I am switching to Mac OSX

[ethaniscool]

I have been using Ubuntu for about a year now. I just am not satisfied. There are far too many things that need tweaked or altered to achieve the functionality that I demand. Windows was my OS before Ubuntu and hopefully every visitor on this website knows better than to rest their computing on that hopeless product. In my eyes Mac OSX is the only alternative. Ubuntu is not functional with my Ipod, the Firefox build crashes or freezes constantly and it is relatively slow. All this and more points to Mac as the sane choice for the desktop user.

[mostwanted]

Sorry to hear that. Hopefully you will come back when you feel Ubuntu is ready for you.

Have you tried getting support for the problems you mentioned?

[earobinson]

Also sorry to hear that, hope that you will keep using open source software on your new mac.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Sorry to hear that. Hopefully you will come back when you feel Ubuntu is ready for you.

Have you tried getting support for the problems you mentioned?

Many people want things to work properly without having to call on support. I have no issue with his leaving to Mac OSX, but hopefully he'll do his homework before switching. I've always thought of OSX as being superb (but I have never used it myself), but some say it's not all that great.

Standard operating systems can't be fairly compared to OSX, because of OSX's unbelievable advantage. When you control the hardware you're working with, everything should work just fine. This does not mean they have a technical advantage. The fact that most, if not everything, works well together on a Mac does not mean that Macs are better operating systems. Anyone could do the same (though, of course, it wouldn't work with FLOSS).

[Demio]

But Mac OS X is indeed a better operating system.

It's more stable than any other, it has all the security of the *NIX environment and the usability of the Mac OS X platform ;)

You get what you pay for.

[ethaniscool]

Have you tried getting support for the problems you mentioned?

Yes, I have tried getting support for the problems mentioned. All that I have read points to un-installing the Ubuntu build for Firefox and installing the Linux build. But there are more problems that I will wait until are resolved until Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution becomes my main machine.

[Adamant1988]

I have been using Ubuntu for about a year now. I just am not satisfied. There are far too many things that need tweaked or altered to achieve the functionality that I demand. Windows was my OS before Ubuntu and hopefully every visitor on this website knows better than to rest their computing on that hopeless product. In my eyes Mac OSX is the only alternative. Ubuntu is not functional with my Ipod, the Firefox build crashes or freezes constantly and it is relatively slow. All this and more points to Mac as the sane choice for the desktop user.

Apple's desktop systems are probably the absolute finest pieces of work I have ever had the pleasure of using. No joke. You're not making a BAD decision at all, there are lots of things about Ubuntu that need ironed out, but that just won't happen until Ubuntu starts seeing massive developer mind-share.

[Adamant1988]

Many people want things to work properly without having to call on support. I have no issue with his leaving to Mac OSX, but hopefully he'll do his homework before switching. I've always thought of OSX as being superb (but I have never used it myself), but some say it's not all that great.

Standard operating systems can't be fairly compared to OSX, because of OSX's unbelievable advantage. When you control the hardware you're working with, everything should work just fine. This does not mean they have a technical advantage. The fact that most, if not everything, works well together on a Mac does not mean that Macs are better operating systems. Anyone could do the same (though, of course, it wouldn't work with FLOSS).

No, this is not true. There is NOTHING stopping Canonical from using some of it's funding to get into the hardware business, just like Apple. An operating system is only as good as it's hardware, and hardware is only as good as the operating system will let it be. Mac OS X is amazing in that it brings power out of hardware that, right now, Linux and Windows just can't touch. It's BECAUSE of that integration...

Macs are vastly superior computers in general, because of the relationship between the hardware and Mac OS X. You really do get what you pay for with those machines.

[powerpc64]

Well having used Macs for 20 years and currently running both OS X 10.4.x and Ubuntu, I beg to differ. I've seen every Apple marketing campaign and boy, do they have people fooled - all paying the Apple luxury tax for their vendor lockinware. Complete with DRM!

Doing anything reasonably simple on Mac like preventing automount of some given volume requires console activity. And because Apple fails to document things, you end up on user forums, hacker tips, etc. So ultimately it feels like Linux. And unlike Linux you're never quite sure whether the next x.x.x.+1 release from Apple will break your script. And unlike Linux they never admit "yes we have a bug" until a year later when they ship the fix.

If you tried Ubuntu on a Mac, I feel your pain, but think it's largely because Ubuntu package maintenance just doesn't ever give the very latest stuff you need to fix the PowerPC bugs. Linux support for PowerPC is really incredible. Try T2 Linux.

This baloney about "vastly superior" makes me laugh, I have been through 20 years of that from Apple. After years of lecturing us on the merits of OS 9 they give us BSD Unix. After years of lecturing us about PowerPC they go Intel x86. The list is really endless. Right now they sell basically commodity PC hardware and *nix with some window dressing. That makes them equivalent to just another Linux vendor and truth be told, they want out of the business to sell music and video and cell phones.

