# Mac, PC(Windows), or Linux/Unix



## Opher (Aug 27, 2009)

Everyday i get more and more fed up with Windows.  Today it "updated" and windows stoped booting.

So this got me thinking what do all of you use?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 27, 2009)

Mac for over 20 years. Never had any problem, never had to worry about viruses, etc.

Yes, they are a bit more expensive. Nothing compared to the time most people seem to spend trying to make their Windows machines work the way they're supposed too.


----------



## Overread (Aug 27, 2009)

Depends - they are all rather different tools.

Mac - good for specifics and generally considered the market leader for graphics, CGI and general media work. Of course they are strong machines in their own right, but the sofware range for them is more limited - though there are windows emulators out there to use if one so desires. The bonus of all the components being inhouse made does give the advantage that all the bits are fully comptable

Linux/Unix - Free and strong, but its not for easy street. This is the sort of operating system for people who really understand computers and require specific controls as well as not being afriad to work around things and such to get things to work. Its great for the average geek (which is why they like it so much) but not best suited to your average home owner user

PC - good generalist with the widest range of software out there. Of course we all know the limitations of PCs, but they have their strengths too, easy compataibility with most other systems (its widly used), the wider software range and options from free to commercail as well as a nice big collection of games as well  

For me its Windows - games ar a hobby of mine and I am used to the interface (at least till they change it......) Plus most of my software experience is in windows. I am not geeky enough to bother with Linux and MAC would require me to spend a lot rebuilding my games collection and fiddling around with emulators and such


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 27, 2009)

Overread said:


> Depends - they are all rather different tools.
> 
> Mac - good for specifics and generally considered the market leader for graphics, CGI and general media work. Of course they are strong machines in their own right, but the sofware range for them is more limited - though there are windows emulators out there to use if one so desires. The bonus of all the components being inhouse made does give the advantage that all the bits are fully comptable
> 
> ...



:thumbup: This has to be be the fairest assessment I've seen in a long time. but d o you know that you can run Windows on a Mac?


----------



## mariusz (Aug 27, 2009)

i use mac and am happy with.  10 years no virus!


----------



## Overread (Aug 27, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> :thumbup: This has to be be the fairest assessment I've seen in a long time. but d o you know that you can run Windows on a Mac?



but then why shell out on the MAC only to then use Windows? Granted its good for a dominant MAC user who needs to dip into windows from time to time, but if your using a lot of windows based software it would be easier to just use a straight windows PC and reduce the number of possible conflict problems.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Aug 27, 2009)

I use windows. I never had issues with old 3.1, hated win 95!! Liked WindowsME, Loved Windows XP -don't care to talk about Vista! Lets say it falls below win95 on my dislike meter!   As for those windows updates, I have had numerous issues with them since using Vista, in fact a brand new PC and it crashed numerous times between October and May! I realized it always happened after a large update -so, I just turned updates off! Screw 'em!! They take hours to download, slow things down while they download, and so far, I have had no more problems [tap wood] since the last crash in mid-May.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 27, 2009)

No. There are no conflict problems and you can have the best of both worlds.

Never surf the internet from Windows and worry about all the nasty stuff floating around that space...

Play all the Windows based games you want.

Stable environment from Mac.

... and probably something else from Windows. 


To be honest I could not care less what you or anyone else uses. I do not get brownie points or Mac$ for pushing Mac. Quite the opposite.

The more people use Macs the more idiots we will have wanting to write viruses and other cr*p for us.

In my house there were 5 Macs to every Windows machine because my wife learned computing on DOS. When she finally got comfortable enough with Mac (not that long ago ) we got rid of Bill's machines. The only one we still have is the lone one from her company. And she only uses it for company specific applications.

My son in law is a Windows freak, hates Macs but he bought the last one I sold anyway. Supposedly for his son. The last time I was at heir house I noticed it wasn't in the kid's room so I looked around. Found it in the computer lab :lmao:


----------



## Dwig (Aug 28, 2009)

Overread's assesment is rather good, but you have to consider "Mac" and "Windows" in 21st century terms.

The MacOS and Windows were both problematic. Neither were great and its good that they are both dead and buried. Apple's replacement for the MacOS, like MS's replacement for Windows, are a different matter.

MacOSX is not the MacOS. It is a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing version of Unix. Today's Windows are really WindowsNT, which is a fork from the old IBM/MS OS2 project to create an Intel native UNIX clone.

At the ripe old age of 40, UNIX has proved to the most functional approach to OS design at this point in the early evolution of personal computers. All choices at the present are either UNIX, UNIX hiding under a sexy UI (MacOSX), or extremely UNIX-like under the hood (WindowsNT family including XP/NTv5.1, Vista/NTv6, or 7/NTv7).

Personally, I prefer the WindowsNT family (except Vista). It shields me less from its internal guts making it easier for me to manage its guts.


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 28, 2009)

once you go mac, you never go back.

was once a hardcore pc user, used a mac for 2 hours and have never gone back since


----------



## clarinetJWD (Aug 28, 2009)

Dwig said:


> Overread's assesment is rather good, but you have to consider "Mac" and "Windows" in 21st century terms.
> 
> The MacOS and Windows were both problematic. Neither were great and its good that they are both dead and buried. Apple's replacement for the MacOS, like MS's replacement for Windows, are a different matter.
> 
> ...


Not to be pedantic, but Windows 7 is actually NT version 6.1...  Aside from that, I agree with your last sentence 92.31%.  (Except "except Vista".  Vista had a bad launch, and a bad first impression, but since SP1 has been absolutely fine.) 

That being said, before you make any decisions, make sure you try Windows 7.  I've seen the phrase "It just works" more times in reviews of 7 than I ever have with MacOS.  It's easily the best OS MS has ever made...

