Mac vs PC

[Kwanister]

In regard to the Windows 7 which is my desktop OS at work I would like to say I don't see it as much better than Windows XP/SP3. The visible part is new appearance which is a matter of discussion. The issues with operating fast and reliably were solved indeed compared to Vista but in fact there is hardly any visible difference. As to the Mac it should be mentioned that for most users (except for Geeks who can run Mac OSX on PC descendants) the image of the OS is indivisible from the image of the entire Mac computer( which is usually rather stylish laptop). Thus it appears that average OS is accepted better due to good hardware.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

Thus it appears that average OS is accepted better due to good hardware.

???

[hintss]

I'm in the 0th group that says that every home computer on the market is a PC while proceeding to write a comment stating that using a computer running GNU/Linux

[Kromix]

Sadly, the best use for a mac is running VMWare or parallels with Windows or if you toss that apple product in the trash. A mac is an expensive piece of garbage

[Dason]

Sadly, the best use for a Kromix is trolling or not adding anything constructive or if you toss them into the trash.

Seriously though for some people the price isn't an issue (I got my macbook for $100 which is basically a steal for a mac I know). What exactly do you have against OSX? I'm not saying it's perfect but I much prefer it to using windows. Windows 7 is an improvement from what I can tell but I've never owned a computer that was running 7. I currently have a macbook and a laptop that dual boots ubuntu and XP. For just everyday type stuff I prefer the MacBook. I use the programs on my mac more than any of the junk I would use in XP. For gaming I need to load up XP but that's the only time I ever do that. For getting work done I prefer Linux.

[Kromix]

i have never in my life liked apple computers. tried them, tested then, troubleshot them. they are not my cup of tea. i personally use win7-64 bit pro in my main computer and XP/Ubuntu in my laptop, loaded XP in wifey's computer and loaded XP and quimo in my toddler's computer

[tuseroni]

pc, but then im installing linux over it (as i close my eyes, plug my ears, and pretend this is about hardware)

[rachelbonilla]

I would totally be a mac person if I was able to build it myself and if it was cheaper! But the freedom you get to choose your individual parts with different competing brands for your different parts is the biggest plus you could get as a PC user. Therefore, Mac will never be as good. Yes, they may be pretty, but they sure are tyrannical.

[tuseroni]

tyrannical seems a term also well adapted to microsoft as well.

in the end the os which you actually OWN is linux

[hintss]

I would totally be a mac person if I was able to build it myself and if it was cheaper! But the freedom you get to choose your individual parts with different competing brands for your different parts is the biggest plus you could get as a PC user. Therefore, Mac will never be as good. Yes, they may be pretty, but they sure are tyrannical.

hackintosh

tyrannical seems a term also well adapted to microsoft as well.

in the end the os which you actually OWN is linux

you mean GNU/Linux
or BSD, or the other open source OSes

[stephentyrone]

in the end the os which you actually OWN is linux^D^D^D^D^DBSD.

[uiri]

Hm, the first post says no Linux.

In which case I'd probably use *BSD or a GNU+Hurd distro

In general, both Windows and Mac OS X suck.

I'd probably go with Windows though. At least I can choose my hardware manufacturer.

[hintss]

In general, both Windows and Mac OS X suck.

agree. which was why I was on the linux side of a mac/windows/linux in the comment thread of a random camp picture on facebook. then the person who uploaded the picture started deleting the comments...

[supermario]

Between Windows and OSX, I'd choose OSX. Never had a problem with networking, registry errors, cleaning up things I've installed, or anything like that on a Mac. Also, I love the window management features -- expose, full use of the multi-touch trackpad, spaces, etc. I've never had problems with application compatibility (aside from games, which I don't really play anymore).

Theoretically, I'd favor using GNU/Linux, but dealing with driver issues isn't something I have time for right now. Also, a lot of the intro CS classes I'm taking seem to require the use of a Windows or Mac environment because of the IDEs they encourage us to use.

