the kind of access given to them running as root, and so most don't run as root.

...Apple computers would LOVE for you to believe that thier computers are "Immune" to viruses though...

Their marketing department has nothing to do with it.