At this point, I firmly believe that the choice of Mac vs PC is purely aesthetic.  Which do you like to use more?  Both are very stable, but occasionally crash, both are very secure (See chart below.  This is number of malware infected machines, % of 1000.  The latest 64 bit Vista fares extremely well at ~2%, and Windows 7 is even lower, so I'd call security pretty equal at this point too), both have slick modern GUI's.







As for the "Ignoring updates, problem solved!" philosophy... Not good at all!  Updates (especially security updates) are very important, and should not be ignored, no matter what OS you use.

EDIT:


JamesMason said:


> once you go mac, you never go back.
> 
> was once a hardcore pc user, used a mac for 2 hours and have never gone back since



Funny...was once a big Mac fan, but switched to PC for the games, all the while wishing I still had a Mac.  This was Mac version Old vs Windows 95.  Years later, I used one again (OS 10.4), and realized I really, really didn't want one.  One is not better than the other anymore, just a better match depending on your workflow.  (Also, did Apple finally remove the shift and caps lock keys to make the keyboard more streamlined and minimalistic? )


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

Windows for over 20 years. Never had any problem, never had to worry about viruses, etc.


----------



## Opher (Aug 28, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Windows for over 20 years. Never had any problem, never had to worry about viruses, etc.



Congrats on not having problems with windows.  People like you are far and few between(or you are still using 3.1).



I personal use Ubuntu and change it to fit my needs.  Sadly it has its limitations to.  For the software that will not run i have windows.

To all you Mac heads
   I would love to work on a mack but there are two things stoping me.  I like to mess with a computers hardware and there is the price.  Well maybe tree, I find there UI counter intuitive.  It is just to hard to get around.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

Dagwood56 said:


> Liked WindowsME



Just what _have_ you been smoking? WindowsME wasn't an operating system...it was a computer virus that you paid for. I can't count the number of hours I spent cleaning up it's sh**.

I have a modest amount of love for my Mac. It treats me well save for the very occasional kernel panic. Such things are very much the exception, and usually only come after I've been farking around with the guts of the OS. Not something that just crops up with no apparent reason.

Dwig's assessment of UNIX could not be any better. UNIX is just plain fantastic. When I bought my current Mac, MS didn't have Vista out yet, and it wasn't looking good at all either. OSX was the only reasonable choice for me, since I didn't want to bother with Linux distros, and Windows wasn't functional (I was going to be a university student in a matter of months; I simply didn't have time to make my computer work). Nor was the Windows GUI (and for me, it is still very much counter-intuitive). The NeXTSTEP-like operating environment of OSX, with inspectors and dock, is much more intuitive for me.

However, I very much hate some things in OSX and Apple's design. They have a penchant to lock you out of parts of the OS that normally you'd have access to. Notably, I can't spoof my MAC address under OS X 10.5.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 28, 2009)

Opher said:


> To all you Mac heads
> I would love to work on a mack but there are two things stoping me.  I like to mess with a computers hardware and there is the price.  Well maybe tree, I find there UI counter intuitive.  It is just to hard to get around.



I drive a Mack and compute on a Mac 

Now, I'm no hardware geek but why couldn't you mess with Mac hardware?

The price, I agree. And it is what keeps most away people from them. Thank god I write my computers off so I don't mind the extra cost. Plus I see it as insurance. I couldn't tell you when the last crash I had was. It's been so very long that I don't remember.

If the UI is counter intuitive I imagine it is only because you are so used to Windows. Same problem my wife had. From seeing people new to computers deal the two, it seems to me most have an easier time learning on a Mac.

One problem I will grant you is that, with fewer of us Mac users around, when you do have a problem it is a lot easier to find help when you run a Windows machine.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

Opher said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Windows for over 20 years. Never had any problem, never had to worry about viruses, etc.
> ...



Not really. My parents, my sister and my grandparents have also been 20+ year users without a single issue.

I've also run several desktop departments and had to deal with nothing but hardware failures. Which you'll have to deal with no matter the platform.



musicaleCA said:


> Dagwood56 said:
> 
> 
> > Liked WindowsME
> ...



I can accept people saying they use Mac because they have a personal attraction to it. They like the feel... whatever. But when people say Windows isn't functional.... c'mon. Windows XP is the most functional and stable desktop OS ever released to a public market. I've seen way more gray screens of death on Macs due to hardware driver issues than I have blue screen of deaths on Windows. Which is ridiculous since Mac on uses a specific set of hardware specifically to avoid this issue and they still can't accomplish that task.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

Apple makes it really hard to futz with the hardware of anything but a Mac Pro. Reason being two-fold. They market to people who won't want to futz with the internals anyway, and they can make their stuff sexier and more compact if they cut you out of the loop. You can take the screen off an iMac, but that's tricksy. And Apple solders the CPU and GPU to their boards, so those can't be replaced. About the only thing you can touch is RAM.

Of course, with a Mac Pro, none of that applies. It's big, it has space, and my gods, are the ones today ever fantastic. Internal drives just pop-in, and pop-out (thank you eSATA.) Video cards are the same (thank your PCIe). I kinda gawked at what the Xeon processors were sitting under though: a heat sink bigger than my two fists. :shock:


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

itznfb said:


> I can accept people saying they use Mac because they have a personal attraction to it. They like the feel... whatever. But when people say Windows isn't functional.... c'mon. Windows XP is the most functional and stable desktop OS ever released to a public market. I've seen way more gray screens of death on Macs due to hardware driver issues than I have blue screen of deaths on Windows. Which is ridiculous since Mac on uses a specific set of hardware specifically to avoid this issue and they still can't accomplish that task.



Erm, yep. That's what I said. XP ain't functional. Not for what I needed it to do. And the GUI was never a comfortable interface for me to work with regardless. I much rather have the intuitive, right-hemisphere-oriented mess of exposé and spaces, than the taskbar *shudder* or the cut-and-dry, perfectly scaled grid of Vista's equivalent feature.

