Why do Apple owners use Linux?

[fuscia]

i can understand someone getting sick of OS X and wanting something different, but does anyone ever buy a mac with the intent of putting only linux on it? also, i'm under the impression that OS X is almost exactly like freeBSD.

[raublekick]

i would never spend the money on a G4 or G5 with the intent of installing Linux.

but, if I had an older Mac that couldn't run OSX, then I'd give it a try.

[DJ_Max]

also, i'm under the impression that OS X is almost exactly like freeBSD.
How did you get that impression? Have you used either? OS X kernel is losely based on BSD. But most people will never see the similarites (unless they develop apps).

When I buy an iBook for school, I will most definitely put Linux on it. As I will need to cross-develop.

[trash]

If I ever buy a mac again which I am sure I will not, I would still run linux... I may keep OSX on it but it would not be my main OS unless I absolutely fell in love with it which ain't gonna happen...

[MetalMusicAddict]

I've wondered the same thing but figured like raublekick.

On a side note has'nt MS used alot of BSD code? I heard that once.

[fuscia]

How did you get that impression? Have you used either? OS X kernel is losely based on BSD. But most people will never see the similarites (unless they develop apps).

i've used neither. i just got that impression from what little i've read about both. the similarities i saw were that both are based on unix and both have similar repositories (or whatever it is they call them).

[quietglow]

I've installed Ubuntu on several macs in different situations. Believe it or not, Ubuntu holds out several advantages over OSX. Dialed-in access to OSS and freedom from buy-in to an organization which is notorious for demanding things done its way and no other is another (spanning the range from concrete to abstract there!).

I think lots of people who haven't used OSX very much tend to idealize it. I left Linux for OSX Public Beta as my full time OS, but after a few years Linux (and especially Ubuntu) is a much better solution for me.

[aysiu]

You can run Linux applications on OS X using X11, but it's slow. People may want it a bit more native (hell, even my Ubuntu live CD runs like lightning on my wife's Powerbook).

Also, some people may have OS 9, which isn't so hot, and they want to replace it with something more up-to-date but not OS X.

[23meg]

I know people who specificially preferred powerbooks to run specialized linux audio software with a patched multimedia kernel. Not every personal computer user in the world is a casual user; there are many people who are utilizing linux for production on a personal level, and a significiant portion of these tend to be "mac people", who are already accustomed to having first class production software on their platform, but who also want the complete freedom and flexibility that free / open source software offers.

[Kimm]

On a side note has'nt MS used alot of BSD code? I heard that once.


I doubt it, BSD is UNIX and Windows is... well... DOS more or less. They work differently, although, no doubt someone working for microsoft has seen both the Linux and BSD source codes.

[ThirdWorld]

I think Apple overcharge for their hardware. Think for example: a mac mini cost $700 with taxes. 160mhz system bus, 32mb of embeded video, slow 80GB hdd, 500mb of ram, no monitor, no keyboard etc...

Now take a low end PC that you can purchase with a bundled flat monitor in walmart, other discount or online store. Emachines or HP comes with 400 or 500Mhz system bus, 500mb of ram and a faster CPU, you can easily upgrade ram and purchase a nvidia video card for $58. now you have a 400mhz system bus, 1 GB of ram, 256bits video 128Mb of ram, 80Gb hard drive, several usb and firewire ports, this robust system will cost you the same as the mini with no monitor, keyboard and the inability to upgrade the video card.

I dont think that purchase a mac to run linux is a good idea, as you can see you can purchase better hardware for less money.

Edit: The only thing that i hate with these systems is that they come with windows XP Home edition preinstalled.

[aysiu]

I love eMachines, and they've served me well over the years. Some people, however, think they're pieces of crap. Just playing devil's advocate. I, too, think eMachines are a better deal than Mac Minis--unless you have space issues.

[DJ_Max]

I think Apple overcharge for their hardware. Think for example: a mac mini cost $700 with taxes. 160mhz system bus, 32mb of embeded video, slow 80GB hdd, 500mb of ram, no monitor, no keyboard etc...

Now take a low end PC that you can purchase with a bundled flat monitor in walmart, other discount or online store. Emachines or HP comes with 400 or 500Mhz system bus, 500mb of ram and a faster CPU, you can easily upgrade ram and purchase a nvidia video card for $58. now you have a 400mhz system bus, 1 GB of ram, 256bits video 128Mb of ram, 80Gb hard drive, several usb and firewire ports, this robust system will cost you the same as the mini with no monitor, keyboard and the inability to upgrade the video card.

I dont think that purchase a mac to run linux is a good idea, as you can see you can purchase better hardware for less money.
This is where the misunderstanding comes in, which is probably due to the lack of information available. You see a x86 system with a faster clock speed than a PPC computer and you automatically think it's faster. When in reaility it probably isn't. You cannot compare the clock speed of a x86 processor to a PPC processor. The 1.25GHz Mac mini will be faster. I have a 400MHZ iMac that's faster than my fathers 1.8GHZ x86 computer.

The reason Macs cost more is because of the high-end processor. Not to mention, a mac will outlive a Emachines.

[ThirdWorld]

This is where the misunderstanding comes in, which is probably due to the lack of information available. You see a x86 system with a faster clock speed than a PPC computer and you automatically think it's faster. When in reaility it probably isn't. You cannot compare the clock speed of a x86 processor to a PPC processor. The 1.25GHz Mac mini will be faster. I have a 400MHZ iMac that's faster than my fathers 1.8GHZ x86 computer.

The reason Macs cost more is because of the high-end processor. Not to mention, a mac will outlive a Emachines.


Speaking about a Mac outliving a low end PC, my aunt have a 600MHz Emachines that she bougt back in 1998 and it still works perfectly, the quality of a emachines or most low end PC is the same or even better than apple. I think what you are saying is a misconception that low end pc means poor quality, all computer parts (PC OR APPLE) are munfactured in taiwan or China,
Low end PC parts have ususally been available in the market for several years, thats the reason low end cost less. New hardware cost more, hence, high end Pc with newer parts will cost more....
The performance and speed of the PPC G4 or G5 vs intel P4 or AMD athlon 64 are similar, no big diference in speed or performance. faster system bus here will make your computer more responsive, faster and will give you a better performance, your 400mhz is not faster than your fathers it maybe have more ram, or your fathers crappy windows is making it feels slower... but 400mhz imac vs 1.8mhz PC... do the math

[aysiu]

This is where the misunderstanding comes in, which is probably due to the lack of information available. You see a x86 system with a faster clock speed than a PPC computer and you automatically think it's faster. When in reaility it probably isn't. You cannot compare the clock speed of a x86 processor to a PPC processor. The 1.25GHz Mac mini will be faster. I have a 400MHZ iMac that's faster than my fathers 1.8GHZ x86 computer.

The reason Macs cost more is because of the high-end processor. Not to mention, a mac will outlive a Emachines. You must be kidding. Our old eMachines we bought in 2001 is still alive and kicking. You cannot compare the specs of the $499 Mac Mini (http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html) with the specs of the $499 eMachines (http://www.e4me.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_T5010), even if we buy your argument about the processing (which I haven't found to be true anyway, but that's beside the point).


Mac Mini eMachines
Memory: 512 MB (up to 1 GB) 512 MB (up to 4 GB)
Drives: DVD-ROM/CD-RW DVD+RW
Ports: One firewire, two USB seven USB
Space: 40 GB 200 GB Sorry, but you just can't argue the Mac Mini is a better value, especially since Ubuntu on an x86 isn't as limited as Ubuntu on a PowerPC. Of course, it all depends on what's important to you.

Mac Mini: small size, OS X operating system (some people like it better than XP), sleek-looking.
eMachines: five times the hard drive space, more ports, more expandability for memory, and DVD-writing capabilities.

[fuscia]

This is where the misunderstanding comes in, which is probably due to the lack of information available. You see a x86 system with a faster clock speed than a PPC computer and you automatically think it's faster. When in reaility it probably isn't. You cannot compare the clock speed of a x86 processor to a PPC processor. The 1.25GHz Mac mini will be faster. I have a 400MHZ iMac that's faster than my fathers 1.8GHZ x86 computer.

is this that RISC vs. CISC thing?

[Luggy]

This is where the misunderstanding comes in, which is probably due to the lack of information available. You see a x86 system with a faster clock speed than a PPC computer and you automatically think it's faster. When in reaility it probably isn't. You cannot compare the clock speed of a x86 processor to a PPC processor. The 1.25GHz Mac mini will be faster. I have a 400MHZ iMac that's faster than my fathers 1.8GHZ x86 computer.

The reason Macs cost more is because of the high-end processor. Not to mention, a mac will outlive a Emachines.

You are right, you cannot directly compare a PPC to an x86. However I don't think you are paying more for the high-end processor. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you are still being overcharged on the other hardware (not to mention the OS).

[xequence]

Maybe people like linux better then OSX?

I cant say which I like better because ive never used OSX.

[panickedthumb]

Microsoft got their network stack from BSD back in the day, yes. I doubt much of the code is still around.

[Sirin]

You must be kidding. Our old eMachines we bought in 2001 is still alive and kicking. You cannot compare the specs of the $499 Mac Mini (http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html) with the specs of the $499 eMachines (http://www.e4me.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_T5010), even if we buy your argument about the processing (which I haven't found to be true anyway, but that's beside the point).


Mac Mini eMachines
Memory: 512 MB (up to 1 GB) 512 MB (up to 4 GB)
Drives: DVD-ROM/CD-RW DVD+RW
Ports: One firewire, two USB seven USB
Space: 40 GB 200 GB Sorry, but you just can't argue the Mac Mini is a better value, especially since Ubuntu on an x86 isn't as limited as Ubuntu on a PowerPC. Of course, it all depends on what's important to you.

Mac Mini: small size, OS X operating system (some people like it better than XP), sleek-looking.
eMachines: five times the hard drive space, more ports, more expandability for memory, and DVD-writing capabilities.

Could you compare that to Apple's most powerful monster?

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3038/pwmacg5vsemachines0pe.png

*eMachine specs based on aysiu's post. PowerMac G5 specs courtes of Apple Corporation.

[Stormy Eyes]

i can understand someone getting sick of OS X and wanting something different, but does anyone ever buy a mac with the intent of putting only linux on it? also, i'm under the impression that OS X is almost exactly like freeBSD.

One might buy a secondhand Mac that's in working order but too old to run OSX. Such a machine could still run Linux.

[theOrange]

Could you compare that to Apple's most powerful monster?

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3038/pwmacg5vsemachines0pe.png

*eMachine specs based on aysiu's post. PowerMac G5 specs courtes of Apple Corporation.

Where can i get a Power Mac G5 for $499?

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72302/wo/m91vAzdzwjd62JtleNUqRgjq5DI/0.SLID?nclm=PowerMac&mco=3C9AFF2C

[Stormy Eyes]

Where can i get a Power Mac G5 for $499?

Try a pawn shop. You might get busted for possession of stolen property, though. :)

[quietglow]

Funny, I actually sold my last mac, a mini, and bought an emachines amd 3400 with lots better specs. With the money left over I went out and had some nice sushi. I did, however, keep my 23" cinema display--emachines doesn't sell those :-)

[BWF89]

Speaking on Linux on a Mac.

My school is getting rid of all the iMac G3's in the library. So I went up to the principal in the hall and asked him if I could buy one. He said that their shipping the old Macs out to other schools but if theres some left he'll try to get it to me.

If I get it (which I doubt but it's worth a shot) I'm planing on eracing MacOS9 and installing Ubuntu PPC. Will Ubuntu run fast enough on an old computer like the iMac or would I be better off installing BSD?

[panickedthumb]

Speaking on Linux on a Mac.

My school is getting rid of all the iMac G3's in the library. So I went up to the principal in the hall and asked him if I could buy one. He said that their shipping the old Macs out to other schools but if theres some left he'll try to get it to me.

If I get it (which I doubt but it's worth a shot) I'm planing on eracing MacOS9 and installing Ubuntu PPC. Will Ubuntu run fast enough on an old computer like the iMac or would I be better off installing BSD?
Ubuntu runs fine on my iMac G3. Especially with XFCE, but Gnome runs fine too. You might want more ram, depending on how much is in them.

[kelsey23]

Speaking on Linux on a Mac.

My school is getting rid of all the iMac G3's in the library. So I went up to the principal in the hall and asked him if I could buy one. He said that their shipping the old Macs out to other schools but if theres some left he'll try to get it to me.

If I get it (which I doubt but it's worth a shot) I'm planing on eracing MacOS9 and installing Ubuntu PPC. Will Ubuntu run fast enough on an old computer like the iMac or would I be better off installing BSD?
You sir or madam, are wrong.

Mac OS 9 is getting dated these days, but in it's day it was the most advanced *consumer* operating system. You can still do a lot on it now, though. In fact, a friend just installed Mac OS 9 on his iMac yesterday.

Ubuntu PPC will work just fine on the iMac. PPCs clockspeeds work differently than x86 clockspeeds, a 333Mhz iMac is roughly equivalent to a 600 Mhz x86 processor. I would recommend upgrading the RAM from 64mb (if the school kept it factory installed) to at least 128mb though.

[aysiu]

Could you compare that to Apple's most powerful monster? No. Why would I do that? The eMachines in my comparison was US$499. The Mac Mini in my comparison is US$499. Why would I decide to compare the $499 eMachines with a Mac Mini that's more expensive? My whole point was that you're getting more for your money with an eMachines. The Powermac G5 you want to compare the eMachines model to is US $2499--almost five times the cost. You've proven my point exactly. If you want similar specs for an Apple computer, you have to be willing to shell out a lot of money.

[Qrk]

Macs are more like artwork, though. If you have the money to spend on the hardware, it can be a design statement. People will pay more for the mac look.

But I agree, a mac only really make sense economically if you don't realize you can uninstall windows from a PC. In a mac, you pay for the unix base and the GUI.

[aysiu]

But I agree, a mac only really make sense economically if you don't realize you can uninstall windows from a PC. In a mac, you pay for the unix base and the GUI. And don't forget the sleek metallic look of the hardware. I love eMachines, and they're a great value, but they don't look so hot (the actual computer, not the GUI). Macs definitely have a better "cool" factor any day. I just don't want to pay money for that.

[kelsey23]

Macs are more like artwork, though. If you have the money to spend on the hardware, it can be a design statement. People will pay more for the mac look.

But I agree, a mac only really make sense economically if you don't realize you can uninstall windows from a PC. In a mac, you pay for the unix base and the GUI.
Macs are beautiful artwork. But they are more than that even. Macs are a wonderful productivity tool. The extra money you pay for a Mac is well worth how it looks, but still, you overlook that a Mac comes with musch more than any PC. One example is that Macs come with iLife. But really you are missing the point. Mac OS X has the lowest TCO around, even lower than GNU/Linux and Windows. So actually, Mac OS X is the best value for your money.

[aysiu]

Mac OS X has the lowest TCO around, even lower than GNU/Linux and Windows. So actually, Mac OS X is the best value for your money. How is the TCO for Mac OS X lower than GNU/Linux? That doesn't make any sense. My wife recently upgraded to Tiger, and it cost her $115. I recently upgraded to Breezy, and it cost me nothing. When an x86 computer gets old, I can run it with XFCE and it'll zip. If a PowerPC gets old, Mac OS X isn't going to zip on that thing--you'll need Ubuntu (or some other Linux distro) to save it. You can't get cheaper than Linux (free), which has much more productivity software than just iLife (and it's all free--cost and licensing).

The "total cost of ownership" of Linux is just the original cost of the hardware until it dies completely. Hell, you can run Damn Small Linux on 16 MB of RAM. Try running OS X on that!

[fuscia]

i asked this same question of the mozilla crowd, back in august - http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=299917&highlight=linux+mac
one guy, who owns both pc and mac stuff, responded with "The PowerPC is a really nice chip if you're doing a lot of Floating Point processing or if you're doing operations that really benefit from a large register file that you can directly access. PowerPC has 32 FP registers, 32 GP registers and 32 SIMD registers. The Pentium 4 (older)/Pentium M chips have 8 FP, 8 GP and 8 SIMD registers. The x86-64 architecture has 16 GPRs, 8 FPs and 16 SIMD." would this have anything to do with the differences in actual speeds and ratings of the different CPUs?

i'm glad i brought this up. in addition to it being an interesting discussion, i'm considering getting a laptop in the near future and i'm trying to decide between getting an ibook or an hp, ibm or dell and putting ubuntu on it. i've never had a mac and the thought of getting to use yet another OS is appealing to me (it's that "ooh! a new toy!" factor). please feel free to chirp in on that subject as well.

[aysiu]

i'm glad i brought this up. in addition to it being an interesting discussion, i'm considering getting a laptop in the near future and i'm trying to decide between getting an ibook or an hp, ibm or dell and putting ubuntu on it. i've never had a mac and the thought of getting to use yet another OS is appealing to me (it's that "ooh! a new toy!" factor). please feel free to chirp in on that subject as well. I'd wait until the Intel switch.

[ubuntu_demon]

I want to put Ubuntu on my dad's mac in a couple of years when Ubuntu is at least as slick as OS X and when creative software on Ubuntu is just as easy as on a mac.

for me (I don't have a mac) : I prefer Ubuntu above OS X for its freedom and high configurability

[Remmelas]

This is where the misunderstanding comes in, which is probably due to the lack of information available. You see a x86 system with a faster clock speed than a PPC computer and you automatically think it's faster. When in reaility it probably isn't. You cannot compare the clock speed of a x86 processor to a PPC processor. The 1.25GHz Mac mini will be faster. I have a 400MHZ iMac that's faster than my fathers 1.8GHZ x86 computer.

Shoot, for that matter, you can't compare x86 processors based solely on clock speed. Just cuz intel cranks a processors clock doesn't mean they are doing more instructions per clock cycle. This is the one fallacy of processor performance, Megahertz/Gigahertz have never been a good performance measurment.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Macs are beautiful artwork. But they are more than that even. Macs are a wonderful productivity tool. The extra money you pay for a Mac is well worth how it looks, but still, you overlook that a Mac comes with musch more than any PC. One example is that Macs come with iLife. But really you are missing the point. Mac OS X has the lowest TCO around, even lower than GNU/Linux and Windows. So actually, Mac OS X is the best value for your money.

I was ok with the opinion part up to the TCO. In some cases this might be true. For others I doubt it.

For Ubuntu I spent a grand total of $0. Don't nitpick and mention electricity, you'd need that for any pc.

As for being better value hardware wise... Something tells me you can pick pc's from around 8 years ago to the present (should be at least i686 class if you got an early p II :) ) and run some variant of linux somewhat well.

Not to mention the architecture switches cost mac users a lot of dough... Although this may change slightly after they have ditched ppc.

[ThirdWorld]

I was ok with the opinion part up to the TCO. In some cases this might be true. For others I doubt it.

For Ubuntu I spent a grand total of $0. Don't nitpick and mention electricity, you'd need that for any pc.

As for being better value hardware wise... Something tells me you can pick pc's from around 8 years ago to the present (should be at least i686 class if you got an early p II :) ) and run some variant of linux somewhat well.

Not to mention the architecture switches cost mac users a lot of dough... Although this may change slightly after they have ditched ppc.

i dont think apple will reduce hardware prices when switching to intel. This is a company that makes money ripping people off with their "style" and "digital lifestyle".
If you check for example their .mac service they charge $100 for services that google and other companies like yahoo offer for free. Yahoo give you free webspace for your personal webpage, 1GB of mail storage and a free instant messenger, google even have plans to offer more free software in the future. I honeslty dont see any advantage in buying an "slick" Imac G5 $1,200 vs. an $662 emachines at walmart with a 2.2Ghz Atlon64, flat panel included and runing Ubuntu. upgrade the ram to 2GB and it will be faster than the fastest imac G5.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3942781

[aysiu]

You and I may consider it a ripoff, but paying for style and chic isn't unique to Apple. It's in cars, clothes, jewelry, and just about anything else you can purchase. People will pay an s-load more to get brand names, even if it's the same quality product. People decide for themselves what's important and what's worth paying money for.

I'd rather have a huge hard drive and a fully functioning Ubuntu with lots of applications (I heard that there aren't as many packages available for PPC) for cheaper than a sleek-looking computer and a lot of "hip" points. That's just me, though. I can't decide how other people want to spend their money.

[ThirdWorld]

You and I may consider it a ripoff, but paying for style and chic isn't unique to Apple. It's in cars, clothes, jewelry, and just about anything else you can purchase. People will pay an s-load more to get brand names, even if it's the same quality product. People decide for themselves what's important and what's worth paying money for.

I'd rather have a huge hard drive and a fully functioning Ubuntu with lots of applications (I heard that there aren't as many packages available for PPC) for cheaper than a sleek-looking computer and a lot of "hip" points. That's just me, though. I can't decide how other people want to spend their money.

yes thats true, lets said apple is for the rich, emachines is for the buyer on a budget or guys that have done their homework and understand that at least in technology expensive doesnt mean better, and you dont always get what you pay for, sometime you get more and better for less or for $0. :D

[aysiu]

yes thats true, lets said apple is for the rich Maybe as a general trend, but sometimes even poor people have to get it--they just take out more student loans and work extra hours. At my wife's school, certain majors (graphic design and architecture) are required to buy Powerbooks.

[poofyhairguy]

Why did I put Linux on my Mac? Thats all that old Clamshell can take.

Why will I put it on my future Intel Powerbook when they are released and I buy one? Because I like Linux, and the OSX version of OpenOffice sucks.

[MonolithTMA]

why put Linux on a mac?
Because it's free, and incredibly functional. I love OS X, but I've only booted into it three times in the slightly more than two weeks I've been running Ubuntu. Once to change permissions on the drives so I could access them in Ubuntu. Again to use Photoshop (scratch that, I did that in MoL). The third time was to try out my new DVD burner in OS X.

For me, the opportunities in Linux are fascinating. I love that I have a fully functional suite of tools that has cost me nothing, and that I could use those same tools identically on the Dell PC I'm typing on now.

So my question would be:
Why not put Linux, particularly Ubuntu, on a Mac?
I triple boot, I have OS 10.4 Tiger on one partition, Ubuntu 5.10 Breezy on another, and on the last partition I have OS 10.3 Panther so I can use Mac On Linux. If end up not liking Ubuntu, it hasn't cost me a dime. :)

[JimmyJazz]

for my needs I much prefer linux on my mac. I just feel I get far more options with linux. I think OS X is nice and all but I have always had usabilty issues with it.

[majikstreet]

If I had a mac with anything before OSX, I'd put ubuntu on it... I've never tried OSX, but I've heard it's great! I hate OS 9..

[BWF89]

I hate OS 9..
Agreed. I still wonder to this day how Apple managed to keep their company afloat when they kept releaseing version after version of their crappy Classic (OS1-0S9) operating systems.

Windows 95 > Mac OS9

[psoleko]

i asked this same question of the mozilla crowd, back in august - http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=299917&highlight=linux+mac
one guy, who owns both pc and mac stuff, responded with "The PowerPC is a really nice chip if you're doing a lot of Floating Point processing or if you're doing operations that really benefit from a large register file that you can directly access. PowerPC has 32 FP registers, 32 GP registers and 32 SIMD registers. The Pentium 4 (older)/Pentium M chips have 8 FP, 8 GP and 8 SIMD registers. The x86-64 architecture has 16 GPRs, 8 FPs and 16 SIMD." would this have anything to do with the differences in actual speeds and ratings of the different CPUs?

i'm glad i brought this up. in addition to it being an interesting discussion, i'm considering getting a laptop in the near future and i'm trying to decide between getting an ibook or an hp, ibm or dell and putting ubuntu on it. i've never had a mac and the thought of getting to use yet another OS is appealing to me (it's that "ooh! a new toy!" factor). please feel free to chirp in on that subject as well.

As someone who works with both x86 and Mac on daily basis and who chooses to use Ubuntu on his system for work and home on AMD 64, I thought I would chime in with a long winded response.

Fuscia, While that may be of the architecture differences of the G5 and x86 platforms there is quite a bit more at play there. For the most part, the CISC vs RISC debate has long died. Modern x86 CPUs, whilst still compatible with there forbearers and having all the eccentricities of the x86 platform, more resemble a RISC design internally passing the x86 instructions to a smaller instruction set that can be executed faster. Intel spent a ton of money to make up for x86's lack of elegance because of all the native applications that had been written to that platform. Backward compatibility has been the thorn in the side of Wintel world for as long as they have been the dominant player. Power PC on the other hand resembles some of the early RISC design and implements newer design philosophy like parallel thread execution, etc. So as not to put anyone to sleep with my CPU ramblings, please visit wikipedia for the history of Power, RISC, CISC, x86, x86-64. To put it nicely. While I would want a quad G5 system for simply for the rareity of such a beast, it would be like purchasing a car with a rare 12 Cylinder engine that basically gives you the same perfomance as a 6 Cylinder for double the price. If you look at it from an aesthetic perspective, which many people infact do, Apple has some of the best industrial designs around and the team that creates them is one of the best in the world. In other words alot of people purchase things based on how it looks, the PC is a fashion accessory, and Apple has some of the best. Under the hood though you would be better served with something from Intel or AMD (my personal choice). As Apple is moving away from Power I would wait to purchase a laptop till sometime next year when they transition the Latops over to Intel. Keep in mind the Ibook and Powerbook line have been limping along on severley aged and clock speed limited G4 processors which I would not recommend for a modern system. That said if you want something sleek and powerful, look at the Ferrari line of Laptops from Acer. They sport official Ferrari colors and logos and run AMD Turion CPUs. I think I will not debate the merits of OS 10 vs. Linux as that has been done ad nauseum.

[dada1958]

I got my first Mac in 1994; I'd played with a friends' Windows 3.11 PC before and I didn't like it at all. It was a LC II with Mac OS 7.1 and I really liked it from the very beginning.
Several Macs later, I have a G4 iMac with Mac OS X Tiger, I'm getting sick and tired to spend fortunes for upgrades. There was the migration to Mac OS X so I had to replace my apps to OS X native ones, not to mention the Mac OS X upgrades, three times €129.
Late August I read about Ubuntu, I downloaded the Live-CD, this was my first acquaintance with Linux and it looked promising enough to spend an extra partition for Ubuntu on my HD. In September I bought my first Intel machine ever, a secondhand Compaq Deskpro EN P III @ 1 GHz with 256 MB RAM and a 20 GB HD, it was a real bargain and when I replaced the CD-ROM drive for a DVD burner I was surprised how robust, compared with my old beige G3, this machine was build.
I'm very happy with this PC, it has a rock solid OS, running happily in my network. The most important thing is that Ubuntu gave me back the joy of computing, I don't have to bother myself any longer about costly upgrades. Apps like the Gimp and Scribus are gems, PDF is also integrated.
I'm working with people with intellectual limitation and the foundation I'm working for is highly Windows orientated. Some time ago I organized some old Macs for my clients to give them the opportunity to experience something more decent than Windows and also access to the internet. Those Macs all run Mac OS 9 which became obsolete and rather useless compared with Ubuntu, certainly when surfing the web. Firefox and Opera are much better than IE 5 and Opera 6.0.4 so the first Ubuntu PC is up and running at my work and the intention is to bring open source to more locations of the foundation. I also have the impression that the PPC Linux kernel isn't that good as the i386 one, so I'm planning to get rid of the Macs except one G3 minitower to use the SCSI peripherals and the good old LaserWriter 4/600 PS.

[penguain]

get a mac now.... when it starts running slow in several years put linux on it:D
im on a G3 from the mid 90's it CAN run OS X 10.3 but i really slow now it boots up faster than my g$ mac on OS X

[BUXjr]

Why?

...because Ubuntu absolutely FLIES on my Mac Mini. I don't know what they did or how they did it, but it seems to use the G4 proc (and the G5, I would assume), quite efficiently. It truly is, very elegant. Way less harware/driver issues on a Mac too, since the hardware is pretty much standard, across the board. Plus, it's just a kick to see a Mac boot (quickly too) into anyting other than OSX. It is sweet -- try it.

Now if we could just get the support staff to add the ability to natively install, and subsequently BOOT from an external firewire drive, I would be in hog-heaven! C'Mon guys, it can't be THAT difficult.

BUXjr

[bonzodog]

Is anyone here aware of how closely related to linux OSX is?

OSX is a graphical layer to something called Darwin Unix. Darwin Unix is a branch of the BSD tree. So, yes, OSX is a version of BSD unix. The difference is that the darwin code itself is GPL and free for download, but the graphical layer is proprietry.
This explains why linux apps will build on OSX, but they are very rough and slow.
There is already a project building the gnustep code (forked from openstep, which forked from NeXtstep, which was, you guessed it, bought by apple), on the darwin kernel.

[SteelValor]

^^ The only reason to put Linux on a NEW mac is, because you need a status symbol to one up the neighbors

[jrw6]

I have an old (G3 366 Mhz, 64 MB of RAM) iBook. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even meet the minimum requirements for OSX. On the other hand one burned CDR and booting with it in the drive while holding down "C" later, it's running Ubuntu fine. I run IceWM since GNOME takes up far too much memory. I'm thinking about upgrading it to 256 MB of RAM, but even then I think OSX would refuse to even try to install on this machine. That and I don't like OSX.

In short, I can't (and wouldn't) run OSX on a Mac. I'm only running Ubuntu on this one since I got it for free.

[Derek Djons]

Though I fell in love with Linux also I still wouldn't shred off Mac OS X to install Linux on it. For me, Mac OS X belongs on a Apple computer / notebook. But Linux belongs on the rest of all computers :)

[ciaran.mooney]

I have an old (G3 366 Mhz, 64 MB of RAM) iBook. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even meet the minimum requirements for OSX. On the other hand one burned CDR and booting with it in the drive while holding down "C" later, it's running Ubuntu fine. I run IceWM since GNOME takes up far too much memory. I'm thinking about upgrading it to 256 MB of RAM, but even then I think OSX would refuse to even try to install on this machine. That and I don't like OSX.

In short, I can't (and wouldn't) run OSX on a Mac. I'm only running Ubuntu on this one since I got it for free.

You can actually get OSX onto that iBook - only up to Panther though, they've only *just* stopped supporting those iBooks. It will be pig slow. I used to have Mac OS X on my iBook 300Mhz 544mb clamshell, ran fine, did everything I wanted it to.

Then I blasted it into smitherines with Ubuntu, with a large Gun Toting Penguin.

[davebgimp]

I use OSX at work and Ubuntu at home. While I do like OSX, I have waaaay more stability issues with OSX compared to Ubuntu But, to get on point, my boss, just for giggles put Ubuntu on a G4 laptop we were planning to wipe and reinstall, to see what was what. While it worked well, we came to the opinion that considering the cost of Macs, unless it was some piece of junk older model, we'd be better off keeping the OSX on there and picking up some cheap PCs.

[Lanrond]

Because if you own a G3 machine, you probably bought it with OS9 installed and now if you want a more updated system without spending lots of money, you can give Ubuntu a try.

[tufkakf]

Simple: I prefer Linux over OSX.

[ssam]

some people consider macs good value for money. i imagine it depends how you evaluate it.

some people value case aesthetics some people like to buy things that look nice in there house. people pay lots of money for paintings, sculpture, funiture etc. before the original iMac i dont think any other manufacurer was even considering this. even now apple kit looks better on your desk.

macs tend to last a good long while (compare the second hand value of a 5 year old mac and pc). my 2.5 yearold titianium powerbook gets a lot of lugging around and only has a little but of scuffing on some corners, i expect many more years out of it.

good components. not just the cheapest. things like the internal speakers, are a lot better than your average pc. good screens on the powerbooks. well designed power adapters. firewire and wifi ahead of its time. charge indecator lights on batteries.

powerpc chips. while intel and amd where fighting over clock speed, ibm and motorola where looking at energy effeciency, vectorising, doing more in a clock cycle etc. intel have come around with the pentium m, and the core duo, but in a lot of ways powerpc was ahead. the G3 could be used with out a fan (in the crt imacs). the G4 was classified as a supercomputer for doing a Gflop. For some scientific stuff a room full of xservers is the cheapest way to get the computing power.

enough for some people to buy macs even if they want to run linux. but if you just want the biggest hard drive and the fastest process (how ever you like to measure that) then maybe a mac is not for you.

[ottojschlosser]

i can understand someone getting sick of OS X and wanting something different, but does anyone ever buy a mac with the intent of putting only linux on it? also, i'm under the impression that OS X is almost exactly like freeBSD.
I'm typing this on a Blue & White G3 running Ubuntu 5.10. This system would be sluggish at best running Mac OS X (which I have on a G4 and like very much) but it runs Ubuntu crisply with only 384MB of RAM. It has another virtue - I work in a Windows network environment and Ubuntu PPC plays very nicely with the printers and fileservers. And best of all - it's free.

[briancurtin]

I doubt it, BSD is UNIX and Windows is... well... DOS more or less. They work differently, although, no doubt someone working for microsoft has seen both the Linux and BSD source codes.
windows does in fact have BSD code in it

[Killashandra]

Yes it does!

[felix_stegerman]

Simple: I prefer Linux over OSX.

Well said!

When the mac mini came out, I considered it to be a nice, small, aesthetically pleasing, and quiet replacement for my x86 PC. (I'm typing this on my mini right now ...)

When I needed a laptop to be able to work at my university (I'm a CS student), I bought an iBook G4. I think Apple makes nice hardware and coupled with Debian (or Ubuntu), I'm happy. ;-)


Felix

[adamb10]

I ran a livecd of Ubuntu on my mac mini. Not that good graphics wise(the usplash ubuntu logo looked like crap compared to my pc).

I bought my Mac Mini for OS X. Hell, when I opened up the box that contained the cd's, manuals, etc I came upon the 3 page OS X license and basicly I stared at it knowing I finally own a mac. :D

[fuscia]

what's the 'mach kernel'? i remember reading (i think it was on wikipedia, about monolithic vs. micro kernels) that OSX is a combo of something BSDesque and the 'mach kernel'.

[K.Mandla]

i can understand someone getting sick of OS X and wanting something different, but does anyone ever buy a mac with the intent of putting only linux on it? also, i'm under the impression that OS X is almost exactly like freeBSD.
The only thought I have is the fact that a friend of mine has an old beige PowerPC (?) that can't handle OSX, but he wants to run the BOINC client on a machine in his basement, 24-7.

Since there's a linux variant, he's keen on getting Ubuntu to run on it. He hasn't had much luck, but I don't know that he's tried very hard.

[felix_stegerman]

what's the 'mach kernel'? i remember reading (i think it was on wikipedia, about monolithic vs. micro kernels) that OSX is a combo of something BSDesque and the 'mach kernel'.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU):

"XNU is the name of the kernel that Apple developed for use in the Mac OS X operating system and released as open source as part of the Darwin operating system. It is a hybrid kernel combining the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with components from the FreeBSD kernel as well as a C++ API for writing drivers called IOKit. XNU is an acronym for X is Not Unix.

The primitives and fundamental services of the XNU kernel are based on Mach 3.0. Apple modified and extended Mach to meet the functional and performance goals of Mac OS X. Mach 3.0 was originally conceived as a simple, extensible microkernel. As such, it is able to run the core of an operating system as a separated process, which allows a great flexibility (one could run several operating systems in parallel above the Mach core), but this reduces performance because of the translations between Mach and the different codebases. With Mac OS X, since the behavior of the system is known in advance, BSD functionalities were built into the core with Mach. The result is a combination of the assets of Mach and BSD. The Mach side of the kernel is responsible for the memory management, process and thread management, and inter-process communication; it provides protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking and advanced virtual memory. The BSD side of the kernel manages users and the permissions, contains the network stack, offers a virtual file system and maintains POSIX compatibility. IOKit is responsible for the input/output system."


Felix

[fuscia]

so, felix, doesn't that mean that the mach kernel is more responsible for the performance of OSX than the BSD elements?

edit: if that were true, then the answer to my question is that someone would prefer the performance of a monolithic kernel to a microkernel.

(am i understanding any of this?)

[mips]

The only thought I have is the fact that a friend of mine has an old beige PowerPC (?) that can't handle OSX, but he wants to run the BOINC client on a machine in his basement, 24-7.

Since there's a linux variant, he's keen on getting Ubuntu to run on it. He hasn't had much luck, but I don't know that he's tried very hard.


Maybe post the exact hardware details in the PPC forum and see what gives...

[K.Mandla]

Maybe post the exact hardware details in the PPC forum and see what gives...
That's what I keep telling him to do, but he's married and stuff. ;)

[felix_stegerman]

Hi,

I just found these:
http://www.bitrot.de/macswitch.html
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/0,39023165,39183867,00.htm
http://www.trash.net/~martin/macosx.html


Felix

[maxdevis]

because i can't watch divx and xvid on my old ibook with OSX

[Sirin]

For me, there is NO way. I use Linux on my comp as a free UNIX for PC. There is nothing that can match up to the Mac IMO (sorry if this makes you guys angry, biased Linux fanboys, even if it is my opinion :) ). From what I've seen, Linux is the least innovative community. They rely on "other innovations" (such as apple's itunes to make Rhythmbox) to make lesser quality "equivalents". I haven't seen a single big original idea come from the Linux community. :neutral:

Sorry, I just had to let it out.

[ComplexNumber]

For me, there is NO way. I use Linux on my comp as a free UNIX for PC. There is nothing that can match up to the Mac IMO (sorry if this makes you guys angry, biased Linux fanboys, even if it is my opinion :) ). From what I've seen, Linux is the least innovative community. They rely on "other innovations" (such as apple's itunes to make Rhythmbox) to make lesser quality "equivalents". I haven't seen a single big original idea come from the Linux community. :neutral:

Sorry, I just had to let it out. so, basically, the linux on your computer is doing nothing other than taking up space on your hard drive. so why not get rid of it entirely if the mac is better in every single way?

[fuscia]

Hi,

I just found these:
http://www.bitrot.de/macswitch.html
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/0,39023165,39183867,00.htm

the first one seems fascinated with the GUI, but mentions shortcomings in the underlying system. OSX seems like a mishmash of an operating system, so i can see why someone would prefer linux. i guess my real confusion is in a lack of appreciation for apple hardware.

as torvalds said, he's a technology whore.

http://www.trash.net/~martin/macosx.html

dude, i barely understand linux in english. would you please summarize? thanks for the links, btw.

[ComplexNumber]

OSX seems like a mishmash of an operating system, so i can see why someone would prefer linux. i guess my real confusion is in a lack of appreciation for apple hardware. OS X is actually a very inefficient OS. linux leaves it standing. one can read about it here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520) and here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=8).




when comparing linux to OS X, it was found that linux is up to 10 times faster.

...........................

Mac OS X versus Linux

Lmbench 2.04 provides a suite of micro benchmarks that measure the bottlenecks at the Unix operating system (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=8#) and CPU level. This makes it very suitable for testing the theory that Mac OS X (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=8#) might be the culprit for the terrible server performance of the Apple platform.

..........................

Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in creating new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go through extra layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the G5 might not be the fastest integer CPU on earth - its database performance is completely crippled by an asthmatic operating system that needs up to 5 times more time to handle and create threads.

[felix_stegerman]

dude, i barely understand linux in english. would you please summarize? thanks for the links, btw.

Sure. Basically, he says (IMHO):
* "It's not open source"
* "X support is bad"
* "The modified GCC that comes with OSX is bad"
* "The source compatibility to BSD is bad"
* "The file system is bad"
* "The performance is bad (e.g. because PDF is used to render most of the UI"
* "Stability is not everything (e.g. laptops that won't wake up from sleep mode)"
* "No proper Office suite"
* "Linux with KDE is so fast on his Powerbook that thinking of OS makes him sick"


Felix

[felix_stegerman]

OSX seems like a mishmash of an operating system, so i can see why someone would prefer linux. i guess my real confusion is in a lack of appreciation for apple hardware.

Well, I like the mac mini as a small, quiet and nice-looking computer that runs Debian just fine. The same goes for my iBook.

I tried OSX. I even bought and read "OSX for UNIX geeks". But I just prefer Debian. Because its free (as in speech), and because it works for me.
(NOTE: I'm a programmer and a CS student so I have an affinity for tinkering with avery aspect of a computer. I wrote my own X session manager and actually quite liked our programming assignments in SPARC assembly ;-))


Felix

[virgule]

So here i am typing this from OS X Tiger on a Core Duo Mac Mini.
Been 100% Linux on my now retired G3 minitower. I never used OS X more than a few seconds, flying by a demonstrator computer at the store..

I miss many Linux features like apt-get, the ttys, the source codes, GDM/KDM/XDM's Sessions menu, transparency-to-the-end-user between different architectures among others but OS X is actually winning my heart now! I have spent some time looking around and this is good stuffs, I think. It have bash. Only Finder need some serious usability improvements. I am still on the learning curve tho. I find the rest to be quite clever.. Expose and Dashboard :-D Not to mention it load Firefox 1.5 in less than a second. This mini box does a lot of things but rushing aint one of them, so, if OSX is considered 'slow' and Linux 'fast' I am wondering just how fast is actually fast..:-k

I have yet to locate clear instructions and 'stable' Linux support for this Mini box but I am looking forward for it, with great enthusiasm.


time open Firefox.app

real 0m0.102s
user 0m0.041s
sys 0m0.023s


Why Linux on a Mac? Because Linux is Linux. It got to be a love/hate relationship because I highly doubt Linux can or will beat Apple on hardware support ground.

[Sushi]

i can understand someone getting sick of OS X and wanting something different, but does anyone ever buy a mac with the intent of putting only linux on it?

Sure, why not? Apple makes great hardware, why not run great OS in there as well ;)?

also, i'm under the impression that OS X is almost exactly like freeBSD.

The userland tools are from FreeBSD, but the GUI and the Kernel are not.

[Sushi]

I think Apple overcharge for their hardware.

Do some calculations one day. Compare PC's and Macs. macs usually have some extra in their price, but nothing major. And you get lots of "nice touches" with that extra money.

Think for example: a mac mini cost $700 with taxes. 160mhz system bus, 32mb of embeded video, slow 80GB hdd, 500mb of ram, no monitor, no keyboard etc...

Now take a low end PC that you can purchase with a bundled flat monitor in walmart, other discount or online store.

Yeah, lets compare the two. Mac Mini is a tiny, silent and elegant computer. Those low-end PC's are huge and noisy tower-PC's, and their specs usually suck as well.

Seriously: this is like someone compares a BMW and Dodge and says "why would anyone buy a BMW when the Dodge gives me similar specs for less money?". There are more to computers than mere specs. But hey, if you want to use some big, noisy and fugly tower-PC, instead of elegant, gorgerous and silent Mini, then go right ahead. To each on his own I guess.

I dont think that purchase a mac to run linux is a good idea, as you can see you can purchase better hardware for less money.

I find the Mini to be "better hardware" than those low-end PC's are. Like I said, there's more to computers that just specs.

[Sushi]

Is anyone here aware of how closely related to linux OSX is?

OSX is a graphical layer to something called Darwin Unix. Darwin Unix is a branch of the BSD tree.

Uh, NO. the userland-tools are from BSD, period. The GUI is from Apple, the kernel is called XNU, and it contains some Mach and some bits and pieces of BSD. But it's NOT a BSD-kernel! The ONLY thing decisively BSD in OS X is the userland-tools!

[aysiu]

I find the Mini to be "better hardware" than those low-end PC's are. Like I said, there's more to computers that just specs. It all depends on what the user finds most important. I prefer great specs even on "worse hardware." My eMachines computers are still going strong... even though they look ugly, and they were extremely cheap, especially compared to Apple computers.

[Sushi]

It all depends on what the user finds most important. I prefer great specs even on "worse hardware." My eMachines computers are still going strong... even though they look ugly, and they were extremely cheap, especially compared to Apple computers.

And I prefer a pleasant computing-experience. The Mini is silent, it takes up tiny amount of space, it's fast enough, it just "feels right". Compare that to tower-PC (for example, my tower-PC). It noisy. It's constantly humming so you feel the technology around you. And that can be very distracting. It takes up large amount of space. It consumes lots of power (25w-35W vs. 120-180W. Yes, I measured them). My Mini is on my desk, and it takes very little space. My tower-PC is under the desk (and it's still too noisy, even though it's supposed to be designed for silence), and it takes so much space that I can barely fit my legs under there. The tower-PC is made from plastic, whereas the Mini is made from aluminium (seriously: when you pick up a Mac Mini in your hand, there are two things you will notice: how heavy it is relative to the size, and how it feels like a hi-end piece of equipment).

Yes, the tower-PC mops the floor with the Mini as far as performance is concerned (1.25GHz G4 vs. A64 3200+, 512MB RAM, vs. 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB vs. NVIDIA GeForce 5900 128MB). But the Mini is simply a lot more pleasant to use. And that is something you can't see by just staring at the specs.

Alas, I also love Linux, and Linux doesn't work optimally on PPC (those damn binaries....). So I'm using the PC, and I'm either selling the Mini or turning it in to a server.

I have actually compared prices of Macs and PC's. Compared to comparable Dell, 15" MacBook costs about $200 more. And for that extra money, you get backlit keyboard, all-aluminium construction, OS X (for those who want it), slot-loading optical drive, magnetic powercord and so forth. PowerMacs are VERY competetive as far as price is concerned. The Quad is downright cheap when compared to dual-dual PC's. iMac is very cheap as well, when you look at the specs and design.

I know that I propably sound like an Apple fanboy. Well, I'm not. I might be a Mac-fanboy (for the hardware that is) though ;).

[BoyOfDestiny]

And I prefer a pleasant computing-experience. The Mini is silent, it takes up tiny amount of space, it's fast enough, it just "feels right". Compare that to tower-PC (for example, my tower-PC). It noisy. It's constantly humming so you feel the technology around you. And that can be very distracting. It takes up large amount of space. It consumes lots of power (25w-35W vs. 120-180W. Yes, I measured them). My Mini is on my desk, and it takes very little space. My tower-PC is under the desk (and it's still too noisy, even though it's supposed to be designed for silence), and it takes so much space that I can barely fit my legs under there. The tower-PC is made from plastic, whereas the Mini is made from aluminium (seriously: when you pick up a Mac Mini in your hand, there are two things you will notice: how heavy it is relative to the size, and how it feels like a hi-end piece of equipment).

Yes, the tower-PC mops the floor with the Mini as far as performance is concerned (1.25GHz G4 vs. A64 3200+, 512MB RAM, vs. 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB vs. NVIDIA GeForce 5900 128MB). But the Mini is simply a lot more pleasant to use. And that is something you can't see by just staring at the specs.

Alas, I also love Linux, and Linux doesn't work optimally on PPC (those damn binaries....). So I'm using the PC, and I'm either selling the Mini or turning it in to a server.

I have actually compared prices of Macs and PC's. Compared to comparable Dell, 15" MacBook costs about $200 more. And for that extra money, you get backlit keyboard, all-aluminium construction, OS X (for those who want it), slot-loading optical drive, magnetic powercord and so forth. PowerMacs are VERY competetive as far as price is concerned. The Quad is downright cheap when compared to dual-dual PC's. iMac is very cheap as well, when you look at the specs and design.

I know that I propably sound like an Apple fanboy. Well, I'm not. I might be a Mac-fanboy (for the hardware that is) though ;).

Seriously, get one of the quiet fans or silent power supplies. My tower of like 3 years, is so quiet, sometimes I think it's off (when the screen has turned off)...

On the other hand, I built a spare PC (running Ubuntu ;) ) at home for around $300 (by canabalizing some parts from a few computers... finally my p2 266 is put to rest... Although it still works... haha I will ressurect it one day)
Anyway my point, is it's noisy as heck.

So time for me to replace some fans or get a new power supply (whatever the heck is making the noise on that)

Google for silent pc

[aysiu]

And I prefer a pleasant computing-experience. The Mini is silent, it takes up tiny amount of space, it's fast enough, it just "feels right". Compare that to tower-PC (for example, my tower-PC). It noisy. It's constantly humming so you feel the technology around you. And that can be very distracting. It takes up large amount of space. It consumes lots of power (25w-35W vs. 120-180W. Yes, I measured them). Well, use what works for you.

My noisy, power-hungry, space-filling eMachines tower doesn't interfere with my "pleasant computing experience" at all. Again, as I stated before, it's all about what's important to you. If a Mac Mini is worth the money to you, then get it. It's not worth the money for everyone, though.

[Sushi]

Well, use what works for you.

My noisy, power-hungry, space-filling eMachines tower doesn't interfere with my "pleasant computing experience" at all. Again, as I stated before, it's all about what's important to you. If a Mac Mini is worth the money to you, then get it. It's not worth the money for everyone, though.

Then why do we STILL have people constantly telling everyone that "Macs are overpriced!"?

[Sushi]

Seriously, get one of the quiet fans or silent power supplies.

I already do. this (http://www.nexustek.nl/breeze.htm) is my case. It's built from the ground-up to be silent. And it's still too loud IMO. And why should I waste time and money for "silent" components, when I could just buy a silent computer and be done with it?

[aysiu]

Then why do we STILL have people constantly telling everyone that "Macs are overpriced!"? Because, as I've been trying to say the last few posts, some of us don't care about how sleek-looking or quiet our computers are. I can't even hear my computer's fan unless I crouch down on the floor and put my head next to it.

And I don't look at my computer because it's below me, and it doesn't take up extra space because there's already a tower-sized space built into my desk. It's unobtrusive.

Specifications matter to some computer users (like me)--I don't want to pay extra just to get a fancy-looking computer. So, for my needs, Macs are overpriced.

[Rikostan]

I bought an older G3 blue and white mac just to put ubuntu on... I wanted to mess around with OSX too though, so it will be dualboot.

My main reason was to learn. I want to see how Ubuntu runs on the older mac and I want to learn the inner-workings of OSX as well.

[Sushi]

Because, as I've been trying to say the last few posts, some of us don't care about how sleek-looking or quiet our computers are. I can't even hear my computer's fan unless I crouch down on the floor and put my head next to it.

And likewise: Some of us don't care if the CPU is not the fastest one possible, if it's still fast enough. So could we just drop the "Macs are overpriced!"-crap? Those comments are in no shape or form justified, since (as you said) we all value different things in computers.

[aysiu]

And likewise: Some of us don't care if the CPU is not the fastest one possible, if it's still fast enough. So could we just drop the "Macs are overpriced!"-crap? Those comments are in no shape or form justified, since (as you said) we all value different things in computers. But they are overpriced for particular consumers. No one can, however, claim an eMachines computer is overpriced because it has an audible fan or is bigger than a book. One can say, "I wouldn't mind paying more for a smaller, quieter computer," but one can also say, "I wouldn't mind paying more for a quiet restaurant with good lighting," even if the other louder restaurant offers the same quality food at a cheaper price. And some people are going to say the more expensive restaurant is overpriced if atmosphere doesn't matter to them--only the food.

[hotani]

I've been using macs for a while now, my current machine is a dual 867 G4 running OS X 10.4. It is a great and beautiful OS. However, now that it is time to upgrade I looked at the options:

1- New G5 running OS X: $2700
2- New PC built by *me* running Ubuntu: $1000
3- (EDIT) New Dell: $1500

All systems have the following: dual core processors, 2GB RAM, beefy GPU, rock solid *nix based OS. So yeah, Macs are expensive. Really expensive when you consider what it costs to custom build a rig, now the story might change if you go through Dell and order the same specs (EDIT: just added the Dell option above).

Now I'm playing with Ubuntu on my G4 at home (as well as my primary work PC and laptop) to get used to the system. I think it is a great OS for someone like me that is comfortable with the *nix world, and doesn't mind leaving behind some of the OS X user-friendliness and polish. I especially don't mind leaving behind the price tag - sheesh.

[mostwanted]

Let me break into this debate with my point of view. Personally, I really like Mac hardware, it's really sexy and Apple seem to be the only company capable of making a powerful laptop in a slim packaging with a nice design (is that really too much to ask?). Unfortunately, buying a laptop from them is out of the question as I don't want ATI graphics with their crap Linux drivers and the broadcam wifi chip which only has a reverse-engineered driver for Linux.

I guess I'm one of those who really like Linux (particularly Ubuntu) for its great software catalog. Sure OSX is nice too, but it offers nothing over Ubuntu in my case (not opinion, case! I'm sure it offers something to other users) and what it does offer is served in a proprietary packaging which I'm not particularly fond of.

[Sushi]

But they are overpriced for particular consumers.

And they are not for others. And you are now justifying the "Macs are overpriced"-claim by saying that for some they are overpriced. Well, that exact same argument could be used to counter the claim that Mac are overpriced: To some users, they are NOT overpriced. To those consumers, your eMachines-PC is overpriced. Yet you don't see Mac-users marching around and telling everyone how PC's are "overpriced", now do you? So how can you use that argument t justify something, when that exact same argument counter the claim you are making? And those who think that Macs are overpriced are NOT going to make the Mac-users "see the light" with their arguments, no matter how much they try. So it's really pointless to argue about it. Those who DO use Macs are perfectly happy using their "overpriced" machines, and I for one simply can't see what the PC-users hope to achieve by pointing out how "overpriced" the Macs are.

besides, some Macs are NOT in ANY shape or form "overpriced". MacBooks, iMacs and PowerMacs are quite competetive pricewise. The Mini does lose a bit specswise, but it wins in other areas, while still having "good enough" specs. There are simply no comparable PC-machines available. Those Espresso-PC's were somewhat similar sizewise, but their performance suck, and they look like crap. When you compare your eMachines to the Mini, it's like comparing Ford F-series to Mini Cooper, and then proclaim that the Mini sucks because you can't haul manure with it. The F-series does some things really well, and the Mini does some other things really well.

So really: just drop it, OK? The whole claim is getting really, really old.

[Sushi]

Both systems have the following: dual core processors, 2GB RAM, beefy GPU, rock solid *nix based OS. So yeah, Macs are expensive. Really expensive when you consider what it costs to custom build a rig, now the story might change if you go through Dell and order the same specs.

You don't say?? Comparing self-built machines with OEM-machines is comparing apples (no pun intended) to oranges. Since Macs are OEM-machines, the correct thing to do is to compare them to other OEM-machines.

[hotani]

You don't say?? Comparing self-built machines with OEM-machines is comparing apples (no pun intended) to oranges. Since Macs are OEM-machines, the correct thing to do is to compare them to other OEM-machines.

Just edited my post and added a comparable Dell system to the list.

[Sushi]

Just edited my post and added a comparable Dell system to the list.

Last time I checked, PowerMacs start at $1999. And everyone knows NOT to buy RAM from Apple

[hotani]

You're right, but after adding the RAM (+300) and upgrading the video card (+400) that is where it ended up. All those systems listed above have a GeForce 7800 GPU and 2GB of RAM. It should be noted also that the Dell system had a 19" flat panel which I subtracted from my "order" - however, it only saved $100.

[aysiu]

And they are not for others. I'm not disputing that. I've never said in this thread that Macs are "overpriced" for everyone. To those consumers, your eMachines-PC is overpriced. Considering that eMachines are arguably the cheapest pre-built computers on the market, I don't see how you can say they're overpriced any more than you can say McDonald's is overpriced. You may think McDonald's has crap food, but you can't say it's overpriced. When you compare your eMachines to the Mini, it's like comparing Ford F-series to Mini Cooper, and then proclaim that the Mini sucks because you can't haul manure with it. And if someone has a Ford F-series that runs just fine, she may actually think the Mini Cooper is overpriced for her. Please look at everything I've written in this thread. You're disputing claims I'm not making.

[poofyhairguy]

Yet you don't see Mac-users marching around and telling everyone how PC's are "overpriced", now do you?

I would love to see that. Nothing would make me laugh more.


Those who DO use Macs are perfectly happy using their "overpriced" machines, and I for one simply can't see what the PC-users hope to achieve by pointing out how "overpriced" the Macs are.

The point is to help get into some Mac users brains why Dell sells 5+ times the PCs that Apple sells.

You should not have to defend the choice of buying a Mac- that is what freedom is about. Yet Mac users sometimes have this belief that they have a system that is meant for the masses when it is not (for the same reason BMWs are not meant for the masses).

In this world, Macs are the upper class of the computer industry. They provide an upper class experiance for upper class prices. If that does not bug you then there is no debate- only agreement.


besides, some Macs are NOT in ANY shape or form "overpriced". MacBooks, iMacs and PowerMacs are quite competetive pricewise.

Seeing as how nothing else in the market does what these Macs do then you are correct. Of course if you compare the plain specs to a Dell during one of their 40% off sales then the Macs seem way over priced. This is not a big deal- some say you pay for quaility.


The Mini does lose a bit specswise, but it wins in other areas, while still having "good enough" specs. There are simply no comparable PC-machines available. Those Espresso-PC's were somewhat similar sizewise, but their performance suck, and they look like crap. When you compare your eMachines to the Mini, it's like comparing Ford F-series to Mini Cooper, and then proclaim that the Mini sucks because you can't haul manure with it. The F-series does some things really well, and the Mini does some other things really well.

Problem is that the mini is not seen by the general public as "a specific use Mac." Its the cheap Mac- the entry level model. So it will be compared to entry level models. If Apple wants to put out a decent sub $900 iMac this will no longer be the case. Until then, Mini's compete with eMachines....

Of course, there is nothing wrong with Macs being the upper class option. I plan to buy an Intel iBook as soon as they are released because I want a high end laptop (build wise). But I will not pretend I could not just buy a Dell now with the same specs as these laptops when they are released for cheaper today. This does not bug me, as I am a vain person and I want the laptop I drag around to make me look cool.

As long as you have a good reason to buy a Mac then do so. Just please stop your end of the "Macs are not expensive" battle because you know what people mean when they say that. They are not saying Macs have less value. They are not saying Macs are worth less. They are saying that you can get a Dell/HP on sale with the same (or better) specs than a Mac for less. Thats all anyone means by that. Its the truth, so you should never take offense to it.

Life is too short to argue that BMWs are cheap.....

[Rikostan]

I like this poofy hair dude.... well said!

[Sushi]

The point is to help get into some Mac users brains why Dell sells 5+ times the PCs that Apple sells.

As it happens, sales of Macs are growing a lot faster than Dell is growing Or generic PC's for that matter). Why do Dell sell more? Propably because of Windows.

You should not have to defend the choice of buying a Mac- that is what freedom is about. Yet Mac users sometimes have this belief that they have a system that is meant for the masses when it is not (for the same reason BMWs are not meant for the masses).

