Hi. I'm thinking of buying an iMac, but I'd like to know some stuff first, like how Mac OS X feels compared to Ubuntu and Windows ;)
Also, any advice is welcome.
Thanks in advance.
Printable View
Hi. I'm thinking of buying an iMac, but I'd like to know some stuff first, like how Mac OS X feels compared to Ubuntu and Windows ;)
Also, any advice is welcome.
Thanks in advance.
can't speak to OSX, as I've used it for a grand total of 30 minutes
but there's nothing stopping you putting Ubuntu on an iMac
(it's just hardware, after all)
Yeah, I figured that. But wouldn't that void the warranty?
no ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
Who cares? How often does hardware break? Anyway' personally, I'm not a fan of os x. It feels weird. It's like touching a cold' solid block of steel, where Ubuntu is like a block of Jello.
I guess it's more a matter of personal preference. One of the things I really like about iMacs is that they're just what they need to be, and nothing more. No zillion cable mess and stuff like that. I figured I could have Mac OSX behave the same way ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
You could always dual boot!
Guys, I found a KDE theme like LCARS (Linux Can Also Run Star Ships...:)). Installing Kubuntu now.
Macs are overpriced, don't bother.
Virtually all preassembled computers are overpriced. It's not like the iMac is more expensive than some other computer that has the same specs, size, all-in-one form, look, etc. Apple products used to be more expensive than competitors, though. Anyway, if you want a "good deal" then buy the parts yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
That being said, I don't love Mac OS X. It's certainly a step up from Windows in the security department, but the GUI is equally inflexible. I myself use Arch Linux with a keyboard-controlled window manager (stumpwm), but lxde, xfce, and even kde4 are probably faster than Mac OS X's Aqua. If you care about choice and want to get an iMac, feel free to run Linux on it.
This statement is about a decade out of date. It's almost as out of date as "Macs have a one button mouse."Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
If you've used iTunes, then you pretty much know how OSX works. Unlike Windows, everything in OSX acts the exact same way as everything else. OSX has better memory management and multicore processing than either Windows or Linux. In terms of security, it's not quite Linux, but light years ahead of Windows.
As for software, Apple software is far better than the Windows equivalent. Windows has Office, OSX has iWork, Windows has Paint, OSX has GIMP, Windows has Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Player OSX has iLife and iTunes.
Unlike the Windows of Quicktime, the OSX version is stable, faster, and can play any type of media.
Best of all, the average lifespan of a PC is just over two years, where as the average lifespan of a Mac is 6 years.
The only downside to the iMac hardware is that Apple only uses the old-fashion DVD players. It won't do bluray :(
No, putting Ubuntu on it will not void the warranty. You should dual or parallel boot anyway, Linux is good, but it doesn't have the programs that OSX and Windows have. (Windows programs will run natively on OSX using Darwine, including games. In fact, OpenGL Windows games will run better on a Mac using darwine than on Winodws because it manages multithreading and memory better.)
Both Ubuntu and OSX have very powerful disk utilities for repartitioning and verifing. Adding a second operating system is very easy using either one.
hmmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
You do know the mainline Linux kernel can take advantage of many, many thousands of CPU's
see here
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7313
You think OS X beats this....:P
SMP & NUMA are server technologies (which have only recently hit the desktop)
I thank you that you took the time to type out such a long reply! :) There's no problem in it not doing bluray. I yet have to find a need for more than 5 gb on a single disc ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I'll think I'll make a dual-boot then, but only if I'm buying it. I promised I wouldn't until summer break. Anyway, I figured I'd get some advice early on. Thanks guys, keep them coming!
Darwin is UNIX, so it has all the features of UNIX. The only difference is that Darwin was written specifically for multicore computers, I don't even think it will run on a one core machine. It's not as flexible as the Linux kernel because Macs have a most 32 cores. Linux would beat it at the super computer level with hundreds and hundreds of cores, but at the average level, OSX and Linux are about the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Oops, I meant to say that Linux has better memory management :P Linux outperforms OSX when it comes to memory allocation and management, but once the memory is allocated, OSX outperforms Linux because of it's thread and process management.
Also, starting with 10.6, OSX will use OpenCL and push large chunks of it's floating point calculations out to the graphics cards.
Just to fact check...
That can't be accurate because Darwin has been around since Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah), which came out eight years ago. My parents have an iMac that came with Mac OS X v10.1 (Puma). Its CPU is an 800 MHz PPC G4, which needless to say has a single core.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Not true. Depending on your X environment (e.g. any WM lighter than Aqua) and file system types (e.g. JFS), Linux can certainly be less resource intensive and can outperform Mac OS X. Edit: That's one of the main reasons I switched to Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
There are two versions of Darwin. A PPC version and an Intel version. The Intel version never did, nor was ever designed to run on a single core processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsr
It will run on one core, but not designed to. You can even find comments in the Darwin source code to that affect.