And that said, some Linux operating environments are WAY, WAY better than either.

And as for hardware drivers...You _sure_ you're talking about OS X here? I haven't had a single problem with Apple's hardware not working with their current OS. And I've seen far more BSoD's in my lifetime than kernel panics.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Apple makes it really hard to futz with the hardware of anything but a Mac Pro. Reason being two-fold. They market to people who won't want to futz with the internals anyway, and they can make their stuff sexier and more compact if they cut you out of the loop. You can take the screen off an iMac, but that's tricksy. And Apple solders the CPU and GPU to their boards, so those can't be replaced. About the only thing you can touch is RAM.
> 
> Of course, with a Mac Pro, none of that applies. It's big, it has space, and my gods, are the ones today ever fantastic. Internal drives just pop-in, and pop-out (thank you eSATA.) Video cards are the same (thank your PCIe). I kinda gawked at what the Xeon processors were sitting under though: a heat sink bigger than my two fists. :shock:



I'm not sure what type of customizations they've done as I don't work in the desktop department of my current company... and this is the only experience I have with MacBook Pro. But our desktop team rolled out a beta program with 5,000 MacBook Pro's to technical users in January and by the beginning of this month they had them all replaced with HP Elite Books because of all the issues they had with them. Granted a lot of the issues were with Fusion but the users that had requested them (VPs) just kept complaining that they were unusable.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > I can accept people saying they use Mac because they have a personal attraction to it. They like the feel... whatever. But when people say Windows isn't functional.... c'mon. Windows XP is the most functional and stable desktop OS ever released to a public market. I've seen way more gray screens of death on Macs due to hardware driver issues than I have blue screen of deaths on Windows. Which is ridiculous since Mac on uses a specific set of hardware specifically to avoid this issue and they still can't accomplish that task.
> ...



Give me an example of how XP isn't functional.

And yes I'm talking about the most current Macbook Pro. My buddy work in the architecture department who all had Macbook Pros until Aug 1, and every time I was in a meeting with him he would at least 1 gray screen. And most of the time it would take him 10 - 20 minutes for it to even power back on. This was very common with the users.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 28, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Granted a lot of the issues were with Fusion but the users that had requested them (VPs) just kept complaining that they were unusable.



Unusable for what reason exactly?

I mean if they've never used Macs and can't figure out out to use them within 25 seconds, you can't really hold that against Mac.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Granted a lot of the issues were with Fusion but the users that had requested them (VPs) just kept complaining that they were unusable.
> ...



They consistently gray screen. And I guess there is some issue with the power because you can sit there hitting the power button over and over and over and it doesn't turn on. I sat there watching one of them for literally 10 minutes before it actually turned on. And this is apparently affected over 50% of the stock. At least from what we received. They also complained about slowness and issues with connecting to network resources.

That being said. As of Aug 1 Mac is no longer an approved notebook or desktop in our entire corporation. A big part of that is the lack of support they received from Apple.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Give me an example of how XP isn't functional.
> 
> And yes I'm talking about the most current Macbook Pro. My buddy work in the architecture department who all had Macbook Pros until Aug 1, and every time I was in a meeting with him he would at least 1 gray screen. And most of the time it would take him 10 - 20 minutes for it to even power back on. This was very common with the users.



Well that's just weird. Haven't heard that one before. Mine is from the previous generation, and I haven't had anywhere near such problems. In fact, I've always been pleasantly surprised that when I did have a catastrophic failure, the OS sprung back without me interfering. The darn thing fixes itself. 

As for XP, NTFS is such an incredible PITA. Defragmentation is a time-consuming, annoying process that I had to do far, far too often (since I was and still do deal with large volumes of data, both small and large files). HFS+ manages things so much better by simply not fragmenting files in the first place if it can be avoided. And it's journaling surpasses NTFS by a modest degree.

XP does not have a UNIX-like permissions structure, which complicates file management between users, and makes it more difficult to manage for me as an administrator, and repair issues with read/write access. The basic folder structure is also a problem for me in Windows; having preference files, programs, and various other resources strewn everywhere down from the root directory is a nightmare when I need to fix something, because it's hard to know where to look. OS X, again with it's UNIX-like structure, makes this a heck of a lot easier by having standards. Application resources are contained in APP files, which are similarly contained in either the user's home folder under /Applications/, or the root applications directory. Preferences and other dynamic resources are held in under ~/Library/ApplicationSupport/ . Piece of cake, most of the time.

Services and the registry are flawed concepts that should be junked, the registry being the worst. An OS can survive quite well without it, and it does more harm than good.

Oh, and I don't like the taskbar and start menu. 

Those are my reasons for leaving Windows, from a technical standpoint.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention, that while XP needed some amount of manual work to keep it running at peek efficiency, by cleaning caches, those preload files (have I really forgotten what they're called? Bah, you probably know what I'm talking about), and so on, OS X still uses the good ol' daily, weekly, and monthly UNIX maintenance scripts. So for someone like myself who leaves their computer on all the time, OS X largely maintains itself and is less prone to that slow but inevitable decline in speed and performance that XP so often exhibited while I was using it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 28, 2009)

Before I respond to this, let me say once more that I do not get paid by Mac to push their products and I could not care less what anybody uses. In reality, the fewer of us Mac users there are, the fewer viruses will be written for us so I'm not even interested in making converts.

I'm not sure I know what a gray screen is but I think I can imagine. Never had one. Then again, never had a laptop either. I can't help and think however that if their laptops were so bad I would have read about it on the internet.

Slowness? Sorry, I don't get that unless you're company bought off all the laptops left over from three years ago.

As for connecting to network resources, have you given any thought to the fact that it may be a problem with your network administration people who don't know what they're doing when it comes to Macs? Isn't it possible that your company bought those machines because people wanted them (for probably the wrong reasons) but your geeks weren't quite ready to deal with them...


