PDA

View Full Version : Linux MUCH better than Mac OS X!!!



honda882000
November 17th, 2007, 01:47 AM
I currently own 3 computers in the house. My primary, a Toshiba laptop with Ubuntu Gusty, a desktop with XP and my newest addition (2 days old), an eMac G4 passed down to me from my brother in law, whom is one of these "trendy, mac is the best and I have white apple stickers on my car to show my Apple Pride, even though I don't really know much about operating system operations at all" people.

According to him, it was going to revolutionize my life. Everything is supposed to by easier than Windows, not to mention Linux. Well, so far its been a major headache. I might be having this experience since it is a new OS for me, but I don't remember having these issues when I started using Linux 2 years ago. Not only does it lock you out of essential hardware features, such as bios configuration (boot order, etc, even though the C key is supposed to replace this), but things seem to be either way to simple, or WAY too complicated. It seems to make it easy surf the net or play music, but anything more advanced, such as installing a database server, needs to be done through command line (Unix)...no package manager.

I might be missing something, but why are these things so popular. Is it because most users for these things don't really need to do anything more than play music? I actually know some true Mac lovers whom are much more technical than myself, but for the most part, these fans seem to be blind with trend. I guess I am just amazed that Linux still has somewhat of a bad rep for being difficult to use, while I believe the learning curve is much shorter.
Anyone else have an opinion on Macs vs Linux? Like I said, I might be missing something, but so far I am deeply disappointed...

racoq
November 17th, 2007, 01:54 AM
I might be missing something, but why are these things so popular

Good old marketing campaigns, have been doing miracles for Apple. I have use MacOSX, and it is not such a big deal to the medium to advanced user who wants to do more advanced things like you've referred, it's in fact rather limited.

Probably it is good for the average joe who wants to do basic things, because of some accessibility features, besides that... it's just another OS

aysiu
November 17th, 2007, 02:02 AM
It seems to make it easy surf the net or play music, but anything more advanced, such as installing a database server, needs to be done through command line (Unix)...no package manager.

I might be missing something, but why are these things so popular. Is it because most users for these things don't really need to do anything more than play music? Well, most users do not install database servers on their Macs, so that's why they're popular.

There are a lot of reasons to like Macs (my wife loves hers). They're pretty to many people (not to some people on these forums, but to most people I talk to in person). The hardware-software integration is tight. The animation is smooth (and, yes, I've used Beryl and Compiz--no comparison... Mac wins on the smooth graphics). The configuration for graphics (and extended desktop, especially) actually works (not like displayconfig-gtk, which is still rough around the edges). If you rely on Adobe CS3 or Macromedia Flash to make a living, it's much easier to install those on the Mac than through Wine on Linux.

I could go on and on about why Mac appeals to many users.

The bottom line, though, is that it doesn't make sense to say Linux is much better than Mac or that Mac is much better than Linux. People should just find the operating system that works best for their own needs and preferences. For you, it's clearly not Mac OS X.

jviscosi
November 17th, 2007, 02:18 AM
There are a lot of reasons to like Macs (my wife loves hers).

My wife also loves her iBook because it's "pretty" and it "never crashes". She understands that whenever my Linux box freezes up it's usually because I did something to it, but she still gives me that look when I hop on her Mac and use webmin to kill X on my machine. (She doesn't find the fact that I can do this to be remotely as cool as I do.)

I like OS X well enough, but I wouldn't use it as my primary OS. I like tinkering with Linux too much.


Well, most users do not install database servers on their Macs, so that's why they're popular.

I just recently installed MySQL on my wife's iBook as part of the classroom gradebook program I'm working on for her. It was easy to install but then I couldn't find it -- evidently Spotlight doesn't look in /usr/local/bin/mysql, which IIRC is where it went. Anyway once I located it everything was fine.

Frak
November 17th, 2007, 02:36 AM
To compare something such as an OS is relative to the user.

honda882000
November 17th, 2007, 04:27 AM
I realize that OS is relative, but my point is that I feel Linux is easier to use than Mac (assuming installation goes right and all hardware is compatible), at least based on my experience. I still think Windows is easier to use overall (even though Linux is my primary use), but I am really surprised to have a hard time with Mac since I heard so much about it's ease of use.

Frak
November 17th, 2007, 04:31 AM
I realize that OS is relative, but my point is that I feel Linux is easier to use than Mac (assuming installation goes right and all hardware is compatible), at least based on my experience. I still think Windows is easier to use overall (even though Linux is my primary use), but I am really surprised to have a hard time with Mac since I heard so much about it's ease of use.
I think OS X is superior to Linux or Windows. Again, relative.

boast
November 17th, 2007, 04:41 AM
I realize that OS is relative, but my point is that I feel Linux is easier to use than Mac (assuming installation goes right and all hardware is compatible), at least based on my experience. I still think Windows is easier to use overall (even though Linux is my primary use), but I am really surprised to have a hard time with Mac since I heard so much about it's ease of use.

how is OS X hard? theres not much to use.

Click icon, open program.
installing a program? following the wizard, drag program in applications folder, done. :confused:

hanzomon4
November 17th, 2007, 04:43 AM
I realize that OS is relative, but my point is that I feel Linux is easier to use than Mac (assuming installation goes right and all hardware is compatible), at least based on my experience. I still think Windows is easier to use overall (even though Linux is my primary use), but I am really surprised to have a hard time with Mac since I heard so much about it's ease of use.

A hammer is easy to use, but not so much if you need to watch tv on it.

honda882000
November 17th, 2007, 05:42 AM
To compare something such as an OS is relative to the user.

Ok, I guess ur right. I was just disappointed, thats all :-)

Depressed Man
November 17th, 2007, 05:46 AM
how is OS X hard? theres not much to use.

Click icon, open program.
installing a program? following the wizard, drag program in applications folder, done. :confused:

And for people who aren't used to OS X that's weird.

It's like a windows users who starts using Linux, using apt-get program is a weird way to install programs and its hard. Likewise a Linux user going to Windows may struggle with Program installation (well not as much installation as it not installing where you want it to go). Some programs still default to certain areas of Windows despite where you want it to go >.>

Frak
November 17th, 2007, 05:53 AM
And for people who aren't used to OS X that's weird.

It's like a windows users who starts using Linux, using apt-get program is a weird way to install programs and its hard. Likewise a Linux user going to Windows may struggle with Program installation (well not as much installation as it not installing where you want it to go). Some programs still default to certain areas of Windows despite where you want it to go >.>
90% of all the programs I've seen that utilize the Applications folder have very simple instructions on how to install. i.e. Firefox icon is dragged into Applications folder.

popch
November 17th, 2007, 10:39 AM
for people who aren't used to OS X that's weird.

I can confirm that people who have used Windows for years can find Mac OS X to be fiendishly difficult to puzzle out. Simple things like setting the paper format and printing margins can take an unholy time to find.

However, the inverse is also true. People who have only experienced Mac OSs can be much consterned when confronted with the 'well defined' and 'ergonomically organized' UI of - let's say - Windows.

The fact that many Windows users do not find it particularly difficult to switch to Linux can be interpreted in several ways. I leave that as an exercise for the kind reader.

honda882000
November 17th, 2007, 05:02 PM
I can confirm that people who have used Windows for years can find Mac OS X to be fiendishly difficult to puzzle out. Simple things like setting the paper format and printing margins can take an unholy time to find.

However, the inverse is also true. People who have only experienced Mac OSs can be much consterned when confronted with the 'well defined' and 'ergonomically organized' UI of - let's say - Windows.

The fact that many Windows users do not find it particularly difficult to switch to Linux can be interpreted in several ways. I leave that as an exercise for the kind reader.

Very nicely put. :-)

SomeGuyDude
November 17th, 2007, 08:47 PM
I can confirm that people who have used Windows for years can find Mac OS X to be fiendishly difficult to puzzle out. Simple things like setting the paper format and printing margins can take an unholy time to find.

However, the inverse is also true. People who have only experienced Mac OSs can be much consterned when confronted with the 'well defined' and 'ergonomically organized' UI of - let's say - Windows.

The fact that many Windows users do not find it particularly difficult to switch to Linux can be interpreted in several ways. I leave that as an exercise for the kind reader.

It's logical is what it is. Linux gets put on PCs which 99% of the time came pre-packaged with Windows. I'd be willing to bet most people who made distros have Windows backgrounds over Apple ones (conjecture on my part), so even if their aim is to make something different, they've got residuals of "Windows layout" in mind.

OSX is nice, but one of my biggest problems with absolutely everything Apple is that it feels like a Fisher Price toy. The animations are smooth, while I wasn't acclimated to the layout it wasn't hard to understand.

Frak
November 17th, 2007, 08:54 PM
It's logical is what it is. Linux gets put on PCs which 99% of the time came pre-packaged with Windows. I'd be willing to bet most people who made distros have Windows backgrounds over Apple ones (conjecture on my part), so even if their aim is to make something different, they've got residuals of "Windows layout" in mind.

OSX is nice, but one of my biggest problems with absolutely everything Apple is that it feels like a Fisher Price toy. The animations are smooth, while I wasn't acclimated to the layout it wasn't hard to understand.
It's also logical that since I've used Mac since System 6, I'm not much of a fan for Windows-like desktops. I could never get into it, even though I'm forced to use it at work.

SomeGuyDude
November 18th, 2007, 12:11 AM
It's also logical that since I've used Mac since System 6, I'm not much of a fan for Windows-like desktops. I could never get into it, even though I'm forced to use it at work.

Exactly. Me, I've been using Windows since 3. So the structure simply "makes sense" to me while Apple always felt awkward because, obviously, I have things like "c:\program files\" and "start->settings->control panel" internalized. I know my way around Windows like I do my house, I can navigate it with my eyes closed.

Also, strangely, my desktop definitely looks more like OSX than Windows. I have my panel up top with the tray and whatnot, and then all of my open programs sit in the AWN dock.

ffi
November 18th, 2007, 12:30 AM
I currently own 3 computers in the house. My primary, a Toshiba laptop with Ubuntu Gusty, a desktop with XP and my newest addition (2 days old), an eMac G4 passed down to me from my brother in law, whom is one of these "trendy, mac is the best and I have white apple stickers on my car to show my Apple Pride, even though I don't really know much about operating system operations at all" people.

According to him, it was going to revolutionize my life. Everything is supposed to by easier than Windows, not to mention Linux. Well, so far its been a major headache. I might be having this experience since it is a new OS for me, but I don't remember having these issues when I started using Linux 2 years ago. Not only does it lock you out of essential hardware features, such as bios configuration (boot order, etc, even though the C key is supposed to replace this), but things seem to be either way to simple, or WAY too complicated. It seems to make it easy surf the net or play music, but anything more advanced, such as installing a database server, needs to be done through command line (Unix)...no package manager.

I might be missing something, but why are these things so popular. Is it because most users for these things don't really need to do anything more than play music? I actually know some true Mac lovers whom are much more technical than myself, but for the most part, these fans seem to be blind with trend. I guess I am just amazed that Linux still has somewhat of a bad rep for being difficult to use, while I believe the learning curve is much shorter.
Anyone else have an opinion on Macs vs Linux? Like I said, I might be missing something, but so far I am deeply disappointed...

OsX is really nice to work with, it looks very very polished, if you want to do beginners stuff but even for simple file management I found it easier to revert to cli (which I hate intensely an deeply and without first having used *nix would never ever in my live would have tried...)

Anyway osx has 2 levels: absolute beginner and very advanced
windows has two : mediocre and very very very avanced
linux has: beginner, advanced and very advanved it sort of misses to biggest group of users...., not wanting cli only tools but tools configuring everything with sane and useable settings....

eg.

when I plug in a device I expect and want it to be hotplugged using some sane parameters but also be able to easily change them:
osx: not much experience but I guess it is done right most of the time but when not very very hard to change.....
xp: done right most of the time, getting right settings useally very very hard
linux: depending on distro: but useally done right often, changing dificulty from mediocre to very very hard depending on distro....

Frak
November 18th, 2007, 02:55 AM
osx: not much experience but I guess it is done right most of the time but when not very very hard to change.....

Same editing done in Linux has to be done in OS X to change hot plugging settings, or configured via Onyx.

inversekinetix
November 19th, 2007, 01:08 AM
mmm, linux is much better than osX.

Of course it is a purely subjective thing, I really dislike mac as a whole so I would have to say that yes linux is better.

I won't go on about over priced, limited hardware and Jobb's mission to turn himself into an IT evangelist.

I was forced to use mac OS for a while at work, I hated it, so clunky and simple. Everything is like a fisher price toy, stupid clunky icons and annoying animations to WoW the user. I really really hated it. That stupid mouse that comes with it is like wearing mittens. Anyways I digress.

Linux is 'better' than macOS because you can install it on anything from an ATM terminal to a microwave oven to a 10 year old junk pc. Mac you have to install on overpriced hardware.

-grubby
November 19th, 2007, 01:11 AM
mmm, linux is much better than osX.

Of course it is a purely subjective thing, I really dislike mac as a whole so I would have to say that yes linux is better.

I won't go on about over priced, limited hardware and Jobb's mission to turn himself into an IT evangelist.

I was forced to use mac OS for a while at work, I hated it, so clunky and simple. Everything is like a fisher price toy, stupid clunky icons and annoying animations to WoW the user. I really really hated it. That stupid mouse that comes with it is like wearing mittens. Anyways I digress.

Linux is 'better' than macOS because you can install it on anything from an ATM terminal to a microwave oven to a 10 year old junk pc. Mac you have to install on overpriced hardware.

or a dead badger (http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040405/badger.shtml)

Frak
November 19th, 2007, 04:16 AM
or a dead badger (http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040405/badger.shtml)
Grandma Torvald's old recipe ;)

Dimitriid
November 19th, 2007, 05:04 AM
Linux is much better indeed: you can actually use it on whatever hardware you want to buy or use.

That really leaves OS X with no argument: I don't like the hardware apple sells, its ugly, its expensive and I have no use for it.

SomeGuyDude
November 19th, 2007, 08:12 AM
Linux is much better indeed: you can actually use it on whatever hardware you want to buy or use.

That really leaves OS X with no argument: I don't like the hardware apple sells, its ugly, its expensive and I have no use for it.

Want Linux on a brand new notebook? Pick up a $350 Acer Aspire and it'll be golden.

Want OSX on a brand new notebook? Prepare to plunk down $1200 BARE MINIMUM.

Apple owners like to act like buying an Apple makes them part of some superior little society, but all it tells me is that they buy stuff because it's shiny and expensive.

Fewer people run Linux because it takes effort, though I think the reward's worth it. Fewer people run OSX because they don't have the damn money, or don't think it's worth the two grand when you don't get really THAT much of a benefit.

Quillz
November 19th, 2007, 09:18 AM
I don't know, I have used all three major operating systems pretty extensively and I still prefer Mac OS to all the alternatives. Mac OS X Leopard, in fact, is an officially licensed Unix OS, just like Solaris 10. Thus, Mac OS X gives me the stability of Unix with the customizability of Linux.

Really, Windows, Linux and Mac OS all have their strengths and weaknesses. Just use the OS that you like the best and/or works best for you.

Chrisj303
November 19th, 2007, 05:33 PM
The day that the Linux platform has realistic alternatives to Final Cut Pro, Logic studio, Photoshop cs3 , Ableton Live and Reason - or can run them natively and seamlessly, will be the day I take the Linux platform seriously.

Support for important commercial software really is a deal-breaker for a huge amount of computer users.

Frak
November 20th, 2007, 12:43 AM
Want Linux on a brand new notebook? Pick up a $350 Acer Aspire and it'll be golden.

Want OSX on a brand new notebook? Prepare to plunk down $1200 BARE MINIMUM.

Apple owners like to act like buying an Apple makes them part of some superior little society, but all it tells me is that they buy stuff because it's shiny and expensive.

Fewer people run Linux because it takes effort, though I think the reward's worth it. Fewer people run OSX because they don't have the damn money, or don't think it's worth the two grand when you don't get really THAT much of a benefit.
There are also those of us who buy Macs just because we like Macs. I've used Macintosh's for most of my life.

angryfirelord
November 20th, 2007, 01:07 AM
A hammer is easy to use, but not so much if you need to watch tv on it.
That depends. If the hammer is made out of a conductive material, it could easily be used as an antenna; thus, the signal would be much stronger. :)

inversekinetix
November 20th, 2007, 01:12 AM
The day that the Linux platform has realistic alternatives to Final Cut Pro, Logic studio, Photoshop cs3 , Ableton Live and Reason - or can run them natively and seamlessly, will be the day I take the Linux platform seriously.

Support for important commercial software really is a deal-breaker for a huge amount of computer users.


@quote
Media creation applications are not the only reason to take an OS seriously I think. Computers are used for many more important things. You make a good point about commercial software, thats the reason that windows is so dominant, it has practically every industry standard app available for it and runs on higher spec hardware than a mac for less cost.
/@quote


As soon as linux also has commonly known/used applications available(or at least they work seamlessly in wine) there will be a big change in the consumer OS market. I think when this happens the first to suffer will be mac, not windows. People looking for an alternative to windows will see 2 things, 1 that linux is free, 2 that it looks like a mac interface. People will not care that mac is UNIX certified, that will mean nothing to the majority of potential users. What would you do, see a $1200 mac laptop next to a $500 ubuntu laptop, they both do exactly the same things, one allows me to use the windows software I already bought if I dont want to use 1 of the 1000s of free applications that come with it. It's not going to be a difficult choice for many people.

Linux also has a broad userbase, from teens to oldies, its directed at everyone and everyone. Mac, from its advertising, seems to be aimed solely at the younger market, the people with less money. While steve jobbs' reality distortion field might make him think he is the bono of the IT world and that everyone wants overpriced shiney plastic the marketshare of apple tells another story.

Chrisj303
November 20th, 2007, 04:44 PM
@quote
Media creation applications are not the only reason to take an OS seriously I think. .

Yes it is - for me.

That, and the internet are the only reasons I use a computer. If an OS cannot support, or offer realistic alternatives to the Media software I rely on - then it is literally useless.


@quote
You make a good point about commercial software, thats the reason that windows is so dominant, it has practically every industry standard app available for it and runs on higher spec hardware than a mac for less cost.


I gave up on Windows as a primary OS a long time ago. Repeated .dll error related crashes during Live performance is to embarrasing for words.

I don't give a damn how much Mac's cost - if it saves me from having to use Windows as a Primary OS - then I'm in.



@quote

Linux also has a broad userbase, from teens to oldies, its directed at everyone and everyone. Mac, from its advertising, seems to be aimed solely at the younger market, the people with less money. While steve jobbs' reality distortion field might make him think he is the bono of the IT world and that everyone wants overpriced shiney plastic the marketshare of apple tells another story.


Urgh..

You seem to think that you (along with other choice Linux fanboi's) know something that Mac user's don't. Well guess what? - We do!

We pay a bit more for our machines - and we don't care!

Apple is going to be around for a long time, buddy.


Deal with it.

Dimitriid
November 20th, 2007, 10:25 PM
If those applications are doable on OS X then the port to Linux would be very easy to do. Thats a reason for me NOT to use OS X: I refuse to be tricked and locked into a system just because Apple and Adobe and whoever else have their little deals.

inversekinetix
November 21st, 2007, 01:52 AM
Yes it is - for me.

That, and the internet are the only reasons I use a computer. If an OS cannot support, or offer realistic alternatives to the Media software I rely on - then it is literally useless.



I gave up on Windows as a primary OS a long time ago. Repeated .dll error related crashes during Live performance is to embarrasing for words.

I don't give a damn how much Mac's cost - if it saves me from having to use Windows as a Primary OS - then I'm in.





Urgh..

You seem to think that you (along with other choice Linux fanboi's) know something that Mac user's don't. Well guess what? - We do!

We pay a bit more for our machines - and we don't care!

Apple is going to be around for a long time, buddy.


Deal with it.

Firstly could you please speak less agressively to me, I only stated my opinion in a polite manner. Secondly I think you misunderstood the @quote -- /@quote, only the things between those tags were directed at you. Anyway.

I really feel for you, it must be very difficult to be a sound/recording engineer/video compositor/editor/music composer/live performer and graphic artist all at the same time. I understand that with the income from those kind of jobs it is easy to pay the extra for your hardware and the $2,866 for the software you rely on (abletone 159, final cut 1,299, logic 479, PScs3 629, reason 300) but not everybody has that kind of income. I use my pc for 3dSmax and PScs along with a logic, reason and a plethora of vst/dsp plugins, I never get an error and I get great throughput on my drives, when using external synths/controllers latency is next to 0. Every week I DJ for 6-10 hours on my winXP laptop using a hercules controller, I have never had a problem ever. My system is optimized for maximum performance/stability. I actually prefer to use windows at this time because I know it very very well and make it do exactly what I want, I use linux as a study/hobby, taking that into consideration could you please not refer to me as a fanboi.

I guess in the end it is all down to what the user wants/requires. For many people windows does the job, for me and lots of other users windows is more than adequate. Each to their own, I say. And for those without much money there is no better alternative than linux, it offers a solid stable system that works on just about any hardware comes with 1000s of free applications, that is something that no other OS can come close to.

