Windows Linux or Mac?
POSTED BY: Haze
UPDATED: Saturday, April 8, 2006 06:42
VIEWED: 42858
PAGE 8 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well out of interest I'm currently trying out Ubuntu. I'm currently replying to this thread while running it (just the Live CD, so it's a bit slow, I'll try the full install at some point). The graphics and text look good and the usabillity is better than other versions (like Red Hat).
One day I'm really going to try and get that OS I keep saying I'm going to write running...
Ubuntu is pretty solid, from what I've heard. It's based off of Debian, which is as solid of a distro as you'll see. I haven't used it myself, but it's become pretty much the standard for the Linux workstations where I work. I may try it out on my next test machine.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As far as Windows being the lesser of three evils, I don't get the logic. If all you care about is user-friendliness, then I get it.
Yes, and no. It's not about about what "I" care about; it's the purpose of a home OS: EASE. I don't neccessarily need that ease, and perhaps neither do you; but in a general argument about OS's, you have to keep that in mind. Users don't want to piddle about with "Will this software be able to run on my OS?" if they're using OSX, nor do they want to have to fiddle with just about everything to get a linux distro actually working.
Which, right now, makes windows the option for a home user. Plain and simple.
I've never experienced problems moving/deleting files in Linux or Mac because the OS still thinks the file's in use. Hell, the simple fact that the number one solution to most problems is to reboot the computer is proof positive that Windows is completely inadequate when it comes to resource management.
Most of the times that occurs, it's not any fault of the OS. It's because the programmer didn't clean up his program when it closed down.
It's stuff like this that overexaggerates Microsoft's blame for overexaggerated problems of Windows XP.
Solaris isn't just any *NIX. It used to be UNIX. It's a proprietary branch of the old AT&T SysV version of UNIX.
Eh, there's so many flavours of unix and linux, it's usually just best to generalize them all with *nix due to similarities.
"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, and no. It's not about about what "I" care about; it's the purpose of a home OS: EASE. I don't neccessarily need that ease, and perhaps neither do you; but in a general argument about OS's, you have to keep that in mind. Users don't want to piddle about with "Will this software be able to run on my OS?" if they're using OSX, nor do they want to have to fiddle with just about everything to get a linux distro actually working.
Which, right now, makes windows the option for a home user. Plain and simple.
I guess we just differ on what the purpose of an OS is. You say "ease", I disagree. Functionality is more important to me than ease of use.
Most of the times that occurs, it's not any fault of the OS. It's because the programmer didn't clean up his program when it closed down.
It's stuff like this that overexaggerates Microsoft's blame for overexaggerated problems of Windows XP.
Most of the time? I doubt it. I'm sure it's a factor, but I've seen it happen with all manner of software, ESPECIALLY Microsoft software.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by retrovertigo:
I guess we just differ on what the purpose of an OS is. You say "ease", I disagree. Functionality is more important to me than ease of use.
A true linux user.
Ask yourself this: what good is functionality if I don't know how to use it?
Quote:
Originally posted by retrovertigo:
Most of the time? I doubt it. I'm sure it's a factor, but I've seen it happen with all manner of software, ESPECIALLY Microsoft software.
Well, considering I'm the fellow who would craft said programs, I wouldn't doubt it one bit. There's plenty of ways that I can leave something floating in memory, or forget to clean up a binary stream, etc etc.
"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by sneaker98:
A true linux user.
Ask yourself this: what good is functionality if I don't know how to use it?
The ignorance of others isn't my fault.
j/k... I understand where you're coming from, but you're speaking from a standpoint of what's better for the unwashed masses, while I'm going on my personal opinion.
Quote:
Originally posted by sneaker98:
Well, considering I'm the fellow who would craft said programs, I wouldn't doubt it one bit. There's plenty of ways that I can leave something floating in memory, or forget to clean up a binary stream, etc etc.
I've done my fair share of programming, both in Linux and in Windows. The difference between the two operating systems is that when you have a memory leak in Linux, killing the offending process actually rectifies the problem, whereas in Windows you're pretty much resigned to rebooting even if you are able to kill the process. This brings me back to the issue of resource management. Windows is terrible at it, plain and simple. It's leaps and bounds better than it was prior to the introduction of the NT/2000 kernel, but it's still got a long way to go before it even approaches the neighborhood of its competitors.
I do have good things to say about Microsoft, however. They're miles above anyone else as far as synergy goes. Media Center and their backend server apps (Microsoft Provisioning System, etc.) are amazing. They're absolute hogs when it comes to memory and disk space, and they can tend to take a lot of work to keep running smoothly, but they're phenomenal achievements in synergy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by retrovertigo:
The ignorance of others isn't my fault.
And there, folks, you have the exact reason why I hate Linux.
Its community. Its community gets so full of itself and their computer abilities. It's folks like this that think we should go back to the PARC labs era of OS's.
It angers me to no end because they've lost sight of exactly why operating systems came into the public market.
Quote:
Originally posted by retrovertigo:
j/k... I understand where you're coming from, but you're speaking from a standpoint of what's better for the unwashed masses, while I'm going on my personal opinion.
I don't think you're actually kidding.
Of course I'm arguing about the masses. As I said, in a general argument about OS's, which this is, you have to keep them in mind.
If there wasn't the masses, we wouldn't have computers. There certainly wouldn't be an service providers, and no one would bother making any hardware, let alone such niceities as games, word processors, etc.
"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@RetroVertigo:
"""
I've never experienced problems moving/deleting files in Linux or Mac because the OS still thinks the file's in use.
"""
Never?
"""
It's based off of Debian, which is as solid of a distro as you'll see.
"""
What about Slackware?