Sure it's meant for the masses. There are plenty of affordable Macs available.

In this world, Macs are the upper class of the computer industry. They provide an upper class experiance for upper class prices. If that does not bug you then there is no debate- only agreement.

Nope, it doesn't bug me at all, and I am in agreement. And still, there are plenty of affordable Macs available. Mini's price is in three digits, iBook starts at around $1000. Those are affordable.

As long as you have a good reason to buy a Mac then do so. Just please stop your end of the "Macs are not expensive" battle because you know what people mean when they say that.

Why should I? why shouldn't the PC-users stop their "Macs are expensive"-jihad instead? I (and others) are merely reacting to their comments.

They are saying that you can get a Dell/HP on sale with the same (or better) specs than a Mac for less. Thats all anyone means by that. Its the truth, so you should never take offense to it.

And I for one don't really understand this fixation over "specs". When I upgraded my 800Mhz Duron-machine to 2.2GHz Athlon64-system, did I see a huge improvement? In games, sure! Other than that, not really. And since I spend maybe 3% of my computer-time gaming....

[Sushi]

Considering that eMachines are arguably the cheapest pre-built computers on the market, I don't see how you can say they're overpriced any more than you can say McDonald's is overpriced. You may think McDonald's has crap food, but you can't say it's overpriced.

Considering what you get, they are overpriced. Ladas are the absolutely cheapest cars available around here, and I consider them to be way overpriced. But hy, since the get me from point A from point B just "fine", there's no point in thinking about buying a VW, BMW or Audi, since I could get a Lada for a lot less?

[poofyhairguy]

As it happens, sales of Macs are growing a lot faster than Dell is growing Or generic PC's for that matter). Why do Dell sell more? Propably because of Windows.

Dell sells more because you can get a new Dell for $300 with a monitor and maybe a printer thrown in. Now with the Intel Minis, I can't get a Mac for less than $500. With computers nowadays that is the magic price point.



Sure it's meant for the masses. There are plenty of affordable Macs available.


When someone says "affordable computer," I think $350 computer. Mac has none of those (unless you count the used market, and I don't).


Nope, it doesn't bug me at all, and I am in agreement. And still, there are plenty of affordable Macs available. Mini's price is in three digits, iBook starts at around $1000. Those are affordable.

Affordable if you are far above the poverty line making middle class wages.

You can tell you are talking to a Mac user when anything three digits is seen as affordable. My mother just bought a new HP with a dual core AMD X2, a gig of RAM, and a middle end Nvidia card that would give the low end iMacs a run for their money for less than $700. THAT is affordable.


why shouldn't the PC-users stop their "Macs are expensive"-jihad instead?

Because some of us are bitter that we can't afford the Apple tax. Its taken me 24 years of my life to be able to overcome it.


And I for one don't really understand this fixation over "specs".

In Windowsland, thats the only way to tell which computers are better than other computers. Most of the computer industry cares about specs.

Heck- I personally want all the power I can get. I hate that my machine stutters a little when I turn on all the XGL effects....

[Sushi]

Dell sells more because you can get a new Dell for $300 with a monitor and maybe a printer thrown in. Now with the Intel Minis, I can't get a Mac for less than $500. With computers nowadays that is the magic price point.

Or maybe they sell more because for the entire nineties, Apple was in crisis, and Macs stagnated? Dell is actually growing slower than the market these days, whereas sales of Macs are growing faster. ANd few months ago, Apple actually surpassed Dell in market-value ;). OK, they sell iPods as well, but Dell also sells a lot of other stuff Apple does not sell.

When someone says "affordable computer," I think $350 computer. Mac has none of those (unless you count the used market, and I don't).

There is a difference between "affordable" and "cheap". Macs are never cheap, but they are affordable.

You can tell you are talking to a Mac user when anything three digits is seen as affordable. My mother just bought a new HP with a dual core AMD X2, a gig of RAM, and a middle end Nvidia card that would give the low end iMacs a run for their money for less than $700. THAT is affordable.

That's cheap, not affordable.

Because some of us are bitter that we can't afford the Apple tax. Its taken me 24 years of my life to be able to overcome it.

Few weeks ago I specced a Dell-laptop to match that of a MacBook. End-result? The Mac was about $300 more expensive. And that extra $300 gave you 256MB of graphics-RAM (128MB on the Dell), integrated webcam, all-aluminium construction, magnetic powercord, backlit keyboard, slot-loading optical drive, smooth and uncluttered design and OS X (and NO preloaded Windows ;)). Where is this "Apple Tax"? If someone really wants a Mac, he CAN afford it. Of course, that person might need tgo save some money (heck, I saved money for two years before I bought my current computer!), but it's perfectly doable.

Yes, there are no dirt-cheap Macs. And that's because those dirt-cheap machines are usually crap. They look and feel cheap, they are flimsy and noisy. Something like that is simply very un-Mac. That said, there ARE affordable Macs, like the Mini. Anyone who think that a bit over $500 for a computer is too much, is just a spoiled brat.

In Windowsland, thats the only way to tell which computers are better than other computers. Most of the computer industry cares about specs.

A misquided view.

[poofyhairguy]

There is a difference between "affordable" and "cheap". Macs are never cheap, but they are affordable.


My new sig.

[FluffyArmada]

i can understand someone getting sick of OS X and wanting something different, but does anyone ever buy a mac with the intent of putting only linux on it? also, i'm under the impression that OS X is almost exactly like freeBSD.

1) I did.
2) OS X pretty much is freebsd with a different kernel, some different base libraries, and a pretty interface
[ which for the record, I don't think there is ANYTHING wrong with. :-) ]

[Compucore]

More likely yes. It would be that. AMD is in the same Category as the Apple Processors. (AMD Started to making RISC base processor since the K6 processor. http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K6/index.html) Which are RISC Base. Which means lower power consumption, Lower Processing prower but equivilant to the CISC. Toss in a few others that are being run in SGI, and sun microsystems which are Sparc processors.

is this that RISC vs. CISC thing?

I wouldn't mind owning a G3 Laptop from Apple and using ubuntu on it. Since it would be interesting to see other people who own mac to look over my shoulder and see that there is a completely diffrent OS running on a machine lke that.

Compucore

[BoyOfDestiny]

I wouldn't mind owning a G3 Laptop from Apple and using ubuntu on it. Since it would be interesting to see other people who own mac to look over my shoulder and see that there is a completely diffrent OS running on a machine lke that.
Compucore

If that happens, can you please say to the person: "think different". That would crack me up. :)

[fuscia]

If that happens, can you please say to the person: "think different". That would crack me up. :)

or, "you're gonna like this".

[tribaal]

If that happens, can you please say to the person: "think different". That would crack me up.

ROFL

- trib'

[GoldBuggie]

ive seriously given some thought to buying a powerbook and use linux on it cause
1) I use linux period!
2) Apple has a sence of style and I would like to have a laptop that not only works but also looks good.
3) If i would like to have a dual boot then having OSX would be more fun cause I like the concept of Apple. But it is point 2) that is the main argument in buying a Mac and use Linux on it.

Only thing that makes me a bit scared is if everything will run as smoothly as it does on my regular laptop.

[Compucore]

Oh yeah. I would definately say that. I know my Uncle is coming down for a visit next week. And I've been talking to them in general about computers and all that. Off and on for the last little while. And I have handed off to him a copy of Ubuntu for both Intel and Mac version, the breezy one. I just want him to try it out. Going to let him take a look at it over here on my older Aptiva. Because he doesn't have a clue about it. He knows both windows and Mac but never really used linux. I just want to see his face when he looks at it. And of course let him try it out too so he can get his fingers wet within linux to get the feel of what linux is all about. I'll say think different when it comes to it in a joking way to him when he doesn't understand how something that does not work the same way as Windows, or OSX. Took me a little as well in 2000 when I was just learning linux on the command line way back then. And I kept saying to myself in my head when using it. Then stopped for a couple of years. And started back up again with Ubuntu and its always good to think different when it comes to using linux. Buts its not the norm of the average end-user life when its only windows or OSX.

Compucore

If that happens, can you please say to the person: "think different". That would crack me up. :)

[BoyOfDestiny]

Oh yeah. I would definately say that. I know my Uncle is coming down for a visit next week. And I've been talking to them in general about computers and all that. Off and on for the last little while. And I have handed off to him a copy of Ubuntu for both Intel and Mac version, the breezy one. I just want him to try it out. Going to let him take a look at it over here on my older Aptiva. Because he doesn't have a clue about it. He knows both windows and Mac but never really used linux. I just want to see his face when he looks at it. And of course let him try it out too so he can get his fingers wet within linux to get the feel of what linux is all about. I'll say think different when it comes to it in a joking way to him when he doesn't understand how something that does not work the same way as Windows, or OSX. Took me a little as well in 2000 when I was just learning linux on the command line way back then. And I kept saying to myself in my head when using it. Then stopped for a couple of years. And started back up again with Ubuntu and its always good to think different when it comes to using linux. Buts its not the norm of the average end-user life when its only windows or OSX.

Compucore

Cool, thanks. ;) If you get the chance I'd recommend dapper beta 2.

Info here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/dapperbeta

Download here:
http://www.releases.ubuntu.com/dapper/

[Compucore]

I was thinking of downloading over here. But since its almost that time to be finalized for shipping. I might was well wait for it that way. Has Gnome/KDe gotten better on dapper than on breezy? Anything major that I should worry about. is our favorite ubuntu leaner and meaner and added more goodies into the package itself?

[effraie]

why linux on a mac?
i run linux cause it's the best sytem for my use, on ibook G4 12", cause it was the best price/quality laptop i can found...

[gosh]

First, I don't own an Apple computer. I couldn't afford one. I had some old pc's and they didn't work with Windows any more, so that's how I came to change to Ubuntu.

But, if I had the money for an Apple, I think I just stick with OS X.

Why do you use Linux on your Apple machine?