Sporkman
November 21st, 2007, 02:15 AM
According to him, it was going to revolutionize my life. Everything is supposed to by easier than Windows, not to mention Linux. Well, so far its been a major headache....Not only does it lock you out of essential hardware features, such as bios configuration...things seem to be either way to simple, or WAY too complicated...easy surf the net or play music, but...installing a database server, needs to be done through command line (Unix)...no package manager.


:lol:

I don't think you fall into Apple's target consumer niche. ;)

honda882000
November 21st, 2007, 03:54 AM
Like stated in some posts, and from what I have heard from other sources, the strong point for Mac is in visual media.
I believe Linux's strong point is in development (of course not taking into consideration its obvious strengths as a server OS). Not only do most distributions come with python, perl, gcc, gtk, just to mention a few tools, out of the box, but I have found it easier to get the most current versions of development apps for Linux than for anything else. We even have Mono as an .Net alternative.

Also, I've noticed that most O'Reilly and Apress books out there for most programming languages and database servers use Linux as its default instructional OS. Anyone else feel this way?

honda882000
November 21st, 2007, 03:58 AM
:lol:

I don't think you fall into Apple's target consumer niche. ;)

LOL. Well, at least you can't say I didn't try. I am just really glad I got to try it on a hand-me-down (free) machine before someone else convinced me to spend $2000 on a Macbook :-)

Nano Geek
November 21st, 2007, 04:06 AM
My humble opinion of Macs and Apple:


Although Macs and iPods are more expensive than Windows desktops and other mp3 player brands, the price difference really isn't that different. Plus with the iMac you are getting iLife for free.
A lot of people buy them because the hardware is slick. You could have the coolest audio player in the world and nobody would buy it unless it looked decent.
I have never seen an Apple owner act as if he is somehow superior to others. (though I have noticed that with Linux users... ;) )
Another reason people like the iMacs is because they are so easy to set up. Unlike PCs where you have to plug everything in to everything else, with iMacs you just plug your keyboard and mouse in and you're set.
And, Apple has some of the best advertising around. Their adds are simple, funny, and they stick in your head.Anyway, I guess that's it for now.

Dimitriid
November 21st, 2007, 06:15 AM
My humble opinion of Macs and Apple:

[LIST]
Although Macs and iPods are more expensive than Windows desktops and other mp3 player brands, the price difference really isn't that different.


So nearly or more than double isn't that different? What would be different then, triple? 4x?



Plus with the iMac you are getting iLife for free.


I guess this answers my questions, I buy computers so I can use them and work with them, I already have a life and an identity. I guess Apple fans still need their iConfidence with their iPeers don't they?

Chrisj303
November 21st, 2007, 06:56 AM
@Inversekinetix

If you must know, I'm a part time sound engineer, I make my own music as a serious hobby, and I VJ.

"Video Compositor" / "Graphic artist" ? - Please do not make assumptions about people you do not know.

And no. I did not pay that much for the software.

I make use of the educational discounts, and bribe friends with beer in order to place orders for me!

I paid 249 for Final cut studio. I paid 118 for Logic Studio.

Nano Geek
November 21st, 2007, 07:01 AM
So nearly or more than double isn't that different? What would be different then, triple? 4x?I'm not sure, but I don't think that an iMac was much more than a Dell with about the same specs.




I guess this answers my questions, I buy computers so I can use them and work with them, I already have a life and an identity. I guess Apple fans still need their iConfidence with their iPeers don't they?OK then. :confused:

Dimitriid
November 21st, 2007, 08:50 AM
I will just post the first example I find:

Mac:
$1094
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834100019

PC:
$599
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834101053

So thats almost $500 for a bit of an upgrade on the processor and worst hdd and optical drive option

SomeGuyDude
November 21st, 2007, 09:13 AM
See I can understand if you use a Mac as a work computer and the rather extensive media software is your livelihood. I can get that. It's like how heavy gamers use Windows.

However, whenever I go to class and see a wall of Macbooks that these students undoubtedly spent nearly $2000 on (possibly more) that does very little aside from surf the internet and watch movies, I really do start to think that Apple's fanbase is largely trendy airheads.

To the guy who said Linux fanboys act like they know something... I really do believe that many do. They have figured out that there is a free alternative that will do everything they need easily and attractively that won't put them into massive debt a la a Mac.