@Sneaker98:
"""
Users don't want to piddle about with "Will this software be able to run on my OS?" if they're using OSX,
"""
This is basically M$ propaganda at work. I've never not been able to do something because I was running OSX, never. And that goes from writing my code to any user land application that I could think of.
In fact, I'm really wondering what I'm supposed to be missing running OSX. Because, I really don't see it. That is, aside from the fact that a good portion of games aren't ported to OSX. But, that is changing, and exactly what consoles are for.
"""
nor do they want to have to fiddle with just about everything to get a linux distro actually working.
"""
And some more propaganda.
Most (all?) modern Linux distro's come with pretty much everything you'll need already installed. In fact, about 5 years ago, when I last installed a Linux, the installer was as freindly as the windows installer.
Esentially, if you are Joe User and don't need to custom anything, Linux is pretty much as easy to use as windows.
The only point that you might have here is the learning curve to a new system. But, last time I checked, that was true for the first time people used windows as well.
"""
Most of the times that occurs, it's not any fault of the OS. It's because the programmer didn't clean up his program when it closed down.
"""
I've run into this problem, but it doesn't last. As in, I move to trash and I get the error. But, I wait a moment or two and move to trash again, and it works.
I've never had the problem persist.
"""
It's stuff like this that overexaggerates Microsoft's blame for overexaggerated problems of Windows XP.
"""
Perhaps you should check out the long list of bugs that M$ has generated in the OS itself and not 3rd party software.
"""
Ask yourself this: what good is functionality if I don't know how to use it?
"""
You yourself this: what good is functionality if I can't use it because I'm constantly having to reboot my machine?
"""
Well, considering I'm the fellow who would craft said programs, I wouldn't doubt it one bit. There's plenty of ways that I can leave something floating in memory, or forget to clean up a binary stream, etc etc.
"""
As someone else that is a programmer, if you are in industry and is able to produce this many bugs, you are so incompetent that you should be fired and never allowed to code another line again. Not saying that you in particular are, just stating a fact.
And the fact of the matter is that people writing code for M$ really seem to embody this mentality. I've never had a program run smooth on a windows machine.
Also, to your comment prior in the thread, windows 3.1 is not an OS. It is a program that ran on top of DOS which was the OS.
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stone faced, 'till the last, eh?
I don't recall this being a "general argument about OS's". The thread starter ask people to give their thoughts on their favorite OS, and I've done so. So far as I've seen, you're the only one trying to steer this into a discussion about what's good for the mainstream.
Hell, if you want to talk about what's good for the masses, as a support rep I've personally talked to nearly a dozen people who have gone from Windows to Mac and aren't regretful in the least. One thing that Apple does which Microsoft doesn't is they provide a searchable list of applications, both first and third party, right on their website. They've made it easy for people to find, and in many cases download directly from their site, all manner of software, for damn near every aspect of their computing needs. The software's out there, and Apple's gone above and beyond the call to educate their users. Of course, a cynic (which I'm known for being) might say that this is a calculated plot to get people to switch, but A) it's working, and B) if ease is the mark of a good OS, Apple's on the right track.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Never?
Never.
What about Slackware?
It's my flavor of choice, that's what. 
Been a Slacker since 4.0.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is basically M$ propaganda at work. I've never not been able to do something because I was running OSX, never. And that goes from writing my code to any user land application that I could think of.
In fact, I'm really wondering what I'm supposed to be missing running OSX. Because, I really don't see it. That is, aside from the fact that a good portion of games aren't ported to OSX. But, that is changing, and exactly what consoles are for.
As I recall, you use the OSX exactly as intended; the software you need is already there and made for mac's.
But, the vast vast majority of games for instance, do not work on a Mac. And the vast majority of programs do not work either. That's just how it is.
And some more propaganda.
Most (all?) modern Linux distro's come with pretty much everything you'll need already installed. In fact, about 5 years ago, when I last installed a Linux, the installer was as freindly as the windows installer.
Esentially, if you are Joe User and don't need to custom anything, Linux is pretty much as easy to use as windows.
The only point that you might have here is the learning curve to a new system. But, last time I checked, that was true for the first time people used windows as well.
Let me put it this way: I'm not exactly new at computers. But suffice it to say, I had a hell of a time installing Suse 9 on my desktop. Half of the software I had to get third party, and I had a hell of a time getting my network card to actually be detected and get online. Let alone installing the proper libraries and whatnot.
As for windows? I've installed it over 20 times now, and it's incredibly simple. As it has to be.
Perhaps you should check out the long list of bugs that M$ has generated in the OS itself and not 3rd party software.
There's certainly a long list of bugs; problem is, OSX's was longer in 2005 ;)
You yourself this: what good is functionality if I can't use it because I'm constantly having to reboot my machine?
I can't remember the last time I had to reboot my machine mid-use. An overexaggerated problem.
As someone else that is a programmer, if you are in industry and is able to produce this many bugs, you are so incompetent that you should be fired and never allowed to code another line again. Not saying that you in particular are, just stating a fact.
Do you recall Sony's rootkit? A company by the name of First4Internet I believe made the crappiest, shittiest, lamest piece of code to ensure copywrite protection. And it got into thousands of peoples computers.
These things happen all the time, and it only takes one to screw up your PC all to hell.
Also, to your comment prior in the thread, windows 3.1 is not an OS. It is a program that ran on top of DOS which was the OS.
Now, if I say I used DOS as an OS, who the heck would know what I was saying aside from using command lines and a smattering of 8bit games?
One thing that Apple does which Microsoft doesn't is they provide a searchable list of applications, both first and third party, right on their website.
Well... Microsoft doesn't exactly need to, do they!
"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME