The ultimate shootout: Apple Mac OS X vs. Microsoft Windows Vista

[goobimama]

I'd like to *build* my system to match *me*.

Does it ever occur to you that most people don't really care about how their system functions, and what kernels it uses. Most people just want to plug their machine in, and start browsing the net, sharing files and writing documents. Much like they do with their cellphones or TV sets. The business of customizing is reserved to geeks and specialised areas like servers and scientific stuff.

 

[iMav]

Again, this is discussing what OS matches what each *user* wants. I'd rather NOT have a bloated Office Suite on my machine...or be locked in to using Gnome/KDE/whatever...or be forced to use iTunes/Windows Media Player/whatever. I'd like to *build* my system to match *me*. Yeah, it takes a lot longer to build Linux From Scratch/Gentoo/FreeBSD (Yes, I build FreeBSD from source), but in the end I get a desktop that *I* want...not what some other developer decided would be best. In addition, I can strip out all of the useless crap that I don't need, so it's lighter and faster in addition to being focused on what I want...

and that my friend is what makes all the difference i need my machine to work and work to make it work; a bloated office suite well ignorance cant help it uncheck what u dont want o no wait ud rather show ur ignorance by calling it bloated than using common sense and going through an advanced setup as i said people want to work on their system and not want to spend time working on it to make it work u have the time to sh1t sorry sit and compile go for it have fun but that does not mean its better i want my computer to do what i want it to and that windows does and does it great - i wanna play games just install and run not buy some freaking subscription or install some ither bloatware (wine). get my point?

You'd be surprised how easy it is building an operating system from source code (though, you Windows and Mac fanboys can't comment on that, can you? haha).

sorry ur tight i cant comment on it i got better things in life than compiling an os to work; computers were made to make life simple and thats what windows does

 

[The_Devil_Himself]

and that my friend is what makes all the difference i need my machine to work and work to make it work; a bloated office suite well ignorance cant help it uncheck what u dont want o no wait ud rather show ur ignorance by calling it bloated than using common sense and going through an advanced setup as i said people want to work on their system and not want to spend time working on it to make it work u have the time to sh1t sorry sit and compile go for it have fun but that does not mean its better i want my computer to do what i want it to and that windows does and does it great - i wanna play games just install and run not buy some freaking subscription or install some ither bloatware (wine). get my point?

sorry ur tight i cant comment on it i got better things in life than compiling an os to work; computers were made to make life simple and thats what windows does

yaar thoda format kiya karo,read karke samjhne main hi itna time lag jata hai.(hamari bhi life thodi simple kar do sirji).

 

[rocket357]

Does it ever occur to you that most people don't really care about how their system functions, and what kernels it uses.

Oh trust me, I KNOW I'm not a "typical end user"...but answer this:

If you had the know-how and the time, wouldn't you love to have an OS that is specifically "just for you"? Down to every detail...everything about the OS is pleasant and appealing to you. Nothing that annoys or irritates...just 100% zen in an OS...

Sound nice? It is!

 

[iMav]

yaar thoda format kiya karo,read karke samjhne main hi itna time lag jata hai.(hamari bhi life thodi simple kar do sirji).

sorry

 

[goobimama]

If you had the know-how and the time

Yep! Agreed 100%.

 

[rocket357]

a bloated office suite well ignorance cant help it uncheck what u dont want o no wait ud rather show ur ignorance by calling it bloated than using common sense and going through an advanced setup as i said people want to work on their system and not want to spend time working on it to make it work u have the time to sh1t sorry sit and compile go for it have fun but that does not mean its better i want my computer to do what i want it to and that windows does and does it great - i wanna play games just install and run

Cmon...Please tell me you're smarter than that. If you do Advanced Setup and turn it all off, the code still contains sections that refer to the non-active blocks. If you disable it at compile-time, there no "well, it's present but turned OFF" crap...it's not there PERIOD. Less space, less crap in memory.

