Mac Vs. Windows Vs. Linux

Post Reply New Topic

They each have their place, I agree. But if someone were unsure of what they wanted, I would encourage them to get a Mac for the simple reason that a Mac offers the most flexibility. You can easily run Windows, OSX, or Linux. No other computer can do that, so someone who wants the most options might want to consider a Mac.

No problem!

Linux - Powerful but useless, not user-friendly (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)
Mac - Powerful and a little more useful than Linux. More stable than Windows and a litttle less user-friendly than Windows.
Windows - Fairly powerful but over-priced and overly user-friendly, limiting what you can do with your OS.

Linux has this reputation as being a great OS. I agree with this, and I believe that it has a lot of potential. The only problem is that software developers obviously aren't going to develop software for Linux at this point in time since Linux' user-base is so tiny.

My opinion is that current Linux-users out there are dummies. They can only prove to me that they want to use inferior software, but this is OK with me, these are their computers, not mine.

Anyone who thinks that an OS is more important than the software they run on their systems are complete morons. Sure, I could switch to using Linux if I wanted a better operating system, but then I'd have to use mediocre software. I personally can't stand nothing but the best software, so I use Windows. I could use Wine to run Windows software on Linux, but there are still major stability problems with lots of software you run though Wine.

People use Linux for two main reasons:

1. To be different.
2. To appear to be intelligent.

When I run my computer, I want to get the most I can get out of it. If I was a Linux user, I'd feel like I was getting way less out of my system than if I was to be using Windows.

You only post that because you're narrow minded. It's true that linux may not have the same software as windows, but that doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly good alternative out there.

To use one distribution and then decide the entire line is worthless is the same as me using Windows 3.1 then deciding the entire windows family are slow, memory hogging OS's with no future.

You should go back to windows if you don't like linux. But coming into a thread where people are talking about their personal fave and bashing on one particular group without any sort of verifiable backing is rather rude.

I use one each of the three: Mac OSX, Ubuntu and Suse Linux, and Windows XP pro. Depending on what I'm doing, I log into different ones. I do wish someone would compile all those capabilities together, but until I find that one magic OS, I'll stick to my method.

I'm not narrow-minded. Sensible-minded people like me will agree that Linux is foolish to use at this point in time.

At a different forum I go to, I had 20 or so people all in a row agree with my opinions on Linux.

There was no bashing anything. I clearly stated that Linux is an excellent operating system, it's just useless, that's all. A car with no engine in it can look beautiful, but it is useless. A cigarette without a flame to light it is useless. A CD player without a CD in it is useless.

Linux running mediocre software on it isn't 100% useless, I'll admit. But it's not very useful. I, (like most other sensibly-minded people) like to fill my life up with things that are as good as they can be, as long as these things are obtainable. With Windows I can get these obtainable pieces of software which will make my life a lot more enjoyable. With Linux, I'll have a functioning computer, but I just won't be as happy using it as I would be running a Windows system.

A system running Linux on it feels cheap to me, while a Windows system running excellent software on it makes me feel like I'm running a system that is worth up to $5000 or so (if I have enough excellent software running on it).

This makes it seem like how it makes you feel is more important than anything. Very odd.

It makes you FEEL like you are running a system worth 5k? The quad core vista box I built for my brother came to about 3000 dollars when it was all done. If he had an interest in Microsoft Office Professional 2007($675.00), Adobe Photoshop Lightroom($400), and half a dozen games at 50 dollars each($300) it wouldnt make him feel like it was worth 5k, it really would be worth that. Without photoshop and office he would need 21 more games valued at 50 dollars, leaving very little time to play them all.

So for you to say it feels like your computer is worth that implies two possibilities. Either you have a false feeling of value, or you do have software that when added, accumulates a value of 5000 when added to your excellent machine. But the use of the word 'feels' implies that its unpaid for, which I am sure is untrue. Some body else may have paid for it for you, in which case 'feels' doesnt really fit.

I'm not asking you to confess to piracy, nor even accusing it. Your statement is just a little odd. Like I said, its a little odd how you focus on how it makes you feel, rather than what you can actually do.