Bottom line: if there is not some reason your career depends on using Apple's software, there's no reason to buy one. Hell, even if I -didn't- think my Ubuntu setup is a hell of a lot more attractive than OSX the fact that it's a free OS that can go on a $500 laptop well overshadows any minor differences in appearance.

Really, most users need an Office Suite, browsing, IM'ing, maybe a bittorrent client, a photo editor, and media playing capabilities. I can think of approximately zero reasons the vast majority of users would ever be able to use to justify plunking the kind of cash down on a Mac that those things cost.

popch
November 21st, 2007, 09:36 AM
I will just post the first example I find:

Mac:
$1094

PC:
$599

So thats almost $500 for a bit of an upgrade on the processor and worst hdd and optical drive option

The mac has the more modern and faster processor, faster RAM, faster disk (chip set not mentioned)

The PC has the larger disk, a larger display, a DVD burner. The OS is not stated.

Incomplete data. A bit difficult to compare.

Chrisj303
November 21st, 2007, 04:32 PM
However, whenever I go to class and see a wall of Macbooks that these students undoubtedly spent nearly $2000 on (possibly more) that does very little aside from surf the internet and watch movies, I really do start to think that Apple's fanbase is largely trendy airheads.


Macbook's - not 'Pro' models are between $1099 - $1499. Though a higher educational discount will shave lots off that.

The reason you see lot's of student with Macbooks is because they are perfect for the job. They are small, thin, light and very easy to carry around. Macbooks are also very solid & robustly built, and can take a great deal of punishment.

They come with a great OS that requires virtually no maintenance and is compatible with a lot of software. Macbooks are also very powerful, and will serve the owner a very long time.

Price-wise, when stacked up to an identical machine, will only ever be a negligible amount more (often nothing, if an educational discount is applied). And for the quality of the build, and the opportunity to run OS X (as well as windows/Linux) then IMO it is worth every penny/cent...

Unless something absolutely hideous happens to Apple/OS X, I will always buy them.

Dimitriid
November 21st, 2007, 05:12 PM
The mac has the more modern and faster processor, faster RAM, faster disk (chip set not mentioned)

The PC has the larger disk, a larger display, a DVD burner. The OS is not stated.

Incomplete data. A bit difficult to compare.

I can almost buy 2 of the NB and you can certainly match it up to a model that might be $150 more and have the mac specs. It is not difficult to compare since its ibm pc x86 hardware you could just benchmark them if the mac system installs another OS.

I said I was going to put the first example and thats what I did: almost without looking ( i only looked at price tags to choose ) and that is what I got.

Im sure is not just me that rather shave off maybe 10% performance and be able to afford a second Notebook, a full featured gaming desktop on top, a video game console and a few games, a downpayment on an used car, etc.

Dimitriid
November 21st, 2007, 05:18 PM
Macbook's - not 'Pro' models are between $1099 - $1499. Though a higher educational discount will shave lots off that.

The reason you see lot's of student with Macbooks is because they are perfect for the job. They are small, thin, light and very easy to carry around. Macbooks are also very solid & robustly built, and can take a great deal of punishment.


Again, this is true for a great deal of laptops. You talk as if no other notebook before or since the macs were thin, light, easy to carry, robust and solid build or subsidized by an institution or company in the case of students ( maybe the Universities over there have deals on the side with apple but elsewhere students get grants for LAPTOPS whatever the brand they go for. )

You gave your reasons and you like your software and you were already told thats cool ( I don't necessarily agree with the poster but I don't expect you or most people to take a stance to support FOSS or try to work with an alternative ) The one debate you cannot win her its hardware: the only thing you MIGHT not be able to find on a non-mac laptop would be the nice looks ( and I said might just because beauty is subjective, ive seen many notebooks that look just better and more appealing than the macs ).

In which case he was right on the money when he said students with little use for those high end applications have no reason other than trends to get a mac. If the discounts you talk about are not done but the University/College and instead done by mac directly then its nothing but a business strategy to get their name out and be able to sell: once they are popular those kids will continue to buy the products, at ripoff prices since those discounts can go at any moment.

inversekinetix
November 22nd, 2007, 04:51 AM
@Inversekinetix

If you must know, I'm a part time sound engineer, I make my own music as a serious hobby, and I VJ.

"Video Compositor" / "Graphic artist" ? - Please do not make assumptions about people you do not know.

And no. I did not pay that much for the software.