Oh did I forget to mention Mac is the only market left where you pay money for every last little pathetic utility that Apple should have shipped in the OS to get things done. On Linux they're all free and on Windows they're all free, even.

And did I forget to say, OpenOffice has lagged on Mac for years?

Mac is an expensive dead-end as far as I'm concerned. We're migrating completely to Linux.

[Demio]

Well having used Macs for 20 years and currently running both OS X 10.4.x and Ubuntu, I beg to differ. I've seen every Apple marketing campaign and boy, do they have people fooled - all paying the Apple luxury tax for their vendor lockinware. Complete with DRM!

Doing anything reasonably simple on Mac like preventing automount of some given volume requires console activity. And because Apple fails to document things, you end up on user forums, hacker tips, etc. So ultimately it feels like Linux. And unlike Linux you're never quite sure whether the next x.x.x.+1 release from Apple will break your script. And unlike Linux they never admit "yes we have a bug" until a year later when they ship the fix.

If you tried Ubuntu on a Mac, I feel your pain, but think it's largely because Ubuntu package maintenance just doesn't ever give the very latest stuff you need to fix the PowerPC bugs. Linux support for PowerPC is really incredible. Try T2 Linux.

This baloney about "vastly superior" makes me laugh, I have been through 20 years of that from Apple. After years of lecturing us on the merits of OS 9 they give us BSD Unix. After years of lecturing us about PowerPC they go Intel x86. The list is really endless. Right now they sell basically commodity PC hardware and *nix with some window dressing. That makes them equivalent to just another Linux vendor and truth be told, they want out of the business to sell music and video and cell phones.

Oh did I forget to mention Mac is the only market left where you pay money for every last little pathetic utility that Apple should have shipped in the OS to get things done. On Linux they're all free and on Windows they're all free, even.

And did I forget to say, OpenOffice has lagged on Mac for years?

Mac is an expensive dead-end as far as I'm concerned. We're migrating completely to Linux.

Don't let the door hit your *** on the way out ;)

Whatever you say, Mac OS X is still 5 years ahead of any Linux distro in terms of usability, polish and stability.

Oh yeah, and the "Open Source" software is not even close to most of the paid software in terms of quality.

[Alfa989]

I've seen every Apple marketing campaign and boy, do they have people fooled - all paying the Apple luxury tax for their vendor lockinware. Complete with DRM!

What are you talking about? The only DRM-thingy is the iTunes Store, which is getting DRM-free content soon, and it's not even part of the OS... :)

[slimdog360]

But Mac OS X is indeed a better operating system.

It's more stable than any other, it has all the security of the *NIX environment and the usability of the Mac OS X platform ;)

You get what you pay for.

I wouldn't say its more stable then any other. I recon FreeBSD is the most stable by default, but of course not even half as user friendly. Thats not to say that OSX isn't consistent, but I've had it crash and the like many times.

[Adamant1988]

I wouldn't say its more stable then any other. I recon FreeBSD is the most stable by default, but of course not even half as user friendly. Thats not to say that OSX isn't consistent, but I've had it crash and the like many times.

In my experience with them I've never seen ill-behavior come from them, but that's my experience. I understand that mileage will vary.

[jbdev]

Well ... I use *nix and winblows at work ( Winblows only because I have to test stuff ) but at home I have a mac book pro and will never buy a PC again. I do however have a *nix server at home and would never use anything less for a server.

When I get home I do not want to work on my computer (updates, drivers, yada yada yada) I just want to use it for what ever that may be at the time. My Mac has never let me down.

If you just want to brows the internet and listen to music then a Ubuntu box is fine at home but for all the videos and cameras for the wife / kids my mac just works.

I have always used some flavor of nix even BSD but I am still waiting (like so many others) for the day our nix boxes will get the hardware support they deserve. After that who knows I may never buy that exspensive Mac again.

[wieman01]

I wouldn't say its more stable then any other. I recon FreeBSD is the most stable by default, but of course not even half as user friendly. Thats not to say that OSX isn't consistent, but I've had it crash and the like many times.
I don't think that the OS is the culprit for all these crashes... No matter how good or stable OSX is, Apple's hardware leaves much to be desired. It is overengineered and at the same time they are using tons of cheap components that cannot keep up with customers' expectation in terms of performance. A friend of mine has got an Apple and boy, he has had trouble with it all over. Their support is fairly incompentent as well. So in my opinion, it's not the software but their hardware that is simply bad. The OS is just beautiful, albeit a bit pointless.

[themerchant]

It took me about 15 minutes to get everything I want on my Ubuntu installation, first I install, then I change my gui to the way I like it, then automatix, install steam and supertux, bam, done.