Perhaps once I start studying CS more in-depth I'll dual-boot GNU/Linux. Not to derail the thread, but why do you GNU/Linux people prefer your distro over another OS, besides the fact that it's free/open-source? If it's customization/control, what in particular have you customized that you couldn't do on another OS? Most discussions I get into on this topic are really vague and don't give perspective on the specifics of the situation.

[tuseroni]

encouraging you to use an IDE?

and im guessing visual studio .net....
*facepalm*

[tronixnews]

PC for me all day (i'm secretly considering a Mac though...lol).

[phillipsjk]

Perhaps once I start studying CS more in-depth I'll dual-boot GNU/Linux. Not to derail the thread, but why do you GNU/Linux people prefer your distro over another OS, besides the fact that it's free/open-source? If it's customization/control, what in particular have you customized that you couldn't do on another OS? Most discussions I get into on this topic are really vague and don't give perspective on the specifics of the situation.

I brought up a specific, but vague complaint in the PC != Windows thread (James' post): fences. I suspect, but have not been able to confirm, that MacOS X (desktop/laptop version) has fewer "fences" than Windows (Vista&7). I am basing this on the fact that Macs still don't support Blu-ray playback (but do support Blu-ray authoring), presumably because Apple computers do not implement the "protected path" required by the AACS-LA. It should be obvious that the Iphone OS is more restrictive than MS Windows.

What this means in terms of programming is that you are allowed to use Analog outputs for multimedia; or that you can use a mixture of analog and digital outputs for multimedia. In general, I think for CS you should have access to at least one "General-purpose computer." It does not matter if it is a microcontroller, desktop or server. IMO, modern "PCs" are not "general purpose computers" anymore (due to the fences that may be illegal to break).

10 years ago the IDE they suggested also ran on MacOS and Windows. It was called codeworx or something like that. I think the IDE was only really encouraged for the first semester class. Second year, we were expected to chose Vi or the Emacs IDE.

[hintss]

Not to derail the thread, but why do you GNU/Linux people prefer your distro over another OS, besides the fact that it's free/open-source? If it's customization/control, what in particular have you customized that you couldn't do on another OS? Most discussions I get into on this topic are really vague and don't give perspective on the specifics of the situation.

apt-get
ssh server
open source
compiz and conky
free
dd
webmin

and ubuntu's soon to come native support for multitouch

also, linux action show

[tuseroni]

also the linux kernel natively supports the cell processor, has had native 64 bit support since 2001, i was going to list all the architectures the linux kernel supports and googled for a comprehensive list, then i found it was WAY too long to include, so just click this link
plus the philosophy of free and open source is one i personally ascribe to. information is able to grow and prosper only in an environment of free and open exchange of ideas. this is by and large what has brought us the prosperity we have now. the growth of global travel and later global communication has allowed for the sharing of ideas which has greatly increased the number of ideas and allowed people to compare ideas and build on other peoples works which could themselves be built upon. this creates a kind of feedback loop where new ideas are more readily shared leading to new inventions, some of which are better ways of communicating, which increases this process. this is what has taken us from the industrial revolution to quantum mechanics in little over 100 years. and from the first transistor to a transistor made of only 1 atom in 85 years (56 from the time the first transistor was made)
being able to see how code works, being able to take it apart, make changes, put it back together, adapt it for your purposes, thats what allows for novel ideas, and it is novel ideas that fuel this memetic evolution.

[Kromix]

[ImagingGeek]

I prefer linux for most things, but given the options:

For home use, average user (that is to say, generally computer illiterate):
OSX > Windows > any pre-OSX mac OS

Reason is simple - OSX is setup to prevent you from doing anything other than apple-approved stuff on the computer, and is build under the assumption it'll be operated by a 3rd trimester fetus with fetal alcohol syndrome. So its good if you cannot fix your computer, but is hugely limiting in terms of your ability to modify/upgrade/alter your computer or its OS. Windows allows all of that, if you know what you are doing, which is a HUGE problem for your average home user (because it offers many opportunities to royally fuck up your system). Add to that the virus issues widows has, as well as it occasional (unless you're running vista, at which point its "frequent") glitches, and your average user is going to be overwhelmed.