Don't listen to him, most of the stuff he said was wrong. Most of the Windows programs are far better, and GIMP will run on all platforms. It doesn't really matter, because Photoshop is much better. iWork isn't that great, Office 2007 is actually pretty nice, and if you don't like it, you could always try OpenOffice(But it sucks). Macs do not last any longer than PCs, I've had this PC for 4 years, only having to put in a couple minor upgrades. I've used Macs that are 3-4 years old, they are very slow, and can hardly handle having two programs open at once. Also, iTunes is a piece of crap, it's really bloated, and infested with DRM. Foobar2000, Winamp, and Media Monkey are far better alternatives. Quicktime does not play "every media file", it's just a piece of crap. If you want to play media, get Mplayer, it's plays everything, and is pretty awesome. It's a lot better than VLC, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
Also, Macs ARE overpriced. You are paying more money for the same hardware as a PC of lower price. The average PC can be built from scratch for maybe about 1/4th of the price, and sometimes it's more expensive, depending on what you're putting on it. Building a PC with the same parts as an iMac can be up to half the price, which sort of proves that it's overpriced. And no, you're not paying for "superior quality" or any other bullshit like that, you're paying for aesthetics.
Quicktime on Mac will play any media file other than DVDs (there is another program for that) It requires the proper codecs (like every other media player,) and will prompt you if you try to open a file that you have to download the codec for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Photoshop is a Mac program, the Windows version is the port. Photoshop also doesn't come with Windows, it's $900 for the whole Adobe package (cheaper if you're a student.)
The average PC lifespan is 2 years. It's problem is that the core of it is the registry, which requires additional software to clean. The disk also gets fragmented, which most people forget to fix. The average span of a Mac is 6 years. No one cares how long your PC lasted, average is what people should look at.
Word has an absolutely terrible rendering and formatting engine. iWork has a LaTeX backend. LaTeX has been the word processing gold standard for 35 years. Keynote is considered he gold standard in presentation tools. The only thing that Office has that's better than the iWork equivalent is Excel, but unless you're doing advanced metrics, Numbers will suit you just fine.
You need to come up with some figures that show that Macs are overprices, not just saying that they are. Find a PC with a quad core processor, all-in-one display and computer, 20" screen, Nvidia gfx card and Intel gfx card, 5 receiver n wireless receiver, and 4gb of DDR3 ram that's significantly cheaper than a 20" iMac (running Windows of course, Linux PCs are always cheaper because their OS is free).
Photoshop is not all that much better, they're about the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
WTF. MS Office released for Macs as well, so I don't know what you're talking about. And OpenOffice IMO is better than MS Office, it has features the latter does not. I love it far better.Quote:
iWork isn't that great, Office 2007 is actually pretty nice, and if you don't like it, you could always try OpenOffice(But it sucks).
Macs don't NEED any upgradesm from as far as I have used it. Unless you want optional RAM and HD space.Quote:
Macs do not last any longer than PCs, I've had this PC for 4 years, only having to put in a couple minor upgrades.
You lost me here. I use old macs all the time, and they flow just as easily as they always did. I don't know where you got that from. I have had 5 programs open at once on an oldie, worked fine. LIER.Quote:
I've used Macs that are 3-4 years old, they are very slow, and can hardly handle having two programs open at once.
iTunes store has DRM. If you get music elsewhere, it doesn't need DRM. Dummy. Also, please clairify the "crap" other than DRM (optional?) and "it's really bloated". As for the latter, how do you mean? Filesize? Who gives a shit, there's enough memory on your mac a few megs won't matter.Quote:
Also, iTunes is a piece of crap, it's really bloated, and infested with DRM.
Or if you're on Linux, Rhythmbox Music Player is amazing. It doesn't make you erase all the crap on there.Quote:
Foobar2000, Winamp, and Media Monkey are far better alternatives.
Quicktime was the first media player of it's kind. It has the most experience. I also use it mainly for anything I watch on a Mac. I haven't encountered a problem with it, period. Sources for the "it's just a piece of crap".Quote:
Quicktime does not play "every media file", it's just a piece of crap. If you want to play media, get Mplayer, it's plays everything, and is pretty awesome. It's a lot better than VLC, anyway.
I actually mainly agree with this, but hey. Mac hardware is pretty standardized, so it's actually a good thing. Bringing computers closer to game consoles.Quote:
Also, Macs ARE overpriced. You are paying more money for the same hardware as a PC of lower price. The average PC can be built from scratch for maybe about 1/4th of the price, and sometimes it's more expensive, depending on what you're putting on it. Building a PC with the same parts as an iMac can be up to half the price, which sort of proves that it's overpriced. And no, you're not paying for "superior quality" or any other bullshit like that, you're paying for aesthetics.
We use the new iMacs at school for video production, they're very nice. If you're not used to OS X then theres a slight learning curve. Not too hard to master. So far the only problems I've ran into involve the retarded network setup we have. The machines are powerful, but quiet (the mac room doesnt have the constant whirr that most computer labs have). They also have to put up with the other kids' constant abuse, and do so quite well.
I've never been a fan of all-in-ones, but admittedly dealing with wires everywhere is getting really old. If you've got the money I say why not, TAKE THE PLUNGE
I prefer OO over MO anytime. I do like photoshop better, but as Ninja said, it's a Mac OSX app, so I'll have to see how that goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
I don't have a clue about that, but I've looked at the structure of a mac, and they don't seem to have any problems with cluttered registries and stuff like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
What's with you trying to shoot down every piece of software the mac has? As far as I've used macs, they seem reliable and not all that hard to use. I can handle a learning curve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Then I'm paying for aesthetics. I absolutely hate all the wires that come out a computer these days. I'm not a big fan of clutter, and a mac keeps my desk clean. Also, macs are quiet, another big plus for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
I get the idea that his is turning into more of an argument than an advice thread.:roll:
That's because they don't have one. OSX uses plist files, which are kept clean and removed and created on application install and deletion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
You school is using Macs for networking? :shock: They are better than Windows for that, but Sun is by far the best for networking. Sun invented networking and their OS is far more secure than anything else. With the possible exception of specialized versions of Linux specifically for security.
I use my PC to make videos with my friends, using Sony Vegas 8, and it far outperfoms using iMovie on my school's computers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG
yeah, iMovie is shit, we use Final Cut Pro. Personally I hate FCP, and much prefer adobe. Frequent crashes, annoying rendering issues and terrible capturing glitches (using dedicated DV decks, btw) really put a damper on workflow. Then again the capturing issue could be our shitty camera/tape situation. At home I use After Effects and Premiere for video, however I cant speak for how well they run on the mac. Never had real problems for either on Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
I've heard FCP is basically Premiere with a different GUI.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG
OMG, it's MSG! :welcome: back!
Haha, he's been in IRC for a while now.
Sexy avatar, by the way.
Final Cut Pro is a professional tool though, and it costs several hundred dollars. iMovie comes with every new Mac for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG
Exactly, iMovie isn't any better than WMM.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
thats the idea, I used movie maker ALL the time back in middle school when I used to make movies with my friends. We'd always brainstorm completly insane, epic ideas for movies, that sounded good in our head but once we filmed and edited we realized we were thinking waaay out of our league. those were the days... haha
Only started using Premiere recently but yeah, havent noticed any differences whatsoever, except that Premiere can import a wider variety of file types/codecs (moot point for professionals, all they use is Raw DV, but whatever). Premiere also integrates very well with the rest of the Adobe suite like Encore and After EffectsQuote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Thanks, it reminds me of AlexD's avatarQuote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
iMovies has far more powerful editing tools and effects. Not to mention that WMM can't encode the internet standard of H.264.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Does WMM have video stabilization tools for shaky videos? Interpolated slow motion controls? Time laps controls? Keynote transitions? Greenscreen capabilities? Plug ins? Digital zooming?
Are you really going to make a movie that uses things such as green screens in iMovie? That's just plain stupid. Most of those features don't seem that useful, and yes, you can do slow-mo, time lapse, and transitions in WMM. Stabilization is only if you're too stupid to use a tripod to make a video, and it doesn't always work that well. I've never looked into plugins for WMM, because I'm not an idiot who uses programs bundled with my computer to make videos.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
You're taking some pretty boring videos if you're using a tripod. What do you do hiking or in a video? It also uses H.264. I have no idea while why Microsoft refuses to use the media standard. It's compression is more than twice as good.
I'm talking about making short videos or movies, not just recording where I go. I guess it all depends on your needs. I use Vegas anyway, so I don't know much about either editor, aside from the fact that they both suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I'm going to tackle these points one by one.
Out of date:
Reasonable rebuttal. Macs are still not cheaper than PCs though.
Software:
Ok. iWork is in no way superior to Office. Have you used office 2007? iWork is on the same level as OpenOffice.
Comparing paint with GIMP is like comparing notepad and iWorks. It's not the same class of program. Also there's the fact that GIMP is free and works just as well on windows.
MovieMaker is included free with Windows whereas iLife must be bought separately. EDIT: (or so I thought! WMM and iMovie are still both useless though)
Finally, I have friends who use Media Player over iTunes because they prefer it. It all comes down to how you like to manage your music. Also, iTunes works just as well on Windows, no emulation required so you can hardly use it as a valid argument for why macs are better.
Quicktime:
Who uses quicktime? It's rubbish. I've used it on both Mac and PC (yes I own both) and it is significantly worse in terms of functionality and performance than VLC which is available on both platforms.
Lifetime:
I have a computer which I used to play all my games on till recently. I bought it back in 2002 or something. At the time it was less than $2000 AUD. That computer played every game I ever owned up until Crysis (which to be fair, slaughtered a lot of new computers) and happily upgraded to Windows 7 recently.
Significantly longer lifespan than 2 years.
OpenGL Games:
Darwine is just a port of Wine. Wine is an emulation program. If you seriously think that you can load up an OpenGL game in emulation mode on a mac and have it perform better than that same game running on the same system with windows installed natively then you probably shouldn't be allowed on the internet.
There's also the fact that Darwine/Wine often fail to work with OpenGL at all (See: Google).
iLife comes with every new mac.
