Mac vs PC

[hintss]

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?

related: have you seen how much FLOSS is available in linux?

and no, I don't come across as much freeware for mac as freeware for linux

[jfeord14]

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

Hold on, for some reason I recall a new system being released called Windows 7!

Why you still talkin' bout Vista?

[Steax]

Meh. Mac doesn't have a bajillion different pieces of software for it, but has those that count for me. I really don't need much. A good text editor (smultron) is probably my only requirement. OpenOffice isn't so amazing, but I never use it anyway. There is of course paid software (Adobe Fireworks is awesome) and I never feel bad about spending money for them, as they'll make up for it pretty quick anyway. To-do thingies can die, the calendar does that. Everything else goes into a wiki I host locally.

(Naturally I also just like the feel for having a mac.)

P.S. I thought we were asked to keep linux out of this.

[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?

related: have you seen how much FLOSS is available in linux?

and no, I don't come across as much freeware for mac as freeware for linux

NO LINUX!

[hintss]

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?

related: have you seen how much FLOSS is available in linux?

and no, I don't come across as much freeware for mac as freeware for linux

NO LINUX!

did you see how much FLOSS is available for haiku? free-BSD? reactOS?

[flying sheep]

not as much as for linux

but really, the blood vessel on my forehead tends to explode every time i see this thred’s name (THERE IS NO FUCKING COMPETITION LIKE “APPLES VERSUS FRUITS” OR “T-SHIRTS VS CLOTHES”!)

macs are a subset of pcs, for fuck’s sake!

[hotaru]

not as much as for linux

wrong. there's actually more for freebsd than there is for linux.

[hintss]

not as much as for linux

wrong. there's actually more for freebsd than there is for linux.

lemme guess, now we go into how mac is based on BSD kernel

[Steax]

Quality over quantity. I don't care how much one or the other has, if it has what I need I'm using it. How "much" is irrelevant to most people (except those who just want to have a giant list of apps almost never used).

[ImagingGeek]

not as much as for linux

wrong. there's actually more for freebsd than there is for linux.

Not at sourceforge, there isn't:
Windows: 40,378
Linux: 29,073
Mac: 8,151
BSD: 4,997

I realise n = 1 and all that, but they are one of the largest distributors of FOSS.

Bryan

[hotaru]

Not at sourceforge, there isn't:
Windows: 40,378
Linux: 29,073
Mac: 8,151
BSD: 4,997

I realise n = 1 and all that, but they are one of the largest distributors of FOSS.

just about anything that can be compiled for linux can also be compiled for freebsd, and freebsd can run linux binaries.
so freebsd has linux software + freebsd software, while linux only has linux software.

[flying sheep]

the more libraries exist, the better programs can get, because you don’t have to write, say, a YAML parser yourself if you can use one which is available and being bug free for years.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

Whichever one gets a good binary port of Amarok first.

Also, will the GIMP and Inkscape ever come in a native Mac format? X11 makes the things damn near unusable

[ImagingGeek]

:x

Not at sourceforge, there isn't:
Windows: 40,378
Linux: 29,073
Mac: 8,151
BSD: 4,997

I realise n = 1 and all that, but they are one of the largest distributors of FOSS.

just about anything that can be compiled for linux can also be compiled for freebsd, and freebsd can run linux binaries.
so freebsd has linux software + freebsd software, while linux only has linux software.

However, a spot-check of sourceforge shows that all the feeBSD-complied programs are also compiled for linux (and generally mac+PC as well), so you're still not ahead of the game.

And, as noted earlier, quality trumps quantity.

Bryan

[hotaru]

However, a spot-check of sourceforge shows that all the feeBSD-complied programs are also compiled for linux (and generally mac+PC as well), so you're still not ahead of the game.

where can i find this for linux? how about this?
sourceforge isn't the only place to get open source software.

[ImagingGeek]

However, a spot-check of sourceforge shows that all the feeBSD-complied programs are also compiled for linux (and generally mac+PC as well), so you're still not ahead of the game.

where can i find this for linux?

C# and .net compatibility is available in several forms in linux. Not the M$ version, but it is there.

how about this?

A DOS emulator - really? There's only 10 or so of those available on linux...

sourceforge isn't the only place to get open source software.

Funny, I seem to recall mentioning that in the first post where I brought up sourceforge...

Bryan

[hotaru]

C# and .net compatibility is available in several forms in linux. Not the M$ version, but it is there.

A DOS emulator - really? There's only 10 or so of those available on linux...

all of which are also available for freebsd. the point is that there's not much which is available for linux but not freebsd, while i can think of several examples of things that are available for freebsd but not for linux in a few seconds.