For home use, "expert" user (that is to say, someone who can solve most problems on their own:
WinXp/Win7 > Pre-WinXP windows > OSX > Vista > any pre-OSX mac OS

Basically XP and 7 are good OS's, if you know what to do to not fuck them up, and they give you good control over the guts of your system. Pre-XP windows are old, so of less use. OSX limits your ability to do what you want with your computer, reducing its usability for an "expert" user. Vista was an abortion, and pre-OSX mac OS's are seriously out of date.

Scientific/technical computing
Any windows. Linux would top this list if I were allowed to add it in. Other OS's are useless in that kind of environment.

For multi-user facilities
Any windows > DOS > OS/2 > any other dead OS > trained monkeys making punch cards > any mac OS

I spend more time dealing with the 2 macs we have on our network than I do with the 10-15 windows and 5 linux systems combined. Macs simply are not designed to deal with multiple users, network resources, etc. And their legacy support is second to everyone, meaning old hardware on network won't work. Odd, considering its a BSD derivative, but its how the cookie crumbles.

Bryan

[hintss]

there

[++$_]

Not to derail the thread, but why do you GNU/Linux people prefer your distro over another OS, besides the fact that it's free/open-source? If it's customization/control, what in particular have you customized that you couldn't do on another OS? Most discussions I get into on this topic are really vague and don't give perspective on the specifics of the situation.

What I prefer about GNU/Linux vs Windows:

• gcc
• Better shell
• Better system design (signals work properly, for example)
• No stupid "registry" where some, but not all, of the important stuff is hidden
• You don't have to be root to do normal things like install software, if you don't want to be
• Better built-in utilities (e.g. grep, find)
• Perl and python without having to install them (sometimes the installation doesn't work).
• Better support for ssh
• Most included software has cleaner, often text-based interfaces (e.g. mplayer vs wmplayer)
• Repositories
• /proc
• All processes have their own names rather than being listed under svchost.exe

And GNU/Linux vs Mac OS X (a smaller list, to be sure):

• Putting the menus at the top of the screen is stupid
• Better model for desktop management (to me, the Dock is one big WTF)
• Cleaner interface to some things (e.g. /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow vs Open Directory)
• Better support for most free software
• Repositories

[ImagingGeek]

BNot to derail the thread, but why do you GNU/Linux people prefer your distro over another OS, besides the fact that it's free/open-source? If it's customization/control, what in particular have you customized that you couldn't do on another OS? Most discussions I get into on this topic are really vague and don't give perspective on the specifics of the situation.

The advantages I see are many fold. The caveat I'd put on this up front is most of my computing is for scientific purposes (image processing, and statistics, mostly), so my criteria may not be all that relevant to your case.

The #1 reason is stability - our major tool is matlab, and its not uncommon for some of the processes we run to take several days to complete. Windows and OSX simply lack the stability to manage high processor loads for that period of time - our initial system (based on windows server) crashed in ~15% of run. Matlab on OSX is flaky at the best of times, so we didn't even try. Our current linux system - 3 physical computers comprising a total 24 cores - has been up and running without crash for ~14 months at this point.

The #2 is OS footprint - a minimal linux install takes up a few hundred megs of hard drive, occupies a few hundred megs of RAM, and uses <10% of CPU power to run the OS's background function. Even a feature-laden linux system is tiny in its footprint. Both OSX and windows are huge in comparison - requiring gigabytes of hard-drive space, close to (or over) a gig of memory, and a high percentage of processor power to operate. In our work every CPU cycle is precious, so the less wasted resources the better.

Reason #3 is cost. I can build, from parts, a computer for 10-30% less than an equivalent Mac system. Using windows reduces that price savings, although you're still saving money (especially on a group license). Linux is, in most cases free. Likewise, most linux programs are also free, which reduces the costs after startup.

Reason #4 is security. Linux is built around security, but implements it in a way which is user friendly. Windows has poor security, and what security it does have is poorly implemented (UAC = universally atrocious crap). OSX is better than windows, but has poor comparability with industry-standards. For example, the encryption method we are required to use for any data that could ID a patient is not supported by Mac, despite being a IEEE standard available in windows, linux, on blackberries, etc.