I never said they were cheaper, I said that they were competitively priced. The original accusation was that they were way more expensive than a PC, which is not true.
Office is a disaster. LaTeX has been the standard word processing tool for 30 years, and iWork uses it as the back end. Microsoft claims that they get requests every day for features that Office already has. Most of the coming from professional users, if a professional user can't find a feature, it's very poorly designed.
Wine is not an emulator, it's just a layer that tricks programs into thinking that they are running on Windows when they are not. There is no emulation what-so-ever. Everything runs at native speed both on CPU and GPU, and for things like games, memory management is key, which UNIX runs circles around NT.
I corrected my comment about iLife being a separate product shortly after posting. My mistake.
I didn't say you did say they were cheaper. :P
RE: LaTeX / iWork, if that is the case, why have I never seen a LaTeX formatted file in my entire life? And why do packages like OpenOffice show off their compatability with the .doc/.docx format rather than LaTeX? Everything just seems to be distributed in .pdf or .doc.
Office's new layout with 2007 just took some getting used to. Once the initial learning curve is over, it's significantly faster to use than 2003 / OpenOffice / iWork. For me anyway.
You're right about Wine not being an emulation program. I was getting confused with the old Darwine that I used to run on my Mac Cube which had to be paired with QEMU because of the PPC processor.
I'll give you the Apple hardware though. :P It really is beautiful. Some would say that the new MacBooks are just large lumps of aluminum but to me they just look uncluttered and shiny. Core 2 Duo MacBook + Bootcamp + Windows 7 RC -> my ideal work PC. :D
You're joking right? I'll bet you 98% of everything you've EVER read was LaTeX formatted.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthemonkey
Yes, if you ran a PPC, then Windows software had to be emulated, so it ran slowly. On x86 Macs, Windows programs run as fast or faster (because of better memory, thread management) than they do on windows.Quote:
You're right about Wine not being an emulation program. I was getting confused with the old Darwine that I used to run on my Mac Cube which had to be paired with QEMU because of the PPC processor.
Yep, the unibody also cuts down on weight, increases strength, maximizes battery space (find a Windows laptop with a 10 hour battery.) Granted, some of the cost does go to just having the Apple name, but it evens out considering the stability of the hardware, how cheap the software is and how little you have to spend on tech support and virus protection.Quote:
I'll give you the Apple hardware though. :P It really is beautiful. Some would say that the new MacBooks are just large lumps of aluminum but to me they just look uncluttered and shiny. Core 2 Duo MacBook + Bootcamp + Windows 7 RC -> my ideal work PC. :D
Hmm. Might have to try out Wine next time my mates and I have a giant AOE2 game. Half of us have Macs and we usually just use Virtual PC which is a nightmare. D:
Also I know this sounds petty / like a tiny problem but on MacOS, how do you put up with not being able to instantly maximize a window? That was always one of the huge things that bugged me about it when I had a Mac.
Uhm.... ever hover over the buttons at the top? The green button is the zoom button. :?
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6748/picture1yzv.png
Yeah but it doesn't do what it should. ><
It /should/ fill the window to the screen or return it to its previous size if it's already maximized.
What it does is switches between two window sizes which can both be changed. Very very annoying.
Why on earth would you want a window to fill the entire screen if it doesn't have enough content to? The green button does exactly what it should, it's called Zoom-to-fit for a good reason, it zooms the window large enough so that all of the content is displayed, why would you want it any bigger than that?
That's one of the most annoying things about Windows. Clicking the button once should bring it to a user defined size, clicking it again should make it big enough to show everything in it, no bigger. Windows fills up the window with white space or makes form fields bigger to fill it up, that's so annoying. You can't see the windows behind it.
See that's annoying. In Firefox, I don't want to have to be clicking the zoom-to-fit button every time I go to a new page / switch tabs / whatever to make it properly adjusted. I'd rather just have it fill the entire screen and expand to fit.
Why would you want to be able to see the stuff behind the current window? On an average day I will have MSN, a few chat windows, firefox / flock and iTunes open. And possibly Eclipse / Word if I'm doing something for Uni. I can't see why I'd ever need to see say... MSN while I've got Word in full screen.
The only thing I can think of is being able to see a web page with information while writing an assignment in Word and in that case I'd just do the fill-to-half-screen with Firefox on the left and Word on the right.
I suppose it's just another matter of preference.
I hope your kidding. Games do not run better on Macs through WINE, and they don't run better on Linux through WINE either. OS X and Linux are bad for gaming, just use Windows 7 RC or Vista. And no, I don't care how good OS X's memory management is, there are still bugs in running the software through WINE.
You can quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
I'm starting to doubt that you've had any experience with macs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Games and Vista is not a good combo.
Have to agree with ThreeLetterSyndrom and [SomeGuy]. Vista + games -> lag, low framerate and often crashes.
XP is still the operating system for gamers and from what I've seen of 7, that isn't going to change quickly.