I actually feel annoyed by having to use windows. I have to think twice about software I run, links that I click, especially uninvited ones from friends in msn. Every time I boot up I get annoyed by a virus scanner update. Every time I press a link there is a noticeable delay while software scans it. When I update it wants to restart, then often update again.

I am asked to register time and time again. With everything. My graphics card, my operating system, and each suite of software, regardless of if its shareware or purchased. Every time something installs, it installs other stuff, or it wants to. Often its update software for google, itunes and whatnot. it all wants to stay resident too, and pop up its little notices on boot.

Useless is a relative term. You are obviously a gamer. For a middle aged woman, directx based software is useless. She doesnt want, nor need to play the latest games. Most are utterly clueless about staying safe from virus and identity theft. She likely wont install anything special. She'll use the default office package, maybe play the free solitaire games and web browse, email and perhaps chat.

Most business people would feel the same. They want a system where they can police what staff have access to, save costs and not have to worry about legal ramifications. If it were not for a home familiarity with windows, you'd see more businesses using linux desktops.

Useless? Is that why 95% of servers run linux? Is there something special that photo shop can do to a pixel that gimp cannot? Can MS office magically reduce the margins in a way that open office doesnt?

What software is available for windows that is not available for linux? Games. thats it. Your whole argument is really an argument of opengl vs directx.

Just today in my university's bookstore I came across a copy of Matlab compatible with Linux. Matlab is a great piece of software which I will almost certainly need as I pursue a second major in mathematics.


I started a thread to ask about this, since I've never used Windows myself. What software exactly am I missing out on? Aside from games, which isn't convincing since I could just buy a Wii if I wanted to play games. Office suites, e-mail clients, and web browsers are all available for Linux as well as Mac. Tell me what specific software I'm missing out on by using Linux. Don't just give vague generalities. Name a useful application that I would need that I can't use in Linux.

I'll make it easy on someone to do that. Here is a list of equivalents, by major category.

http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Lin ... s_software

and a second even more comprehensive list:

http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html

Is there a missing category?

You can see in a lot of catagories, Linux far out strips windows for options.

Never used a Linux but I have used a windows computer and a mac, hands down mac wins. I love how I can do so much and not have to worry about crashes like I did with my windowed based computer.

PC's run BOTH Linux and Windows
Apple runs both Linux and Mac OS - X (etc, not entirely up on these OSes)

Replace the word PC with Hard drive ... Fits in with them all just some enlightenment

and Why? see: OS/2 Warp & why it's so good

Macs can ALSO run Windows.

The thing is, I remember when people bought computers like C=64 even though they were not as powerful as IBMs. At the time, a gaming system meant just that; IBM machines(and the "clones" as we called em) were not viable gaming machines.

In that regard, they have taken that place, but their hay day was the late dos through early windows XP days. At that point their were superior machines to the platform boxes. But the platformers are taking huge strides and becoming very sophisticated and specialized machines.

It took a long time for PCs to be considered gaming platforms, and I can already see the end of it. Something else will arise to hold that position.

Its not unlike the PDA market. The substantial rise in cell phone and mp3 player features has killed the PDA market. The one I bought cost me 750 dollars(ipaq 2215) and within a two years an equivalent model was only 300. The current crop of game platforms is increasingly supporting things like web browsing as well as gaming. Now there are cell phones embedded in watches and full sized(ha!) Cell phones have 3D video cards!

http://www.geekalerts.com/cell-phone-wa ... bluetooth/

I am commenting on what Fuzzy said and yes. It wasn't until the ID Software release of "Commander Keen" in 1991 that PC's became gaming platforms. It was the 1st platform game and founded ID Software so "Wolfenstien 3D", and "Doom" could be released.

Doesn't help that many PC's and laptops have software pre-installed with which OS? How many are pre-installed with Linux or any other free OS?

Why would you want to run Windows on a Mac?

Not many. Dells offer the option of pre-installed Linux, and System76 machines come with Ubuntu pre-loaded.


If there's Windows-only software you need to run.