----------



## Opher (Aug 28, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Give me an example of how XP isn't functional.
> 
> And yes I'm talking about the most current Macbook Pro. My buddy work in the architecture department who all had Macbook Pros until Aug 1, and every time I was in a meeting with him he would at least 1 gray screen. And most of the time it would take him 10 - 20 minutes for it to even power back on. This was very common with the users.



Had a problem yesterday.  Did a nice fresh install of xp(done this like 40-50 times so i do know what im doing).  Did the Updates and bam Got the worst case of blue screen ever.  Now this may not be a problem with the origenal Xp but for the company behind it to release an update that will destroy it is retarded.

Ps. as with any OS when first released it will have bugs. Probably why the new macs are having problems.  But if you look at Xp when first released you can see that it was a lot crappyer than the current macs.

The macs have also switched CPU architecture to which may knock them back for a bit on the stability aspect.


My point ALL computers will have problems but most OS's are more stable than windows.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> I'm not sure I know what a gray screen is but I think I can imagine. Never had one. Then again, never had a laptop either. I can't help and think however that if their laptops were so bad I would have read about it on the internet.



On OS X and other UNIX-based operating systems, it's called a "kernel panic". It's essentially when the core of the operating system, the kernel, chokes on something and someone forgets to do the Heimlich manoeuvre.  On OS X, your screen freezes and goes grey (a transparent grey; you can still see the frozen screen) from top to bottom...actually a pretty sleek animation considering the entire OS just tripped and died. There's a message that then tells you, essentially "Well...Something went wrong there! Time to restart your computer. Whoopsee..." When you restart the OS asks to send a report to Apple, with the log of what the kernel was doing at the time.

All this kernel talk reminds me of some Linux distro my friend was talking about. Apparently it can update the kernel while it's running, making it completely unnecessary to restart for any OS updates. :shock:


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

Opher said:


> Ps. as with any OS when first released it will have bugs. Probably why the new macs are having problems.  But if you look at Xp when first released you can see that it was a lot crappyer than the current macs.
> 
> The macs have also switched CPU architecture to which may knock them back for a bit on the stability aspect.



How right you are. OS 10.5 wasn't nearly as awesome as it is now back when it was 10.5.0.

As for architecture changing, Apple's handled that splendidly. Oh, and another reason I switched: OS X handles 32-bit and 64-bit drivers and software without issue. It doesn't matter if the program was written in either, or the driver in either, and it doesn't matter if it was written for PowerPC Macs or Intel Macs. They just work. Windows can't lay claim to that kind of seamless acceptance of new technology yet.


----------



## Opher (Aug 28, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> All this kernel talk reminds me of some Linux distro my friend was talking about. Apparently it can update the kernel while it's running, making it completely unnecessary to restart for any OS updates. :shock:



Updating a kernel while runing seems like a bad idea.:geek:


----------



## Opher (Aug 28, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> As for architecture changing, Apple's handled that splendidly. Oh, and another reason I switched: OS X handles 32-bit and 64-bit drivers and software without issue. It doesn't matter if the program was written in either, or the driver in either, and it doesn't matter if it was written for PowerPC Macs or Intel Macs. They just work. Windows can't lay claim to that kind of seamless acceptance of new technology yet.



windows never will.

It is not necessaryly there problem but also that of the (non Microsoft) software developers.  Im not a windows fan but we should at least be fair.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 28, 2009)

Opher said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > All this kernel talk reminds me of some Linux distro my friend was talking about. Apparently it can update the kernel while it's running, making it completely unnecessary to restart for any OS updates. :shock:
> ...



Indeed, unless you do it right, which they have, TMK. The kernel is held completely in memory while you update it, and somehow, it works. Crazy, I know.



Opher said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > As for architecture changing, Apple's handled that splendidly. Oh, and another reason I switched: OS X handles 32-bit and 64-bit drivers and software without issue. It doesn't matter if the program was written in either, or the driver in either, and it doesn't matter if it was written for PowerPC Macs or Intel Macs. They just work. Windows can't lay claim to that kind of seamless acceptance of new technology yet.
> ...



I think the problem really is with standards. Apple sets-out clear standards for almost everything, particularly the interface of programs, and where resources should be located. With the ApplicationSupport directory, it's kinda like they're saying "Here you go, put your stuff in here, and create whatever crazy directory structure you want, just *don't* leave your designated play pen." 

OS X is the zoo, Windows is the jungle.


----------



## Opher (Aug 28, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> I think the problem really is with standards. Apple sets-out clear standards for almost everything, particularly the interface of programs, and where resources should be located. With the ApplicationSupport directory, it's kinda like they're saying "Here you go, put your stuff in here, and create whatever crazy directory structure you want, just *don't* leave your designated play pen."
> 
> OS X is the zoo, Windows is the jungle.



And then there is windows. Holy crap you just burnt down my house!!! 
(it was funny in my head)


----------



## boogschd (Aug 28, 2009)

windows .. havent used mac/linux thoroughly yet

updates? ... installed it then never updated . never had problems with it

xept maybe for the viruses and stuff you get from portable USB devices . but that can be easily avoided if you know what your doing 

+ software compatibility .. i use a wide range of apps to switch to a mac/linux


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> As for architecture changing, Apple's handled that splendidly. Oh, and another reason I switched: OS X handles 32-bit and 64-bit drivers and software without issue. *It doesn't matter if the program was written in either, or the driver in either, and it doesn't matter if it was written for PowerPC Macs or Intel Macs. They just work.* Windows can't lay claim to that kind of seamless acceptance of new technology yet.



Wow. Ok... with all the delusional Mac people running loose around here I decided to ignore most of the dreams that slipped from peoples minds but this statement just blew me away.

That was sarcasm right? They just work? Do you honestly believe that? 

