so why do you guys still run Ubuntu?

[v1nsai]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do? Do you feel that the money you paid for the computer (being a lot more than a PC of similar specs) was still a good buy even though your not running any of the Apple software you paid for?

[bowens44]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do?

Ubuntu allows me to do just about everything I want or need to do and you can't beat the price.....

[pricetech]

I like it.

[Kantis]

I inherited my grandfather's iMac G5 and am not about to pay a gazillion euros for Leopard (the last OS this thing can run), as it is already outdated and I'm accustomed to Linux already. Plus it's fun and I missed Wanda... ;)

[cb951303]

mac os = proprietary
linux = free software

thats why a lot of people doesn't even consider it as an alternative to ubuntu.

[nzjrs]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do? Do you feel that the money you paid for the computer (being a lot more than a PC of similar specs) was still a good buy even though your not running any of the Apple software you paid for?

Linux is free software, Mac is not.

[v1nsai]

Yes, but what are the advantages to buying a new Apple computer and putting Linux on it? Why not just buy a PC for a lot less? I get it if its an old Apple, but I see a lot of posts on this forum about macbooks and macbook pros, they're almost twice as expensive (new) as a PC of comparable specs, so I would think you pay for the software

I was just wondering from a linux user's perspective what it is that OS X lacks that would make you pay so much for software that you then don't use. Don't take this as sarcastic or insulting, I'm just trying to get opinions and I know next to nothing about Mac.

[buttpaste]

they're almost twice as expensive (new) as a PC of comparable specs,

This is a common misconception I challenge you to find a PC with the same specs as a Mac where the price is different by more than $50-$75 many times the PCs are more expensive. There are cheaper PC's out there I give you that but when you actually compare apples to apples(pun intended) you'll find that Mac's only seem more expensive at first glance because the base models use better hardware to start with than the $400-$600 windows based systems. Macs look 100 times cooler than a Dell, HP, or whatever, in my opinion anyway.

And if you wanna talk about paying for software when is the last time you checked the price tag on Vista?

[Cope57]

I have been running Debian a few years before Ubuntu was established, and I am currently running Debian. I did however test Ubuntu out in 2004, 2006, and once again in 2009.

About compatibility, Ubuntu to Debian are the same as Mandriva is to Redhat. Mandriva (aka: Mandrake Linux) was derived from Redhat, but after getting their own repositories, Mandrake slowly became their own distribution which is no longer compatible with Redhat. Mandrake then merged with Conectiva, and became Mandriva. Some packages may be compatible with Redhat, but with completely different repositories, it is not easy to stay compatible with the parent distribution.


As for why I still use Ubuntu? I do not use Ubuntu, but I visit this forum to provide feedback for those that need it, since Ubuntu is a .deb based distribution similar to Debian. I try and help with the knowledge I have with those just learning Linux and Ubuntu.

[rjcalifornia]

expensive? Got my ibook G3 for 80 bucks on ebay.... Running Kubuntu 9.04 like a charm...

advantages? Free software, faster, better avi/divx playback, lack of support from apple, XMMS (I hate Itunes....), free Gimp (unlike photoshop), and I like linux :)

[v1nsai]

expensive? Got my ibook G3 for 80 bucks on ebay.... Running Kubuntu 9.04 like a charm...

advantages? Free software, faster, better avi/divx playback, lack of support from apple, XMMS (I hate Itunes....), free Gimp (unlike photoshop), and I like linux :)

Wow, good deal. And yea buttpaste (lol geez) the hardware is undeniably awesome. The magnetic power cords are my favorite, I work at a computer shop so I'm soldering power connectors all the time haha. I've seen charging matts that apple is coming out with that allow you to charge without a cord at all, you can just stick it on there and it charges automatically. Apple sort of reminds me of like the Nintendo of the computer industry: they're making the same sort of product, but they're completely reinventing the wheel (in a good way, they don't follow the 'norms').

I think I'm gonna have to go look on ebay at some ibooks. I can't believe they're that cheap, and I've read on other forums that people are running Leopard on their iBooks (though might have been G4).

Thanks for the insight, I really wanna give Mac a spin. I've found that with Linux, sometimes the open source alternatives just won't do, and I've had to run VM's or dual boot Windows. I'd love to be able to cut Windows out of my life completely, Mac is posix compliant so I would expect it to feel at least somewhat familiar to me.

[Lukios]

actually buttpaste, I just recently (within the year) did a price check, and when you compare specs vs specs, mac is way more expensive. That is why everyone says mac is more expesive . . . because it is.

[jespdj]

Ubuntu allows me to do just about everything I want or need to do and you can't beat the price.....
That's not really an answer. You already paid Apple for the computer and for Mac OS X, so you're not financially gaining anything by using Ubuntu instead of OS X. I'm sure that OS X also would allow you to do just about everything you want or need to do.

I use OS X on my Mac and have Ubuntu running in a virtual box. I use Ubuntu because I like to tinker with Linux and see what software is available for Linux.

[ego-sum-deus]

i can do everything in ubuntu that i can do in osx. all of my research and work can be accomplished in both osx and ubuntu, but the philosophy of open/free software is what keeps me here. i started using it for something to do and learn and it transformed into a philosophical use. i havent booted into osx for months

[urosg3]

My Powerbook was too slow with OSX, therefore I switch to Debian and I`m happy...

[diesch]

It's the other way around: What does OS X have that Ubuntu isn't letting me do?

[jamesey]

I got a new iMac earlier this year, and promptly put Ubuntu on it. I only boot to Mac OS to do firmware updates for the iMac.

For me, the iMac has the best all-in-one-desktop hardware, and Ubuntu is the best software. I know I'm not typical since I put Ubuntu on a new, expensive, iMac but I can afford it.

[satish_vell]

For the love of KDE4, it's not the same on Snow Leopard

[wilee-nilee]

I usr various forms of Linux but Ubuntu is a straight forward distribution that is easily understood and well maintained. I love the price as well

[luigi.viggiano]

IMHO OSX totally sucks. I cannot bear it (yes, I regret to have bought a Mac which also runs ubuntu with some issue I was not having on other laptops due to Apple's not helping Linux community)

http://en.newinstance.it/2009/02/03/some-things-i-dont-like-about-my-mac/

The user experience on Mac is very bad, but people is stoned by marketing. Power of advertisments...

[rjcalifornia]

That's not really an answer. You already paid Apple for the computer and for Mac OS X, so you're not financially gaining anything by using Ubuntu instead of OS X. I'm sure that OS X also would allow you to do just about everything you want or need to do.

I use OS X on my Mac and have Ubuntu running in a virtual box. I use Ubuntu because I like to tinker with Linux and see what software is available for Linux.

well, mine came without OSX. As soon as I got my ibook from ebay, I installed Kubuntu 7.04. After discovering how awesome Kubuntu 9.04 looks like, I decided to install it.

Gimp handles very well 8.2 megapixels pictures (I use heavy gimp-scripts on them)

bottom line is: not running windows here :)

[v1nsai]

Oh yea that's my main reason for wanting a Mac, is to be able to cut Windows out of the picture completely. OS X is a posix compliant environment, and there's even a version of apt available for Mac called fink (http://www.finkproject.org/index.php?phpLang=en), so with a Mac you can run commercial software (something Linux doesn't get very often) and still run cool open source-ness too. I'm sick of Windows and it's throw-everything-into-the-pile hybrid kernel that crashes the entire window manager when my word processor crashes (because the word processor needed access to the kernel, right?).

Another question though, how WELL does Ubuntu run for you guys? I'm getting either a Macbook or a Macbook Pro, and I'm wondering how stable it is and how well everything works. Can you get the mouse on the MBP to work properly? That seems like it might be difficult, since it has no buttons o_0

[maflynn]

I use both. While I've attempted to switch completely over to Ubuntu, a number of hurdles have prevented my wholesale conversion.

1. iPhone - I can probably do without OSX 90% for this, since I rarely sync it
2. LightRoom - this is the main reason why I use my Mac and I see no real alternatives to this application, both on the image organization or image editing side.
3.Ease of back ups - my newbieness is showing but with OSX, I have hourly backups that I can easily recover from. I also clone my drive, for a full system rescovery (Time Machine is wicked slow)

I read some where that an OS's job is to run applications, while I like Ubuntu and use it for my work stuff (connecting to my work network, remoting into my workstation, managing servers etc) Its unable to displace OSX at the moment.

[rjcalifornia]

I use both. While I've attempted to switch completely over to Ubuntu, a number of hurdles have prevented my wholesale conversion.

1. iPhone - I can probably do without OSX 90% for this, since I rarely sync it
2. LightRoom - this is the main reason why I use my Mac and I see no real alternatives to this application, both on the image organization or image editing side.
3.Ease of back ups - my newbieness is showing but with OSX, I have hourly backups that I can easily recover from. I also clone my drive, for a full system rescovery (Time Machine is wicked slow)

I read some where that an OS's job is to run applications, while I like Ubuntu and use it for my work stuff (connecting to my work network, remoting into my workstation, managing servers etc) Its unable to displace OSX at the moment.

Lucky for me, I don't have an iPhone :D Back ups? I just burn cds or put it on esnips (4gb of free space)

Kubuntu 9.04 is pretty much stable. Fast and reliable (well, sometimes)

[Greenwizard88]

This is a common misconception I challenge you to find a PC with the same specs as a Mac where the price is different by more than $50-$75 many times the PCs are more expensive. There are cheaper PC's out there I give you that but when you actually compare apples to apples(pun intended) you'll find that Mac's only seem more expensive at first glance because the base models use better hardware to start with than the $400-$600 windows based systems. Macs look 100 times cooler than a Dell, HP, or whatever, in my opinion anyway.

And if you wanna talk about paying for software when is the last time you checked the price tag on Vista?

I just spec'd out a Dell desktop for $800, it's got quad core, blu-ray, and almost 3x the hard drive space of a $1200 iMac. In that case, you're definitely paying for form over function.

[issih]

I just spec'd out a Dell desktop for $800, it's got quad core, blu-ray, and almost 3x the hard drive space of a $1200 iMac. In that case, you're definitely paying for form over function.

Indeed, and that form is totally different to the dell you have specced up...a totally pointless comparison.

a more sensible comparison is this:

http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-studio-one-19?c=uk&l=en&s=dhs&cs=ukdhs1&ref=dthp

where on approximate spec parity you get about a £150 differential, and that is assigning zero value to the mac software bundle or an appreciation for the mac's superior (imo) industrial design.

macs are expensive computers, but the pretence that it is some huge gaping disparity is absurd. Apples cost more than dells, but so do sony, hell sony will charge you over $1000 for a netbook.

Dell is a value brand generally perceived to have poor customer service and a bad reputation for quality. Apple is a premium brand, so you pay a bit extra, its no different for trainers, cars, tomato sauce or indeed any other item you buy in a shop.

Value does not boil down to the bare hardware cost...please can people stop pretending it does.

P.S. oh and bear in mind that the imac is due a refresh, which for some reason apple tends to do by upping the hardware spec and maintaining the price, so this is an example of a mac at its most expensive...that is a generalisation, for all I know the new imacs will be hugely more expensive, I just doubt it.

P.P.S...and post that previously mentioned refresh the price disparity has completely vanished for comparable spec.

Dell advantage = touch screen and blue ray
Apple advantage = £50 pounds less and bigger screen

given a blu ray drives are down to about £60 and will only keep falling, and touch is a gimmick at best for a desktop computer, the price argument is exposed as complete rubbish, as usual.

[gktaylor]

I prefer Ubuntu for the diversity of scientific applications available. While these programs are available on OSX, their installation and setup is often difficult. Further, the Ubuntu synaptic package manager links to an comprehensive collection of free and open source software. I only once 'needed' to change a kernel option to support an application being used in a non-standard but essential way. I could not have solved this problem on Mac OSX.

[Marlonsm]

Ubuntu = Free (as in libre and in gratis)
Mac = Not free and, for me, there is no advantage over Ubuntu.

[Deverell]

I have a BlackBook with a copy of Jaunty. I loved Leopard and XP. I like the look of Windows 7 and Snow Leopard but was never a fan of Vista.

Why do I have Ubuntu?

1. Learn Linux, to learn why things are done differently and what effect that has on how I and others work/play with the OS, to become familiar . To learn Linux some argue you need Slackware or Gentoo. Ubuntu seems like a nice starting point for me.
2. Support Open Software.
3. I think Linux is more interesting than other operating systems. I also like the malleability, I can change almost anything I want and feel like I'm in control.
4. It is free! (My old HDD spun out so I would have been required to either purchase Snow Leopard or pirate it)

What don't I like about Using Ubuntu on a Mac?

1. Never in my experience has everything worked out of the box with Ubuntu. Thats okay, same is true for Windows but to be fair with Windows drivers are pretty easy to find and install and this is usually the case for Ubuntu too. However to me at least their are many silly things. When I installed Koala the other day sound didn't emit from the headphone socket when I plugged in my headphones. After some Googling I found you have to got to Volume Control Preferences and un-mute "Surround". Surely Koala knew it was installing itself onto a MacBook why was this the default?
2. Ubuntu runs like syrup compared to Snow Leopard. I don't even need to read bench marks, it is simply noticeably slower in almost every way.
3. I understand why most Linux users are so proficient with their distribution, its because they are fixing and tinkering with trivial crap so often.
4. Ubuntu doesn't utilize the hardware as well as OS X. This may be for whatever reason but it doesn't change the fact my iSight doesn't work, my battery life seems to have halved, my WiFi only gets half the signal it used to, my WiFi drops regularly making overnight downloads almost impossible, I was optimizing a C program as an assignment for university the other day. It took exactly twice as long to run the default program on my BlackBook with Jaunty as my mate's WhiteBook with Leopard. I have set my keyboard settings to Apple MacBook/MacBook Pro and USA and even tinkered around with the provided layouts. It still isn't right many characters aren't where they should be and some are missing. My speakers sound worse than ever and even the sound isn't as good through my headphones as it used to be. I can assure the list goes on.