[ssam]

Why run linux on a powerbook? (http://tygier.co.uk/linux/why.html)

i wrote it a few years ago.

[kidders]

Hi there,

OSX is very, very nice ... but I still have a Linux distro sitting on mine, for when I need it.

[RAV TUX]

moving to OS X forum.

[RandomJoe]

After using Linux for so many years (something like 10-11), I find OS X to be exceedingly restrictive. From a "just use it" standpoint, it is quite nice and I used my Mac Mini in OS X for most of a year for "home office" type stuff. But eventually the inability to configure it the way I like my systems to operate drove me back to Linux.


I *LOVE* focus-follows-mouse! (Not possible by default on OS X.)
I want to be able to have the active window partially covered by another window (such as reference material) and still enter data.
The common menubar at the top annoyed the heck out of me!

Plus a number of smaller annoyances...

But it sure is pretty... ;) I still have an OS X partition on there, and do run it occasionally just for the heck of it.

[meltingrobot]

I have two Mac Mini's at home. First thing I did when I bought both of them was overwrite OSX with Ubuntu. I have nothing against OSX. I just like OSS software. I prefer Amarok over iTunes. I prefer mplayer over all other media players, which I think that is available in OSX. But honestly, I like having the ability to do everything from a terminal. I know you can get the terminal going in OSX, but it's not a standard menu option like it is in Linux. Also, the apt package system is wonderful for getting what I want when I don't necessarily know the name of the app. Basically, Linux does what I need and I enjoy making my desktop specific to what I want/need. I make a few sacrifices of course, but that's really more fault of the hardware manufacturers not embracing OSS than anything. Like, it would be nice if the internal speakers on my Mini's worked under Linux. Hopefully somebody gets drivers in for the remote into the kernel soon too. I know people have got it working, but I really prefer drivers just be in the kernel without me having to compile them.

[kidders]

I prefer Amarok over iTunes. I prefer mplayer over all other media playersI'm with you! :-) They really are two killer apps. I rarely use anything other than mplayer to play movies on my OSX ... I've been struggling to get Amarok to run natively on it for a while. ](*,)

But honestly, I like having the ability to do everything from a terminal. I know you can get the terminal going in OSX, but it's not a standard menu option like it is in Linux.Drag it onto your dock ... I couldn't live without it personally.

Also, the apt package system is wonderful for getting what I want when I don't necessarily know the name of the app.You might be interested in taking a look at Fink. Incidentally, Ubuntu and Fink both have the same grandparents. :mrgreen:

I always considered Linux vs OSX a case of trading one set of problems for another. RandomJoe pointed out a (very small) number of OSX's UI-related ones. Most of Linux's are hardware-related. I suppose people will chose the one that suffers from the problems they're most comfortable dealing with. (I, like RandomJoe, can't stand UI limitations, but am happy enough tinkering with troublesome hardware.)

[aysiu]

The obvious answer:

Some people like Apple hardware but prefer Ubuntu to OS X.

[maxamillion]

I have an older iBookG4 and the only thing that kept OS X on it as long as it did was lack of wifi support for the AirPortExtreme. As closed source, corporately developed operating systems go ... OS X is definitely my pick of the litter, but I prefer an open source operating system and apt. I tried Fink (basically apt-get for OS X) but it wasn't the implementation I had hoped for. Also, aptitude ftw. :)

[aysiu]

I have an older iBookG4 and the only thing that kept OS X on it as long as it did was lack of wifi support for the AirPortExtreme. As closed source, corporately developed operating systems go ... OS X is definitely my pick of the litter, but I prefer an open source operating system and apt. I tried Fink (basically apt-get for OS X) but it wasn't the implementation I had hoped for. Also, aptitude ftw. :)
So you got Ubuntu working with Airport Extreme eventually?

[tito2502]

I'd say the one benefit of a Mac is OS X.

Thats the only thing that would tempt me.

[Quillz]

First, I don't own an Apple computer. I couldn't afford one. I had some old pc's and they didn't work with Windows any more, so that's how I came to change to Ubuntu.

But, if I had the money for an Apple, I think I just stick with OS X.

Why do you use Linux on your Apple machine?
The power of choice is why. If you don't like one Unix-like OS (Mac OS X), then use another one (Linux.)

[3rdalbum]

Actually, you can run Linux on a Mac for the same reasons why people would run Linux on an x86 box. (er... something that came preloaded with Windows).

1. If you hate the user interface
2. If you like to spend less time troubleshooting
3. If you like to not lose data through corruption (although admittedly, I think that's more of an iPod problem)
4. If you like better performance
5. If the latest proprietry operating system won't run on your computer (Apple obseletes its hardware like nobody's business).
6. If you're worried about your OS vendor's attitude toward security
7. If you like to be sure that your OS is not spying on you and that you'll never be locked in by DRM
8. If you LOVE the idea, as I do, that you can customise the system to your exacting needs
9. If you want to distribute a customised system to fit other people's needs
10. If you LOVE the idea, as I do, that you can shape the operating system's future.
11. If you want to run the same operating system on multiple architectures.
12. If you want to be able to keep an operating system around that can boot off CD, for emergencies.
13. If you like great stability
14. If you want to play with the latest technology.
15. If you want to use a non-Apple MP3 player on your computer (there are no official clients or drivers for non-Apple hard disk MP3 players for OS X)

[Donnut]

One word ... amaroK

[maddog39]

I primarily just got board of Mac OSX and I really had no reason to use it. I also develop alot of software for linux so it was sorta required after a while of many frustrations with XDarwin and what not. I also think that linux is 2-3x more responsive than OSX.

[aysiu]

I've merged the two Linux-on-a-Mac threads.

[anemptygun]

If you have apple hardware it most likely has os x already on it, so I am just curious as to why you would install linux on an apple computer. Instead of going and getting a pc. Especially since most people complain about the lack of drivers for apple hardware. I love Linux and especially Ubuntu, so just wondering....

[Kevin]

I just bought a nice little Macbook, and its a great little laptop. Its well built, and considering students got a free iPod, and a free printer, and 100 bucks off, it wasn't a bad deal. I left Ubuntu on my other not-so-old laptop, and decided to try OSX out for a couple months. I'm still using it, but I'm struggling not to go back to Linux. There are a couple things nice about OSX:

The iLife suite is just great, its the reason that even if I go back to Ubuntu, I'll leave OSX on here somewhere.
The set of effects is very well defined to be non-annoying and very useful for productivity. Even Gutsy's defaults have some annoying things enabled by default, although it is pretty nice.
While Ubuntu (well X.org really...) is progressing nicely in the field, the automatic display detection is great on OSX.

However, there are so many things I miss in Ubuntu:

The vast set of software available for free is the single greatest thing.
Basic features that more advanced users like. (Thngs like leaving your laptop on while the lid is closed, which is impossible without third party software on OSX. Or viewing hidden folders in Finder, which you need to use the terminal for. Or even the simple ability to cut files in Finder!)
I find many things in OSX slow my work down. Things like having to focus the application before being able to access the menu, and other small glitches with the interface.
Finally, many people disagree, but I find the OSX interface to appear much more cluttered and small than the very clear Gnome interface. Especially since you can't maximize windows to cover up whatever you were doing in the background. Trying to read webpages surrounded by 20 windows with things going on can get very distracting.

So basically, people who have used Linux for a while are still tough to convert to OSX, and people who use OSX are more likely to be interested in alternatives, since it itself is an alternative to Windows. I bought an expensive new laptop, and I've found myself using my old laptop running Gutsy more often than the new laptop running OSX :)

[bridaw]

I kept reading about windows users switching to ubuntu. I wanted to check it out. I can't stand M$ and want to support open source. Linux never appealed to me since I could get my terminal fix in OS X but I liked what I read about ubuntu.

I had a G3 466MHz FW clamshell iBook collecting dust. I decided to install xubuntu just to play around, that's what I'm using right now. The install went slow but without a hitch. I'm really bummed flash 9 isn't available for PPC.

I only own mac hardware but I do put up with XP pro to play games. I use bootcamp on two of the herd to run windows native. I'm using a 2GHz core duo 20" iMac to install kubuntu onto a spare FW drive. I want the machine to stay dual boot unless I plug in the FW drive for triple+ boot. This has proven a tad more challenging but I'll get it working. I'm not a total newb, I just let my terminal skills get way too rusty. ;)

[motoperpetuo]

leaving your laptop on while the lid is closed, which is impossible without third party software on OSX.

btw, i've always wondered if this is somehow bad for a laptop. anyone know? i thought there might be some heat issues with closing the lid without going to suspend or hibernate.

[slimdog360]

btw, i've always wondered if this is somehow bad for a laptop. anyone know? i thought there might be some heat issues with closing the lid without going to suspend or hibernate.

if the screen does not turn off then you can get serious problems. The screen should normally turn off but I remember reading a couple of things on the net of people saying how their screens did not turn off and the keys etc were burned (literally burned) out from the heat of the screen.

Thats about all I know.

[EYEdROP]

I wouldent personally buy a mac just for linux, But Apple makes excellent hardware. Not necessarly clock speeds (OS X makes up for that), but the quality of the materials and design is very reliable and well made. There is a reason why macs are more expensive.

[handy]

I run Linux on my iMac because there are things that I can't do in Leopard, or I would have to buy the software to do it.

Though I would still put Linux on it anyway because its fun to install & setup Linux on the mac, I like Linux too &
I can keep up with what's going on with Linux by experience.

If Apple go too far with DRM or other infringements of human rights I'll just dump the Apple OS & happily carry on with whatever Linux distro' takes my fancy at the time.

Linux offers a kind of security that is outside of the normal IT use of the term.

[Lord DarkPat]

nothing can beat the looks of MBP except a few VAIO's
So, yea

[mart007]

Use OS X myself as my main machine.. and love it. I've also got XP & Ubuntu setup as VM's under Parallels for when the need strikes me! Runs nicely with 1.5 gig RAM....