Reason #5 is custamizability. I can make a linux system look and feel like windows, OSX, or anything else I desire. Kernel modules can be added to extend functionality, while uneeded modules can be removed to improve efficiency. I can choose between a range of desktop environments (gnome, KDE, XFCE, etc), file systems (FAT, ext2/3/4,etc), different distros, etc. Because speed and stability is our primary concern I tend to customize towards efficiency - trimming the fat and all that.

The major limitation of linux, at least in my work, is the lack of MS office. open office covers most of what office does, but is lacking in some areas (notably in impress; its power point equivelent). There are also a handful of essential programs I need that are not available in linux (graphpad prism, a couple of mass spectometry programs, etc). As such I run a virtualized WinXP to run those programs within linux.

Bryan

[hotaru]

• gcc

you can run gcc just fine on windows.

• Better system design (signals work properly, for example)

except for the fact that some processes can't be killed by SIGKILL...

• You don't have to be root to do normal things like install software, if you don't want to be

as long as you don't want to use any of the package management systems used by any of the popular distributions...

• Perl and python without having to install them (sometimes the installation doesn't work).

you can do that just fine on windows.

• All processes have their own names rather than being listed under svchost.exe

yeah, having a bunch of processes listed under "sh", "perl", "python", etc. is so much better.

[ImagingGeek]

What are you sending that can't be opened on a mac anyway? Have some standards, don't use proprietary formats.

But apple does have some unusual implementations of some common file formats that occasionally cause problems. For example, byte order in mac-formatted tiffs is reversed relative to IBM-formatted tiffs. This is a legacy of the bad-ol days of motorola vs. intel chips, which ordered bytes differently. Despite the fact that the mac format represents a now-extinct byte order, macs still use the non-standard coding as their default. This issue is a persistent headache in biological imaging - macs frequently screw up the processing of these images (IBM-ordered TIFFs being the standard these days).

Likewise, the default file compression in macs in a proprietary format, as is the use of hidden files to store file properties. All of these mac-specific things can cause compatibility issues.

Bryan

[++$_]

• gcc

you can run gcc just fine on windows.

Yup, and you can run Starcraft on linux too. It's just stupid. I don't want to have to install gcc; it should be there by default. If you're willing to do enough work, you can make any system into any other system by running a VM. The issue is what you have by default.

• Better system design (signals work properly, for example)

except for the fact that some processes can't be killed by SIGKILL...

Only if it's waiting for hardware (or if it happens to be init). I've literally never had this problem (though if I used NFS I expect I would have...).

• You don't have to be root to do normal things like install software, if you don't want to be

as long as you don't want to use any of the package management systems used by any of the popular distributions...

But if you use the package management systems, then you can be fairly confident that the software is safe. The issue is other software. On Windows, you'll typically have an installer than you have to run as root (even if that is just to change ONE registry key :/). Which admittedly is more a function of how the software is designed than the operating system itself, but it goes to the difference in cultures.

• Perl and python without having to install them (sometimes the installation doesn't work).

you can do that just fine on windows.

No, you have to install them.

• All processes have their own names rather than being listed under svchost.exe

yeah, having a bunch of processes listed under "sh", "perl", "python", etc. is so much better.

I don't know how it looks on your system, but on mine, processes show up in ps with the entire command used to call them (unless the program decides to change it, of course). I don't have anything that just says "sh" or "perl" or "python".

[Pez Dispens3r]

*obnoxious .gif*

We get it already.

[stephentyrone]

For example, byte order in mac-formatted tiffs is reversed relative to IBM-formatted tiffs.

Both byte orderings are defined in the TIFF encoding. A correct, complete TIFF implementation (as comes with OS X) will open or save either ordering. You have a broken implementation somewhere that only knows how to handle one ordering, but it isn't on the Mac. Blame your incompatibility issues on the system that is actually causing them.

Likewise, the default file compression in macs in a proprietary format, as is the use of hidden files to store file properties. All of these mac-specific things can cause compatibility issues.

The default file compression is zip.

[ImagingGeek]

For example, byte order in mac-formatted tiffs is reversed relative to IBM-formatted tiffs.