[zaksworld]

I've been using all three of the major OS's: Mac, Ubuntu, and Windows

To tell you the truth the only reason I don't like the Mac is because of its price. If it weren't for the price, I would think that it would tie with Ubuntu as the top OS.

[3rdalbum]

I switched away from the Mac OS because it seemed to require constant upgrading:

1. Want a new iPod? It will only work with the latest version of iTunes, so you'd better upgrade.

2. You need the new version of iTunes? It will only work with the latest Mac OS, so you'll need to buy the upgrade and install it.

3. You need the latest Mac OS? Well, your computer is too old to run it. So you'll need to buy a new Mac.

Even if Apple stopped the constant full-hardware-refresh upgrade cycle, I still wouldn't buy a Mac again; the constant security problems really worry me. Mac OS X seems to have been badly designed and it's possible that the only way it could be solved would be by several application-breaking changes in the operating system!

Note: I now run Ubuntu on regular PCs now instead of on Macintosh hardware, so I can't comment on the current state of Ubuntu on Macs.

Note2: I'm not really interested in the fact that you could theoretically run Mac OS X Tiger on a beige G3 tower with a third-party DVD burner, RAM upgrade, PCI Firewire card, Firmware update and XPostFacto. Whenever I talk about the constant upgrade cycles for Apple, there's always somebody who brings this up :-)

[rjcalifornia]

Because is free, reliable and it has the best music player around: xmms.

Also, I want to learn how to use it :D

[Seq]

There has already been a bunch of other replies, but I've been a mac user since my old 12" G4 ibook. My current macbook (3,1) was purchased basically because it had a better graphics chip than my old one (1,1). The old one went to my girlfriend (a graphic design who works from home) and my new one is also an emergency stand-in incase something bad happens.

That said, my next machine likely won't be an apple, though not due to price -- I'll likely be paying just as much through system76, or another vendor if it is too troublesome to import to Canada.

EDIT: right, the actual question.

I've been a Linux user for a number of years now, predating my use of Apple computers. It's Free, it's free, and it does what I want and need. Furthermore, whenever I have had issues, I can fix them rather than call support. At worst, I get to hang out on IRC for a bit and read about some interesting work other folks are doing.

[cooperman411]

I like Apple hardware. I've owned an iBook G3 (white) that lasted 6+ years with OS 10.0 through 10.3 on it. Now I have an aluminum Macbook. I love OS 10.6 but I also enjoy running various versions of Linux on it - my favorite being Ubuntu. Two weeks ago I found an old Blueberry Clamshell iBook on Ebay. It was cheap but only came with 10.1 which runs no current software. I simply downloaded Xubuntu 9.04 for PPC, installed it, and now I have Adobe flash and Firefox 3.5.3. If I'm not multi-tasking it works as fast as any other computer I've ever owned.

All that to say is there a laptop built for Windows from 1999 that still boots? I'm just suggesting that Apple hardware is of much higher quality than your average Windows machine, regardless of specs.

Bottom line, I may have an antique computer, but I have a brand new (fast) operating system on it with a current office productivity suite, and a secure, modern, web browser. And that's why I use Ubuntu (well, Xubuntu) on my iBook!

[B_Free]

A Mac owner (about 20 machines) since 1989. I will not buy another Mac, ever! Remember when we used to say Microsoft used those "cheap" Intel chips. The fact is Macs cost on the average 3 times what a comparable Microsoft machine does. With the invention of Wubi, you can have your Windows and your Linux too. There is a rare place on the web where Macs have the same ability to view, save, download, etc. as does a Windows machine. Less and less are there available software for PPCs. There is billions and billions of dollars of equipment out there that has been abandoned. The Linux and Ubuntu communities is the only hope for these older machines (some only 3 years old). Yet, even Ubuntu no longer will service PPCs. In the era of things being "Green" and people into recycling, it is a good idea to make these machines last as long as possible. Save the money, take your other half to dinner or a trip.

[teamjh14]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do? Do you feel that the money you paid for the computer (being a lot more than a PC of similar specs) was still a good buy even though your not running any of the Apple software you paid for?

If I may weigh in...

My MBP was actually quite similarly priced to current PC laptops. Many websites (Dell / Alienware and HP in particular) didn't even offer models with the same specs as what I eventually purchased, and they ran in the neighborhood of $1800 and up (and that was with inferior specs).

But that isn't the question is it :-P

I find I'm using Ubuntu more and more as a bridge between Windows and OS X. Due to it's ability to handle basically any file system, it's a great go between to transfer files. More than that, though, the software packages are quite versatile. Not to mention the system utilities. I love the intuitive nature of the Disk Format utility on the Mac side, but you can't beat Ubuntu's partitioning program on effectiveness.

Long story short, Ubuntu still has a lot of depth that you can't find in OS X (or Windows for that matter).

[jackharvest]

This is a common misconception I challenge you to find a PC with the same specs as a Mac where the price is different by more than $50-$75 many times the PCs are more expensive. There are cheaper PC's out there I give you that but when you actually compare apples to apples(pun intended) you'll find that Mac's only seem more expensive at first glance because the base models use better hardware to start with than the $400-$600 windows based systems. Macs look 100 times cooler than a Dell, HP, or whatever, in my opinion anyway.

And if you wanna talk about paying for software when is the last time you checked the price tag on Vista?

I built my PC with a price-tag of 420 dollars total. Quad-Core Processor, 2 GB Ram, GeForce 9500GT 1Gz video card, dvdrw drive, and a bad@ case. Honestly, I would LOVE to see a Macbook [pro] at that price. You can't beat the specs, you can't beat the price.

I somewhat agree with you as far as purchasing a computer is concerned, but when you throw your own together... it is impossible to beat the price. That's one reason I stick with a PC build + Ubuntu. It's like greased lightning for 1/3rd the price.

[Niko Johnson]

Im a huge supporter of the open source... and any hacker will tell you, linux can be your back door into anything

[teamjh14]

Ha ha! I read the first post and liked it enough to reply, but it seems like this has become a mud-slinging contest between PCs and Macs.

I wouldn't disagree that Apple's picky (or stubborn or ridiculous or whatever other adjective you want in here) about where their OS goes. However, I've said it before, if you know the exact hardware that will be interacting with your software, then isn't it easier to weed out problem areas and provide updates for better performance and improved security? There are literally hundreds of PC part manufacturers out there, all looking to save a few bucks to get their product into the hands of the consumer. Let's face it, cheaper hardware tends to be more appealing than more effective hardware.

This isn't to say that cheap hardware is always bad, but you won't find the consistent quality you would find at Intel or nVidia. If Joe Schmoe makes a video card available with the same chipset as a high-end nVidia, but offers it at half the price, Joe's gotta make up that cost somewhere.

You can tell me that a Mac machine is more expensive than any other machine for no good reason. I still maintain you get what you pay for.

The businesses and corporations which survive are the ones who make the highest quality goods. That's because they last longer and taste better (or, you know, whatever....you get my meaning).

Heh. Mud slung :-D

[blur xc]

Well, I built my own pc. I painstakingly scoured newegg and the net to find out what components I wanted in my build. I didn't want ANYTHING in that that I did not want. Whenever you buy anything prebuilt, they have to attmept to appeal to a large customer base, so they are always loaded down w/ a bunch of crap I have no use for.

IMO, Mac is one step worse than a Windows PC. Linux is about freedom and choice. With MS, you have the right to choose your hardware, but then you locked into the MS EULA and whatever Bill Gates or whoever subjects you to. Mac not only does that, but locks you into hardware too. I'm not cool with that.

With Linux, I can have my cake and eat it too. I do give props to Apple though, for their contributions to he open source community.

BM

[witeshark17]

I have used Windows, OS X and Linux. I was often frustrated with the first, and never with the other two. ):P

[fslezak]

They're both great...

As long as I don't have Microsoft Windows, I don't care if I'm running Mac or Ubuntu.

[maflynn]

I can be an apple fanboy but lets cut to the chase, Macs can be more expensive when compared to similarly spec'd machines. You are paying for an extremely well designed computer and a decently designed/written OS. Lets face it, there is an apple premium.

There's also a misconception in that Ubuntu is free and Mac OSX is not. Technically that's true, but by the shear fact of buying a Mac you have OSX installed so there is no increase in cost when running OSX over Ubuntu, in fact there's no economic reason to choose ubuntu over OSX.

True future upgrades will cost $$ but you don't have to upgrade.

[teamjh14]

I have used Windows, OS X and Linux. I was often frustrated with the first, and never with the other two. ):P

Couldn't have said it better myself...so I won't try.

*finishes cereal and resumes playing video games*

[cascade9]

Ha ha! I read the first post and liked it enough to reply, but it seems like this has become a mud-slinging contest between PCs and Macs.

I wouldn't disagree that Apple's picky (or stubborn or ridiculous or whatever other adjective you want in here) about where their OS goes. However, I've said it before, if you know the exact hardware that will be interacting with your software, then isn't it easier to weed out problem areas and provide updates for better performance and improved security? There are literally hundreds of PC part manufacturers out there, all looking to save a few bucks to get their product into the hands of the consumer. Let's face it, cheaper hardware tends to be more appealing than more effective hardware.

This isn't to say that cheap hardware is always bad, but you won't find the consistent quality you would find at Intel or nVidia. If Joe Schmoe makes a video card available with the same chipset as a high-end nVidia, but offers it at half the price, Joe's gotta make up that cost somewhere.

You can tell me that a Mac machine is more expensive than any other machine for no good reason. I still maintain you get what you pay for.

Umm..Joe Schmoe cant make a video card with the 'same chipset as nVidia'. You've got an nVidia chipset, or you haven't.

I can see your 'you get what you pay for' argument, but thats also true of the other branded vendors (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.). I also think that they aren't worth the money they charge. True, at the lower end, the branded manus can be cheaper than building your own, but heh heh, you get what you pay for.

Since Apple has moved to Intel chips, the only real difference is MacOSX. Its not like Apple is making CPUs, motherboard chipsets, video chipsets, hard drives, optical drives, etc. Apple gets the same nVidia/Ati/Intel chips as the branded PCs, + Asus, Gigabyte, etc. You _might_ get slighty better quality boards, but the actual chips, Apple doesnt do them.

Apart from stuff like USB flash drives, there isnt that many manufacturers around, and everyone deals with the same companies.

The businesses and corporations which survive are the ones who make the highest quality goods. That's because they last longer and taste better (or, you know, whatever....you get my meaning).

Heh. Mud slung :-D

I'd like to agree with you on that, but I can't. Compaq should have gone out of business years ago if that was true. ;)

[victoral.com]

I like it because everything is free, itś allways up to date And I can run the most advanced version of the Gimp.:)

[laluz]

Can you install 5-7 disks raid in mac desktop and have it run in no time? Just an example.

[mudfugger]

I may be wrong to add to this post if so let me know plaese. I started with windows in 1998.
wish I had know about opensource then I would have started with that. I run windows on a dell 3000 it sucks to my way of thinking. I brought a second hard to install ubuntu cause an being like a **** ant on the ground I am learing things on Ubuntu I will never learn on windows

[hanzomon4]

I can be an apple fanboy but lets cut to the chase, Macs can be more expensive when compared to similarly spec'd machines. You are paying for an extremely well designed computer and a decently designed/written OS. Lets face it, there is an apple premium.

There's also a misconception in that Ubuntu is free and Mac OSX is not. Technically that's true, but by the shear fact of buying a Mac you have OSX installed so there is no increase in cost when running OSX over Ubuntu, in fact there's no economic reason to choose ubuntu over OSX.

True future upgrades will cost $$ but you don't have to upgrade.

You pay no premium... When people make comparisons they leave out important details like ram speed, ram type, fsb, cache, cpu clock speed, even mouse/keyboard. I've made comparisons with attention to the finest details and you often pay less all things considered. Not by much, 50 bucks maybe a little more or less.


Anyway I just like tech, and Ubuntu/Linux always has new exciting things to play with. On a more work related level, it's great for audio production. Ardour, jack, qsynth, hydrogen, aeolus, zynaddsubfx, rosegarden, jamin... all great free software and on top of that you have really great non-free software like renoise. It's really matured to the point that I, as a student, would be an idiot to use anything else. I use protools at school and it's ok but all that junk about industry standard doesn't mean much if you're not in the industry! Most of us are not and are free to use whatever suits us best.

Now I love OS X, it does everything I need and it's rock solid. All of the unixy things I can do in linux I can do in OS X. Plus the audio subsystem is much more reliable and the entire system is more polished in comparison to Ubuntu. The polish gap however is now so small I only see it when pulse gives me crap or when my mouse jumps around like a crack head.

I guess I haven't really answered your question.. I just like Ubuntu that's why

[maflynn]

You pay no premium... When people make comparisons they leave out important details like ram speed, ram type, fsb, cache, cpu clock speed, even mouse/keyboard. I've made comparisons with attention to the finest details and you often pay less all things considered. Not by much, 50 bucks maybe a little more or less.

