Apple or PC ?
- Thread starter Facetious
- Start date
Been Linux over a decade ...
Been Linux over a decade (15 years on servers), so it doesn't matter what the hardware is. I've run it on watches, I've run it on supercomputing clusters, but I just prefer the 'Step-like interactive desktop (pioneered by Jobs outside of Apple no less) for over a decade (yes, over 10 years Linux, including for my jobs).
Been Linux over a decade (15 years on servers), so it doesn't matter what the hardware is. I've run it on watches, I've run it on supercomputing clusters, but I just prefer the 'Step-like interactive desktop (pioneered by Jobs outside of Apple no less) for over a decade (yes, over 10 years Linux, including for my jobs).
There is a reason why EMC bought VMWare ...
For more home users, the free VMWare Server product is outstanding. It's basically the same VMWare framework as in ESX Server, but runs on a Linux or Windows host. I install it on all my Linux systems, especially when I need to fire off a Windows session (or two, or even three), even on native Linux/x86-64 (although even native Linux/x86-64 runs WINE for 32-bit Windows apps pretty good too, for the few I use -- e.g., opening up Word to test formatting between Word 97, 2000, XP and 2003, something you can't do with Windows itself without the overhead/load of running 4 different VMWare instances). Going the other way, it works well enough if your host is Windows (and I understand most will do that for gaming, given the limited number of games with native Linux binaries available and WineX/Cedega emulation never being remotely as good as native).
Microsoft is way late to the VM party. They have a few, former products they've left stagnant, especially for non-Windows ports. They are now relying on Citrix, who owns Xen, to duplicate what Xen did for Linux, para-virtualization (same OS on same OS, or Xen'ized kernel/limitations OS on any other Xen compatible OS). Xen is one of the virtualization options in the Linux world, and for full virtualization (like Xen), it honestly sucks at this point, as do several others (kvm is interesting -- good in some ways, still sucks in others). But Xen para-virtualization (Linux on Linux) rocks as long as you don't mind the limitations of para-virtualization. It's still far better than anything else I've seen without going full virtualization.
Which brings us back to the best at that, VMWare.
There is a reason why EMC bought VMWare, the damn shit just works and has for a long time, and is cheaper than going "big iron" (mainframe). The VMWare ESX Server product (bundled Linux host plus their framework) is all I've deployed in corporations since 2004. I have not run Windows Server on "bare metal" since, and thank God. Being able to re-partition a Windows Server back to a "known state" in minutes removes 98% of downtime (even if some transactional loss occurred, or failed over elsewhere).
For more home users, the free VMWare Server product is outstanding. It's basically the same VMWare framework as in ESX Server, but runs on a Linux or Windows host. I install it on all my Linux systems, especially when I need to fire off a Windows session (or two, or even three), even on native Linux/x86-64 (although even native Linux/x86-64 runs WINE for 32-bit Windows apps pretty good too, for the few I use -- e.g., opening up Word to test formatting between Word 97, 2000, XP and 2003, something you can't do with Windows itself without the overhead/load of running 4 different VMWare instances). Going the other way, it works well enough if your host is Windows (and I understand most will do that for gaming, given the limited number of games with native Linux binaries available and WineX/Cedega emulation never being remotely as good as native).
Microsoft is way late to the VM party. They have a few, former products they've left stagnant, especially for non-Windows ports. They are now relying on Citrix, who owns Xen, to duplicate what Xen did for Linux, para-virtualization (same OS on same OS, or Xen'ized kernel/limitations OS on any other Xen compatible OS). Xen is one of the virtualization options in the Linux world, and for full virtualization (like Xen), it honestly sucks at this point, as do several others (kvm is interesting -- good in some ways, still sucks in others). But Xen para-virtualization (Linux on Linux) rocks as long as you don't mind the limitations of para-virtualization. It's still far better than anything else I've seen without going full virtualization.
Which brings us back to the best at that, VMWare.
I have and use both. The Mac is good for the wife and kids (it's waaaayyy more user friendly). My wife hates the PC. The Mac is twice as fast.
The PC is more universal. Microsoft Office is better than appleworks. Vista sucks donkey balls, BTW.
I would prefer to go Linux, but I am not knowledgeable enough to do so.
As far as the right click goes, it's simple. Control/click is always there and has always been there.
The PC is more universal. Microsoft Office is better than appleworks. Vista sucks donkey balls, BTW.
I would prefer to go Linux, but I am not knowledgeable enough to do so.
As far as the right click goes, it's simple. Control/click is always there and has always been there.
Although MS Office is ported to the Mac, it still suffers from Microsoft's lack of having a portable code base. I.e., when the bits come over to Mac, they don't line up the same (long story).
Microsoft has lost its mindshare. I.e., most of the prior Windows developers that were left from the '90s have finally left in the last few years.
Linux isn't about just being different OS than Windows, it's about an entirely different mindset called "open source." I.e., you can even get "open source" applications for Windows as well.