Very easy, very automatic, very free.

[misfitpierce]

So long... but I tried out mac on a friends for days and felt as if it was holding me back. Ubuntu just makes me feel .... Free I guess but have fun

[Keith Hedger]

I have gone the opposite direction, having been a long time user of macs (from system 6) I finally got fed up with apple seeming to go out of its way to screw people over, virtually evry major relaase of OSX broke most of my third party software, to get BACK functionality from older releases (ie the apple menu) I had to install sharware programs (and pay for them!), and after watching my new shiny powerbook become obsolete after 6 months because apple had yet agin switched proccessors I switched completly to Ubunto.
P.S. my ipod works fine with gtkpod and rhytmbox and i dont need to do a 32M download to update it!
You'll be back!

[Adamant1988]

I don't think that the OS is the culprit for all these crashes... No matter how good or stable OSX is, Apple's hardware leaves much to be desired. It is overengineered and at the same time they are using tons of cheap components that cannot keep up with customers' expectation in terms of performance. A friend of mine has got an Apple and boy, he has had trouble with it all over. Their support is fairly incompentent as well. So in my opinion, it's not the software but their hardware that is simply bad. The OS is just beautiful, albeit a bit pointless.

If you're going to start calling Apple's hardware low-quality you had better back that up. Apple's hardware is top of the line for the price. But you're right... The hardware just CAN'T keep up with the performance demands of a regular user...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06_IPNnziqI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mnPJGePyR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anueWdN65gY
(it seems to keep up pretty well with someone deliberately stressing it though..)

and gosh... all that hardware is just so cheap and poorly designed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQvHkKzEBc

Macs are regularly used for the most demanding work you can ever do with a computer... media creation, and you're saying the hardware is cheap and can't keep up? By all means, please, back that up.

[wieman01]

If you're going to start calling Apple's hardware low-quality you had better back that up. Apple's hardware is top of the line for the price. But you're right... The hardware just CAN'T keep up with the performance demands of a regular user...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06_IPNnziqI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mnPJGePyR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anueWdN65gY
(it seems to keep up pretty well with someone deliberately stressing it though..)

and gosh... all that hardware is just so cheap and poorly designed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQvHkKzEBc

Macs are regularly used for the most demanding work you can ever do with a computer... media creation, and you're saying the hardware is cheap and can't keep up? By all means, please, back that up.
Personal experience, that should be sufficient. Look at the overheating issue that they had recently, battery issues, etc.

Cheap equals low-quality components. Dell had similar issues in the past. And I am not talking about iPod and stuff like that right... I am referring to their PCs and I would not bother buying one given their weak customer service. Again, no means to back it up, it purely based on personal experience, same as in your case I reckon.

The thing is there are certain limits to what you can achieve & manufacture when you have such ambitious cost / price targets and I'd rather pay more and get reliable hardware than save at the wrong end.

[Adamant1988]

Personal experience, that should be sufficient. Look at the overheating issue that they had recently, battery issues, etc.

Cheap equals low-quality components. Dell had similar issues in the past. And I am not talking about iPod and stuff like that right... I am referring to their PCs and I would not bother buying one given their weak customer service. Again, no means to back it up, it purely based on personal experience, same as in your case I reckon.

The thing is there are certain limits to what you can achieve & manufacture when you have such ambitious cost / price targets and I'd rather pay more and get reliable hardware than save at the wrong end.

If you're referring to the exploding battery issue, DELL and many other vendors had problems with those batteries, and I believe they originated from SONY? Overheating problems were fixed as well. It is electronics and of course there will be issues, every single vendor has issues, but you have no qualms buying from DELL, HP, or other companies? All of those companies had exploding battery issues because they were bought at the same place.

This does not mean that the quality of what Apple was promised was cheap, but that somebody who made that batter, or fan, or whatever SCREWED UP. In the case of the batteries it was Sony. Also, Apple has never been about low pricing... ever. When you buy an Apple product you do get what you paid for.

In the end though, nothing I say is going to deter you from what you think. Even if you basically just told every media professional out there who is worth their weight that their systems 'can't keep up'.

[wieman01]

This does not mean that the quality of what Apple was promised was cheap, but that somebody who made that batter, or fan, or whatever SCREWED UP. In the case of the batteries it was Sony. Also, Apple has never been about low pricing... ever. When you buy an Apple product you do get what you paid for.
That's exactly what I am saying here... we are talking about supply chain management, computers consist of thousands of components, one vendor screws up, your final product is defective or production has to put up with delays. No matter what the root cause of Apple's problems is or say - used to be - they have to control their supply chain, they pick vendors & suppliers, they are liable when selling products to customers. Hence they are to blame if anything goes wrong, nobody else. Dell's supply chain used to be the most efficient one in world of computer manufacturers but constant cost pressure has driven them to their limits. So now they (as well as their customers) are paying a price for it.