I make use of the educational discounts, and bribe friends with beer in order to place orders for me!

I paid 249 for Final cut studio. I paid 118 for Logic Studio.


Sorry it must have been my mistake, I saw you used Final Cut PRO in your initial post so I presumed you were a video editor. Likewise, when you said you rely on Photoshop CS3 I presumed that you must have been some kind of graphic artist. From your initial post, saying that you RELIED on all those latest versions of industry standard applications I presumed it was business related. I didn't realise you were using the educational versions for your hobbies. Sorry, I stand corrected. I don't know about such things, I use my computer and software for work mainly.

n3tfury
November 22nd, 2007, 06:32 AM
Linux is much better indeed: you can actually use it on whatever hardware you want to buy or use.

That really leaves OS X with no argument: I don't like the hardware apple sells, its ugly, its expensive and I have no use for it.

lol, Apple hardware "ugly".

Chrisj303
November 22nd, 2007, 01:32 PM
lol, Apple hardware "ugly".

I know, it is funny, isn't it?.

Though it is all subjective - I would love to see this guys idea of a nice looking machine.

Chrisj303
November 22nd, 2007, 01:51 PM
Again, this is true for a great deal of laptops. You talk as if no other notebook before or since the macs were thin, light, easy to carry, robust and solid build

Show me a laptop that has the same dimensions, weight, build quality and power of a Macbook - for less $$.



If the discounts you talk about are not done but the University/College and instead done by mac directly then its nothing but a business strategy to get their name out and be able to sell: once they are popular those kids will continue to buy the products, at ripoff prices since those discounts can go at any moment.

The Higher educational discounts are available to anybody that logs onto their online store from Uni campus.


They have a product that is ideally suited for a student, so they push them on that point. Thats what businesses do .

themerchant
November 30th, 2007, 12:28 AM
Like stated in some posts, and from what I have heard from other sources, the strong point for Mac is in visual media.
I believe Linux's strong point is in development (of course not taking into consideration its obvious strengths as a server OS). Not only do most distributions come with python, perl, gcc, gtk, just to mention a few tools, out of the box, but I have found it easier to get the most current versions of development apps for Linux than for anything else. We even have Mono as an .Net alternative.

Also, I've noticed that most O'Reilly and Apress books out there for most programming languages and database servers use Linux as its default instructional OS. Anyone else feel this way?

To start off, I'm almost 18 (in a month), a student in high school. I've been using windows most my life, except when I switched to Linux 20 months ago. I used dual booted for a few months (I used Linux primarily), then when I got my new pc (built from scratch), I didn't have the extra cash to buy XP, so for about 5 months I was windowsless. I was fine, once I got windows back, I got my pc gaming back.

I love playing with bleeding edge software on a free (and open source) os. Windows is good for some stuff (gaming) and for hardware which specifically only works with windows and not linux (tho those are no so many). I use mac os x at school and such. Its cool and all, but it doesn't seem to have anything I don't have with linux. I love customizing my o.s. I am also a pretty heavy gamer , I have a ps3 and this pc I'm on that me and my buddy built. All in all, I don't see a reason to mac, except one of course, I might give their laptops a whirl. Why? I want a good quality laptop, they seem to have good quality ones, altho I might go with a sony too (I have allot of sony stuff, it seems to work great).

Dimitriid
November 30th, 2007, 05:47 PM
Sony laptops are far from great quality. Macs are underpowered ( shown in previous posts, pay no attention to nitpicking ). If you want a quality laptop even if the price is higher try Toshiba.

Daishiman
November 30th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Toshibas have Linux compatibility issues with some of their hardware. By far the most Linux-friendly and performant (but very expensive) notebooks are Thinkpads in the T and X line. Every hardware component in my T42 is detected, and it's the most rugged laptop I've used.

SomeGuyDude
November 30th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Toshibas have Linux compatibility issues with some of their hardware. By far the most Linux-friendly and performant (but very expensive) notebooks are Thinkpads in the T and X line. Every hardware component in my T42 is detected, and it's the most rugged laptop I've used.

HP for me. Everything worked right on the LiveCD for my dv6000. The webcam even worked aside from via youTube.

Frak
November 30th, 2007, 10:48 PM
HP for me. Everything worked right on the LiveCD for my dv6000. The webcam even worked aside from via youTube.
I have an HP laptops and desktops also, fully Linux compatible. Great quality.