Dell 15" inspiron core 2 dual 2.53 GHz with 1066Mhz FSB 4gig of DDR3 ram, 500gig drive 1,066
Apple 15" MBP single GPU 2.53Ghz with 1066MHz FSB, 4gog of DDR3 ram 500gb drive 1,850

Yeah, I see your point there isn't an apple premium. The 784 difference is due to rounding :P

[Deverell]

Dell 15" inspiron core 2 dual 2.53 GHz with 1066Mhz FSB 4gig of DDR3 ram, 500gig drive 1,066
Apple 15" MBP single GPU 2.53Ghz with 1066MHz FSB, 4gog of DDR3 ram 500gb drive 1,850

Yeah, I see your point there isn't an apple premium. The 784 difference is due to rounding :P

You haven't mentioned

Battery Life
Screen Quality
Noise
Graphics Card
Track Pad
Charger (Magnet > Socket)
Support Reputation
A Myriad of other Points

You've missed the point of the guy you quoted. The point being "all things considered".

I'm speaking as someone who used to hate Apple. Then I got one.

[teamjh14]

You made me realize I may have misspoke.

Umm..Joe Schmoe cant make a video card with the 'same chipset as nVidia'. You've got an nVidia chipset, or you haven't.

What I meant was that a video card can be made with an nVidia chip without it being an nVidia card. Case in point: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048%201305520548%20106792522&name=GeForce%209%20series

I can see your 'you get what you pay for' argument, but thats also true of the other branded vendors (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.). I also think that they aren't worth the money they charge. True, at the lower end, the branded manus can be cheaper than building your own, but heh heh, you get what you pay for.

I wasn't actually talking about the guts of the computer at this point. Apple does (and other manufacturers to some extent I'm sure, I've just seen it more with Apple) a lot of R&D to create a more effective, efficient computer. This is what you're paying for.

Since Apple has moved to Intel chips, the only real difference is MacOSX. Its not like Apple is making CPUs, motherboard chipsets, video chipsets, hard drives, optical drives, etc. Apple gets the same nVidia/Ati/Intel chips as the branded PCs, + Asus, Gigabyte, etc. You _might_ get slighty better quality boards, but the actual chips, Apple doesnt do them.

This is true, and it isn't. Apple is a computer company, not a video card or motherboard company. But they have a say in what chips go in, how they get integrated into the overall system, etc. It would be difficult (near impossible, even) to purchase the pieces that Apple uses and assemble them into an identical Apple computer.

Apart from stuff like USB flash drives, there isnt that many manufacturers around, and everyone deals with the same companies.

Again, yes and no. Take a look at NewEgg, and you'll see how many manufacturers there are. It is true, however, that there aren't that many "brand name" manufacturers around. Even flash drives only have a handful of those.

I'd like to agree with you on that, but I can't. Compaq should have gone out of business years ago if that was true. ;)

Touche. :-P

[JSC77]

I bought a mac mini in august, and for the first time in 1,5 years I didn't use a linux distro as my main OS. But after 2 months of using OS X I find myself using Ubuntu again as my main OS. Why?

- I really prefer an OS where I can basically change anything I like (for example, just made a custom keyboard layout). In OS X things are generally very usable, but if you don't like something you often cannot change it or you have to install "hacks" or "secret settings"-programs.

- All the programs I like are on linux. I don't like any picture viewer in OS X, while eog or gwenview are perfect for me. My favourite browser, Google chrome "unstable", works perfect for me on ubuntu but crashes like hell on OS X. Same for Transmission, often crashes there but never here. I don't like Quicktime, and VLC is nice but I really missed my SMPlayer. And for the rest I mainly use Aptana studio, xchat, evince, openoffice. It all works great on ubuntu. :)

- I can cut and paste again, yay. I never got used to this in OS X... Always having to open 2 Finder windows to move something was very annoying. Apple don't be so stubborn and just allow people to cut!

- I can use programs in full screen mode again, yay. I have to admit though that OS X learned me to place windows much more efficiently organized on my desktop instead of just using every program in full screen mode. In the end though, I still want to be able to use full screen mode when I want or need it, without having to drag borders and hide the dock.

- Instead of a dock I prefer a small panel on the bottom of my screen, filled from left to right with everything I expect from a panel. Gives me more functionality and at the same time saves a lot of screen estate. I know gnome has 2 panels but I changed that... and I'm very happy I *can* change such things here.

- I need "lock screen" functionality, but for that i have to mess with screen savers and hot corners and enabling password protection... I consider locking my screen to be basic functionality that should be easily available in the form of "lock screen" and not some trick with screen savers.

- Someone said snow leopard is faster... First thing I noticed when I switched back to ubuntu is how snappy everything is in here! I did disable all effects though.

- Didn't manage to get trash functionality working with my ntfs partitions in OS X... And that sucked, because I do make mistakes now and then and that trash can often saved me. Luckily I got it working in ubuntu. :D

- Apparently Apple forgot to add the square brackets to the belgian apple wireless keyboard layout... and of course no obvious way to fix that. That made me *really* pissed. Maybe Apple thinks belgian programmers should not be allowed to use arrays? ;)

That said, one shouldn't draw the conclusion that I find Apple and OS X a bunch of crap now. The hardware is really good, and allthough some of my fav programs crashed in OS X the OS itself never crashed and never slowed down after days of using without rebooting. I really liked the polished looks of OS X and I even use an OS X theme in gnome until I find a different theme that is as polished. Unlike before, I do find it important now that popular linux distros start caring about their looks. That doesn't imply "form over functionality" though - I actually find OS X to be pretty functional. Too bad I couldn't change the things I didn't find functional... In ubuntu many things sucks, but in the end I can change it all and make my own perfect OS. Freedom rocks!

[rjcalifornia]

You haven't mentioned

Battery Life
Screen Quality
Noise
Graphics Card
Track Pad
Charger (Magnet > Socket)
Support Reputation
A Myriad of other Points

You've missed the point of the guy you quoted. The point being "all things considered".

I'm speaking as someone who used to hate Apple. Then I got one.

Support Reputation? Seriously? Haven't you heard about "Guest Account 'deleting' the user files"? No distro of Linux had done that before....

Charger Magnet? That's not really useful..... Graphics Card? Thousands of laptops have better graphics card than the newest iMac or MBP....

Battery Life? Pretty much the same....

but that's no reason for using ubuntu.... someone should really close this thread.....

[ljonesj]

i use ubuntu on my media, file server and my eeepc netbook hoping to get a mac mini in the next few weeks so i cna have all os's and i have not used a mac in years want a mini for a htpc

[Cracauer]

I didn't like the Mac when I tried in 2005.

I want a real X11 server, not the lame thing they got.

I didn't like the DVD player, Xine had no port to their homegrown video API and VLC crashed all the time.

I want to put the OS of my choice on any old machine I have. MacOS X will not run and even if it did I'd have to pay.

I don't like paying for updates but that's a minor concern.

Not having a third mouse button is bad but no second?

The Window manager isn't customizable enough. By several orders of magnitude.

At the time their idea of virtual desktop was "hide application". That doesn't work for me. Desktop one is 6 xterms and an emacs. Desktop two is 3 xterms and 2 emacsens. Desktop 3 is just an xterm with screen. You get the idea, that actually requires working virtual desktops. MacOS X might have it by now.

My wife just got a Mac recently and returned it because of it's nanny attitude.

[ljonesj]

from what i heard a bunch has changed in snow and the late 09 updates

[maflynn]

You haven't mentioned

Battery Life
Screen Quality
Noise
Graphics Card
Track Pad
Charger (Magnet > Socket)
Support Reputation
A Myriad of other Points

You've missed the point of the guy you quoted. The point being "all things considered".

I'm speaking as someone who used to hate Apple. Then I got one.
Oh please the other poster mentioned a simarly configured computer would be about 50 cheaper then an apple. I clearly showed that's not the case.

Stop drinking the koolaid and realize that macs are more expensive. Only fanboys refuse to except that truth. Everyone else knows it's true because it is. As for points other then the gpu the Dell is identical. Ok maybe that apple also has a better battery but only by sacrifising the ability of the user replacing it themselves

[charger01]

Stop drinking the koolaid and realize that macs are more expensive.

Please find me a laptop with these features cheaper than mpb 13 :

- Backlit keyboard
- Led panel
- 13 inches
- 7 hours battery
- core2duo
- nvidia graphic card
- cd/dvd reader/writer

- good design

[gnuisancev3]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do? Do you feel that the money you paid for the computer (being a lot more than a PC of similar specs) was still a good buy even though your not running any of the Apple software you paid for?

I can use a tiling window manager in OS X, i can't use my DE/WM at all actually. THe one i can chose won't allow me much customization.. both in terms of aesthetics (themes) and usability (key binding control).

Apple's a fine hardware maker, much like IBM used to be with their Thinkpad lines, but I have no use for their locked down, non-free, DRM riddled software.

[Deverell]

Support Reputation? Seriously? Haven't you heard about "Guest Account 'deleting' the user files"? No distro of Linux had done that before....

It is a bug and a very bad one of course! I don't see how that relates to Apples customer support reputation which is venerable.


Charger Magnet? That's not really useful..... Graphics Card? Thousands of laptops have better graphics card than the newest iMac or MBP....

Not regarding the laptop he compared it to though. As for the magnet charger I find it useful. Maybe you don't.


Battery Life? Pretty much the same....

Not really. MacBook Pro has 8 hours while the mentioned Dell (with Ubuntu) has around 4/5, that is quite a substantial difference.







Oh please the other poster mentioned a simarly configured computer would be about 50 cheaper then an apple. I clearly showed that's not the case.

He prioritized "all things considered" not a "similarly configured" laptop. If you were to take it on paper i.e. just technical specifications. Then yes the MacBook would be more expensive.


As for points other then the gpu the Dell is identical.
Not really, I wouldn't have listed them if they were identical. I think you'll find the track pad on an Apple is quite a bit different from the Dell.

Ok maybe that apple also has a better battery but only by sacrifising the ability of the user replacing it themselves.

1. Please don't imply I'm a fanboy of any kind. I like all three operating systems (even windows!) and unlike many don't attach myself to one. There are simply different reasons to use different ones.
2. Try to avoid generalizations like "everyone knows" they rarely add credibility.
3. I don't know why you think the battery can't be replaced easily. Perhaps you're confusing Apple laptops with the iPod range. Removing the battery is genuinely just a matter of twisting a coin against the battery.

You are coming across as impatient and as somebody who wishes to just dismiss a point of view that opposes your own with comments such as "Stop drinking the koolaid and realize that macs are more expensive. Only fanboys refuse to except that truth. Everyone else knows it's true because it is."

Not exactly the most graceful of rebuttals?








- I can cut and paste again, yay. I never got used to this in OS X... Always having to open 2 Finder windows to move something was very annoying. Apple don't be so stubborn and just allow people to cut!
You can cut, copy and paste in OS X. Did you try Command+X or alt (two fingers) and clicking.

- I can use programs in full screen mode again, yay. I have to admit though that OS X learned me to place windows much more efficiently organized on my desktop instead of just using every program in full screen mode. In the end though, I still want to be able to use full screen mode when I want or need it, without having to drag borders and hide the dock.

Umm F11?

- Someone said snow leopard is faster... First thing I noticed when I switched back to ubuntu is how snappy everything is in here! I did disable all effects though.

I'm not saying your lying mate but OS X is completely optimized for Mac hardware by the Apple developers and engineers. I can't see how Linux could run faster since it is more a of catch all system compared to OS X. I'll put it down to your experience of OS X and Ubuntu.


- Didn't manage to get trash functionality working with my ntfs partitions in OS X... And that sucked, because I do make mistakes now and then and that trash can often saved me. Luckily I got it working in ubuntu. :D

OS X can't read NTFS as far as I know. I'm pretty sure it is a Windows only file system with hodge podge solutions shoe horned into OS X and Linux. Unlike lets say FAT32.

- Apparently Apple forgot to add the square brackets to the belgian apple wireless keyboard layout... and of course no obvious way to fix that. That made me *really* pissed. Maybe Apple thinks belgian programmers should not be allowed to use arrays?

Try the shift + 5 keys and the one next to the 0 in order to achieve [ and ] respectively.

How long did you were you using OS X? Its just if your a Belgian programmer who doesn't know where the [] keys are or who doesn't know how to cut, copy or paste. Well . . .

[jrrader]

I was given a first gen Macbook back in 2005. I was happy to have it. I eventually had to replace most of the parts inside and along the way I picked up some parts that work great with Linux but have no driver support under OSX. At that point I had been using Ubuntu and a few other variants of Linux on my desktop, which only put me back 200,000KRW (about 200 dollars), and found that I preferred everything about it. While most (all) of the applications I use on Ubuntu are open source and therefore could be used on OSX as well, I'm not a fan of Aqua and OSX doesn't support my wireless card.

IMO OSX is Unix so heavily masked in "user friendliness" (I won't get into how many of my friends switch to Mac and then can't even figure out how to "do anything") that it bears no resemblance.

[stinger30au]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do? Do you feel that the money you paid for the computer (being a lot more than a PC of similar specs) was still a good buy even though your not running any of the Apple software you paid for?


by pc as with every pc i have owned for the past 17 years i have built myself and i have total controll over what goes in to it

i dont have the same flexability with a mac

[rjcalifornia]

It is a bug and a very bad one of course! I don't see how that relates to Apples customer support reputation which is venerable.


Are you serious? Apple has not accepted this bug. Not even an update from Apple!

...and please don't tell to "terminal" this or that to solve this problem, 'cause you know what some say about macs: "It just works"



Not regarding the laptop he compared it to though. As for the magnet charger I find it useful. Maybe you don't.



yeah, I don't know how my life was before this....

Not really. MacBook Pro has 8 hours while the mentioned Dell (with Ubuntu) has around 4/5, that is quite a substantial difference.


He prioritized "all things considered" not a "similarly configured" laptop. If you were to take it on paper i.e. just technical specifications. Then yes the MacBook would be more expensive.



Voodoo laptops... Same price and sooo much better hardware...