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.


----------



## boomer (Aug 28, 2009)

So when will the day come when you can go to a store, walk over to the software section and pick between OSX and Windows and install them on any machine that you build or purchase? That will be the day i would choose OSX and Windows. Not that i dislike OSX, i just would never pay more money to do the same thing. Plus i love building my computers and picking the components that best fit my needs.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 29, 2009)

itznfb said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > As for architecture changing, Apple's handled that splendidly. Oh, and another reason I switched: OS X handles 32-bit and 64-bit drivers and software without issue. *It doesn't matter if the program was written in either, or the driver in either, and it doesn't matter if it was written for PowerPC Macs or Intel Macs. They just work.* Windows can't lay claim to that kind of seamless acceptance of new technology yet.
> ...



Um, yeah, because I've used them. Is that so hard to believe? OS X handles 32-bit apps very well, without the user being required to even know there's a difference. I've used both 32-bit applications and applications written for the PowerPC architecture on my machine (which is running OS X 10.5, 10.4 before that, so both are 64-bit, and and Intel 64-bit processor), with absolutely no problems (other than a very minor drop in performance because of the overhead; it's not something a normal user would notice). It's one of OS X's strong points. (The funny thing is that it was actually a little tricky for me to find-out if the binaries for programs were 32- or 64-bit, because the difference is so inconsequential.)

As for what I've been smoking, I don't smoke. But I'm in Vancouver, so if you'd like a little something I'm sure I can find someone. 

boomer: A curiosity you might be interested in is that OS X has been cracked to run on a PC. It really isn't pretty, and it's a royal PITA to deal with the problem of making the hardware work right with the OS, but it's been done. The only reason it even could be done was because Apple moved to Intel processors.


----------



## Opher (Aug 29, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> boomer: A curiosity you might be interested in is that OS X has been cracked to run on a PC. It really isn't pretty, and it's a royal PITA to deal with the problem of making the hardware work right with the OS, but it's been done. The only reason it even could be done was because Apple moved to Intel processors.




If you like messing with computers to get it to work right than that is a great thing to try.  If not it is hell on a cd.:lmao:


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 29, 2009)

You can buy a widget that plugs into the motherboard so you can run a legit copy of osx on a pc now. BUT why would you want to ? I bought my mac for the hardware not osx


----------



## clarinetJWD (Aug 29, 2009)

JamesMason said:


> You can buy a widget that plugs into the motherboard so you can run a legit copy of osx on a pc now. BUT why would you want to ? I bought my mac for the hardware not osx



:scratch: You know it uses exactly the same hardware as a PC, except a fancy case. right?

And the motherboard dongle only works on a very select few motherboards...


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 29, 2009)

Yea but the fancy case does not feel as tho its gonna break everytime i lift the screen up.  Every pc laptop ive ever used has just felt clumsy and tacky. Ok yea in a desktop it really does not matter


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 29, 2009)

Macs are awful. I use one every week at work, and it makes the pagination process a nightmare. It consistently crashes every day at least twice. I have to bring my Windows Laptop in to do any photoshop work. 

So now I use Windows, with Bitdefender as my antivirus/malware program and nothing gets in. 

And I think my desktop is much sexier than a Mac.


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 29, 2009)

What macs are they ? G4s ? They are awful


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 29, 2009)

It's irrelevant as to what model they are. There's no Mac that's worth using.


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 29, 2009)

One day you will see the light. Steve jobs will pour honey potion in your ear and you will wake up singing, mac , mac mac .....


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 29, 2009)

Lets put it this way, I've never had a good experience with a Mac. So I don't feel like I should be giving any money to Steve Jobs for his babied down OS that he markets to people that don't have as great of an understanding of the way a computer works.


----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 29, 2009)

My personal opinion...  If you're just surfing the web there really isn't a difference between the different systems as long as you have a good anti-virus and all that jazz.  If you're going for a webserver I'd never choose anything other than Linux but hey I don't know what I'm talking about.  Mac has it's advantages and it's disadvantages but I'd probably choose it over Windows just because of the update issues.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 29, 2009)

o hey tyler said:


> Lets put it this way, I've never had a good experience with a Mac. So I don't feel like I should be giving any money to Steve Jobs for his babied down OS that he markets to people that don't have as great of an understanding of the way a computer works.



Well now that's a little more reasonable.  This whole "Macs are EVIL!" "Macs are GREAT!" thing is so old. *sigh*

Evidently there are Macs worth using, you've just had a lot of misfortune in using them. I could say the same thing about Windows. Oh and hey, *points to previous posts* I think I'm qualified as a person who has some understanding of how a computer works. And I use a Mac. Guess I must be crazy.  (As for the OS being babied down, under the hood it's hardcore UNIX/FreeBSD, so no...it's got a lot of meat to it and is a HECK of a lot nicer environment to work in than Windows.)


----------



## twozero (Aug 29, 2009)

I've been a Mac user for almost 10 years. I have never had a problem other than my hard-drive going out in my most current iMac (which took less than 15 minutes to change, btw). But that's the kind of thing that can happen to any computer.

To be fair, I never had too many problems with my pc's in the past. The last time I used a windows machine (outside of playing on friends') was when XP just released SP1.

Now, we use old white-polycarbonate Power-PC iMacs at work. The ones before the built-in cameras. These, however slow they may be compared to ANY newer computer, never fail. The only issues we have are network issues because of the crap-wiring in our office building. I think that speaks pretty highly for the hardware and software in Macs. I just don't understand how so many of you guys have had so many problems with Macs. No one has that many problems, that often with ANY COMPUTER.