[Jhackulon]

Both apple and microsoft are pretty bad. for example the group that have recently made a prototype control pad for the iphone "icontrolpad" have recently found out, 6 months after releasing the idea, apple have stolen it. they're blog explains it better than i could possibly so you'll have to look there for details.

like 60% of people I'm a windows xp user [Removed link, read the rules - phlip] and dont intend to upgrade any time soon. although, when i build my new computer(advantage of windows) I'm actually considering trying linux while using wine for windows stuff, simply because both companies piss me off so much and I'm annoyed to have to take a side.

another point is that the mac computers focus more on looks than performance. for example my mums macbook pro looks great but has an i5 (bad considering the price). this is a good time to bring up another petty hate of mine, the mice! i cant believe they made them so crappy, slow and podgy. its hard to keep the cursor on one spot while clicking!

too much of the money you spend goes to apple/microsoft and not enough goes into buying good components(which is why you make your own)

macs are better made though (except for the crappy mice!)

I guess this pretty much sums up my anger/frustration, thanks for making the thread!

P.S. I'M GOING TO HAVE AMD ON MY NEW COMPUTER!

[Steax]

Mice? Mouse? You mean the mighty mouse? Or the trackpad? (as far as I know no macbook has a mouse in the box.) I kinda can't live without the multi-touch pad on my macbook, I'm too used to it (+jitouch) that I find myself having trouble re-adapting to other laptops.

If your trouble is a jittery mouse, though, it's usually a bad mousepad, I think.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

Mice? Mouse? You mean the mighty mouse? Or the trackpad? (as far as I know no macbook has a mouse in the box.) I kinda can't live without the multi-touch pad on my macbook, I'm too used to it (+jitouch) that I find myself having trouble re-adapting to other laptops.

If your trouble is a jittery mouse, though, it's usually a bad mousepad, I think.

For a desktop, the upgradability of non-Apple products (plus the Mac Pro) makes them the clear winner. For laptops, I can't use anything other than a MacBook with the multi-touch pad unless I have a mouse

[ImagingGeek]

C# and .net compatibility is available in several forms in linux. Not the M$ version, but it is there.

A DOS emulator - really? There's only 10 or so of those available on linux...

all of which are also available for freebsd. the point is that there's not much which is available for linux but not freebsd, while i can think of several examples of things that are available for freebsd but not for linux in a few seconds.

But as others, and I, pointed out before, quantity != quality, and more != better.

None-the-less, there are numerous cases where the opposite is true - there are huge libraries of bioinformatics, mass spectrometry, microscopy, and other scientific programs which are written, compiled, and generally only available in linux. Linux has been the preferred platform for much of scientific computing since the mid-1990's. Some of it is being ported, but a lot remains linux-specific. Once example of a collection - and a bioinformatics-only collection at that:
http://nebc.nerc.ac.uk/tools/bio-linux/bio-linux-6.0

Bryan

[hotaru]

None-the-less, there are numerous cases where the opposite is true - there are huge libraries of bioinformatics, mass spectrometry, microscopy, and other scientific programs which are written, compiled, and generally only available in linux.

wrong. if it's available for linux and isn't a kernel module or something else ridiculously low-level that won't work on a lot of linux distributions, it'll work on freebsd.

Linux has been the preferred platform for much of scientific computing since the mid-1990's. Some of it is being ported, but a lot remains linux-specific. Once example of a collection - and a bioinformatics-only collection at that:
http://nebc.nerc.ac.uk/tools/bio-linux/bio-linux-6.0

all the packages in that run fine on freebsd. quite a few of them are even in freebsd's ports system. saying that's linux-specific is like saying that linux is x86-specific.

[ImagingGeek]

None-the-less, there are numerous cases where the opposite is true - there are huge libraries of bioinformatics, mass spectrometry, microscopy, and other scientific programs which are written, compiled, and generally only available in linux.

wrong. if it's available for linux and isn't a kernel module or something else ridiculously low-level that won't work on a lot of linux distributions, it'll work on freebsd.

And since many of these biology programs are compatible with a small number of linux distros (usually redhat), I would not be wrong.

Linux has been the preferred platform for much of scientific computing since the mid-1990's. Some of it is being ported, but a lot remains linux-specific. Once example of a collection - and a bioinformatics-only collection at that:
http://nebc.nerc.ac.uk/tools/bio-linux/bio-linux-6.0

all the packages in that run fine on freebsd. quite a few of them are even in freebsd's ports system. saying that's linux-specific is like saying that linux is x86-specific.

[/quote]
Nope, wrong again. Several of the 500 bioinformatics packages provided in BL are notorious for not working on anything but a handful of linux distros - the GUI front-end for emboss being the classic example of something both distro and (until this release of biolinux, anyhow) kernel specific.

Bryan

[hotaru]

Nope, wrong again. Several of the 500 bioinformatics packages provided in BL are notorious for not working on anything but a handful of linux distros - the GUI front-end for emboss being the classic example of something both distro and (until this release of biolinux, anyhow) kernel specific.

what's this, then?

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

Why are you arguing about Linux vs. Free BSD in a Mac vs. PC thread?

[hotaru]

Why are you arguing about Linux vs. Free BSD in a Mac vs. PC thread?

because that's what happens in religious wars.