Many "open source" applications are wrongfully called "knockoffs" of Microsoft applications. Not only is this not correct, but most pre-date Microsoft programs. Microsoft often buys the 3rd best app and then markets the hell out of it (e.g,. Spyglass Explorer). Microsoft has been heavily hiring various Linux developers over the last 5 years, and you see most of their prior Linux software in Microsoft software now. Virtually all of the "cool" things in Vista and other add-ons (Media Player).
StarOffice (now OpenOffice.org, although the commercially supported version is still StarOffice) actually predates Microsoft Office, and it's always been more integrated. It's often called a "lesser suite" but that's not true. I've been using StarOffice since the mid '90s myself, and there are still features in Writer, Calc and Impress that Microsoft still has not implemented. There are also not direct 1:1 implementations either. Just the other day I ran into Excel 2007's limitations in graphical multiple values on the same axis (don't get me started). I actually first started using StarOffice on Windows because Impress kicked PowerPoint's ass (especially with a decent HTML export some 3 years before Microsoft even made it standard, and still not as good).
Most of the comparisons of OpenOffice.org is about reading the latest MS Office formats. Then again, even the latest MS Office has issues reading older formats, something Corel and OpenOffice.org do much better. Corel and OpenOffice.org maintain strong typed languages, whereas Microsoft can't even get its Office Open XML aka OOXML (public reference) or OpenXML (trademark Microsoft marketing reference) documented to how it is in Office 2007. Ironically, the OASIS documentation for ODF (Open Document Format, used by everyone but Microsoft) actually documents legacy (and often conflicting) MS Office implementations better than Microsoft's OOXML spec.
It's not that people don't want to use MS Office out of spite. They don't want to write documentation in MS Office because it's not editable some 5+ years down the road, or at least not verbatim reproducible (in the edit) when you do. That's unlike any other system. Microsoft does not even maintain good proprietary standards. A lot of medical and law offices still run Corel for a reason, and a lot of engineering firms standardized on OpenOffice.org almost 5 year ago.
Mac requires one button. Windows requires two buttons. Linux's X-Window (1984+, W and other predecessors as well) has always required all three buttons, just like the original mouse in 1965 had.
What you refer to as "right-click" is something we've always had in various mechanisms, as well as "middle-click" as standard. That's why things like Mozilla/Firefox have all sorts of "intuitive" usability with the middle mouse button -- like launch in new tab by clicking the middle mouse button from virtually Day 1.
Many other approaches are very different in the X-Window (and UNIX) world, like virtual desktops aka workspaces. There are also strict separations in approach, things Gates purposely changed/broke in Windows NT 3.1 from OS/2 and VMS (which it was based on) prior. A lot of Linux desktops, ironically (and like MacOS X's Aqua), steal from Jobs' earlier NeXT platform. Most of the current GNOME desktop interface approaches were designed by (the now defunct) Eazel, some of the original Mac interface developers.
The issue with Linux is that it forces open standards compliance. That's a problem with "cheap hardware." I.e., once you have a driver, it works forever. Most "cheap hardware" is designed to only work 1 Windows version. It's called the 2-3 year upgrade model of software and systems. Linux is about 5+ year upgrade model, you choose, not the retail outlets.
Home consumers can accept 2-3 year upgrades, and will deal with Dell and Best Buy not selling and supporting things more than a few years. So hardware vendors with products like you'd find at Dell or Best Buy don't work with Linux as much, or when Linux drivers are available, the hardware is already replaced (even if the original hardware was just as good). It's a support cycle that is not the fault of Linux, but the fault of the upgrade cycle. It's advantageous for hardware vendors to sell artificially "time limited" hardware. If they would share the specs to write drivers for Linux, those open specs would also allow drivers for Windows to be written, so you could use your hardware with Vista (instead of having to upgrade).
Businesses want 5+ year upgrades, not forced ones. You choose when to upgrade. Microsoft cannot get businesses to accept the former, and Linux has massively taken over a lot of the enterprise corporate market, and not just at the server anymore (slowing filtering into the medium to small businesses more and more). That's why, despite charging $3,000 per server per year, Novell and Red Hat find a lot of paying customers for subscriptions. There are open interfaces and those interfaces are supported long-term. Microsoft often forces desktop upgrades down everyone's throat because they don't bother to maintain compatibility at all, even at the server.
I.e., Linux (and UNIX in general -- "open systems") continues to make a better enterprise server on many levels over Windows for enterprises. That filters down to desktop interactions as well, because Microsoft purposely affixes desktop support on a server to one version (e.g., they didn't support 2000 "well" anymore once Windows Server 2003 came out, and recommended upgrades to XP on desktops -- just 3 years after 2000's release). That's just not doable on a regular basis when you have tens of thousands of systems.
Unless you're trying to keep a lot of IT people busy. I'm not into that. I'm into letting businesses do their job.
Although I have to say the Mac is the best UNIX desktop on the market (it's UNIX underneath it all). Apple controls both the hardware and the OS, let's them maintain far better compatibility. Especially when it comes to signing NDAs on hardware specs and closed drivers, an option Linux doesn't have (and never will have).
Apple - it's a better system in my mind...
Apples are virtually immune to most to most of the malware out there on the internet and it is easier to fix when you do encounter that problem.