3. I don't know why you think the battery can't be replaced easily. Perhaps you're confusing Apple laptops with the iPod range. Removing the battery is genuinely just a matter of twisting a coin against the battery.


Just as easy as changing a MBP hard drive right???

[cascade9]

You made me realize I may have misspoke.

What I meant was that a video card can be made with an nVidia chip without it being an nVidia card. Case in point: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048%201305520548%20106792522&name=GeForce%209%20series

You will notice that theres isnt a single nVidia produced card in there. They do make cards, but there are 'reference' only. Meaning that they make some for testing, giving away to partners, and sometimes to send to testign websites. You wont find any nVidia reference cards on sale.

ATI did make retail cards, I'm not sure if they do anymore..and they were made for them by sparkle or somebody, so its the same story there.

I wasn't actually talking about the guts of the computer at this point. Apple does (and other manufacturers to some extent I'm sure, I've just seen it more with Apple) a lot of R&D to create a more effective, efficient computer. This is what you're paying for.

Apatr from OS and guts, theres not much else. I wont go into the 'how good is apple at R+D' debate, but from the hardware there its just EFI vs BIOS. Its not like Apple actually develops any of the major hardware it uses in computers (and by major I mean CPU, chipsets, etc, not case design).

This is true, and it isn't. Apple is a computer company, not a video card or motherboard company. But they have a say in what chips go in, how they get integrated into the overall system, etc. It would be difficult (near impossible, even) to purchase the pieces that Apple uses and assemble them into an identical Apple computer.

Again, yes and no. Take a look at NewEgg, and you'll see how many manufacturers there are. It is true, however, that there aren't that many "brand name" manufacturers around. Even flash drives only have a handful of those.

All the big brands have a choice about what goes into the system. The only difference between Dell etc and Apple is that apple has an OS, where they dont (Well, theres HP-Unix, but lets forget about that LOL). Well, OK, Apple does have media players and phones- neither of which were much in the way of enginering, but the phone would have taken a lot of software code.

I cant recall how many dram manufacturers there are, but its nowhere near as many as you might guess from 'name brands'. The main players are- Hynix, Samsung, Winbond, Infineon, Micron. All the big name brands use, or have used chips from one of these companies-

http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=rmp_rsc

No, you wont be able to assemble an 'identical Apple computer'. Mainly because of EFI. I'm sure, if you place an order for 250,000+ any of the Tiwanese tier 1 companies (Asus, Gigabye etc) would he happy to do you up motherboards with it though. Even then, it wont be identical (you cant have Apples EFI code) but if you have the same CPU, same chipset, same video chips, some memory chips, same hard drives, optical drives....its near as damnit. Even with a BIOS.

I can see why Apple does what it does- the cynical says 'control', the fans say 'quality assurance'. Its not like the other big brands havent dont similar- I know of Dell locking down BIOSes so that you could only use certain hardware. That was eventually got aroud by finding a BIOS that could be flashed to the Dell motherboard, problem sovled- not that you can do that with EFI, which is part of why Apple uses it. In the end, though, apple uses the same hardware as everobdy else, its just MacOSX that sets Apple apart.

[atirox]

I'd like to agree with you on that, but I can't. Compaq should have gone out of business years ago if that was true. ;)


I'm sorry, but i have to disagree. :) see, i used a Compaq Armada 1590DMT, from the days when Compaq was still its own company. The thing weighed 8 lbs. 24x CD ROM, Intel Pentium with MMX @ 166 MHz, couldn't have been more than 64 MB of RAM, and a floppy drive. It was slower than molasses in January. That's right, slower. how that's possible, i don't know. but it was. Anyway, i could always count on it to boot..... given enough time....

The Dell Latitude C610, which was at least 4 pounds lighter, had a much bigger screen, 256 MB of ram, a 40x CD ROM, and a PIII at 750 MHz, usually crashed half way through. well, 8 times out of 10.

The Compaq i use now isnt really a Compaq. its a HP Pavilion ZV5000 series that's been restyled and rebranded as a Compaq Presario R3000 series.

As for the original question, i don't know. I have yet to purchase a Macbook. To apply the question to what i use, I use Ubuntu over Windows for something to do, and becuase i want to learn Linux. Haven't really had problems with windows, probably because i've used it a lot.

[ColdLunch]

I have a 2006 MBP dual booting Leopard and Ubuntu 9.04 at the moment. The only reason I still have OSX installed is because of DJing. There's not really any decent DJing application for Linux that I'm aware of and plus I've got a crap load of hardware that would probably be a hassle to set up in Ubuntu.

Also, OSX looks nicer. :P Maybe I haven't customized Ubuntu enough though because I have seen great Ubuntu desktops.

Also, I can't upgrade any farther with OSX. I'm stuck with Leopard forever since I don't meet the hardware requirements for Snow Leopard. No more upgrading. :( With Ubuntu I can upgrade forever. :D

[natgab]

I am running Kubuntu 9.04 (just installed) in my Power Mac because Apple changed from PPC to Intel chips.

My Power Mac has dual 1.8 GHz G5 chips, which would otherwise still be a very nice & fast computer. But because it is a PPC computer, I will be stuck with OS X 10.5 and non upgradeable software in the near future. Many of the new software is already Apple-Intel only.

So I would have to move to Intel Mac to use new software. But I figure that if I am going to do that, I should just change to an operating system that will not change chips on me again. Apple could change their mind again in a few years and switch again!:mad:

So I will be building my own PC computer soon and move to Kubuntu. I will be able to choose the right size computer for me. So while I save money to buy my computer, I decided to load Kubuntu on the PPC Mac so that I get used to my new system. Even if flash does not work very well, I know that it will in my PC Kubuntu that I should have by the new year.

And from all the nice screenshots, I think I will be able to make Kubuntu look as nice as OS X. It no longer looks like a cheap Windows knock off.:p

[maflynn]

So I would have to move to Intel Mac to use new software. But I figure that if I am going to do that, I should just change to an operating system that will not change chips on me again. Apple could change their mind again in a few years and switch again!:mad:

Never going to happen, apple has no business or economic reason to dump the intel platform. The reason why they changed was that motorola's focus was not on chip design, specifically for computers but rather embedded systems and cell phones. IBM promised that certain things for the G5 but didn't come through on the promise for certain performance metrics. You will notice that there was never a G5 laptop, that's because it consumed too much electricity and heat. Apple had always had an intel build of OSX so switch over for them was not as painful.

Apple is making too much money to consider changing platforms. The intel platform is not only superior then most other chip platforms out there, they can produce the chipsets in volume that apple needed. Neither moto, nor ibm could do that, they both had trouble fulfilling apple's need.



So I will be building my own PC computer soon and move to Kubuntu. I will be able to choose the right size computer for me. So while I save money to buy my computer, I decided to load Kubuntu on the PPC Mac so that I get used to my new system. Even if flash does not work very well, I know that it will in my PC Kubuntu that I should have by the new year.
I'm thinking of the same thing, though I'll probably be on fedora over ubuntu. I'm starting to look into which motherboard will give me the best bang for the buck.


And from all the nice screenshots, I think I will be able to make Kubuntu look as nice as OS X. It no longer looks like a cheap Windows knock off.:pI gotta disagree there, OSX has some nice polish, and while I used KDE for a while, I found it too be to crash-happy. I constantly got plasma crashing errors. The look is nice, but not on par on OSX - just my $.02

[teamjh14]

I've always found it dismissive and hypocritical when people use the phrase "Fanboy/girl." There are indeed people who stick to a brand out of loyalty, like the name implies. I just find it ironic that the people (that I know anyway) who use it most often could be considered a "Fanboy/girl" of the opposing brand.

But anyway, I've heard a lot of debate Ubuntu vs. OS X (and even some Windows debate in there). I have my issues with all three OSes, but I'll say what I've said from the start. Microsoft and Canonical produce Operating Systems which can hopefully be used on all produced systems (which Canonical does a much better job at, by the way). This makes it very difficult for the company to focus on anything other than fixing bugs, developing drivers, and the like. Ubuntu has the upper hand between these two because not only are the developers working non-stop to make a better OS, so is the community.

Apple designs computer systems. Their OS is influenced by the computers they make, and vice versa. That's what you're paying for. Needless to say, a similarly spec'd computer runs about the same price.

And BTW: If nVidia and ATI doesn't make video cards, then what are they putting in my computer, and what are they selling on their respective websites? It ain't grape jelly.

[natgab]

Never going to happen, apple has no business or economic reason to dump the intel platform. The reason why they changed was that motorola's focus was not on chip design, specifically for computers but rather embedded systems and cell phones. IBM promised that certain things for the G5 but didn't come through on the promise for certain performance metrics. You will notice that there was never a G5 laptop, that's because it consumed too much electricity and heat. Apple had always had an intel build of OSX so switch over for them was not as painful.

---Yeah, I know how they blamed the lack of a portable G5. But they could have overclocked a G4 or tried dual chips for the Powerbooks. That could have held them over for a while.

Apple is making too much money to consider changing platforms. The intel platform is not only superior then most other chip platforms out there, they can produce the chipsets in volume that apple needed. Neither moto, nor ibm could do that, they both had trouble fulfilling apple's need.

---Unless Apple uses those billions in cash and buy a chip manufacturer? They do use ARM chips with the iPod or could by a small company like VIA and have them make Mac only chips?

I'm thinking of the same thing, though I'll probably be on fedora over ubuntu. I'm starting to look into which motherboard will give me the best bang for the buck.

---Yeah, I am making sure to get something that might be used for a Hackintosh. But I am fine keeping it as a Linux only, if Apple tweaks their motherboards.

I gotta disagree there, OSX has some nice polish, and while I used KDE for a while, I found it too be to crash-happy. I constantly got plasma crashing errors. The look is nice, but not on par on OSX - just my $.02

---Your right about KDE 4. KDE 3.5 in my iMac is stable, but too slow for a G3 400MHz. KDE sorta was acting up so I just left Ubuntu only. I last tried (K)ubuntu around 2007 and I like the improvements its been making. So I feel i would be satisfied running Linux, as it seems to be improving at a faster rate lately and getting better.

[cascade9]

Apple designs computer systems. Their OS is influenced by the computers they make, and vice versa. That's what you're paying for. Needless to say, a similarly spec'd computer runs about the same price.

And BTW: If nVidia and ATI doesn't make video cards, then what are they putting in my computer, and what are they selling on their respective websites? It ain't grape jelly.

I still think that apple hardware is priced higher, but it is debatable.

LOL, Ati and nVidia make GPUs/chipsets, etc. Not 'cards'. The cards are all made by hardware manufacturers.

[chuk13838]

I'm 23, used windows from 1991-2005, 3.1-XP, i was always nervous to switch to open source even though i was totally dissatisfied with windows.

Bought a 15" PowerBook (final revision) in 2005, LOVED IT.

Now have 2 iMac's, 24" 3.06GHz 4gig 1TB at work and 20" 2.4GHz 4gig 250GB at home and an inherited/repaired 13" MacBook 2.0GHz C2D.

I handle IT for my dad's small business and while looking for a way to make our network (half PC, half Mac, with OS X server at the heart of it) more manageable I was pointed toward ubuntu by a good friend.

Mind you I am only 1 week into running 4 of my 5 PC boxes on ubuntu (2 in marketing dept, 1 in management, 1 for me) and already I am very impressed with the ease of use and manageability.

One person who works in marketing told me today, "I don't know what the old system was or what this new system is, but this new system is so intuitive and easy, i absolutely love it.".

Thats from someone who probably has no idea how fundamentally different windows and ubuntu are.

Now I'm pricing out building a nice box to run ubuntu on at home so I can educate myself and have a little fun with it.

I am a newbie on so many levels but i love ubuntu for the learning experience and for the possibilities I already see once I get accustomed to it. And I love OS X because it is a great halfway point for me, still very newbie friendly and feature rich but with a taste of the openness that linux offers.

AS LONG AS ITS NOT WINDOWS!!! :D

[MikeSz]

I'm coming late to this debate but thought I would chip in all the same...

I have an iMac and I love it, I just couldnt go back to a normal PC now. It looks fantastic and it just works. However, I also dual boot Ubuntu as I want to use the extra free software that comes with it and which you can just download so easily. It also has some powerful packages which dont come with a Mac that you'd have to pay for if you wanted a similar program in OS X (GIMP for instance). I use both systems in about a 50% split. If I am working then I use Ubuntu, if I want to play round with my holiday pictures or family DVDs for instance I use OS X (I just find the iLife suite easy to use) and I also play some games in there as well (plus I have my iPhone which syncs into the iTunes). I know there are probably Ubuntu alternatives to everything but in simple terms I just cant be bothered looking for them and then figuring them out - OS X is just easy for a lot of the things I use.

So its the best of both worlds! Ubuntu is still faster though for some reason, although I've got the iMac sound problems which means if I want to do anything with multimedia in it, I use OS X.

[pelle.k]

I love my mac! I love OS X. It took some time to get used to the "mac'isms". But it's a clever system once you get used to it. I still discover new cool things i didn't know OS X could do. And it's so smooth and pretty. It's even got bash, python and apache installed by default!
That's coming from a hard core linux user mind you. I never was one of those people who spit at proprietary software though. I like open source, but i have no problem paying for stuff. Hence me buying a mac.

I still boot ubuntu from time to time, because some apps is not available for OS X, or not that easy to install as with apt-get, plus ubuntu is fun to tinker with. My parents run a computer with an ubuntu setup (they love it). Also, i've got a multimedia computer (attached to my tv set) running linux and freevo, samba, rtorrent and other cool stuff. I've got the best of both worlds!

[v1nsai]

I have a BlackBook with a copy of Jaunty. I loved Leopard and XP. I like the look of Windows 7 and Snow Leopard but was never a fan of Vista.