[J the Ninja]

Why are you arguing about Linux vs. Free BSD in a Mac vs. PC thread?

because that's what happens in religious wars.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14946

This one is a subset for "Mac vs PC", because with the possible exception of "Star Trek vs Star Wars" that is the most quintessential religious war evar.

[jfriesne]

The MacOS/X default shell is bash.
The Windows default shell is the MS-DOS Command Prompt.

Ergo, Windows loses. Seriously, Microsoft, it's 2010. Isn't it time to upgrade your default shell to at least circa-1980's quality?

[hotaru]

Why are you arguing about Linux vs. Free BSD in a Mac vs. PC thread?

because that's what happens in religious wars.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14946

This one is a subset for "Mac vs PC", because with the possible exception of "Star Trek vs Star Wars" that is the most quintessential religious war evar.

what i meant was that it's extremely common for topic shifts like that to happen in religious wars.

The MacOS/X default shell is bash.
The Windows default shell is the MS-DOS Command Prompt.

Ergo, Windows loses. Seriously, Microsoft, it's 2010. Isn't it time to upgrade your default shell to at least circa-1980's quality?

yeah, and jumping is more likely to get you to the moon than just standing and flapping your arms, but neither one is really the best way to go about getting there. just look at a real shell like zsh or tcsh, and it's clear that bash isn't much better than the windows command prompt.

[flying sheep]

hah. bash might pale in comparison with zsh (the one i use), but comparing cmd.exe to any of these might only yield the most insecure of all laughters, immidiately followed by a “that was a joke right? right???”

i mean: you might theoretically get to the moon with a helium ballon, a bicycle, loads of oxygen, and some other kludges, but even the usa, at least, used some sorry excuses for rockets before even trying this.

[J the Ninja]

Also let it be noted that tcsh and zsh are both included in the default OS X install, Terminal.app is just set to use bash by default. tcsh actually WAS the default shell up until...10.3 I think it was.

Code: Select all

Metang:~ Jason$ ls /bin
[      df      launchctl   pwd      tcsh
bash      domainname   link      rcp      test
cat      echo      ln      rm      unlink
chmod      ed      ls      rmdir      wait4path
cp      expr      mkdir      sh      zsh
csh      hostname   mv      sleep
date      kill      pax      stty
dd      ksh      ps      sync
Metang:~ Jason$


[phillipsjk]

To be fair, Windows now includes Power shell, which is supposed to be more powerful than Bash because it operates on objects instead of strings.

[ImagingGeek]

Nope, wrong again. Several of the 500 bioinformatics packages provided in BL are notorious for not working on anything but a handful of linux distros - the GUI front-end for emboss being the classic example of something both distro and (until this release of biolinux, anyhow) kernel specific.

what's this, then?

The EMBOSS command-line applications. Without the GUI, which is linux only.

Bryan

[flying sheep]

To be fair, Windows now includes Power shell, which is supposed to be more powerful than Bash because it operates on objects instead of strings.

true, but if i want to code a small program, i use a real scripting language. shells are more for quickly getting stuff done you won’t want to set up a script for.

[hotaru]

what's this, then?

The EMBOSS command-line applications. Without the GUI, which is linux only.

sure, that's why it depends on open motif and a bunch of X libraries.

[hintss]

what's this, then?

The EMBOSS command-line applications. Without the GUI, which is linux only.

sure, that's why it depends on open motif and a bunch of X libraries.

lol. shall we add haiku, reactOS, and a lot of mobile OSs?

also, what is the plural of OS?

[Noblesaur]

I personally prefer the PC. I was raised on it, and the operating system is extremely familiar and maintains much of its core simplicity. I will give the Mac's credit though, from what I hear they are very useful in things pertaining to the arts.

[HarvesteR]

I will give the Mac's credit though, from what I hear they are very useful in things pertaining to the arts.

That is actually Adobe's merit, not Apple's (although their longstanding partnership has made them seem like one and the same for most of the general public) ... The apps that do come included do deserve credit though... namely GarageBand and the like... Windows has nothing that comes close (MovieMaker is a sad joke).

Apart from that, I'm completely a Windows guy... I have no need for a Mac, and can't see anything that is does that Windows and some properly downloaded software won't do.

The thing that bothers me most about OSX is that NOTHING can be made fullscreen... nothing... not even Photoshop (unless you hit 'F', I know).. it bothers me to no end.

The trackpads on the new macbooks are cool... not essential though, but cool.

Cheers

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

[quote="HarvesteR"]The trackpads on the new macbooks are cool... not essential though, but cool./quote]
I've gotta disagree on this one. After owning a Macbook Pro, I cannot use any trackpad that works otherwise. Seriously, less than 1.5" diagonal and need to click buttons and fudge with an awkward scroll bar that may or may not work? Nope.avi!

[archeleus]

After owning a Macbook Pro, I cannot use any trackpad that works otherwise.

Seconded.