I vote for OSX. Also, I just upgraded to Snow Leopard (whoooo). I just really like the cleanliness. Regardless of how small that reason may be, that what it is for me.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 29, 2009)

Snow Leopard's out? I have to admit I don't pay much attention. *Looks* ... An OS upgrade for $29. ... Okay, I'd like to see Microsoft do that with Windows 7 from Vista. :lmao:


----------



## clarinetJWD (Aug 30, 2009)

You laugh, but Snow Leopard is an upgrade that's light on new features, and heavy on optimization and speed.  Microsoft called that Vista SP1, and then Vista SP2.  They didn't charge a dime for it!

Oh, and I did get Windows 7 with its major interface overhoul, and new features to go with every new UI element for $49.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 30, 2009)

Can't you get Windows 7 for free if you purchased Windows Vista Retail?


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2009)

Opher said:


> Today it "updated" and windows stoped booting.



Mine has been doing that too...

I turned off automatic updates, and it seems to be working better.  It still downloads them automatically, but I have it set to only install what I say to, when I say to.


----------



## Opher (Aug 30, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Opher said:
> 
> 
> > Today it "updated" and windows stoped booting.
> ...



ya I reinstalled and have now disabled the stupid updates.
Seems to be working ok.


----------



## clarinetJWD (Aug 30, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Can't you get Windows 7 for free if you purchased Windows Vista Retail?



It depends on where you bought it, and when you bought it.


----------



## Dominantly (Sep 2, 2009)

I use a fairly powerful PC, I built, running Vista.

I tried using my wifes laptop to edit for a week, and it was horrible. The lag drove me nuts, I couldnt imagine using it full time. It was on Vista as well, with a 1.86GHz Pentium Dual-Core and 3G of ram.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 2, 2009)

Dominantly said:


> I use a fairly powerful PC, I built, running Vista.
> 
> I tried using my wifes laptop to edit for a week, and it was horrible. The lag drove me nuts, I couldnt imagine using it full time. It was on Vista as well, with a 1.86GHz Pentium Dual-Core and 3G of ram.



That's because Vista is a memory whore. And that point can't be argued; it just is.  (I get by just fine with all of 2GB of RAM on my MBP, and can relatively easily run all my browses and stuff plus LR2 and PS. Yay for stability! )



clarinetJWD said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you get Windows 7 for free if you purchased Windows Vista Retail?
> ...



Well that kinda sucks. :-/ (Snow Leopard also comes with iLife '09 and iWork '09, so...they've tacked-on a WHOLE lot of value for a measly $30.)


----------



## clarinetJWD (Sep 3, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > I use a fairly powerful PC, I built, running Vista.
> ...



Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  You mean that when I was running Vista with PS CS3 and all my browsers, that was all a big charade?  There's a gigantic difference between using a lot of memory and wasting a lot of memory.  Vista uses roughly half of your RAM whether you have 1GB or 5049u5934875934875934875943875943875934759487947593875 GB.  It caches frequently used programs to open quickly, and if some other program needs that memory, it releases it.  How is this a bad thing?  Seriously.  Your programs open more quickly, and more of them depending on how much memory you have, and if something else needs it, it can have it.  Really, I'd rather have my 8GB of memory there AND used for something useful than seeing just how much is free.  Why have a lot of memory if you're just going to complain that your OS wants to use it?

I used Vista with anything between my 8GB and my original 512MB, and guess what... it was fine either way.  Vista had a bad first impression, but that doesn't mean it's a bad OS.  It's been as quick as XP with all the new features since SP1 (at the latest).  Really, I've found most of the complaints are made by people who haven't looked at it in years, and not by very computer savvy people who use it on a daily basis.

Gah, the Steve Jobs indoctrinated.  I'll defend Windows (Especially Vista and 7, because they are very good), but I don't have to resort to bashing other products to do so.  That's something I've found peculiar to Mac ads and users...


----------



## ToddLange (Sep 4, 2009)

ok, my 2cents,

i have always used xp until i got a laptop with vista on it just 3 months ago, and knowing that vista does use a lot of ram i upgraded from 2 to 4gigs, and i must say i actually really like it. other than a few little problems like when i play a certain game when i hit capslock it exits the game and i cant maximize it back. always says its not responding. which kinda sucks but no biggy.

now that i have started school. (goin to get my photography certificate) i have gotten to use the imacs. and i do like them too, just a little different.

i think that i would actually choose a mac over a pc just because of the fact that macs just seem more simple.(less stuff to mess with so less of chance of messin it up!) and that it runs the programs i like really nicely, just not games. lol.

but, after downloading all the trials for indesign, illustrator, and ps. i must say, i am really suprised how fast my pc loads it all up. i think its faster than the macs at school! except sometimes it stops responding. lol.

but ya, 

I LIKE BOTH! they both have their ups and downs.

its all personal preference!


----------



## UUilliam (Sep 5, 2009)

I have had a **** load of problems with Windows

But it isn't because of windows. It is because I am downloading Software which i shouldn't be...
Like hack tools (never hacked anyone just like oplaying with them and understanding how they work.. when they **** my own machine over..)
and the odd few "legit" software
When doing anything your not, you will get virus' unless you know what your doing, now i have experienced most of it, i am more aware of how to stop it, But i formatted my computer 10 times last month cause i tried Linux Ubuntu 9.10 (Jaunty)
I tried to install vista, but linux never wrote to it correctly (tbh i would have still used linux if it could run photoshop i think...)
so had to reinstall linux, then downloaded XP (yes.. it is legal to download OS, You buy the License key, not the software)
Installed xp using an old key none my drivers worked so had to go back to linux etc.. etc.. finally got vista back and my drivers... (if i used a desktop pc it wouldn't be as much hassle but i use a Laptop, Which yes, does feel tacky as though the screen will fall off any second) 
However i prefer the Windows File layout, I find it easier to work with, Sure macs are easier to browse with, but less efficient...

Windows is more efficient but as a balance is more buggy, i haven't used macs much (excpet in school)
the macs loaded slower than my 10 year old pc...
and the macs in my school are renewed every 3 years...
and it was one of the newer ones they had, But newer isn't better all the time. 