Why do I have Ubuntu?

1. Learn Linux, to learn why things are done differently and what effect that has on how I and others work/play with the OS, to become familiar . To learn Linux some argue you need Slackware or Gentoo. Ubuntu seems like a nice starting point for me.
2. Support Open Software.
3. I think Linux is more interesting than other operating systems. I also like the malleability, I can change almost anything I want and feel like I'm in control.
4. It is free! (My old HDD spun out so I would have been required to either purchase Snow Leopard or pirate it)

What don't I like about Using Ubuntu on a Mac?

1. Never in my experience has everything worked out of the box with Ubuntu. Thats okay, same is true for Windows but to be fair with Windows drivers are pretty easy to find and install and this is usually the case for Ubuntu too. However to me at least their are many silly things. When I installed Koala the other day sound didn't emit from the headphone socket when I plugged in my headphones. After some Googling I found you have to got to Volume Control Preferences and un-mute "Surround". Surely Koala knew it was installing itself onto a MacBook why was this the default?
2. Ubuntu runs like syrup compared to Snow Leopard. I don't even need to read bench marks, it is simply noticeably slower in almost every way.
3. I understand why most Linux users are so proficient with their distribution, its because they are fixing and tinkering with trivial crap so often.
4. Ubuntu doesn't utilize the hardware as well as OS X. This may be for whatever reason but it doesn't change the fact my iSight doesn't work, my battery life seems to have halved, my WiFi only gets half the signal it used to, my WiFi drops regularly making overnight downloads almost impossible, I was optimizing a C program as an assignment for university the other day. It took exactly twice as long to run the default program on my BlackBook with Jaunty as my mate's WhiteBook with Leopard. I have set my keyboard settings to Apple MacBook/MacBook Pro and USA and even tinkered around with the provided layouts. It still isn't right many characters aren't where they should be and some are missing. My speakers sound worse than ever and even the sound isn't as good through my headphones as it used to be. I can assure the list goes on.

Running the latest version of something in Linux is tantamount to being a tester. If you want stable, use the older releases of Ubuntu. They still use modern software even if it's not bleeding edge, and they've had time to work out the bugs. Koala ran horribly on my computer too but it was a beta so I didn't expect much.

[Vlammetje]

Why would I stick with Ubuntu? Ehmm.. there's many reasons, but the major one is that I LIKE ubuntu.

Still, I gotta say, I started off with Ubuntu and XP as a trial, to see what the hype was all about. I got myself going with Breezy badger, had to fix a number of things, such as sound, DVD playback and what not, and the kick of being able to do so by myself somehow made me enthusiastic for Ubuntu. I simply stuck with it. XP has long gone, I've betatested W7 though, I've dualbooted Koroora for a while but Ubuntu has always been 'home' for me.

Nowadays, my boyfriend has a macbook Pro on OSX and I must admit I feel quite comfortable in OsX as well. I would probably not remove it for Ubuntu, even if the MBP were mine. I've got an iMac with snow leopard coming my way in a few weeks time, I cannot imagine myself removing that for Ubuntu. But dual booting? Oh yes :)

Lastly: I've got a precious iBook clamshell lying around. It ran OS 9.2 and that was pretty out of date. I have been tryeing to get Xubuntu running on it, with only very small successes to be reported so far. Cannot return to OS 9 for lack of the disks, I see no point in installing OS 8.6 for which I do have disks and frankly, it has become a sport to see what I can get out of this machine combined with Xubuntu. At least the live disk works a treat, and I must keep trying to install... I just gotta get it running again ;)

[brucem91]

I use (or will be using) a combination of Ubuntu 9.10 and Mac OS X Snow Leopard on my MacBook Pro. I got a MBP from my school with a nice discounted price, for $2850 I got a MBP 5,3 with 2.8GHz processor, 4 GB DDR3 Ram, 500gb harddrive, 15" screen, Nvidia 9400m+ 9600GT w/ 512 MB Dedicated GDDR3 ram, Educational versions of Adobe Master Collection, Final Cut Studio, M$ Office (bleh, went OO.o for a while, then I even gave it to my stepdad to use on my old macbook, now I use iWork), and Mobile Me. Toward the end of my degree I will be using Final Cut alot. For now, I use alot of Maya 2010. Maya 2010 and Snow Leopard have issues that the Linux version does not. Plus Ubuntu uses alot less RAM than OS X, enough to make a difference. In my school I will be using alot of Maya, and Photoshop, at least on my personal computer. Maya works in ubuntu, and I can gimp if I dont feel like rebooting my mac. Alot I can actually do in ubuntu as well as in OS X. So for me, I love both OS's, and I will use both of them to the max, making my mac a very nice machine to use.

[lethalfang]

I don't mind proprietary software as long as the vendors are not pricks like Apple, who tells you where the software you have purchased can or cannot go. As it is, I will not consider Apple products.

[snek]

I got a new iMac earlier this year, and promptly put Ubuntu on it. I only boot to Mac OS to do firmware updates for the iMac.

For me, the iMac has the best all-in-one-desktop hardware, and Ubuntu is the best software. I know I'm not typical since I put Ubuntu on a new, expensive, iMac but I can afford it.

I did the same. We got 20" intel mac's at the office and after 3 months I was so sick and tired of OSX that I put Ubuntu on it. I've been working in Jaunty since then and I'm still happy I switched every single day.

My reasons for using Ubuntu and not OSX:


Docks.. Who seriously uses one in a productive environment??
The menu system of OSX makes me laugh
Untransparent installation of software in OSX
OSX makes you use the mouse way too much, and I'm prone to mouse RSI
Mediafiles "just play" under Ubuntu without having to use silly apps to play divx/wmv in Quicktime
iTunes, I refuse to have it on my computer
Most good software for OSX is commercial
Apple's company policy

Let me put it this way, after 3 months of using OSX daily for work I have decided to boycott anything and everything Apple.

[planetbeing]

Here's a different take.

The OP mentioned Mac OS as being POSIX-compliant as the reason he's tempted to switch. The only reason that would really matter is if you like UNIX-y shells, scripts, and easily writing your own programs using GCC, etc. Probably one of the biggest pluses is the library of relatively easily portable UNIX utilities usually easily available through some sort of package manager.

Now the thing about the Mac UNIX experience is that it really kind of sucks. MacPorts is okay, but it amounts to installing another operating system (well, the userland part of it at any rate) with its own libraries on top of your existing ones. There's also some wonkiness with Terminal and it just doesn't play as nicely as Linux ones. Linux is still the most comfortable programming environment for me.

That being said, there's a lot of cool profiling and debugging utilities in Xcode. And you get dtrace. But the moment you try to do any sort of cross-platform development that all goes to crap, so it only gets you so far. Hacking the OS X kernel is also more fun than hacking the Linux kernel. Much better documentation and you get to do some of it in C++ (sounds ghastly, but actually works out well). But again, everything is specific to OS X and it doesn't get you very far if you're a cross-platform guy like me.

[v1nsai]

Here's a different take.

The OP mentioned Mac OS as being POSIX-compliant as the reason he's tempted to switch. The only reason that would really matter is if you like UNIX-y shells, scripts, and easily writing your own programs using GCC, etc. Probably one of the biggest pluses is the library of relatively easily portable UNIX utilities usually easily available through some sort of package manager.

Now the thing about the Mac UNIX experience is that it really kind of sucks. MacPorts is okay, but it amounts to installing another operating system (well, the userland part of it at any rate) with its own libraries on top of your existing ones. There's also some wonkiness with Terminal and it just doesn't play as nicely as Linux ones. Linux is still the most comfortable programming environment for me.

That being said, there's a lot of cool profiling and debugging utilities in Xcode. And you get dtrace. But the moment you try to do any sort of cross-platform development that all goes to crap, so it only gets you so far. Hacking the OS X kernel is also more fun than hacking the Linux kernel. Much better documentation and you get to do some of it in C++ (sounds ghastly, but actually works out well). But again, everything is specific to OS X and it doesn't get you very far if you're a cross-platform guy like me.

I was pretty excited when I discovered apt for Mac (http://www.finkproject.org/) too, it seemed pretty indicative of a close Linux/Mac relationship between programs. I hadn't heard of Macports either, kind of looks like WINE for Linux ports haha.

But yea, I don't expect Mac to be as comfortable a development environment as Linux, but I want some damn commercial support, I'm sick of not being able to do simple things like stream to my Tivo because there's no Linux client and it won't run with WINE. WINE never works for me.

I'm just kind of curious too. I'll probably triple boot if I do come across enough money to get a decent macbook, I'm comfortable in Linux and Windows and I'd like to be able to operate in a Mac environment too when the need comes up.

[Nikos.Alexandris]

I still run and will run Ubuntu because we are almost there... so close to have a free-open-source, fast, stable, smooth OS on this workhorse (=mbp51) :-)

[ndefontenay]

I got a Mac Book Pro and Linux Ubuntu 9.10 on a sony Vaio.

I like both for different reasons.

What I don't like and wouldn't do is use itunes to download music.
I don't like Mac's DVD country lock when watching a movie. I travel a lot and I have DVDs from a bit of everywhere. With this I can't watch some of them.

I love Mac's GUI. I like to be able to play a few mainstream games too. I enjoy writing, burning CDs. working on pictures etc... with it. As much as with linux.

So they are all good.

[v1nsai]

Hey Planet, what's your preferred platform for ipod/iphone modding?

[zAfi]

Here's a different take.

The OP mentioned Mac OS as being POSIX-compliant as the reason he's tempted to switch. The only reason that would really matter is if you like UNIX-y shells, scripts, and easily writing your own programs using GCC, etc. Probably one of the biggest pluses is the library of relatively easily portable UNIX utilities usually easily available through some sort of package manager.

Windows is POSIX-compliant as well and you can run unix tools on it as well (interix), so...why not use windows? ;) Combined with eg gentoo-prefix (btw rocks like hell, portage > all, macports can't beat that) you get the same linux-experience as on OS X.

I'm on my way changing from OS X to Ubuntu (would prefer Gentoo, but it's waaaayyy easier and less time-consuming with Ubuntu :P ) after using it for one year now on a MB5,1. Reasons: too many ;)

And Nikos.Alexandris is right, we're almost there... :cool: :cool:

[Cracauer]

I use a little more of my Unix derivates than what is specified in POSIX...

[qepsilonp]

Mac uses the most expensive hardware where you get 10% to 15% extra performance for £100 per piece of hardware and if your willing to build a PC your self you can save even more i spent £500 on a new build and i ran a popular bench mark software program and i was only 11% off being the top for performance where some of these guys had obviously spent like £1500 on there PC's or Mac's your obviously willing to pay £1000 for 11% but im not... admittedly I did do 5 months of research before i bought my hardware and i had over clocked my PC but it was running fine and i had only over clocked my CPU by 10% and some of these other people that spend £1500 probably over clocked there PC's as well so don't tell me that buying expensive hard ware is worth it else 11% is going to really put a kick into your gaming experience or what ever

If you bought a Mac and installed ubuntu onto it you are way too into your computers looks rather than what it can do for the money you get it for else your loaded then fine you have a god given right to waste money

[Joe of loath]

I have to say now, I don't own a mac. However, I use one regularly in school for music technology. I can tell you mac OSX is slow, buggy, hard to use (to rename a file you have to double click it slowly(intuition fail), or click 'get info' then open the 'names and extensions' tab. Easy to use my a*se). It's also really unstable, and we lose about half an hour's work from one person or another (in a class of 9) per lesson.

Ubuntu (on my dell inspiron 1545 laptop, it worked out of the box, and is better in every respect than the regular windoze vista or 7) in comparison, doesn't have logic studio. I can, however, use an extensive and hugely powerful range of stable open source (yey) applications to create much the same effects, if with a slightly harder to use interface.

Don't get me wrong, macs are great. But until they sort the stability out, to a level it should have (like freeBSD has), I prefer not to use it.

Oh, also, the low mouse sensitivity really gets me...

[DaDJ]

I just joined the forums, and by far im liking Ubuntu 9.1 :)

I've been playing around with Windows 7, and its cool and all, but Linux is wicked. Looking around for alternative free software, example Photoshop (gimp) and all my games and webbrowsing and email, thats all I need for a OS.

I will be using it for a while now :)

[natgab]

I got a Mac Book Pro and Linux Ubuntu 9.10 on a sony Vaio.

I like both for different reasons.

What I don't like and wouldn't do is use itunes to download music.
I don't like Mac's DVD country lock when watching a movie. I travel a lot and I have DVDs from a bit of everywhere. With this I can't watch some of them.

I love Mac's GUI. I like to be able to play a few mainstream games too. I enjoy writing, burning CDs. working on pictures etc... with it. As much as with linux.

So they are all good.

---I have always used VLC from videolan.org for playing non-US region discs. (I'm Region 1/ No. America)

You set your Mac, not to play DVD player automatically on insert of a movie DVD in Preferences. Afterwards, all you have to do is use it to play the DVD either as a DVD or as the video_TS file.

Never had to worry about region coding on my Mac.:popcorn: <- for the movies you can now watch.

[__david]

mac OSX is slow, buggy, hard to useSorry, but that’s ridiculous.

(to rename a file you have to double click it slowly(intuition fail), or click 'get info' then open the 'names and extensions' tab. Easy to use my a*se).… or simply hit return,

It's also really unstable,It’s rock-solid on my systems.

Honestly, after many years of using Linux I am flirting with a complete switch to OS X: Better battery life, no differences between UI toolkits, no fiddling around to get things right every half a year (like touchpad configuration being moved from xorg.conf to HAL and just half a year later being switched to xinput), simply a great GUI, and last but not least more comfortable cursor movement with the keyboard.

