Macs or PCs

Post Reply New Topic

So, its the endless debate, since time immemorial, there has always been the competition between Macs and PCs. Cast your vote. I've put an 'other' option for all you Linux people. If you use more than one, put your favorite system down.

I have only ever used this Mac. I would like to try a PC but haven't got around to it.

So can't make a call on this one.


Have read some of Linus writing and he seems an OK guy.

Might try his OS next.

Mac: A bright idea to take a very stable, UNIX-based kernel and apply a modern, well-researched user interface to it. Completely overtaken in these respects by more recent versions of Windows. To their credit, a lot of their ideas have made it into Windows, which is what the majority of people actually use. Unfortunately I kind of doubt Microsoft paid them for it.

Windows: A formerly unstable, bloated piece of software developed strictly for profit by people who probably did not love computers. More recently, a reasonably stable, reasonably lean piece of software. Good enough for me.

Linux: Back in the dark ages, this was the only stable kernel you could get for a home PC. The user interface is only really good for command-line jockeys with names like Richard Stallman, a significant amount of effort has been put forth to develop modern GUIs for it but all of those efforts have fallen short of the well-researched and funded efforts by Microsoft and Apple. Too bad. Meanwhile the kernel has been updated only incrementally while the Windows kernel has been completely overhauled and is now a serious competitor. It doesn't help that the senior mandarins in charge of the kernel are crusty old 50 year olds who don't like change. To be honest, I never liked Linux even in 1995. I got Windows NT, even though I'm definitely not an NT.

Google Chrome OS, BeOS, Solaris, etc: Whatever.

Truth is they both use the same intel chips OSX and Windows 7 are both pretty good the main thing is a PC will cost about half as much as a Mac.

Windows 7 is still quite bloated. Unless you're on pretty recent hardware, any recent MS OS will be painfully slow.


Um... have you used Linux in the last decade or so? I honestly find the usual Linux GUIs (GNOME, KDE, Xfce) to be much better and more intuitive than either Mac OS X or Windows 7. My current computer is set up as a triple-boot between Snow Leopard, Windows 7 Ultimate, and Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic, so I think I can give a reasonable head-to-head comparison. Windows 7 is by far the slowest and most bloated of the three (it required over 20GB for a system that wasn't even as capable as the default Ubuntu install in only about 3 or 4 GB) and Ubuntu is definitely the fastest and the most resource-friendly. The Windows GUI is just completely brain-dead. Scroll through an alphabetical list of all the programs on your computer? Ridiculous. Any of the Linux desktop environments nicely organizes them into sensible categories for you (in my current GNOME I see Accessories, Games, Graphics, Internet, Office, Programming, Science, Sound and Video, and System Tools). The OS X GUI is similarly senseless in a lot of places, and I say that as a lifelong Mac user.

And apparently you havent used it since 1995. Gnome, KDE and even xfce are all fully capable of looking and acting exactly like the windows and OSX desktops. It takes mere seconds to make the changes, and unfortunately the converse is not true. You are supremely limited in how you can customize the look of windows and OS X.

For visual effects the linux theme managers(ie: compiz) can create every effect that the windows and OSX machines do. In fact, compiz had effects that are "new" in windows and OSX years before they did. Yes MS copied someone, but it wasnt OSX. So define this "linux falls short" claim of yours?

Depending on how generous you wish to be you can use two adjectives to describe compiz against say, aero.. equivalent or superior. For instance windows 7 introduced the 3d cube desktop but Ubuntu had that 3 years ago.. and it was experimental before that. The memory and graphical footprint for the linux effects is far less than that of windows.

List of compiz effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz

list of windows aero effects.. I have gone to 6 links and cannot seem to find a bullet list. All I see are pages with how to solve aero problems. Not even lifehacker has a nice list. Funny, wouldnt MS be selling up this wonderful graphical nirvana?

http://www.wd4bob.com/wd4bob/home/Entri ... ompiz.html is a good video comparison. As the author says, check the dates on the youtube videos. Compiz showed up before xp was thrown out by microsoft.

As for the kernel, the absolute zero support for dial up modems shows that the kernel is updated and antiquated technology is discarded. Several people here at WP will attest to the pain in getting one working. And yet, as late as last year I remember seeing shelves of windows boxes touting the presence of 56.6k modems. Linus decided years ago that technology has progressed passed that point and support need not be written into the kernel. Further, LCD monitors are better supported than CRT. Those days are past too. And yet, old softare still works. Its not like in windows where every few years you have to lose some of your beloved and precious applications(and games!)

If you are going to present yourself as knowledgeable, it might help to actually know what you are talking about. You wont win an argument about features with a typical linux user because we know what we use and we use windows too.

lindows person here, currently running an ubuntu - winXP dualboot.

the Mac OSes i never likes, and i never supported apple at all (overpriced to hell MP3 players, computers and phones) Yeah mac OS may be "stable and hacker-free" but thats because more people use windows, so there is more "prey" for the hackers and people who make viruses/spyware/malware. There is also a lack of software compatability (dont even bring up dual boot/emulation of various OSes, Im speaking strictly of the Mac OS kernel itself.

Windows, the only windows OSs ive cared for were windows 95, 98, and XP. Windows 7 is promising, and I may add it in the future is im still able to keep xp on as a secondary OS. The main thing going for windows is program compatibility (not counting the whole vista and 7 not being able to run alot of older software)

Linux - Most stable by far, and plenty of differnt builds to choose from. Some software compatability issues, but you can manage to get alot of different stuff to run just by tweaking with the settings.

OS X is BSD-based, so the stability and security is at least in part because it is a more robust platform. The lack of motivation for crackers to go after it does not hurt, though. As far as software compatibility, with some effort it can be made to run a fair amount of the open-soucre *nix software, but at that point it's really easier to just use Linux.

I had to choose the Mac because of the work
I do now.

Aside from that, it all depends on what you
need your computer to do.

Its like tools in the tool box, a hammer, a philips screwdriver,
a reed and prince screwdriver, an allen/hex driver, a saw,
a spanner/wrench.

Besides market competition, alot of you I am sure
know the other reasons that there are so many
platforms of computing.

Needs.

I hav e noticed, PC/windows based machines
seem to be used mostly for office work and gaming.

Mac seems to be used mostly for video and audio
editing and high end graphics and the like.

Unix systems are used mainly for servers, but some
cases are used for CGI as in cartoons animating.

I have to say PCs entirely for linux. There's more freedom with a pc to tinker and play, both with the hardware and the os.

Aside from the issues about which is better, windows or linux, (and I think it's a close fight) the linux philosophy is just much better. Who wants to pay to keep a massive global monopoly going when you can not pay and support a worldwide group of idealists (or even donate them money to fight the good fight)!

PC all the way. I can do anything on a PC. However, if you want a simple, easy to use system MAC could be right for you.

Other for Linux?

Linux runs on both and is only an operating system...

It's like saying, PC or Windows?

These days the hardware is the same, it's a matter of OS mostly.

The others are also really 'only an operating system'. The difference is Apple sells hardware, but I consider that separate issue.

There is no full-blown Windows 7 equivalent on Linux. There is no reason someone couldn't develop one, but it doesn't exist. Nobody cares about '3D cube' window switching and the like, they care about how the whole experience feels, which is something harder to quantify. They also care about the number of mouse clicks it takes to accomplish a given task, which Linux is falling behind on.



I use Linux daily, in fact I have modified the kernel and written a number of drivers for it myself. The support or lack thereof for modems is a detail, it's the big picture that is showing cracks. For example, modem drivers need not be compiled into the kernel. User mode drivers are promising, but full support isn't there yet. You are correct that Windows is still lacking in the 'customizability' category, but in all other categories Linux is lagging.

Is Linux a mac? No.
Is Linux a PC? No.

PC stands for personal computer, and Windows (microsofts OS) uses that name.