And you missed the entire point of my post. 1) Not all of us want the same (using myself as a bit of an extreme example of that), and 2) We're all free to pick and choose, but each OS comes with consequences (setup time on Linux, viruses and vendor lock-in for Windows, and Mac, well...it's pretty, isn't it?).

 

[goobimama]

^^ Ah. I see you are stumped for providing a good deficiency for Mac OS X! . Being pretty ain't never a disadvantage....

 

[praka123]

there are two type of people;those who love eyecandy and those who NOT

 

[FilledVoid]

When machines can read the mind of the person using them, and vomit forth whatever the person desires, then (and only then) will there be "one OS to rule them all"...so I agree completely with you here.

If you were being sarcastic then its a poor attempt. However if you were pointing this out in order to emphasize user friendliness is subjective then again I would have to say that Linux is MORE user friendly than any Windows platform cause it includes needed app for most common folks or generally a customizer which allows you to customize which applications YOU want or don't want. However I do think that Vista has a Menu which allows you to Select the programs that you want to install ? Is this available at Install time?


My question is how is a Mac on Programs available by default and Installation Procedure ? Does it run into trouble? Cause I think naturally the installation should be trouble free since its only being used on recommended hardware. Or in other words how is a Mac when compared in this aspect quoted below?

Does it ever occur to you that most people don't really care about how their system functions, and what kernels it uses. Most people just want to plug their machine in, and start browsing the net, sharing files and writing documents. Much like they do with their cellphones or TV sets. The business of customizing is reserved to geeks and specialised areas like servers and scientific stuff.

Again, this is discussing what OS matches what each *user* wants. I'd rather NOT have a bloated Office Suite on my machine...or be locked in to using Gnome/KDE/whatever...or be forced to use iTunes/Windows Media Player/whatever. I'd like to *build* my system to match *me*. Yeah, it takes a lot longer to build Linux From Scratch/Gentoo/FreeBSD (Yes, I build FreeBSD from source), but in the end I get a desktop that *I* want...not what some other developer decided would be best. In addition, I can strip out all of the useless crap that I don't need, so it's lighter and faster in addition to being focused on what I want...

Um I'm lost. What in the world are we talking about? I know that you could do all of the above. My point was that on a default install most distros provide applications for the common folk (that too free). Windows doesn't come with squat. I'm not sure about Apple but I recall drgrudge saying that he/she had to purchase an Office Suite somewhere (I might be wrong and I really prefer not to search for that thread).

 

[iMav]

I would have to say that Linux is MORE user friendly than any Windows platform

*gigasmilies.googlepages.com/24.gif

My question is how is a Mac on Programs available by default and Installation Procedure ?

the only thing it lacks is u cant define where u want to install the app thus ur restricted to the disk size of ur primary partition rest i like it more than the linux options available

 

[MetalheadGautham]

Yes. I do realise the difference between container and codec. But when you say AAC is industry standard, you have got it a little wrong. AAC is the future, sure. But how many devices you know support AAC? Most players, car audio systems and whatnot support mp3. Apple has used AAC and made their own container m4a is it? Same for the video.

my dear goobi, m4a is nothing but mp4 with a different extention. It became popular, as its easy to identify an audio only MP4 file thanks to apple's given name, m4a. Slowly, even m4v name is catching up, but for a different perpose.

And here is something on AAC being the industry standard:

MP3 is nearing the end of its life. MusePack, Vorbis, AAC, etc are the top codecs today and they beat the cr@p out of MP3. But its still popular. Why? Because its old, and well supported. Besides, companies like Fraunhofer, which have the right to collect MP3 royalities in the US are happy. But sadly for them, the Patent for MP3 expires on 2009. Period. Meaning no money for companies. Bad quality codec. No revenue. Lets make bucks. MP3 is being ditched rather unceremoniously. But the same organisation who set standards for Audio, Video, etc, MPEG, has come up with this new standard, AAC, in their MPEG4 Specifications list. XviD, DivX, H.263, H.264, etc are also included here as MPEG4 ASP and AVS. HD-DVD, Blu-Ray Disc, etc support this format. So it IS here. Just because it lacks support, just like BDs and HD-DVDs, does not mean that it isn't taking over.