The only thing making me hesitate is the great multimedia support in linux (audio/video/dvb) Who would have said that a few years ago …

[Big Iain]

apple software sucks balls,,, everything seems so plastic and so patronising. using any apple software makes me feel like i'm in a great big bubble disconnected from the world.

Apple are too full of really stupid ideas that will satisfy the teeny bopers among you with too much money things like ipods whith stuid wheels that noone can use but noone will admit to it coz they've just spent over £200 on one.

[ColdLunch]

Apple software is actually really good. iLife is a great product. It allows amateurs to easily make things (movies, songs, web sites). I like it.

Overpriced, yes. Good quality for its purpose, yes.

[__david]

apple software sucks balls,,, everything seems so plastic and so patronising. using any apple software makes me feel like i'm in a great big bubble disconnected from the world.

Apple are too full of really stupid ideas that will satisfy the teeny bopers among you with too much money things like ipods whith stuid wheels that noone can use but noone will admit to it coz they've just spent over £200 on one.

Please don’t make this an Apple hating thread. There is plenty of space for such stuff elsewhere. Isn’t it interesting why people (including me) are buying apple hardware and the run linux on top of it?

[Cerin]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do? Do you feel that the money you paid for the computer (being a lot more than a PC of similar specs) was still a good buy even though your not running any of the Apple software you paid for?

I have to admit, OSX has a fairly slick interface, with a nice Unix backend. However, Ubuntu (and Linux distros in general) have it beat with software repositories, that make installing and managing software immensely easy. I'm shocked Apple and Microsoft haven't adopted this model. It's a no-brainer.

[v1nsai]

Please don’t make this an Apple hating thread. There is plenty of space for such stuff elsewhere. Isn’t it interesting why people (including me) are buying apple hardware and the run linux on top of it?


That was what I was getting at with this thread. By buying a (new) Apple computer, your paying for the OS and the software on it, then running Linux on it and not using that software. I'm just curious what makes people pay such high prices and then not use it. And I don't mean that in a patronizing way, I'm sure there's a reason so I'm asking :D

[samh785]

This is a common misconception I challenge you to find a PC with the same specs as a Mac where the price is different by more than $50-$75 many times the PCs are more expensive. There are cheaper PC's out there I give you that but when you actually compare apples to apples(pun intended) you'll find that Mac's only seem more expensive at first glance because the base models use better hardware to start with than the $400-$600 windows based systems. Macs look 100 times cooler than a Dell, HP, or whatever, in my opinion anyway.

And if you wanna talk about paying for software when is the last time you checked the price tag on Vista?
I tried to find a comparable mac to my system76 pangolin performance, and it ended up costing about $1700 compared to the normal 1150$

[whoop]

I've been using Ubuntu for a few years now, and after discovering that Mac was a posix-compliant unix based OS, I've been really thinking about switching. I was wondering what makes you guys still use Ubuntu? What does it have that Mac isn't letting you do? Do you feel that the money you paid for the computer (being a lot more than a PC of similar specs) was still a good buy even though your not running any of the Apple software you paid for?

Linux let's me do what I want. Mac is expensive (too expensive if you look at the hardware), I would feel like a fashion victim if I bought one.
I don't like Mac's Monkey/Idiot proof approach, it makes a computer feel like an appliance, not a computer.
Allot of Mac users (not all), no nothing about computers, so I don't feel at home there.

I think I am just too different for Mac ;)

[arrow.69]

To me it all depends on what you're looking for.

Let's face it. You go to the apple website or the apple store. Everything is shiny. You buy your Macbook. It comes in really pretty packaging. You turn it on, everything works, everything is shiny, nothing crashes. You're happy. You have all the applications most users will need, and they are good applications. The User Interface is slick and easy to use.

You don't get that experience with a PC. Your computer comes loaded with a bloated Windows installation with all sorts of crappy third-party add-ons, usually including a trial version of Norton.

Linux as well is very intimidating. The installation process has become very streamlined and user-friendly. However, most users will run into problems trying to configure simple things. Networking with Windows, Dual Head displays, bluetooth, wireless internet. There's a lot of things you'll need to learn to get a set up working properly. And ubuntu never feels as stream-lined and slick as Windows 7 or OS X. There's always a certain bug, maybe Notify-OSD is placed wrong, maybe compiz slows down when you resize a window. But it doesn't look unified and professional.

Don't get me wrong, I love ubuntu. Linux systems are incredibly stable, they're completely customizable, and they're free. For someone who's into computers, likes playing around with settings, making scripts to do fancy things that you never dreamt of in Windows. If you hate the feeling of being stuck in a box engineers at Apple or Msft designed for you, linux is for you. With ubuntu or any linux distro, you make the OS work for you. That's what's great about it. That, and the fact it's completely free, and has a huge community of enthusiasts who are as passionate as you about it.

It can be compared with buying cars.

You can buy OS X, the luxury car which you don't really need, but it looks good, you know you won't have problems with it, it has that on-board GPS, leather seats, and reasonable power. You can't give yourself rational reasons to buy it, but you want one.

Then there's Windows, like a 2005 Civic with low mileage. It's the reasonable choice. It works, it's decent, it'll get you to your destination. It's what most people would buy. But it's not fun.

Finally you have linux. You're buying a used (insert sports car of your choice). There's a few bumps and scrapes, the interior's a bit damaged, but it has a aura to it, it's interesting, and you know it's got a lot of power under the hood. If you're passionate about cars you'll want this one, you'll want to play around with it, fix it up and have the coolest car on the block.

Yeah. That's my opinion. I know everyone will point out that Windows is more expensive than OS X but the matter of the fact is most people never pay for Windows and are unconscious that it has a price.

[Fenris_rising]

I always wanted an apple but could never afford one. So It was home built PC's with windows for me and all the hassle of windows therein. Although I still admire Applemacs I cant justify the cost over what Linux has given me.

2 years ago I saw an article with Shuttleworth on a BBC site. I haven't run windows since. Ubuntu does everything I need and as good as if not better than windows........and I don't have to justify hardware changes to Linux =)

regards

Fenris

[FiveSidedPoly]

I use (or will be using) a combination of Ubuntu 9.10 and Mac OS X Snow Leopard on my MacBook Pro. I got a MBP from my school with a nice discounted price, for $2850 I got a MBP 5,3 with 2.8GHz processor, 4 GB DDR3 Ram, 500gb harddrive, 15" screen, Nvidia 9400m+ 9600GT w/ 512 MB Dedicated GDDR3 ram, Educational versions of Adobe Master Collection, Final Cut Studio, M$ Office (bleh, went OO.o for a while, then I even gave it to my stepdad to use on my old macbook, now I use iWork), and Mobile Me. Toward the end of my degree I will be using Final Cut alot. For now, I use alot of Maya 2010. Maya 2010 and Snow Leopard have issues that the Linux version does not. Plus Ubuntu uses alot less RAM than OS X, enough to make a difference. In my school I will be using alot of Maya, and Photoshop, at least on my personal computer. Maya works in ubuntu, and I can gimp if I dont feel like rebooting my mac. Alot I can actually do in ubuntu as well as in OS X. So for me, I love both OS's, and I will use both of them to the max, making my mac a very nice machine to use.

Honestly, I think you over paided for your MBP and the software included. A far better system could be built for that price including the educational versions of the software.

When I was in school I paid around $800 for the educational Adobe Master Collection, 3ds Max, Maya, Zbrush, Macromedia Suite, Corel Suite, and M$ Office. Only thing I didn't have was Final Cut, but we used the Adobe products.

Those graphics cards won't help you as much as one real graphics workstation card would, even the bottom end ones which can be picked up for less then $200 are better then both of those combined when it comes to the graphics work you'll be doing, they won't play a lot of games, but they'll run and render with Maya like a champ. You probably could have built a system with the same cpu, two workstation graphics cards, two 500GB drives, a 19 inch monitor, and more ram for that price. With the educational version software you need.

The problem is probably your school's idea of what that machine is worth, but still I highly doubt they could even pull off such a deal if it was a normal PC at similar specs.
It's sad, that even aged MBP get sold at that price, which is a reason to still use Ubuntu or any Linux OS.

[untmdsprt]

It's the other way around: What does OS X have that Ubuntu isn't letting me do?

So far Ubuntu doesn't play DVDs, or can access my TV tuner card. I also haven't been able to get Ubuntu to play videos on Youtube either. It complains that I don't have flash installed. I installed a non-Adobe version.

I've tried both VLC and MPlayer to play my DVDs, and yes I put a region 1 DVD into a region 1 drive, but neither will play anything. Any info to fix this would be great.

My tuner card is an external IO Data m2 GV-MACTV. I seriously doubt anyone has made a driver for this.

[Joe of loath]

So far Ubuntu doesn't play DVDs, or can access my TV tuner card. I also haven't been able to get Ubuntu to play videos on Youtube either. It complains that I don't have flash installed. I installed a non-Adobe version.

I've tried both VLC and MPlayer to play my DVDs, and yes I put a region 1 DVD into a region 1 drive, but neither will play anything. Any info to fix this would be great.

My tuner card is an external IO Data m2 GV-MACTV. I seriously doubt anyone has made a driver for this.

Nor does MacOS ;) My friend tried to play a DVD on his macbook, no dice. Some DVD's work on my ubuntu laptop with no configuration what so ever. I've not bothered with any of the ones that don't play yet.

Youtube works if you install flash. Simple :)

[demosthene1]

Jobs/Gates are the flipside of the same coin. But, Steve Jobs is more unlikable than Gates.

[stuartcnz]

I started off with a secondhand original blue iMac. It did what I wanted with sound and graphics, without needing to know anything about computers. That computer was eight years old before I bought a replacement for it and still running fine.

Then I bought a black macbook 2.1 running MacOS 10.4 Tiger (intel). Just had the HD replaced with a 500GB one and increased the ram to 4GB.

I've never liked windows systems, they never seem to work without a lot of attention and even more money, not to mention viruses etc.

Mac have become more controlling over the use of MY computer with constant online checks home.

I like the idea of freedom with Linux systems and about a year ago tried Ubuntu 8.10 as a dual boot on my Macbook. It doesn't do everything that MacOSX does for me, so I keep it as dual boot. I am noticing with time and experience that Ubuntu is doing things for me that I can't do on MacOSX (currently Snow Leopard) and Ubuntu (now using 9.10) is improving at an incredible speed. So intend to continue using both and I am tending to find that more of my use is in Ubuntu now than MacOSX.

Unfortunately neither system runs Rhino3D, so I have to maintain a windows computer to run one program:(.

[untmdsprt]

Nor does MacOS ;) My friend tried to play a DVD on his macbook, no dice. Some DVD's work on my ubuntu laptop with no configuration what so ever. I've not bothered with any of the ones that don't play yet.

Youtube works if you install flash. Simple :)

I have, and it keeps telling me to go upgrade. I can only assume it's because I'm running the 64bit version of Ubuntu.

[DougieFresh4U]

;)

Youtube works if you install flash. Simple :)
And which 'Flash' are you installing?
That is the only thing I really need to make my G3 complete with Ubuntu Karmic!

[jfmanamtr]

I run Ubuntu on my G3 iBook for 2 main reasons. One, I can't find software that will run on Mac OS 10.3 (the version that came on this laptop when I got it from a friend) & can't afford to buy a newer version (but even then I don't know if it will run on the older hardware). Two, I am sorely disappointed in how slow Mac OS X runs. It seems that Mac OS X is like Vista. Unless you are running awesome hardware, the PC will not run the latest greatest thing. I formatted the computer, put Ubuntu 9.10 on the machine & haven't looked back. The performance boost is the best reason. If Mac OS 10.5 runs the same as the other versions of Mac OS X, I would format a newer Mac just to get the performance boost out of it. Just my 2 cents.

~John

[kosumi68]

Speaking of performance boosts running Linux on old computers, I have to bring up the astounding SliTaz. I have been using Unix / Linux for the past 20+ years or so, since four years Ubuntu, but all main distros inevitably move towards bigger, better, larger - and slower. The slitaz distro is doing the exact opposite, with a 30Mb isoimage, and running a full-fledged graphical windows interface and applications with only 100 Mb of RAM.

And no, I am not associated with this distro in any way :-)

[sastusbulbas]

This is a common misconception I challenge you to find a PC with the same specs as a Mac where the price is different by more than $50-$75 many times the PCs are more expensive. There are cheaper PC's out there I give you that but when you actually compare apples to apples(pun intended) you'll find that Mac's only seem more expensive at first glance because the base models use better hardware to start with than the $400-$600 windows based systems. Macs look 100 times cooler than a Dell, HP, or whatever, in my opinion anyway.

And if you wanna talk about paying for software when is the last time you checked the price tag on Vista?

It is not a misconception if you are building your own, and in my opinion Macs are overpriced and underperform when compaired to PC's.

I use both Mac and PC's, I got fed up with Macs and now only have the one, but can't be bothered paying for the software to get it up and running, and I have always found Linux to be usefull as an alternative if software is not available or funds are limited, but also more of a pain to install in comparison to loading an Apple or Windows OS.

I have paid for Windows 7 ultimate as I find I prefer it to Ubuntu or any Apple OS and previous Windows OS's. Quite simply though, if someone designed a Free fit and forget no messing about OS that had the appearance and useability of such I would use it instead.

But like everything in life it's all about personal preference. Why not have Ubuntu along side or instead of you Apple OS if you like it.

[hollyjester]

I prefer Ubuntu along with OS X. I love using OS X, because frankly it just works. Still, Ubuntu is really fun, and gives you a lot more freedom than OS X. If Ubuntu works for you, why switch? There is really no reason. On the other hand, if you think OS X is great, then buy it, it is worth it. But that's just my opinion.