Therefore, since my low use of macs, I have nothign further to say, However, MAcs have their problems and windows has their problems, it is just like Canon vs nikon, It is all in what your looking to do with it, It is only a tool for you to use,
For GFX and other Media, Mac is best for its simplistic design and speed and its file storage system,
For everything else and gaming, Windows is the best

So really...
All us photogs should use macs but then we loose out on a right click button =[
(but mac is command + click for rightclick?)
and macs look much better, but that is just looks...
But my windows does everything i need it to.

I like messing around with the OS andexperimenting so tbh.. When / IF i get really serious about photography and the business, i'd buy a mac for my Processing, and purly processing and storage... And keep my windows for web browsing, uploading and messing around with, and possibly buy a second pc to use as a server for my website instead of paying £30 a month for hosting


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 5, 2009)

Why is this no-right-click myth still around? 

OS X can handle a right-click mouse just fine. And Apple has been putting a right button on their mice for a good while now. Heck, my Logitech mouse has seven buttons and two scroll wheels. (Right-click is also mapped to one of the buttons on my grip pen for my tablet.)

The benefit I see is the design philosophy of the OS is to keep the user from needing to use right-clicking very much. The preference is to get you to use shortcuts as much as you can (and the design of the OS nudges you in that direction), which are faster than going through right-click dialogues.


----------



## Steph (Sep 5, 2009)

Overread said:


> Linux/Unix - Free and strong, but its not for easy street. This is the sort of operating system for people who really understand computers and require specific controls as well as not being afriad to work around things and such to get things to work. Its great for the average geek (which is why they like it so much) but not best suited to your average home owner user



That might have been true in the past but I don't think it is true anymore. Some Linux distributions are now straightforward to use. I am not very computer literate and far from being a computer geek and I run Ubuntu without many problems (fewer than Windows XP anyway). If you haven't used Linux for a while, give a distribution such as Ubuntu a try: you'll be amazed how Linux has got more user friendly.

The real problem with editing under Linux is that most hardware used to calibrate screens don't work with Linux.


----------



## Opher (Sep 5, 2009)

Steph said:


> The real problem with editing under Linux is that most hardware used to calibrate screens don't work with Linux.



This is why i dual boot


----------



## Djixer (Sep 11, 2009)

I use for work/home, including for editing photos, Debian with KDE. Linux already for a long time have ceased to be OS for geeks, it quite a user-friendly operating system.


----------



## mathewhayden (Sep 21, 2009)

Hello..
Actually I am confused between Mac,PC (Windows) and Linux because I have already used this operating systems and these operating system are good to operate. These operating systems are also user friendly. For me I prefer windows most because it is really easy to use it. Thank you friends for your different opinions.


----------



## smokey breeze (Sep 21, 2009)

caveat: photography is just one of many things I do and enjoy, and I'm a certified geek. 

I built my own workstation - Intel Core i7 2.93GHz, 12GB RAM, 2TB SATA RAID (8 spindles), two dual DVI Graphics cards, 4 LCD monitors (2-20", 2-24") - runs Ubuntu 9.04 workstation, 64-bit.

For processing large datasets (many hundreds of MB) with tens of thousands of files, there's just nothing like UNIX or Linux and the command line (sed, awk, xargs, etc...).

I run a new iMac 20" (OS X 10.5, C2D 2.66GHz, 4GB RAM) for some work I do with Canon's software suite and various other processing.  In fact, I used this just yesterday to upgrade my camera firmware.

I run Vista-64 on my Lenovo ThinkPad W500 (C2D 2.8GHz, 8GB RAM).  I find that Vista-64 is a heckuva lot more stable than Vista-32 ever was, and it can use all of the RAM in this laptop.

I run Ubuntu workstation 9.04 64-bit on my old ThinkPad T61p (CD 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM).

I run a dual Xeon 3.06GHz, 16GB RAM, 14TB SATA RAID array (16 spindles) server (Ubuntu server 9.04, 64-bit) as my primary network data store, first level backup storage location for Mac OS X and Windows, and main CPU cruncher.  This server houses my x0,000 RAW, x0,000 JPG, and my edited photo collection - it's also my main music server feeding the whole premesis, the main file server for the LAN, and the main Virtual Machine server.

For Windows XP, I find it's much more stable running as a virtual machine in VirtualBox (free and Open Source) on top of Linux - that and it boots completely in like 15 seconds flat.  This runs QuickBooks and other utility software that I need.

I run a couple of Thecus n5200a NAS devices (Linux) as nightly and archive disk backup systems (rsync'd via cron).  I also have the ability to rsync across the Internet to a remote location for offsite backups.

When I need to get more advanced with my post-processing workflow, then I'll find the product(s) that fit my needs and put them on the O/S that they run most reliably on.

Frankly, I don't know what I would do if I had to choose just one platform.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 16, 2010)

Windows 7 x64, no grief not even a burp.  I never had problems with XP either.

Clean out the garbage and run a registry cleaner once a month and you're good to go.  Being behind a router helps too.


BTW  on the virus thing?  from what I've heard Mac is catching up so whatever anti-virus for Mac's you choose, be sure to have it running.


----------



## Overread (Jul 16, 2010)

Clients From Hell

 PC win!


----------



## Opher (Jul 16, 2010)

Overread said:


> Clients From Hell
> 
> PC win!




I would use Apple over Microsoft any day...   Maybe apple is the forbidden fruit but Microsoft is pure evilness.


----------



## seankc132 (Jul 16, 2010)

Been using windows for my whole life and I love it. I've used macs at school and at many of my friend's houses and even though I do like windows a lot more I plan on buying a macbook in the near future, since I do really like snow leopard


----------



## Brookstone (Jul 19, 2010)

From the beginning of fingering personal computer till now, Windows has been accompanying me over 15 years, from Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME, XP, Vista until Windows 7. I experienced most of these Windows version though I run only Windows 2000/XP on my own PC/Laptop. Windows has stepped into the depth of my heart.