That said, a few of my friends use Vista on their main gaming computers and say that aside from the slight performance decrease (they have amazingly good PCs) it's fine.
Demon Parasite is right about WINE though. The overhead is still a significant factor and it by no means supports the majority of games.
EDIT: I maintain that if anyone wants to play games, they should buy a console. No hassle, higher portability, better multiplayer, often better graphics, no performance issues ever, etc etc. -misses his 360-
Quote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
I'm sorry you guys are losing 2 FPS in Vista over XP, but fine, or that you need to run those 3 old games that don't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
In CSS I went from averaging a perfectly playable 45 fps to an unplayable 25 when I changed to Vista from Xp... Might have changed since the service packs (I went back to XP within a few months), but I doubt it's done that much.
Mainly cause Vista was a rubbish OS.
7 is much nicer.
SP1 actually made Vista a lot better. So yes, it has gotten better since the service packs.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthemonkey
i'd say that buying a Mac is a good idea. with Boot Camp, you can put windows xp/vista on it (you can't really put Mac OS X on a PC even though i'm doing it right now), you can run all the Mac only programs, it doesn't crash AS MUCH, it lasts longer, with an ADB to USB thing you can connect the great Apple Extended Keyboard from 1987 to it.
quicktime on windows sucks. quicktime on mac can play anything.
I always wondered why they never made Quicktime work on Windows. It's the only way to go on Mac, and runs circles around Windows Media Player.Quote:
Originally Posted by peacock486
Mplayer is much better than Quicktime, even on a Mac.
The reason they don't make Quicktime work on Windows is because Apple is just as greedy as Microsoft when it comes to using only their software. Apple also doesn't put much work at all into bootcamp drivers, making Windows pretty buggy on a Mac.
Please stop making things up. If you don't know what you're talking about, either ask someone who does, or read about it. How is it that you say that Windows is buggy on Mac because of bad drivers while PC World ranked the Macbook as the best laptop to run Vista on? I'm gonna go with PC WorldQuote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Oh, ninja. He just is one o' them undercover Microsofties trolling our forums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razorQuote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
That makes sense too. Thanks Tony!
PC World isn't exactly the most reliable source. In my experience with running Windows on Bootcamp, the drivers have been buggy, and the system was generally unstable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
The drivers on bootcamp are getting better all the time.
Vista is buggy on a PC... hard to expect too much on a Mac. XD
XP on the other hand runs beautifully on a Mac.
Vista isn't buggy on a modern PC. It's been a fine OS ever since SP1, and it's not like it was at the start, there are drivers for basically everything now.
How can you say that? My friend's Mac has XP bootcamp'd into it, and I never had a problem that doesn't normally occur on XP.
And his Vista laptop is poop. Crashes, viruses (I got two trojans in one browsing session, but NOD32 caught them.), and the likes.
Your experiences in all say very little of my chance of having problems if I'm running Vista on a Mac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
One: I'll probably never run windows if I buy an iMac.
Two: If I'll run windows, it's going to be XP, not Vista.
So please stop having such discussion which is hardly relevant to the thread.
The crashes are probably caused by viruses, which he must have got himself. You can't blame the OS for viruses.Quote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
HA!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Oh my God, for Pete's sake
who's left to blame
An OS that's inherently insecure, and allows unattended propagation of executable binary code between arbitrary files
Who else is there to blame apart from the makers of that OS?
If your house falls down because it's built incorrectly, it's the developer's fault
Don't blame the occupant for having heavy feet
It's a shit house and it fell down
fucking hell....
:laughtillhurts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
:shock: You can't? I guess you can't blame the OS for a fragmented hard drive either then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
That is the filesystem.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Also, are you guys really saying that it's the fault of Windows that someone else went out and wrote programs to exploit it? The OS itself is actually no less secure than a Mac, if anyone remembers the Safari exploit found that only worked on the Mac version.
That's one exploit vs. ahell of a lot.
When a vulnerability exists in a piece of software,
be that core OS Kernel, system utilities, device driver, or some lowly user app
it's the fault of the author
no exceptions
All Microsoft Windows vulnerabilities are Microsoft's fault
When Debian messed up on OpenSSL last year, it was their fault
I am, frankly, stunned (and a little afraid for you) that you can defend Microsoft over these things
How can you NOT blame the OS for viruses and crap security?
I am not so much defending Microsoft, but I just hate Apple fanboys. I don't even use Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Fine,Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
but can I suggest, like most people arguing over OS's, that you stick to name calling and foot stamping, rather than technical computing issues
You're not particularly well versed in the latter....
Then I don't think you should try and defend it. Things like this come from user experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
I've used XP for 3 years, and have used a bunch of different OSs either on my computer or on a friend's.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom
List your experiences, please.