Both byte orderings are defined in the TIFF encoding. A correct, complete TIFF implementation (as comes with OS X) will open or save either ordering. You have a broken implementation somewhere that only knows how to handle one ordering, but it isn't on the Mac. Blame your incompatibility issues on the system that is actually causing them.

Sorry, that is simply wrong.

The problem lies directly in macs implementation of the "new" TIFF standards (BigTiff, FITS, OME, etc). For example, the sample OME tiff dataset provided by the OME consortium doesn't open properly on macs. As in the reference image set, made by the standard developer, is opened with its byte-order reversed. That isn't a problem of someone making the tiffs wrong; that's a problem of mac screwed up the OME implementation ~5 years ago and have so far failed to fix it.

Unless things have changed with the newest OS-X (leopard?) bigtiff is not supported natively. Its only a 6 year old standard...

Macs full tiff support more-or-less ends at V6.0

Likewise, the default file compression in macs in a proprietary format, as is the use of hidden files to store file properties. All of these mac-specific things can cause compatibility issues.

The default file compression is zip.

To be accurate the .sit file format was the mac standard for all its history, and only with the release of OSX was zip added as an option. SIT is closed-source, and unopenable on non-mac computers without additional software.

Bryan

[stephentyrone]

Unless things have changed with the newest OS-X (leopard?) bigtiff is not supported natively. Its only a 6 year old standard...

Snow Leopard is the current OS X; Leopard is almost three years old. Bigtiff is still spottily supported on all platforms, last I checked (Wikipedia agrees). It's also worth noting that tiff v6.0 is the current tiff specification; the new tiff "standards" are actually proposed extensions. However, there are a number of FITS viewers on OS X, and libtiff (which has support for bigtiff) builds without issue on OS X. I'm not familiar with OME.

To be accurate the .sit file format was the mac standard for all its history, and only with the release of OSX was zip added as an option. SIT is closed-source, and unopenable on non-mac computers without additional software.

zip absolutely is the default. sit hasn't even been supported for five years, and is unopenable on macs without additional software.

[ImagingGeek]

Unless things have changed with the newest OS-X (leopard?) bigtiff is not supported natively. Its only a 6 year old standard...

Snow Leopard is the current OS X; Leopard is almost three years old. Bigtiff is still spottily supported on all platforms, last I checked (Wikipedia agrees).

I believe win7 supports it natively - I may be wrong on that, but the one win7 computer I occasionally use does loads them (and their thumbnails) fine in the in-system viewer/file browser. I run ubuntu and it supports it fine as well.

It's also worth noting that tiff v6.0 is the current tiff specification; the new tiff "standards" are actually proposed extensions.

I was more under the impression that the patent holder no longer develops TIFF, and thus the "official" line died at 6.0. None-the-less, in many fields bigtiff, etc, are standards (in that they are what everyone uses).

However, there are a number of FITS viewers on OS X, and libtiff (which has support for bigtiff) builds without issue on OS X.

As in they are not supported natively, which was what I was saying. I don't know about windows, but FITS support has been native in several linux distros since 2005.

I'm not familiar with OME.

Its a scientific standard. Basically a tiff with greatly extended metadata capabilities, support for unusual bit depths, and able to hold multi-D data. Most tiff viewers will read them fine, as they'll just ignore the metadata. Mac's tiff renderer does not display them properly.

To be accurate the .sit file format was the mac standard for all its history, and only with the release of OSX was zip added as an option. SIT is closed-source, and unopenable on non-mac computers without additional software.

zip absolutely is the default. sit hasn't even been supported for five years, and is unopenable on macs without additional software.[/quote]

I stand corrected, although my students still send me a lot of .sit compressed files.

Bryan

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

For home use, "expert" user (that is to say, someone who can solve most problems on their own:
WinXp/Win7 > Pre-WinXP windows > OSX > Vista > any pre-OSX mac OS

Basically XP and 7 are good OS's, if you know what to do to not fuck them up, and they give you good control over the guts of your system. Pre-XP windows are old, so of less use. OSX limits your ability to do what you want with your computer, reducing its usability for an "expert" user. Vista was an abortion, and pre-OSX mac OS's are seriously out of date.

