Mac Vs Windows - The Epic Debate

[Xocrates]

Dont take this topic to seriously

If you think they are acting too serious, try to check some of the TWG's

Anyway, my only contact with mac is my brother's, which I never use and seldom look at. Since I'm not particularly computer savvy I don't really much care as long as I can play whatever games I want on it.

So, yeah, windows.

[xyzyxx]

I am mostly a Windows person because I am a hardware person. I built my computer from individual parts. I have also performed several upgrades (replaced the hard drive, added fans)

I know that due to the fact that OSX is a proprietary system you can't build your own machine that runs it.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but the hardware upgrading options for a Mac are about as accessible as those of a notebook computer.

[Montyphy]

I know that due to the fact that OSX is a proprietary system you can't build your own machine that runs it.

Hackintosh!!

[Dover]

in the past i have used and built windows- pcs for over 10 years. when my studies began i switched to mac- and i would never ever switch back as far as my working environment goes. for multimedia and games, windows is still the way to go and i still have a computer that i use for such cases.

what's better with windows? one word: compatibility.

why do i prefer a mac? it won't trash down. delete the preference folders and the app- package and a program is GONE. no new services, startup items and all that bullsh**. and NO registry. that's the only real reason, why i prefer it over windows. and why don't i use linux? well.. i switched to mac to loose LESS time with setting up the computer constantly. see my point?

[zach]

[quote="Dover" ]and why don't i use linux? well.. i switched to mac to loose LESS time with setting up the computer constantly. see my point?[/qoute][/quote]

Pseudo-nested quote. Also QFT.

For linux, my choice falls on Gentoo - a beast to set up, but you only have to do it once, as opposed to constantly.

[tabasco boy]

Why I'm still with Windows

I would personally love nothing better than to be able to cut the strings and ditch Windows myself. It's expensive and the target-of-choice for virtually every piece of malware, spyware, and virus. But every time I try, I always come back. Why?

Because Apple is even more expensive and just as proprietary as Windows, won't let me build my own system, and is poorly supported by software developers. If Apple dominated the market, there is every reason to believe they would be just as heavy-handed as MS, if not much worse.

Because doing anything in Linux ends up with me banging my head against my computer screen. Even Ubuntu, the most user-friendly distro so far, is an endless series of frustrations. "Why can't I just download a piece of software and double-click on it to install?!?!" "What is the difference between KDE and Gnome and why should it matter?!?!" "Why do I have to go to the command line interface to do even basic stuff?" Hell, until the latest release, Ubuntu wouldn't even let me attach a projector without a complicated edit to the Xorg config file. ARGHHHHH!!!

Windows may die one day, but it's going to take a *lot* more work before anyone else is going to slay that dragon. And unless they got AutoCAD and a few games i love running on a different OS i'll stick with windows 2k, XP Pro Laptop and my humble BSD machine(which nows support double click style install and a few clicks un-install "PC-BSD".

[bert_the_turtle]

For linux, my choice falls on Gentoo - a beast to set up, but you only have to do it once, as opposed to constantly.

Thread hijack suggestion: (K/X)Ubuntu vs. Gentoo

I've got two Kubuntu machines now (Laptop and Desktop) because the previous Gentoo installations had tendencies to break on every small upgrade, and with Gentoo, every security fix is an upgrade. Plus, Gentoo's upgrade mantra is "Upgrade, see what's broken, then fix it." Yep, it's by design that a Gentoo installation is in an unusable state while some packets are compiling. If you can set it up and leave the system in a constant state, Gentoo can give you precisely what you want, but if you want a bit more up-to-dateness without having to oil yourself up and take a dive into the bowels of the beast from time to time, then Gentoo is nothing for you. It still runs on my home server and video disk recorder system because it hasn't managed to break them yet.

Setup wise, Ubuntu simply does the vast majority of setup things right out of the box. Automounting USB drives, those volume adjustment keys on my laptop, power management, all those little things. Where it's not so good is documentation and of course development: With Gentoo, the texinfo documentation was always up to date and complete, and by its nature, you always had development versions of all installed packets with complete headers and libraries. On Ubuntu, you have to run after those.

[Pox]

Eh, I've never had troubles with development on *buntu... everything you really need is in apt, waiting for you to grab it.
(the lack of build-essential on the default install is annoying for laptops with NICs that aren't automatically supported, though)

More on-topic, Macs may once have been clearly advantageous for design/media work, but no longer in my opinion: no matter how much I like to bash it up, Windows (or at least XP) is no slower than OSX on the same hardware, and it's perfectly usable as a design environment. If it's comparable hardware at comparable prices (ie the base-model macbook and nothing else), I would buy a Mac: otherwise, it's not worth paying for.

[NeoThermic]

I've got two Kubuntu machines now (Laptop and Desktop) because the previous Gentoo installations had tendencies to break on every small upgrade, and with Gentoo, every security fix is an upgrade.

However, if gentoo does break all one has to do is re-build everything, as that'll fix the problems. IIRC there's a way using distcc to build all the packages you're emerging/updating at once, and then introduce them into the system in one go. Thus no quantum-state system while updating

NeoThermic

[LordSturm]

I don't think you seem to get the joke...

Thread hijack suggestion: (K/X)Ubuntu vs. Gentoo

Effortless vs. Effort?

[bert_the_turtle]

However, if gentoo does break all one has to do is re-build everything, as that'll fix the problems. IIRC there's a way using distcc to build all the packages you're emerging/updating at once, and then introduce them into the system in one go. Thus no quantum-state system while updating

distcc requires several PCs online 24/7 to work properly. Yes, compiling EVERYTHING every time is possible, but it also keeps a single PC busy for several days (well, mine anyway. Several weeks for the poor 266 MHz server.)

And yes, on Ubuntu, you can get all the docs/headers, but the point is that on Gentoo, you get them automatically.

[NeoThermic]

However, if gentoo does break all one has to do is re-build everything, as that'll fix the problems. IIRC there's a way using distcc to build all the packages you're emerging/updating at once, and then introduce them into the system in one go. Thus no quantum-state system while updating

distcc requires several PCs online 24/7 to work properly. Yes, compiling EVERYTHING every time is possible, but it also keeps a single PC busy for several days (well, mine anyway. Several weeks for the poor 266 MHz server.)

For your poor 266MHz server, just set up a chroot on your main gentoo uber power box and compile the packages with that. Then the 266 only needs to do a small amount of work

Plus the distcc boxes don't need to be up 24/7, you just turn them on when you want to do a huge number of packages. Who doesn't have several boxes in their house anyway?

NeoThermic

[bert_the_turtle]

Plus the distcc boxes don't need to be up 24/7, you just turn them on when you want to do a huge number of packages. Who doesn't have several boxes in their house anyway?

Every box has a certain purpose that makes it hard to dedicate it to compilation for any useful amount of time. The VDR box also is weak (300 MHz, 128 Mbyte), it's underclocked to make cooling more silent, and compiling, say, QT on it would cause swap mayhem and maybe even give the video recordings trouble. The sort of uber powerful PC is still needed in XP bootery often enough. My laptop is a P4M (it was cheap) and gets annoyingly hot and loud under load. My wife's laptop is a Powerbook, and I really can't be bothered to set up a cross compilation environment (plus, it also gets hot). On the "convenience and Wife Acceptance Factor"/"usefulness for distcc or chroot help" graph, each of those boxes lies in the lower right quadrant.

Not to mention that all of the suggested fixes consume MY time as well, and I'd rather install a system that just works and do something productive with it. I just don't see a benefit of running Gentoo any more, apart from bragging rights.

[Dover]

No. Why? One word: Ubuntu.

Jelco

look, ubuntu may be the easiest installable linux distribution. that by far doesn't make it as easy as a mac though. buy it, open the box and it's all there, including all the most important software. chances are you don't have to reinstall it even once. i don't say, that mac absolutely is the user- friendliest though. it's just the friendliest in terms of maintenance and that was the killer- argument for me. plus, as a student, i got it much cheaper and so the difference to a pc- notebook wasn't big anymore.

For linux, my choice falls on Gentoo - a beast to set up, but you only have to do it once, as opposed to constantly.

gentoo would actually be my choice as well, out of the exact same reason you gave. the only thing you have to remember using it: NEVER change a running system . i don't quite get your quote and what you want to say with it though.

Because Apple is even more expensive and just as proprietary as Windows, won't let me build my own system, and is poorly supported by software developers. If Apple dominated the market, there is every reason to believe they would be just as heavy-handed as MS, if not much worse.

just as proprietary? well i guess, it's even more proprietary. it's possible to run alot of unix programs on it tough, which makes it a bit more open on the other hand. poorly supported by devs? nah, i wouldn't say that. there are lots of great apps for mac. often, the choice between the apps for a specific task is smaller, but the ones you CAN choose are even better than what you get on windows (especially in terms of the GUI). certainly there is less freeware tough. but that's what makes macs for developers more attractive actually: more market- holes to fit in and probably a lower percentage of piracy in the target- group.
in your last point i agree with you though: apple is actually much worse in binding the customer to them. i really wouldn't want them to dominate the market. the way it is right now is alright i think: apple being kindof the underdog in the homecomputer- market which drives their innovative forces, that certainly are there. i'm far from being a fanboy though.
there are things inside apple and inside os X that drive me nuts. but aren't there in every system?