Most USB devices are universal and now with the Intel processors, you can ad Windows to your Mac to allow for you to do your computing.
Apples are virtually immune to most to most of the malware out there on the internet and it is easier to fix when you do encounter that problem.
Most USB devices are universal and now with the Intel processors, you can ad Windows to your Mac to allow for you to do your computing.
Of course. It's the successful merger of UNIX (built on Jobs' NeXT) and the Apple approach.
That's a misnomer for any OS. There's a bit of mal-ware for both Darwin (MacOS X) and Linux.
What MacOS X and Linux don't have are:
- An extreme set of undocumented functions that even Microsoft does not understand, and has not for a long time. Many are tied to Internet Explorer decisions in the mid-'90s that even all non-Internet programs rely on (core DLLs).
- Virus redistribution engines masquerading as a browser and e-mail client. Microsoft continues to favor automation over just breaking them and stopping the problem. The 7 known privilege exploits for Internet Explorer will not be fixed, most haven't been fixed for over a year, because of this. Another 3 were fixed over many, many month.
- Win32/x86 legacy, which is repeatedly exploited over and over again. Vista doesn't solve the problem either, it only introduces an annoyance that is largely a false security measure.
Now what Linux holds over MacOS X further are stricter privilege levels.
But the lack of undocumented non-sense, use of a non-core OS tied browsers (Gecko or KHTML for Linux, KHTML for MacOS X) and real, Internet-designed e-mail clients (Outlook Express is an abomination) and even a corporate alternative with the same attitude (Evolution for Linux is more powerful than Outlook in many ways) are the major reasons.
That's because the system design is extremely well understood (re-insert UNIX). Microsoft lost all control of Windows long, long ago, and even the NT system was raped in maintainability in the mid-'90s.
Microsoft has had to publicly admit that reloading is the only way to combat some things now.
USB still lacks standards. I won't get back into that, but it's one of the worst bus designs in the history of computing. It was never designed to be used for what it is today (high speed), FireWire was much better and very standardized.
That's why many USB devices on the same bus conflict. All of the "intelligence" is in the "fat" driver. The "workaround" is to just add more ports to a system. Too many drivers are artificially time limited, and only work with a single OS release.
Linux's USB stack is a dream compared to Windows, as all code is exposed and inter-operates. Several vendors have commented on this. Of course, several other vendors hate it, because it prevents them from forcing upgrades. USB drivers in Linux are eternal.
Apple has the dual option, they can offer open source or commercial, so it works very favorably for them -- when vendors work with them.
BNF
Ex-SuperMod
Maybe linux should be added to the thread title!?
I've played one computer game in a decade, so that is not any concern for me.
What I do do, is upload, edit, and catalog a ton of images - from my own cameras and from the net. For this purpose I can't imagine any other system.
When you add the rock solid OS and lack of viruses, to me, it's no contest. (I regularly have "up times" of 3 weeks or more, and then only to have to reboot for a software upgrade/update.) I'm not trying to sell anyone on Mac OSX - it doesn't matter to me what you use.
If you are in the financial profession, then you really have to have a PC.
If you are in the graphic arts, industrial design or such, then usually you have to have a Mac.
I've played one computer game in a decade, so that is not any concern for me.
What I do do, is upload, edit, and catalog a ton of images - from my own cameras and from the net. For this purpose I can't imagine any other system.
When you add the rock solid OS and lack of viruses, to me, it's no contest. (I regularly have "up times" of 3 weeks or more, and then only to have to reboot for a software upgrade/update.) I'm not trying to sell anyone on Mac OSX - it doesn't matter to me what you use.
If you are in the financial profession, then you really have to have a PC.
If you are in the graphic arts, industrial design or such, then usually you have to have a Mac.
Oh, I should have pointed out one more detail on this.??? said:
A massive reason why Linux got a huge boost in the graphical/industrial arts was the Linux/x86-64 (Opteron) combination from 2003-2005. Only Linux had a full, true 48-bit addressing model across not just the kernel, not just core libraries, but all libraries and applications (something Microsoft still is fighting). You could have 16-32GB professional workstations without hacks and related issues with software -- not what simple artists would use, but major 3D title developers absolutely required. A lot of the entertainment houses utterly shifted in those 3 years. Especially since a lot of titles had full POSIX/OpenGL 64-bit versions on Irix already, so it was a cake port.
That's far less of a consideration circa 2006+ for various reasons, but it was a major boost and shift in the industry. So much so that Microsoft repeatedly ran into a self-inflicted PR issue because it could not find a house that could do its Halo movie on anything but a Linux-based studio, among other things that caused it's demise. Even a lot of the major houses that do Xbox 360 and Windows PC games still do a crapload of the development on Linux.
Last edited by a moderator:
I very rarely play any games on the computer, and when I do there are so old nothing has much of a problem running them. :1orglaugh
I'm a PC guy, myself. I used to work as a computer lab assistant in a college and the lab consisted of 35 Macintrash pieces of crap that would all crash/freeze/fuck up in some way, shape, or form at least twice a day.
I'm sure Mac computers are good, but they are not good for my needs at all.
I need a PC. :]
I need a PC. :]
Similar threads