I have used XP for 3 years, and only got about 2 viruses or so, and they were caught pretty quickly by my AV. My friend owns a Macbook Pro, and I have used it, OS X isn't that bad, it's just the overpriced hardware that bothers me. He had Vista dual booted on it, and the drivers were pretty buggy, and I've heard it's a pretty common problem. I currently use Ubuntu 9.04, which isn't much better than Windows admittedly, but it's a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
No, it's the operating system. Most *Nix OSs can read and write both NTSF and FAT, and they never get fragmented because the operating system doesn't let it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
The Mac kernel is UNIX, which has been in use for 30 years largely because it's so secure. One exploit does not mean that it's not secure. I do remember that safari bug, there was also one in quicktime, but I also remember getting an automatic update very shortly after the bug was discovered.Quote:
Also, are you guys really saying that it's the fault of Windows that someone else went out and wrote programs to exploit it? The OS itself is actually no less secure than a Mac, if anyone remembers the Safari exploit found that only worked on the Mac version.
Are you seriously saying that the NT kernel is as secure as *nix? If so you might as well put in your signature that you either work for Microsoft, or have no idea what makes a secure kernel.
Only OS X is BSD based, and Unix certified. Being Unix certified does not make it actually Unix.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
no, exactly the opposite
being Unix certified means the OS is a Unix operating system
rather than just Unix-like
see here for a summary list of Unix certified OS's
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
but to be honest, Unix certification means jack shit now-a-days
there's some places that will only install an OS if it's Unix certified, but they're few and far between these days
OS X is based on BSD, though. Unix certification might mean that it is actually Unix in some cases, but it's simply Unix-like in the case of OS X.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
BSD is the Berkeley Software Distribution of Unix
Yes, and it's different from being just based around Unix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
BSD is a Unix operating system
AT&T's research division, Bell Labs, developed UNIX in 1969
UNIX was a research operating system, intended to drive innovation
AT&T licensed copies of UNIX to people
When you bought a UNIX license, you got the complete source code to the operating system, and full rights to use, modify the code and redistribute
The University of California, Berkeley bought a UNIX license
they then went about modifying it to suit their needs
They invented the Unix domain sockets (called Berkeley sockets, at the time), the TCP/IP stack, the init runlevel system, and a whole host of other things to enhance the operating system in a fully networked, multi-user environment
BSD is Unix
AIX is Unix
HP-UX is Unix
Solaris is Unix
Xenix is Unix
BSD was an original Unix derivative
Since BSD, and the other Unix derivatives mentioned above, first arrived, a few things have happened
- AT&T sold the rights of UNIX to the Santa Cruz Operation
- The Santa Cruz Operation then sold the rights to UNIX to Novell
- Novell then gave up the rights to UNIX, and transfered all rights & ownership over to the Open Group
With the UNIX rights and ownership now held by a non-profit organisation, UNIX is now open to other non-profit organisations and individuals
(no more licensing)
Free BSD, Open BSD & Net BSD are derived (at varying points) from BSD
The Mac OS X userland is lifted straight from Free BSD
The Mac OS X kernel is the Free BSD kernel (with a few bits & bobs added by Apple)
This is Linux focused, rather than OS X focused (because I wrote it for a different purpose)
but here's a brief overview of Unix's history
Quote:
In 1964, AT&T embarked on an ambitious project to create an operating system to control and automate their telephone network
While electronic switch boards were not rare at the time, such systems were entirely bespoke and required extensive reworking for any alterations or changes to the network topology.
AT&T envisioned a programmable interface that would allow them to alter the underlying network without needing to re-wire the circuit relays controlling the network
This project was called Multics, and was developed by AT&T's research division, Bell Labs
It is important to note that before this, there wasn't really any such thing as an operating system. General Motors had a fleet of programmable computers to control it's production lines, but the instructions were all written by hand to directly control the various hardware robotics, the control system simply automated the execution process. This meant that changes to the underlying role, structure or purpose of the systems, including any computer hardware changes, were very difficult to accomplish. “porting” such control programs to different hardware was nigh impossible, often times requiring a total system rewrite
For their telephone network, AT&T attempted to write a platform on top of which programs would execute
Infrastructure changes would require porting the platform
Porting the platform would bring all the programs and business logic along with it, eliminating the need to re-write hundreds (or even thousands) of individual control programs
They developed a programming language, called B (short for Bell)
The language was designed to abstract out the low-level machine instructions, instead presenting a unified interface to write programs from a higher level
B was also designed for easy porting across hardware
Multics, the world's first “modern” operating system, was written in pure assembly language
but all the programs that ran on top of the operating system, were written in B
Several of the developers at Bell labs felt that the Multics project took a few wrong turns
By all accounts, Multics was large, complicated and a nightmare to maintain
So when they were finished, Bell Labs went about developing what they considered the “right” way to develop an operating system – they named their project Unics
One of these “right ways” of doing things, was writing the operating system in a high level language - This had never been attempted before
Unics was written in B
B had a few shortcomings, so the language was redesigned
and called C (one up from B)
Unics was rewritten in C
also got a spelling change, to UNIX
UNIX was an operating system designed to be redesigned
by that, I mean it didn't try to do everything
instead it did the bare basics
The idea was simple, purchase a UNIX license from AT&T and you got the complete source code for UNIX – then you could customise and enhance the operating system to suit your needs
as I said, it was an operating system designed to be redesigned
Due to it's immense flexibility and modular design, UNIX was a big hit with large businesses
UNIX soon came to dominate the mainframe market, pushing out more expensive, bespoke systems
It's now the 80's, and out of AT&T's licensing of unix came numerous distributions of unix, the big ones being BSD (the UC Berkeley Software Distribution of Unix), AIX (developed by IBM), HP-UX (developed by Hewlett Packard), Solaris (developed by Sun Microsystems) and a whole host of others
The computer is fast becoming a necessary staple in every business environment, not just big businesses, due to smaller machine sizes, falling prices and success stories from early mainframe adopters
The idea of making serious money out of operating systems is realised by software companies.
due to this, a lot of companies began restricting source code level access to their operating systems in an attempt to protect their development and out-do the competition
Previously, people bought hardware
Hardware was what ultimately did the work. Hardware was tactile and easily quantifiable.
Software was a necessity to control the hardware
The idea of selling software was completely new territory
Richard Stallman saw this move to proprietary software as a bad thing, and launched the GNU project in 1983 – mission statement, to develop a unix-like operating system that maintained the once “free” nature of software
In addition to this, the increasingly proprietary nature of unix systems bred incompatibilities that seriously hampered progress
The incompatibilities between unix systems paved the way for Windows NT to stride in and take a chunk of market share (before the early 90's, Windows was a toy used only on cheap home machines by people who couldn't afford better systems)
In 1991, Linus Torvalds started work on Linux – a unix-like operating system kernel based heavily on Minix (one of the many unix variants)
Linus realised he'd bitten off more than he could chew, as developing a kernel (let alone a complete operating system) was too much for one man, so he released his kernel online and accepted the help of others
The GNU project saw an opportunity here
They'd succeeded in creating all the userland programs needed to make an operating system, but they lacked a kernel. So the GNU project selected Linux to be their kernel, and the GNU/Linux operating system was born
Operating systems are complex things, there is no “one size fits all”
(there's something like 3000 kernel options you need to deal with when compiling the Linux kernel, let alone any of the other necessary programs that make up an OS)
because of this, individual people building their own GNU/Linux operating system is not really feasible
So, mirroring what Unix had done many years previously, different distributions of GNU/Linux cropped up – each one catering to a different audience, each one having a different goal
The GNU General Public License (GPL) was instrumental in ensuring that these distributions remained open to all, and didn't fall into a pit of proprietary, incompatible mess that unix systems had
Many (many) Linux distros have come and gone, but a few have stuck around
Slackware, Debian and Redhat being the 3 big ones
but again, like unix before it, there's a whole heap of distributions, each aiming for a different goal
That's what I remember from learning about Unix. He's right DP.
Darwin is actually a modern variant of NEXTStep which was based on BSD Unix, but with a better integration of kernel and GUI.
An no Darwin is UNIX. Linux, is "unix-like."
Windows is an absolute disaster if you look at the specs of the kernel. There is a reason that *nix is the dominate operating system.
What do you mean by dominant? 1% marketshare?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I do agree that Linux distros are superior for some people's needs, but it will probably never be the year of the Linux desktop.
Linux market share in servers is approx 40%
Windows is also around 40% on servers
the rest is taken up by proprietary Unix
But that is only in servers. In general, the last records put Linux at around 1%, even Hackintoshes have a bigger market share, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
1% PC are Linux, 10% of PCs are OSX UNIXQuote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
40% of Servers are Linux, 40% are UNIX
95% of Cell phones are Linux
40% of smart phones are Linux, 30% are OSX
95% of embedded systems are Linux
*nix is the dominate operating system by a huge margin
this often-touted 1% market share is for desktop machines
and it's complete crap
how on earth do you even reliably measure desktop usage?
Numbers for server usage is only viable cause most companies buy support contracts
this 1% is just pulled out of the air
If I had to guess,
I'd say today, 5-6% of all world desktop machines run Linux
but there's no sources to back any of these numbers up
*edit*
incidentally, there was a leaked photo (taken on a camera phone) of an internal Microsoft meeting
the picture showed a pie chart of current threats for microsoft
There was an apple slice, and a linux slice
the linux slice was larger than the apple one
http://freeculturenews.com/wp-conten...allmermacs.png
anyway....
Desktop computers aren't the majority of computers.
You know those scanners at Borders that let you listen to the CDs they have there?
Linux. I saw Tux flash by on the screen when it was booting up.
They gather the User Agents of visitors from a bunch of popular websites, and use that to determine what OS, browser, and other things you use. This is also how they determine the browser market shares and usage percents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
It's dominant on devices and such, but it's not dominant on desktop or laptop computers, and I would consider that more important than their cell phone marketshare.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
They may not be the most common in general, but they have a bigger impact on the end user than the other devices.Quote:
Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]
That's not much of an argument Ynot, I can come up with lots of pictures of Windows being used too. Here's one
http://www.miguelcarrasco.net/miguel...ort%5B2%5D.jpg
Haha, I wonder if those things actually BSOD, or if they just photoshop that on there. That doesn't even look like the BSOD I've seen, it usually has more text on it, doesn't it?
The US Military uses Windows XP if I recall. There are plenty of devices that use Linux, and plenty of organizations that use Windows.
Good for those organizations. Their systems will get raped one day. And it does have a large impact on the end user. Just about every small electronic device you use every day is powered by Linux.
and not-so-small
the majority of digital TV's run Linux
last page in the user manual is often the GPL license
anyway,
what the hell was this topic supposed to be about....?
I should make an OS discussion sticky.
About the pros and cons of an iMac, in terms of user experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
If you guys only could stop getting in such pointless discussions. It annoys me, I'm subscribed to this thread, so I can check on any good advice, and every single day I get a mail, and then I read all your posts which don't have a single freaking thing to do with the topic.
So shut the hell up and get out of here if you can't keep on topic. >.>
Ok
Pros:
More stable than a PC, about the same as Linux
iWork uses the LaTeX engine, which is has been the standard for 30 years
Keynote is the standard in presentation tools
iLife is far superior to anything on either Windows or Linux
Hardware is top of the line for the price
10+ hour laptop battery
Never have to clean a registry
Never have to defragment the hard drive
Immune to viruses
UNIX security
Time machines backs up all of your files on a daily basis
Universal spelling and grammar checking (adding a word in one program, adds it to everything)
Compatible with Office / Windows
100% compatible drivers, Windows and Linux's biggest problem is that it has to run on thousands of configurations, whereas there are only 6 or 7 types of Mac)
All programs are integrated, making them faster and more reliable
XCode, software engineers make better programs for OSX because they have a better environment, engineers hate .NET
Been 64 bit for years, Windows requires you buy separate version of software for their 32 and 64 bit platforms, Apple migrated to 64 bit when the rest of them did.
Cons:
Fewer games than PC (though catching up for most major releases)
Fewer programs than Windows (but everything on Windows does have an OSX equivalent, you just get less choice)
More expensive (Apple only sells top of the line products, so even though you can get a Mac for 599, the average is over 1000)
Windows has solitaire and freecell, OSX only comes with Chess
Macs are not immune to virsues, actually. There is a huge Mac botnet going around right now, and users are unable to defend themselves against it due to most Mac users not having an anti-virus.
The hardware isn't really "top of the line", it's not much different from PC hardware at all. If you're buying a PC, drivers are never an issue. That's only rarely an issue when building a computer yourself, and that's much more common in hackintoshes than PCs. Also, if you're buying a computer with 4+ GB of RAM, it will always ship with 64 bit versions. Apple does the same, putting 32 bit versions on computers with less than 3 GB of RAM, and 64 bit on ones with more. iLife being better is just your opinion, I prefer Office over OpenOffice or iLife, and there are better alternatives to things like iMovie and Garage Band anyway.
The concept of more stable isn't always true. Honestly, you have to make Windows crash yourself, it hardly ever happens on its own. Like I said, I used Windows for 3 years and only got one crash, and that was because I fucked something up when putting in new memory.
Apples has one version of OSX. There is more of a difference than how much RAM it can use. OSX is 64 bit, ALWAYS. It has a backwards compatibility layer to run 32-bit programs, but the OS is 64.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Windows is either 64 or 32, but the 64 bit version has no backwards compatibility layer, so it's not the OS that you have to watch, it's buying new software.
If you're refering to the botnet that broke out in April, Apple fixed that security hole a few days after it was discovered. There have been thousands of Mac viruses written, currently, not one of them is a threat, the security holes that they took advantage of have all been fixed.
Every program that I have used on Windows has a 64 bit version, it isn't a problem. There is no need for a backwards compatibility layer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Yes, that's exactly the problem there is a 64 bit version, it's not the same program. You know what version of the OS you are running, most people don't.
When comparing the few thousand viruses written for Macs to the endless supply of Windows viruses, it relatively is. Seriously, compare the statistics to each other, and tell me that Windows is more secure. Look at its structure and tell me the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
The biggest difference is that Apple fixes the security holes that allow the viruses to function. There are zero viruses that will work on Mac right now. On Windows, the anti-virus blocks the virus, the hole isn't fixed. If you don't have the latest virus definitions, you're fucked.
This isn't right, actually. Studies have shown that Apple don't plug their security holes any faster, or tighter, than Microsoft. (one link)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
At any rate most viruses are installed through user stupidity...
I got an iMac early this year, and it has been such a great purchase - especially for someone like me, who does a lot of programming and computer-geek stuff. It's also great, though, for any normal computer user. I have no regrets whatsoever about my switch.
I actually went through a slow upgrade towards awesomeness: I first used Windows XP, then installed Ubuntu, then bought a Mac. But seriously. Compare it to any other OS and it wins.
(I'm a Mac fanboy, if you can't tell.)
I hear this backwards-compatibility will end with Snow Leopard, however.. getting rid of all of the PowerPC remains I guess ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
No, they just aren't supporting PPC anymore, your 32 bit programs like Photoshop will still run.