But I would like to add that thanks to mp3's demising age, and loong reign period, other rivals could also catch up. You might notice that AoTuV Vorbis can defeat Nero AAC at bitrates above 64kbps. Then there is MusePack, a popular audio format similar to AC3(ecept that muse is stereo centric) in quality and usage(hi bitrate), and FLAC as you know is the most popular lossless audio codec, despite cousin WavPack's superiority.

And once again, Linux is not a kernel whose OSes can be compared as it is. If you really want to talk about linux and easy to use stuff for n00bs, discuss specific distros, like Eee, SuSE, Xandros, Linspire, Mandriva, etc, not linux as a whole, which is basically ment for guys like me, praka, infra, etc who like some adventure with their OS and geekiness gives satisfaction.

 

[goobimama]

The Mac install and uninstall procedure is the simplest in the world. Just drag the app into the applications folder and it's done. There are exceptions to this rule, but none of them involve poking around the core and whatnot.

As for linux being more user friendly, it's just as crazy as saying Man landed on the moon.

Yes, Linux does come with a lot of free and open source software, but it's the paid ones that generally kick ass. Take Adobe suite, Final Cut studio, iWork (paid office suite for mac which otherwise comes with a trial version), Logic studio.

@metalhead: didn't I just say that Apple has just rebranded AAC into their own container? Jeez.

As for mp3 being an industry standard, I will stand by my statement. AAC is the future for sure, but mp3 is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. It's widely available, supported, and most people have caught onto the name 'mp3' meaning digital music. It'll take a while for aac to penetrate. I personally rip in AAC.

And a small note: This is a Mac OS X vs Vista thread. Didn't realise how Linux came in

 

[rocket357]

Um I'm lost. What in the world are we talking about? I know that you could do all of the above. My point was that on a default install most distros provide applications for the common folk (that too free). Windows doesn't come with squat.

Apparently we're looking at this from differing angles. My point is simple: *from a coder's perspective*, I find Linux to be far superior to Windows (I can't comment on Mac because I've never used/owned one). Sure, there's an API for everything in Windows...but what if the code you're writing requires more functionality than the API gives (not to mention, most Windows API's are horribly underdocumented)? Where I work we're constantly submitting code to open source projects because if we ran into a problem (for instance, SQL Server doesn't do something we need it to), we'd be screwed if we used a closed solution (up until about a year ago we did business that way...then we got smart and dumped MSSQL for PostgreSQL). Rather than submit a silly "feature enhancement" and wait for M$ to decide if it's worth the time and effort, we code it ourselves and submit it back to the open source community as per the GPL agreement.

I guess I'm not the right guy for this argument, because no one seems to care about anything outside of "how pretty is it" and "can I get by without figuring anything out". I'm not like that...I'd rather know *why* it works like it does (as opposed to "it just works"). I was under the impression that the discussion at hand was "why this OS works for me, and points you should consider, too"...but isn't "I can dig into the OS and learn this or that" part of the user experience if the user chooses?

 

[FilledVoid]

the only thing it lacks is u cant define where u want to install the app thus ur restricted to the disk size of ur primary partition rest i like it more than the linux options available

I really don't mind this. how is the option available different from the one in Linux again? And how sure are you that you can't install a Linux program anywhere else? And from a common person's view, how much does the location of an application concern him ? Even better . When you install Windows and your applications do you get to choose the location of where you Solitaire program goes cause I want to install it in f:\dont\be\unreasonable folder?

for linux being more user friendly, it's just as crazy as saying Man landed on the moon.

Yes, Linux does come with a lot of free and open source software, but it's the paid ones that generally kick ass. Take Adobe suite, Final Cut studio, iWork (paid office suite for mac which otherwise comes with a trial version), Logic studio.