I used Mac and Linux at other places, they are so cool. However, I still don't a plan to change my operating system or PC. I even can't image what can I do without Windows.


----------



## aivzdog (Jul 19, 2010)

I am a proud mac user. Always have been always will be. Once you go mac you never go back. 

xx
Anna


----------



## hjf (Nov 19, 2010)

Macs are OK, but they're not "a little bit more expensive". They are way, WAY more expensive  at least where I live. You can get the 27" Cinema Display for $999 in the US, but down here (Argentina) it goes for $2499. Yes. That's over twice as much. Considering taxes for that kind of stuff is well under 30% you notice that macs are targeted at an elite market. Yes, Mac users are usually elitist douches - sorry guys, but you are. I have talk to many of you, and you're constantly bragging about not having virus and how "superior" is the Mac in every aspect. I don't really get that. Linux users do that too. We, Windows users aren't bragging about how, I don't know? How cheap our computers are? How flexible windows is and the fact that you can build your own machine from assorted parts and be sure it will work with windows?  (I also use Solaris and Linux too on a regular basis. I happen to be a system administrator).
I hate these Windows vs. Mac fights. You see, Steve Jobs has betrayed its Loyal User Base many times. Apple said the G5 was superior to Intel in every way and one Keynote Speech later, it was all Intel. And now they've done it again with the Firewire interface (I do remember the USB-vs-Firewire issue too). And every Windows vs Mac fight always comes down to "macs dont get viruses". Come on guys, I've run Windows without an antivirus since about 2001 (when XP was out). You don't just "get" viruses by browsing sites. I don't know what people do to get them, but at least I don't.


----------



## FemFugler (Nov 20, 2010)

aivzdog said:


> I am a proud mac user. Always have been always will be. Once you go mac you never go back.
> 
> xx
> Anna



LOL i actually know quite a few people who have gone 'back'.


----------



## j-dogg (Nov 20, 2010)

Solaris 8 ftw


----------



## hjf (Nov 20, 2010)

And to add another thing:
Let's go back in time some 25 years and try to remember (well I'm only 27 ...). At that time, the PC was in very early stages. The PC itself was something IBM thought would never catch. They thought "who needs a PERSONAL computer?". Computers were very specific products targeted to the enterprise, they have been since the 60s. IBM's market was to sell you "Big Iron" and then charge you for support, the same business model that is still used today by companies like Oracle, IBM, etc. 
Someone at IBM wanted to test the "Personal" market, so they made a computer from "junkbox" parts, an open specification, and talked to Bill Gates who "made" DOS for them (that's another story).
So the first PC was ugly, bulky, but certainly much faster (at 4.77MHz) than the "Micros" (microcomputers, like the Commodore VIC-20/64/etc). It was also a lot more expensive: base system was over $1500. But it was a "real" computer. With a keyboard, a dedicated monitor, and especially, real software. The "micros" were $300 "toys" that connected to your TV.

Just like today, parallel to all this, Apple was developing their own computer, the Apple, Apple II, etc. They were competitors to Commodore actually, releasing their Apple line about the same time as Commodore's PET. There were many BBSs of the time. Some used Apple, others used Commodore (much like PC vs Mac or Nikon vs Canon, or Ford vs Chevrolet). 

It was all boring text and funny colorful games on your TV until 1983, when Apple went over the top. They developed the Lisa, a $10.000 computer (I have no idea how much would that be in today's USD. But even today $10k for a computer sounds a bit much). It was nothing new, actually. Xerox had developed the ALTO computer system many years before. It was Apple who brought that to the masses, like they brought portable MP3s to everyone: when the 5GB Firewire iPod was released I was still using my parallel-port based 32MB (yes Megabytes) Diamond Rio PMP300. 
Moving forward: the Apple Macintosh. It was a serious machine, with a decent price, which allowed to do RIGHT what people were trying to do on DOS and failed: desktop publishing. And that, ONLY that is why we're having this discussion. That, and only that, is what saved the Mac. Apple allowed small newspapers (and big newspapers too...) to have a digital "workflow". Soon photos followed, and the Mac quickly took over the Design market. That's why designers use mac, and that's why people think "macs are good for design". And I haven't even mentioned Photoshop.
The truth is that Apple is good at one thing: take something already existing, give it a spin, put it in a nice package, and sell it to the masses while the rest of the industry laughs and thinks "no one would pay THAT!". They did it with the Mac, the iMac (who would buy an ugly transparent computer???), the iPod, the iPhone, etc. Apple sets trends, and the rest of the industry follows. It takes a few years for the rest of the industry to catch up with Apple, but they do.
The facts:
The whole Adobe Creative Suite runs on Windows and Macs in the same way
Macs now are PCs and there's no reason for any program to run in a Mac faster than on Windows (save for a little tweak or OS hack)
If you're a PRO and use Windows, and don't get your software from shady "warez" sites, or promiscuously plug and unplug your USB drive in every computer you have access to, you DON'T get viruses. OK? You just don't.
Steve Jobs is a control freak. He's always been, and always will be. The Mac has never been an open platform. Neither has been the iPhone. Apple is in the middle of a fight with Adobe (no idea why, but we know Jobs needs no reasons for that). And now with the next Mac OS and the App Store, it gets even worse. It will get to the point where you won't be able to install non Apple-approved software (you can't on your iPhone). You can't install Mac OS on a PC either. I mean you can, but the license won't allow you to (why?). 

Microsoft is a company using their position to take advantage in business. Apple is a company that wants to control everything you can and can't do on your own computer. I'm not sure which one is more evil here.


----------