[VeeDubb]

This is a common misconception I challenge you to find a PC with the same specs as a Mac where the price is different by more than $50-$75 many times the PCs are more expensive.


How about I challenge you to find a Mac that wouldn't cost 50% to 200% more than a PC with the same specs.

What planet do you live on where macs being expensive is a misconception?

Let's see....

Full loaded Mac Pro ~ $8000
Commercially Built PC with comparable specs ~ $2500 (admittedly hard to find)
Build your own linux box with comparable specs ~ $1800

[untmdsprt]

How about I challenge you to find a Mac that wouldn't cost 50% to 200% more than a PC with the same specs.

What planet do you live on where macs being expensive is a misconception?

Let's see....

Full loaded Mac Pro ~ $8000
Commercially Built PC with comparable specs ~ $2500 (admittedly hard to find)
Build your own linux box with comparable specs ~ $1800

A fully loaded MacPro? Tower or laptop? Let's do the tower version:

The MacPro comes with one or two Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem” processors. Your quote of $8000 is for the single processor tower. http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB871LL/A?mco=MTM3NDc3ODQ

Now comparing just the processor, Newegg.com has it for $1439.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117180&Tpk=xeon

On to memory: 4x4GB 1066 DDR3 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM. Newegg has a comparable one for $759. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231309&Tpk=16gb

I'm already at $2198 and have only "bought" a processor and memory. Clearly you've failed in your commercial PC quote, and also your Linux box. Please go back and do your homework again and see what you come up with. BTW, you should have put links to items to arrive at your quotes so others can see what you did. From my estimation, I would say a great Linux box could be around $2000 - $5000 depending on what you did buy.

Avg users could probably build a Linux box for no more than $2000, again depending on their needs.


Update: here's a website that builds custom PCs, and they even include Ubuntu if you want it. :) http://www.pugetsystems.com/ Take note of the different prices you can buy the computers. Under the custom built section, I easily created a computer that was over $21K. So you have to look at what are you getting for your money, and does it satisfy your needs for a few years.

[Dukenukemx]

I don't technically use it, if I did I'd have it on my main machine, which is a AMD Phenom X4 with a Radeon 4670. I touch it once in a while, to see if things are getting there. I mainly use Windows 7, and I've used Mac OS X enough to love it and hate it.

I use Ubuntu on my PowerBook G4 as a test drive. When I feel it's mature enough to make the switch, I'll do so. It's not a matter of if but when Ubuntu is ready.

Here's my reasons.

#1 It's free.
#2 Compiz Fusion or beryl. No matter what Windows 7 or Snow Leopard does with a 3D accelerator, this beats it hands down.
#3 Performance. In a lot of tests, Ubuntu is the fastest OS. It requires the least amount of system requirements.
#4 Customization. No matter how good Windows 7 or Mac OS X looks, you can't customize it. You can customize the crap out of Ubuntu.
#5 File system friendly. Ubuntu can handle nearly any file system out there, where Windows 7 and Mac OS X is ignorant.
#6 Repository makes installing software quick. You like the app store for iPhone, then you'll love this.

Like many OS's Ubuntu still has it's problems. It needs a major bridge between software that other OS's have. WINE should solve this issue, but it's not perfect. Though with OpenGL 4.0 being equal to DirectX11, we can see the gap close a bit more.

[MartinFernando1993]

Well, now it supports iPhone OS devices and it is more reliable than OSX

[CJN]

Well, now it supports iPhone OS devices and it is more reliable than OSX

I would beg to differ, it MIGHT be equally reliable to OSX but they share the same main issue in my opinion: Flash (yes it sucks and I hate it but it still makes me suffer so I mention it).

Other than that I never see crashes at all in any OS.

[vlcplayerfan]

i love ubuntu so much but im on windows 7 now

but i do love ubuntu

[wilee-nilee]

I started with open source so that is where I spend most of my time. I have licenses for XP and W7 and just basically use them for understand the MS OS setup in general. For me they are all just OS so I just use what I'm most used to.

[blueridgedog]

I just bought my first mac. I wanted the macbook pro (13" for less than $1,100) because the hardware and build was impressive and I could not find another notebook with the same features and long battery life (over 8 hours for a full size notebook). I assumed I would pay for the hardware I wanted and then put Ubuntu on it as I run Ubuntu full time as my main OS.

However...I have found that the BSD based mac os is meeting my needs for a laptop. I did setup Ubuntu on the mac, but found that from a Unix perspective, the mac is a respectable device. I have all of the tools that I expect and the system is pretty basic and easy to use. I ordered the Oreilly bood "Mac OSX for Unix Geeks" and hope to be able to compile most of my unusual tools on the mac.

I must admit that the hardware/os integration is impressive. I love Ubuntu, but the mac os and the way apple pushes hardware is a great combination. I just have had a hard time learning the mac keyboard shortcuts!

[slooksterpsv]

Here's my reasoning:
Microsoft hasn't been making me happy lately, in fact they've been irritating with their politics, terms and conditions, spyware, viruses, etc. Plus Windows 7 now takes about 5 min. to fully boot to a usable state - have to wait for the antivirus (even though its a light-weight one), apps that I use that load services in the background (about the time I've disabled them, I have to reenable them cause I need them again).

Apple has done me in forever. I used to be an avid mac user, had an iBook G4, and told people get a mac this get a mac that etc. I used to develop apps on the Mac platform, then they went to Intel, prices didn't lower, they went higher. You get less specs for a higher price - RAM standard is 4GB but most Macs come with 2GB Standard - HDD 500GB standard, Macs come with 160-250 standard.
How the initially blocked cross-development toolkits on the iPad - that irritates me so much, saying what a developer can and can't do, that just irritates me so much you have no idea (not that I have any intention of building iPad apps).
The cheapest Mac they have, you HAVE to buy your own Keyboard, Mouse, and Monitor... well Monitor I can see, but Keyboard and Mouse still, for real? I bought a cheap $200 computer and got a keyboard and mouse still!!!

Need I go on? I could go on about what irritates me about Mac and Windows, but I'll stop there.

[Ksiazkowicz]

I rather consider my old iMac G3 as All-in-One, Ubuntu based platform. And there is no possibility to buy any (maybe used one?) AiO computer, cheaper than what I've bought few months ago. The cheapest, used AiO PC I've found on the Allegro.pl was some old IBM NetVista, which costs three times more.

[vincebs]

It's easier to fix my computer with Ubuntu than either Windows or OS X. When Windows corrupted my partition table, I used "testdisk" and "gparted" to fix it. When I upgraded my hard disk, I used "dd" to clone my hard disk byte by byte. Whenever my Windows partition goes belly-up I go into Ubuntu and recover my data. It's more fun to use K3B to make ISOs and burn CDs than Disk Utility in OS X. Ubuntu is also the only operating system that can see and edit all my partitions.

[snek]

Here's my reasoning:
Microsoft hasn't been making me happy lately, in fact they've been irritating with their politics, terms and conditions, spyware, viruses, etc. Plus Windows 7 now takes about 5 min. to fully boot to a usable state - have to wait for the antivirus (even though its a light-weight one), apps that I use that load services in the background (about the time I've disabled them, I have to reenable them cause I need them again).

Apple has done me in forever. I used to be an avid mac user, had an iBook G4, and told people get a mac this get a mac that etc. I used to develop apps on the Mac platform, then they went to Intel, prices didn't lower, they went higher. You get less specs for a higher price - RAM standard is 4GB but most Macs come with 2GB Standard - HDD 500GB standard, Macs come with 160-250 standard.
How the initially blocked cross-development toolkits on the iPad - that irritates me so much, saying what a developer can and can't do, that just irritates me so much you have no idea (not that I have any intention of building iPad apps).
The cheapest Mac they have, you HAVE to buy your own Keyboard, Mouse, and Monitor... well Monitor I can see, but Keyboard and Mouse still, for real? I bought a cheap $200 computer and got a keyboard and mouse still!!!

Need I go on? I could go on about what irritates me about Mac and Windows, but I'll stop there.

Hahaha I got some good laughs out of your post. I thoroughly agree with you, although I would have probably written it a bit differently ;)

Apple think they need to control the user & developer to make sure everything they do falls within Apple's guidelines. You can not think out of the box, that's what Apple have already done for you, just stay ignorant and enjoy what THEY came up with!

I remember getting my first iMac at work, I thought it looked great and I was really impressed with the OS. Whilst working with it I started to dislike the OS more and more though. I then installed Ubuntu on it and was surprised how much nicer it was to work on 24/7. Much less mouse-clicking for example.. I won't go into details, but seriously, how can anyone really, REALLY like OSX if they've used Ubuntu for a lengthy period of time? Yes ok, Ubuntu doesn't run Adobe CS5 or Office 2007/8, and that's the only valid reason I can come up with.

While running Ubuntu I finally had the chance to look at the hardware properly, and guess what I found? It was nearly identical to my machine at home, from motherboard chipset to cpu, except for the crappy ATi HD2400 VGA card whilst my machine at home had an nVidia 8800GT by then. Also my screen at home was bigger, I had about 5x the storage space and not to mention things like optical-out for audio without some proprietary cable costing over 60 euro's. Oh and my pc at home was CHEAPER.

My boss asked for advice on what iMac to get, he was looking at the 24" at that time.
I told him not to get a Mac and showed him a list of better hardware I had put together with 2x 24" monitors and 4x 1TB drives, 2 nVidia cards in SLI and all that for the exact same price as the iMac he was looking at.
That kinda hit a nerve though, he was not pleased and mumbled something about "looks".
Shallow people... pfffffffff.......

@giggles supreme
You want to make a "GREEN" PC don't say Apple's are all that..
My server which has a 35W AMD CPU and uses lowpower 2.5" HDD's.
Totalling somewhere around the 60-70W, whereas my iMac at work easily went over 120W.

I'm not even going to get started on the whole iPhone/iPad discussion.
It's obvious Apple is teh FAIL, in terms of hardware, software and policy.

[r2rX]

Back in the day, Mac's niche was their implementation of the PowerPC architecture and their proprietary Operating System.

Today, they utilize Intel CPU's and have leached a operating system technology (that's supposed to be free), modified it slightly, slapped on their GUI and now charge you for it.

Having switched to Intel technology, at the VERY least, should it not have reduced the price? No, instead it's so ludicrously expensive, I really don't understand Apple's user-base...especially as you can install the OS on PCs. :)

Head to Apple's website and check how much the best spec Mac Pro is....20,000 dollars! Seriously....what the heck justifies that?

But the purpose of this thread is in reference to the O/S. Mac OS in not a HORRIBLE O/S. It is very useful/comfortable for n00bs, and pro's alike (I want to avoid bashing/flaming :p ).....to be honest, i've actually found the experience quite fluent (and remember, MS have leached so many ideas from Mac OS, it's criminal. :p ). But, based on Apple's policy's and philosophies; and contrasting it to the nature of Linux and the open-source community, i'd rather stick to Linux.

Basically, Linux is the future. It's an open-source platform, with plenty of support (and rising...at the rate much faster than it has been in the past) and the option for proprietary software is there (so companies have the option to develop software for Linux as well), lot's of support (look at the Ubuntu forums....it's insane! :p), the interfaces (Gnome and KDE) are streamlining so nicely now, that n00bs, even those familiar with Mac, will find it easy to use.

But, most importantly, Linux is exposed to the ingenuity of the world. Multiple thousands of people, from around the globe, invest their time and efforts in improving Linux all the time. How can any closed-source O/S, like Windows or Mac, ever thrive (technologically speaking) as Linux has?

So, if you have the cash....buy a Mac....it's a bit of a waste, in my opinion, but go for it. Unless you're a die-hard Mac OS fan, and you're concerned about the nonsense policy of installing Mac OS on a PC, then get the machine. Otherwise, get a PC.....and Linux rocks. :p

r2rX :)

[MountainX]

Here are things I do not like about OS X**


Clicking on windows produces inconsistent mouse actions. Sometimes I have to click twice: once to focus the window and a second time to perform the action. Other times the action is performed immediately. I really dislike having to click twice. It is absolutely ridiculous in apps like The Gimp. Moving from the toolbox to the editor window requires a series to two clicks every time and that kills productivity.
Limited customization options
Menus unforgiving of mouse slip-ups. A menu disappears if you accidentally click the separator bar between two menu options.
Dialogs hard to use with the keyboard. Not being able to type a shortcut key for all of the buttons in a dialog (a la Linux).
Cannot easily determine the location where an open text document is saved. Nothing I can find will give you the full path.
Terrible keyboard control in general (try using iCal with just the keyboard).
Terrible GUI control in general. Many things require keyboard shortcuts because the option for the action is not shown in any GUI menu. But finding the keyboard shortcut isn't easy sometimes.
Limited mouse acceleration. First thing I did with my new Mac was whack the tracking speed up to the max, and even then it’s not as nice as in Linux. And no way to control the acceleration either.
Only one menu bar on multiple monitors. Results in frequent RSI-inducing mouse marathons from one display to the other. (Though you can at least choose which monitor displays the menu bar.)
Nasty keyboard navigation of text documents. Having to use the fiddly Command-Left and Command-Right keyboard shortcuts to do the extremely common tasks of going to the beginning and the end of a line. Yet the easy-to-press Home and End keys jump you to the start or end of the document without moving the caret, which is next to useless in my book. And I don’t think this is a “coming from Windows/Linux” thing either, as I switched to the Mac 2 years ago and this behaviour still pisses me off. Windows and Linux have simply done it better.
Hamstrung open/save dialogs. Why can’t I do even basic things like rename a file or folder?
No cut-and-paste in the Finder. You can only copy and paste stuff.
Can't create a new document in a folder from Finder. Have to create the document then navigate to the folder to save it there.
Shift-clicking to select a range of files in the Finder doesn’t work in Icons view. You have to switch to one of the other views to do this.
Hard to connect to NFS shares on Linux server.