Subjective maybe. Crazy as saying Man landed on the moon....Mere exaggeration. As I said I think most people who I have installed Ubuntu for its at 16 and counting have been fine with their installs. Although I did have a problem with one today cause it didn't boot properly after the person added a new display card. I however do agree with the part of the paid software point though.

And a small note: This is a Mac OS X vs Vista thread. Didn't realise how Linux came in

My bad I think I brought that in when I was responding to some retarded post.

Apparently we're looking at this from differing angles.

Fair enough

 

[drgrudge]

Who is the mahan who made this dormant thread, active?

Linux is not a kernel whose OSes can be compared as it is. If you really want to talk about linux and easy to use stuff for n00bs, discuss specific distros, like Eee, SuSE, Xandros, Linspire, Mandriva, etc, not linux as a whole, which is basically ment for guys like me, praka, infra, etc who like some adventure with their OS and geekiness gives satisfaction.

I've always wondered this. Why would you want to do the seemingly difficult steps for the simplest tasks like launching an app? Don't you have any other work to do with your PC? Why not just download the OS and use it?

Time and again we're seeing that *nix needs some learning curve before you're good in doing what Windows/Mac counterparts do.


@goobi -
iWork full version comes with MBA.

 

[rocket357]

Who is the mahan who made this dormant thread, active?

Sorry to bump this thread, but...

Kinda funny, actually. Another Mac user's gripe over Windows "rekindled" the flames...

 

[MetalheadGautham]

The Mac install and uninstall procedure is the simplest in the world. Just drag the app into the applications folder and it's done. There are exceptions to this rule, but none of them involve poking around the core and whatnot.

As for linux being more user friendly, it's just as crazy as saying Man landed on the moon.

Yes, Linux does come with a lot of free and open source software, but it's the paid ones that generally kick ass. Take Adobe suite, Final Cut studio, iWork (paid office suite for mac which otherwise comes with a trial version), Logic studio.

@metalhead: didn't I just say that Apple has just rebranded AAC into their own container? Jeez.

As for mp3 being an industry standard, I will stand by my statement. AAC is the future for sure, but mp3 is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. It's widely available, supported, and most people have caught onto the name 'mp3' meaning digital music. It'll take a while for aac to penetrate. I personally rip in AAC.

And a small note: This is a Mac OS X vs Vista thread. Didn't realise how Linux came in

Please avoid talking about linux when you still beleive its an OS meant to be used by people the way they use Mac and Win. Its here to stay, and is for its own community. Just as its pointless for an arab muslim to claim that his culture is better than a chinese shintoist's(no religious offence intended here) due to the fact that each lives in his own world, and the later more so, Macintosh guys can't talk about linux because each party serves an entirely different audience.

And M4A is not rebranded. Its even more low. Its just renamed, as its still identified as MP4 by all good codec info tools. Lets say I rip a song Pashendale.mp4, I just rightclick, rename to Pashendale.m4a. Similar effect here. And the name m4a is not propiatary.

For the reference, i rip with FLAC/WavPack for archival perposes, and MusePack for playback. Vorbis, Nero AAC are occasionally used. But MP3 only for my DVD Player(need to up bitrate to ABR 256 kbps to match 180kbps musepack or vorbis, but DVD has 4.3 gig space, and is swapable, so no loss felt.)

And This is a Windows vs Mac Topic ? Then Mac FTW ! Forget linux in this thread and keep it for later.
But as a BSD appritiater, I vote for Mac.
Although its a bad job... jobs still didn't create geek version of Darwin.

 

[drgrudge]

Kinda funny, actually. Another Mac user's gripe over Windows "rekindled" the flames...

I just asked out of curiosity. There's no harm in bumping a thread unless it's useless/irrelevant.

 

[MetalheadGautham]

I just asked out of curiosity. There's no harm in bumping a thread unless it's useless/irrelevant.

as you mentioned the word curiosity, here is a post:
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=744678&postcount=21

Have you noticed, iMav says he installed Mac on his PC. Could that be the reason he is finding it bad ? I heard Apple has put lots of obstructions for *ackintosh users ?