problems with windows, mac and linux.

ok so here it is. ive been a windows user all my life. so i know some of the ups and downs of it. ive used macs before, but not enough to comment on how it well of a user experience ive got. ive recently tested ubuntu and found some positives, but just not enough.

windows, what can i say about it that no one already knows. as far windows vista is concerned, i think that vista home basic is an insult. i mean how many operating systems are m$ gonna make before they give their users are different interface. im tired of seeing that green or gray start button. change is good. but to get that change, you have to at least buy vista home premium or do an upgrade. as far as linux is concerned, i think that one major thing that is holding linux back is the amount of distros. its very overwhelming. im not here to rally against linux, because it has its positives, but i feel that linux has been sitting in the same spot (some of the same problems) for too long. as far as macs are concerned there are not many options but they do offer products that cost less than pc's from other pc vendors with similiar cofigurations. after some, and stopping the bullshit the mac mini really has a nice price. ive seen laptop from hp that cost around $1g, so does a macbook and imac. i hear alot of people talking about how good macs are, but i think that $200+ dollars to upgrade a version of mac for a bunch of features that you get in windows for free is riduculous. tell me if im wrong here. features like desktop widgets if im not mistaken. i often wonder how i dont hear mac users complaining about making the upgrade. are macs really that good. as i said above "ive used macs before, but not enough to comment on how it well of a user experience ive got."

however since these three operating systems have a target for x86, it will be interesting to see how things play out. i would like to hear others view on all three operating systems. their up and downs, negatives and positive. im not trying to start any commotion here people so please keep it clean.

Same old flamewar discussion again? Since I´m in the mood:

I wonder what features Windows has "for free" that you need to buy for OS X for more than 200 USDs? That price is only true if you add iLife to the mix. A Vista Ultimate Edition sells for 549 Euros (>700 USD) in Germany, and that is the very first and only version of Windows EVER that gets anywhere NEAR OS X and its feature set. If you add iLife, then Vista Ultimate still lacks a ton of features in comparison (no GarageBand, no iWeb, no iMovie, no iDVD).

OS updates are not free on either side, and if people now want to bitch about the "little updates" OS X receives that Apple charges you for, then they should first look at the little differences between Win95->95OSR2->98->98SE->Me->XP Home->NT3.1->NT3.5->NT3.51->NT4-2K-XP Pro (all updates people had to pay for). Here is the difference: Apple innovates every 18 months, while the last Microsoft copy took more than five years.

By the way, for 199 USD Apple sells an OS X family pack (5 licences). The world is still waiting for Microsoft to offer something similar (they only offer 3-packs for students). For the official retail price of five copies of Vista Ultimate Edition, I would get a Mac Pro with OS X, iLife and even Final Cut Express. Or a fat 24" iMac. Something´s gotta be wrong on the Microsoft side, I´d say.

I also still wonder about the old and untrue "Mac´s are too expensive" statement. When the Mac Pro was released, it was 1000 USD --CHEAPER-- than a similar configuration from Dell. The Mac Mini still has not been beaten by any competition and no other PC-vendor sells something comparable to an iMac. So where the heck do you get that "Mac´s are too expensive" from? People tend to compare oranges with, yes, apples. That simply does not work. Or would you also compare a Volkswagen Rabbit with a BMW 750i? After all, they both have four wheels, a couple of doors and both of them come from Germany. Only that Volkswagen sells more cars than BMW. Maybe you get the idea.

But to answer your question: No, Macs are not really that good. They are even better. And I say this after more than twenty years of Microsoft experience, starting with DOS 1.0. Yes, I´ve been around that long and I´ve only switched to Macs in the middle 2005. Still have to work with Microsoft products everyday in my normal job - and I more and more hate their inferior crap.

As for Linux: I prefer FreeBSD.

I guess it´s the last time that I will comment on that subject. The same discussion pops up every other day, and since there never is anything new, it just doesn´t make sense to talk about it anymore.

I started with a Mac Mini G4. It ruined my relationship with Microsoft, but probably was the best computer purchase of my life. Maybe you should try the same and get your experience first hand. :)

Except that FreeBSD is Unix, not Linux... :-)

In reply to:
"The same discussion pops up every other day, and since there never is anything new, it just doesn´t make sense to talk about it anymore."

actually yes it does because its good to hear different peoples perspectives. while this might not be new to you, some of it is new to me. this has been going on for god knows how long and hearing what others have to say sometimes clears some things that you dont find anywhere else. so thats why im researching these topics to find out whats really going on. nothing is perfect and its clearly obvious that not one of these os is perfect because there will always be some kind of a catch. as far as macs being too expensive, people are so used to it by now, it has become so common that even though there are some mac models that have some really good prices that cost less than similar pc's from other pc vendors. some people havent caught the wave yet, so ill change that statement because you cant compare orange and apples.

im gonnna get me a mac mini to see what it packs.

Don't worry, Microsoft are catching up. At least you only get one or two Linux distros from each company. Imagine the hell Linux would be if Microsoft was in charge, and each company had 9 different distros?

Windows: Hundreds and hundreds of programs - thanks to Visual Basic there is practically no software that you might need, that you can't get.
Linux: You are in complete control of your PC. Nothing goes on "under the hood" that you can't find out about.
Apple: Aesthetically pleasing.

Simple.

1. Figure out the software you NEED to use (i.e. what you want to use the machine for).
2. Figure out on what OS that software runs and runs best.
3. Use that.

Most modern operating systems do an okay job, so focus on the software you're going to run on it.

Or just do like me and run all three Windows, Linux and OS X (plus FreeBSD, BeOS, IRIX, AmigoOS, OS9 etc. etc.). Who said you had to choose. :)

keep it coming

In Vista, it is blue.

Oh and it's round and doesn't have text on it. So what was your point again?


Windows MovieMaker since WinME and in Vista (not sure which edition), there is a DVDMaker as well.


Unfair comparison. 2K was a major update and you somehow linked in two completely seperate product lines (9x and NT). It took Apple 4 'little updates' just to get the OS to respond adequately (uhh... well, most of the time, at least), each of which you had to pay for.

Now, NT4 had 6... or 7 free Service Packs (which are equivalent to one of Apples little updates), 2000 had 4 and XP had 2 so far. Hell XPSP2 was a bigger little upgrade than any Apple OS markup was.


Actually, Apple copies take every 18 months, whereas Microsoft innovation took more than five years. I am referring to Spotlight (and MS still havn't done a decent equivalent), plans for similar searching features were announced by MS way before Apple did anything of the sort.


Why the hell are you buying 5 copies of Ultimate? Are you a business user or a home user? Buy what you need - certainly all 5 members of your household are NOT both.


Well there's your problem right there.

If you had bothered to read his statement, his point was that Home Basic does not utilize Aero, and thus no new start button. Why this is an issue is beyond me. If the biggest complaint you have about an OS is its boring start button - stick with it.

Microsoft do not innovate. Ever. Why would they?

Yes. But as WinFS and thousands of other "innovations" Microsoft have annouced, none of them actually materialize.

Aren't ReadyBoost and SuperFetch innovations? I'm not familiar enough with any Linux distro or Mac OsX to say they are for sure, but, I've never heard of those features in an OS before.

The computers used used in the original Star Trek were amazing. Very believable things; smart suggestion-driven English input recognition (which is just begging to pop into computing) and a perfectly simple output of precisely what the user asked for. ("Give me a picture of that guy, then compare it to another older one" -- *Boom* Two images grabbed from a repository thanks to clever search indexing, both Compared using an image comparison program. No need for weird window managers - and thus no need for cluttery interfaces - because speaking to a computer is very different from poking at it).


Anyhow, optimism aside, I think this thread as a whole quite plainly demonstrates my own thoughts on the matter:

Computers are stupid, inanimate objects that have no idea who you are, what you want or how to do it.
Thus, the software on computers is similarly stupid: it does stuff, and it sometimes does different stuff if you happen to press the right button. That nice background? That amazing game? That great image you rendered? That movie you're watching? It's meaningless; an irrelevent jumble of colourful dots; it's just a magic show, and what's more? It has been proven fake, but you refuse to believe of its falsehood; you would rather satisfy yourself in blissful ignorance.

Operating systems, like any other bit of computer software, are ridiculously dumb and lack any common sense. If you want an operating system that does everything right, you are going to be waiting for a very long time.
It would be easier (and perhaps less expensive) to hire a butler.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by innovations. By Websters definition, no.

I was an long term Windows user since I got my first PC and even before I used DOS. Before late 2006 I thought Apple computers were just mid class PCs with an superior but expensive design. But guess what: I was wrong.
When the notebook of my girlfriend broke she had to choose from either an 17" iMac or an 17" notebook. Now she got that iMac (with an 2GB RAM upgrade) and couldn't be happier. Mac OS X is still the most advanced OS I've ever seen in terms of non-server-usage. Even with Vista out now OS X is still the superior OS because you can run it even with an G4 Mac and you will miss none of the features (except for the execution of Intel apps). G4s are not quite fresh, they have been around for like 3-4 years? Try to run Vista with all that features on an 3-4 years old standard PC and have a lot of fun.
As for security I really can't say that much. I think every OS has its holes but I guess OS X and Linux have less holes in the interna than Windows has (Vista holes are yet to be dicovered). But while Linux exists in so many different flavours that there are not many specific security holes and Macs simply get not so much attention and/or have a very good BSD based subsystem that is quite secure Windows suffered long time from being an unsecure DOS kernel based OS and the most popular OS. The first thing changed but the NT kernel is also not that secure compared to BSD. It would be kinda nice if the second one would also change but Linux won't cut it. There's only OS X and as long as OS X isn't running out of the box on a standard x86 PC I can't see that happen.
The switch from XP to Vista will get many people to think about a Mac though and maybe there are more users like me that just sell their PC/Notebook/whatever and get an macMini or iMac or MacBook or [insertAnyAppleComputerHere].

Sounds like brands of dog food to me :-)

Not really.

Ok, *most* Vista holes are yet to be discovered ;-)

Heheh, I nearly gobbed my drink all over my keyboard when I read that.

"Vista could be hijacked so that a PC tells itself to delete files or folders."

I wonder if there's a "FFS REBOOT!" command when all has gone pair shaped.

[edit]
I just read in another BBC article.

Success by default?

"Let's make no mistake: Windows Vista will be a success. But it will happen almost by default. "

Meh! I remember when the same kinds of stories came out when 'Dragon Naturally Speaking 7' was releasd.

But of course since it's Vista that has speech recognition now it's considered the biggest most dangerous threat on Earth.

Linux and Mac users need to stop crying and deal with the fact that windows RULES.

:)

If both of you knew anything about Vista, you would know that the non-Glass theme has exactly the same 'start' button.

EDIT : Oh, all versions of Vista (except maybe the Starter editions) support Aero, they just don't support Aero Glass. Think of standard Aero as the equivalent of an XP Theme.


Kudos to Apple for making something actually happen, but they still didn't innovate it.


Ran fine on my machine. Actually, it ran even better on an old dual 1gig P3/512MB server box at work.

I moved all my usual(buisiness, mail, web, graphics, AV media, skype/msn/icq, etc.. even google earth!) computing away from windows because of all the above stated reasons(and many more like getting 8 items spyware when ive hardly even gone anywhere and long slow virus scans imobliged to do all the time!), if it wasnt for linux id use macOSX or try something else.
I will probably always have to use windows too, simply for b3d, a couple of 3d tools for things not possible in blender and games. All my other needs are covered by ubuntu.


Ive tried a few linuxes, linuxi, linuxcies... ahem
I was totally confused with all the distros too but at the end of the day i found they all fall under just a few major umbrellas (debian, redhat mandrake etc).
Debian based (ubuntu is my fave) seems to be the easiest and best supported ive found so far. Once you know one debian other debians become quite famliar too.(i guess its the same for the other ones like redhat etc) The actual principles, file structure and basic commands are very similar on all linuxes, even sililar to unix (which after all is what linux was originally a bottom-up rebuild of).


I felt the same way, loads was missing like thumbnails for pictures in directories etc, but found it like most of what i was missing was just an install away. Unlike windows, you get a more basic system you can build on (esp. Xubuntu), rather than getting loads of stuff you never use (and im not talking about installed apps). I now think gnome (for its faults) is a lot more efficiently layed out and useable than windows.


Yep! Windows rules alright, R.eally U.nsecure L.ongwinded & E.xpensive S.ystem. If im crying, its with laughter :P

Got an iMac since today 4 pm =) Mac OS X rocks so far. It's very clear that while Vista was not released Mac OS X was the most modern OS. Now with Vista Microsoft has catched up quite a bit but at least when Leopard will come out, Vista will be old snow again...