What I do like is the Apple hardware. My iMac 27 hardware is higher quality for a lower price than any PC hardware I can find. The monitor is great and the computer runs much quieter than any similarly priced PC hardware. People who think they can build a PC that matches all the features and quality of an iMac at the same price are badly mistaken. Specs alone do not tell the story.

So the obvious choice is to run the best OS (Linux) on the best hardware (Apple).

** I copied many of my dislikes from here:
http://mac.elated.com/2008/08/14/10-usability-lows-of-mac-os-x/
He said the same thing I was thinking and I was too lazy to write it all in my own words. But the list above is edited to reflect my own experiences and it has additional items not on the original list. (And I left off "Non-intuitive Print dialog" because that doesn't bother me.)

Here's another link I mostly agree with:
http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2004/02/16/os-x
Except I disagree with the conclusion. For me, Ubuntu is the better choices (provided it will work with the hardware, which is not always the case).

[Joe of loath]

I got RSI from 4 hours of mixing my music tech project on a mac. I can use Ubuntu all day no problem.

And people say macs are ergonomic.

[Lucifer The Dark]

It works.

[MountainX]

Here's a great post about how badly broken some of the mouse/window control is in OS X.

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/04/settling-osx-focus-follows-mouse-debate.html

Again, the best solution would seem to be running Linux on Apple hardware. (Unfortunately, I can't get that to work yet so I'm typing this on OS X.)

[r2rX]

Here's a great post about how badly broken some of the mouse/window control is in OS X.

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/04/settling-osx-focus-follows-mouse-debate.html

Again, the best solution would seem to be running Linux on Apple hardware. (Unfortunately, I can't get that to work yet so I'm typing this on OS X.)

Aren't there a few companies now, like MSI, which are introducing the gesture-sensitive mouse pads, on PC laptops, that Mac are offering? Granted, Apple were smart to be the first to introduce this...but aside from the mouse, there's no justification for the price...especially if you're planning on using Linux...that's just crazy. :)

r2rX :)

[MountainX]

Aren't there a few companies now, like MSI, which are introducing the gesture-sensitive mouse pads, on PC laptops, that Mac are offering? Granted, Apple were smart to be the first to introduce this...but aside from the mouse, there's no justification for the price...especially if you're planning on using Linux...that's just crazy. :)

r2rX :)

My point had nothing to do with mouse hardware. The problem mentioned in the link I provided has to do with GUI design (usability). I guess you didn't read it.

The Apple hardware I was referring to in my earlier messagae is the whole system, not just the mouse. It is an "urban legend" that Apple hardware is overpriced. The new iMac is a very good deal.

If you want to see some serious quality, take a look inside (and outside) a new aluminum iMac. If you can't see one disassembled in person, take a look here:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-Intel-27-Inch-Teardown/1236/1
Step 21 (pg 3) might give you an idea of the attention to detail. I've never seen a Dell or HP or other brand name PC that comes close to matching that.

And having built a number of "silent" PC's, my experience is that you just cannot match the build quality of an Apple at the same price in the do-it-yourself PC world. If you don't care about details, then sure, you can match or beat the specs. But if you really care about things like noise and overall quality, that's another story, IMO.

[Elfy]

moved to recurring

[formaldehyde_spoon]

...
It is an ''urban legend'' that Apple hardware is overpriced.

... Er... not it isn't. You say so yourself right here:
...
If you don't care about details, then sure, you can match or beat the specs. But if you really care about things like noise and overall quality, that's another story, IMO.which is exactly what people mean when they say Apple hardware is overpriced.
Sure, they may not be getting the looks of a Mac, maybe not the build quality of a Mac (not sure why this matters on a stationary piece of electronics. Important for a car, yes...), and I guess there's even a remote chance some other PC won't be as quiet as a Mac, but for most people those things are all secondary to functionality and performance.

[MountainX]

Er... not it isn't. You say so yourself right here:
which is exactly what people mean when they say Apple hardware is overpriced.
Sure, they may not be getting the looks of a Mac, maybe not the build quality of a Mac (not sure why this matters on a stationary piece of electronics. Important for a car, yes...), and I guess there's even a remote chance some other PC won't be as quiet as a Mac, but for most people those things are all secondary to functionality and performance.

I might have agreed with you before I owned an iMac. I had to buy one this year to do some Mac software testing for my work. I never liked Apple before and never owned an Apple product of any type. But now that I have seen one, I realize that the functionality and performance make the Apple hardware (at least on the iMac 27") a real bargain. You just cannot duplicate it -- even at a higher price -- in the PC world. If you ever buy one, you'll see what I mean.

[blueridgedog]

which is exactly what people mean when they say Apple hardware is overpriced.

As an owner of a new Mac PowerBook Pro, which was only $1,050, and has some amazing hardware (LED display, machined aluminum case, back light keyboard, legitimate 8 hour battery life and a host of other state of the art gear, I have to disagree. Not only was it the best hardware in a laptop I could find, it was very affordable. I may get a desktop now that I have seen the hardware quality given the price.

[john.v.kesteren]

I am using Ubunto because someone threw me two (not that old) computers on my lap without any operating system. Ubuntu was the obvious choice. Works fine as long as I don't need to scan, print or use my (quit large) database with references. As soon as Ubuntu has to deal wiht something else then itself it becaome stoublesome.

[pwnst*r]

Here's my reasoning:
Microsoft hasn't been making me happy lately, in fact they've been irritating with their politics, terms and conditions, spyware, viruses, etc. Plus Windows 7 now takes about 5 min. to fully boot to a usable state - have to wait for the antivirus (even though its a light-weight one), apps that I use that load services in the background (about the time I've disabled them, I have to reenable them cause I need them again).

Apple has done me in forever. I used to be an avid mac user, had an iBook G4, and told people get a mac this get a mac that etc. I used to develop apps on the Mac platform, then they went to Intel, prices didn't lower, they went higher. You get less specs for a higher price - RAM standard is 4GB but most Macs come with 2GB Standard - HDD 500GB standard, Macs come with 160-250 standard.
How the initially blocked cross-development toolkits on the iPad - that irritates me so much, saying what a developer can and can't do, that just irritates me so much you have no idea (not that I have any intention of building iPad apps).
The cheapest Mac they have, you HAVE to buy your own Keyboard, Mouse, and Monitor... well Monitor I can see, but Keyboard and Mouse still, for real? I bought a cheap $200 computer and got a keyboard and mouse still!!!

Need I go on? I could go on about what irritates me about Mac and Windows, but I'll stop there.

5 minute Win7 load time? LOL, somethings wrong with your hardware or you installed something you shouldn't have.

You're funny.

[MountainX]

I am using Ubunto because someone threw me two (not that old) computers on my lap without any operating system. Ubuntu was the obvious choice. Works fine as long as I don't need to scan, print or use my (quit large) database with references. As soon as Ubuntu has to deal wiht something else then itself it becaome stoublesome.

Of course Ubuntu will scan, print and work with databases. I actually find that setting up my HP printer/scanner is easier with Ubuntu than it was with Windows. But I can relate to what you are saying because that was how I felt after first trying Ubuntu. There is a learning curve. After all, you are using a whole new OS. So expect to learn some new things. Different does not mean "harder" and it does not mean things "don't work". It just means different. That's my experience anyway.

[beew]

Mac sucks, even more closed and less tweakable than PC running on windows. Everything is handled through the Apple Store. Itune sucks, MAc is all about marketing hypes and it is for the ultimate sheepos and trendoids who think they are cool and it costs almost double. I hate uncle Steve even more than uncle Bill. Tux rules. Also, I use a lot of scientific softwares, they run on Windows and Linux but not on Mac.

[KegHead]

Hi!

I love Ubuntu and everything about it.

KegHead

[formaldehyde_spoon]

As an owner of a new Mac PowerBook Pro, which was only $1,050, and has some amazing hardware (LED display, machined aluminum case, back light keyboard, legitimate 8 hour battery life and a host of other state of the art gear, I have to disagree. Not only was it the best hardware in a laptop I could find, it was very affordable. I may get a desktop now that I have seen the hardware quality given the price.

What you are calling ''hardware'' is not what most people call ''hardware''. Not case material, screen backlighting and internal lights, but CPU, GPU, RAM, disk, etc.
You could have gotten more for your money. For example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220792
BTW, LED means LED backlit LCD and is pretty much standard for all current laptops.

I might have agreed with you before I owned an iMac. I had to buy one this year to do some Mac software testing for my work. I never liked Apple before and never owned an Apple product of any type. But now that I have seen one, I realize that the functionality and performance make the Apple hardware (at least on the iMac 27&quot;) a real bargain. You just cannot duplicate it -- even at a higher price -- in the PC world. If you ever buy one, you'll see what I mean.
But you *can* duplicate the functionality and performance of an iMac for a lower price, and better it for the same (or lower) price.

[perspectoff]

Ever tried to customize a Mac, for electronics or other purposes? Nigh impossible.

My aunt has a Mac, and she loves it. She reads emails, does video conferencing, and looks up recipes on an Internet browser. Beautiful case, too. Cheap at only $1300 (she has a big screen for her tired old eyes).

Stuff that can be done on a $200 PC or laptop running Ubuntu and look the same (if one chooses).

Now, I must say, the iPad has leapfrogged other platforms in design and availability, and it is not that easy at the moment to match the iPad's overall integration even with Linux. But Linux usually catches up pretty quickly, so i don't imagine it will be longer than a few months.

By the way, the supercomputer that Silicon Graphics made for NASA didn't use Mac processors or software. It used Linux. So did the computer that made Avatar. And one of the two largest supercomputers, the Jaguar.

So, my dear Mac Troll, I wonder why do you hang around Ubuntu forums so much? Think you made the wrong decision, somehow?

[MountainX]

But you *can* duplicate the functionality and performance of an iMac for a lower price, and better it for the same (or lower) price.

Sorry, I disagree. I did the research. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

[blueridgedog]

Sorry, I disagree. I did the research. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

I just did the same research and ended up buying a PowerBook Pro (13") as the competing laptops were just too much money to get the quality. I guess people are looking at different things, but for me, the Mac was the cheapest I could get and still get the great hardware. I do run Ubuntu on it and love it all the more.

[formaldehyde_spoon]

I just did the same research and ended up buying a PowerBook Pro (13&quot;) as the competing laptops were just too much money to get the quality. I guess people are looking at different things, but for me, the Mac was the cheapest I could get and still get the great hardware. I do run Ubuntu on it and love it all the more.

Did you miss the link I posted with better hardware? Sorry, I disagree. I did the research. But you are welcome to your own opinion.

It's not an opinion, you can walk into a computer shop and buy better!
Stand by... :p

EDIT
How about:
a *pair* of 28'' monitors for $600 total: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254043
with
Phenom II X4 3.4Ghz + Radeon 5770 for $630: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227258R
or
Phenom II X6 2.8Ghz + Radeon 5750 for $625: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227257R
or
Athlon II X4 2.9Ghz + Radeon 5770 for $710: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227274
or one of many other choices.
Note though that none of those have a 1TB hard disk, but the difference between 500GB and 1TB is only about $30.

I've just bettered the performance and functionality of your iMac27 for less money. You should have researched a little longer! :D

[blueridgedog]

Did you miss the link I posted with better hardware?

The ASUS is plastic thing with no keyboard lighting and battery life that is half what the mac gets. For the same amount of money I got so much more. Mac hardware really is a better value that the street gives credit for at this point.

[formaldehyde_spoon]

The ASUS is plastic thing with no keyboard lighting and battery life that is half what the mac gets. For the same amount of money I got so much more. Mac hardware really is a better value that the street gives credit for at this point.

Oh no! Plastic and no keyboard lights! ;)
Seriously though, of course the battery life on the Asus would be less; it's hardware is so much more powerful. On the other hand you could get a netbook with weaker hardware and get a better battery life than the Mac. You just move up and down the scale until you get a battery/processing power combination you're happy with, and it'll still cost you less than the Mac.

[beew]

Batteries for computers built for the "One Laptop Per Child" project last for 8 hours and they come with hand crank generators so you can recharge even without an AC outlet and it is dark out. Now let's see the Mac beats that when it comes to battery. :)

[slooksterpsv]

The ASUS is plastic thing with no keyboard lighting and battery life that is half what the mac gets. For the same amount of money I got so much more. Mac hardware really is a better value that the street gives credit for at this point.

Apple uses Foxconn motherboards - Newegg, cheap
Apple uses Intel processors - expensive
Apple makes their systems as proprietary as possible.

If you really want to compare hardware specs to hardware specs, Macs are behind, bad. They just barely got the Core iX cpus? Those have been out for a while now. Wait I can get a new mac with 2GB of RAM!!! My Gateway NV53 came with 4GB standard, for half the price.
The Macbook comes with a 250GB HDD!!! My Gateway NV53 came with a 500GB HDD for half the price.

No offense, but Mac's are horrible, standard hardware is 4GB for a new computer, not 2GB, 2GB is low-end.

$500 vs $999 - I can do more on a computer that cost me $500 than I can do with $999. Apple is ripping consumers off with old outdated technology and last generation system specs. 2GB is last generation, sorry to say. I can build a computer with similar specs, if not the same, for hundreds cheaper - the Macbook, same with any mac on apple's site.

[SmokeyThePanda]

To reply to the original topic, I don't. I'm currently running Debian Lenny, because I like that everything is not laid out for you and that it's more customizable than Ubuntu. Also, I love the install process. It's much easier to install a minimal system than with Ubuntu and they have businesscard isos that only take up 40MB or so of space ;) Very speedy download.