If you know which extensions to trust/terminal commands to run, you can do pretty much anything you did in Windows on the Mac.

Scientific/technical computing
Any windows. Linux would top this list if I were allowed to add it in. Other OS's are useless in that kind of environment.

I've seen a surprisingly large amount of macs in some of my labs. I've also seen all kinds of computers with Win 3.11 for Workgroups hooked to the to GC/MS.

For multi-user facilities
Any windows > DOS > OS/2 > any other dead OS > trained monkeys making punch cards > any mac OS

I spend more time dealing with the 2 macs we have on our network than I do with the 10-15 windows and 5 linux systems combined. Macs simply are not designed to deal with multiple users, network resources, etc. And their legacy support is second to everyone, meaning old hardware on network won't work. Odd, considering it's a BSD derivative, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

I don't know too much about networking with macs, but that seems to be an odd account because Mac OS is BSD-based. It could be something like Mac OS not liking being managed by a Windows server, but hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will explain this

[ImagingGeek]

Scientific/technical computing
Any windows. Linux would top this list if I were allowed to add it in. Other OS's are useless in that kind of environment.

I've seen a surprisingly large amount of macs in some of my labs. I've also seen all kinds of computers with Win 3.11 for Workgroups hooked to the to GC/MS.

I see them here too; but generally in the labs/offices of those who do mostly word processing, spreadsheets, and basic image editing/processing - i.e. not being using for scientific/technical computing. The vast majority of scientific instruments run on either some version of windows or linux/unix (the only exception I can think of is BD's older FACS machines). Same is true of the common distributed computing systems we use - nearly 100% are unix/linux based.

quote]For multi-user facilities
Any windows > DOS > OS/2 > any other dead OS > trained monkeys making punch cards > any mac OS

I spend more time dealing with the 2 macs we have on our network than I do with the 10-15 windows and 5 linux systems combined. Macs simply are not designed to deal with multiple users, network resources, etc. And their legacy support is second to everyone, meaning old hardware on network won't work. Odd, considering it's a BSD derivative, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

I don't know too much about networking with macs, but that seems to be an odd account because Mac OS is BSD-based. It could be something like Mac OS not liking being managed by a Windows server, but hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will explain this[/quote]
We don't use windows servers, so that's not the issue. But given the commonality of windows servers, not being compatible with them would be a pretty big hole in OSX (if its true).

Networking is mostly an issue with accessing older computers & equipment on the network. As you pointed out, extremely old OS's like win3.1 are still found on some equipment, plus some more obscure ones (I actually have to manage a computer with OS/2), and some of equipment is very old and compatible drivers simply do not exist. OSX has poor backwards compatibility with a lot of this older equipment, and lacks pretty much any ability to support old hardware drivers. But as I said, the networking is only part of the problem.

Bryan

[furyguitar]

Regarding Apple being "evil," watch this great clip from the Daily Show.

My fav part takes place from about 5:52 - 6:42.

[hintss]

Regarding Apple being "evil," watch this great clip from the Daily Show.

My fav part takes place from about 5:52 - 6:42.

watch linux action show

its like apple's going "wow, that rock is awesome""I know, lets write a patent called rock is amesome""hey, that company makes good looking rocks, lets sue them!"

[Calorus]

As has been said, this is not a religious war - you've left out humanism.

[whatshisfoot]

mac ⊂ pc.

regarding mac vs. windows, it depends on the versions:
any version of windows > any pre-os x mac (except a/ux)
a/ux > any version of windows before windows 7
os x > any version of windows before windows 7
windows 7 > any mac

To extend this,
Bat excrement > Windows Vista
Corneal Papercuts > Windows vista
Snakebites to the Scrotum > Windows Vista

[jfeord14]

lets see...

well pc's actually have software people dont want to destroy avaliable to them

therefore
pc > mac

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

lets see...

well pc's actually have software people dont want to destroy avaliable to them

therefore
pc > mac

What do you mean by that? Related: have you ever used a mac or seen how much freeware is available for it?