Don't get me wrong, Apple's problems aren't as severe as it may sound of course, but low-cost has it natural boundaries and I am afraid Apple may have pushed them to hard. An unqualified opinion though.

[godd4242]

Well having used Macs for 20 years and currently running both OS X 10.4.x and Ubuntu, I beg to differ. I've seen every Apple marketing campaign and boy, do they have people fooled - all paying the Apple luxury tax for their vendor lockinware. Complete with DRM!

Doing anything reasonably simple on Mac like preventing automount of some given volume requires console activity. And because Apple fails to document things, you end up on user forums, hacker tips, etc. So ultimately it feels like Linux. And unlike Linux you're never quite sure whether the next x.x.x.+1 release from Apple will break your script. And unlike Linux they never admit "yes we have a bug" until a year later when they ship the fix.

If you tried Ubuntu on a Mac, I feel your pain, but think it's largely because Ubuntu package maintenance just doesn't ever give the very latest stuff you need to fix the PowerPC bugs. Linux support for PowerPC is really incredible. Try T2 Linux.

This baloney about "vastly superior" makes me laugh, I have been through 20 years of that from Apple. After years of lecturing us on the merits of OS 9 they give us BSD Unix. After years of lecturing us about PowerPC they go Intel x86. The list is really endless. Right now they sell basically commodity PC hardware and *nix with some window dressing. That makes them equivalent to just another Linux vendor and truth be told, they want out of the business to sell music and video and cell phones.

Oh did I forget to mention Mac is the only market left where you pay money for every last little pathetic utility that Apple should have shipped in the OS to get things done. On Linux they're all free and on Windows they're all free, even.

And did I forget to say, OpenOffice has lagged on Mac for years?

Mac is an expensive dead-end as far as I'm concerned. We're migrating completely to Linux.

I hate to put it so bluntly, but I doubt even a quarter of your average mac user even cares about that kind of functionality. The people that will see this, on a linux forum, no doubt care, but I doubt that if I asked "Hannah" in my Calc class whether or not she cared about any of the above, she'd say no.

It's AIM, E-mail and facebook, that's all that really matters to most computer users.

PS:
MY friend had quciktime 7 and was showing it off on his new mac. It asked him to pay 20 dollars to watch a movie in full screen that he had, of course, legally downloaded and completely paid for.

It was funny.

[AlphaMack]

If it weren't for the fact that Linux PPC lacks Flash (sorry, Gnash has a long way to go) and Windows Media support, OS X would be gone from my Macs.

[Pobega]

Hm, Macs. The only thing worth using a Mac for in my personal opinion is video editing/photo editing; And if you're not doing it professionally, Cinerella/Inkscape should get the job done for you.

In my opinion Macs are more of a cult thing, maybe even moreso than Linux. I've never met a person with a Mac that wouldn't defend their beloved company until I sliced their throats (Not that I would ever do such a thing, of course). The whole "Macs just work" thing is ********, Macs really don't get upgrades; I mean, even if they do, it's not in the same sense as an upgrade on a Debian or Gentoo system. Mac OS doesn't have to promise stability for the 1,000+ programs available for Macs, while individual GNU/Linux distributions must assert some stability in the 16,000+ packages.

Sure, Macs are nice for certain things. But unless I had to do those certain things for a living, I wouldn't give up the freedom I have on Debian, or the community structure, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the stability, while still staying fairly up-to-date package-wise without having to track new upstream versions down by bookmarking their pages. I would never give up the choice given to me: Which window manager shall I use? Which browser will I use? Which IM client will I use? I like how Debian doesn't try to sugar things up for me, and lets me set up programs the way I want them to act, not how the package maintainer thinks it should act.

Package manager are the way of the future, and as far as I know Mac doesn't have one yet. Of course, I may be wrong. It's been a long time since I've been on a Mac, I personally don't like the feel of the operating system. And I really don't like the feel of the hardware. I actually haven't found anything to rival the "homey-ness" of my System76 laptop, with Debian Lenny installed in it. It's like a match made in heaven.

As for DRM, I feel that Apple as a company is holding it's customers back. Everyone in my family who used iTunes to download music is now going to be charged an extra $0.50 per song just so that they can use it how they wish? It almost seems simpler to just buy CDs from the record store now. I never liked the company much anyway, I've always preferred the community model. People working together with people, not for money, but for the love of what they do.

Of course, this post is extremely biased towards Linux, specifically Debian. But I don't see why anybody would need a Mac for anything besides fields in art or science. I guess Apple is just "in" at the moment, kind of like Ubuntu in the Linux world.

[Enverex]

The first post sounds more like an advert than anything else and the Apple zealots roll in shortly afterwords. This thread needs to be locked, it's just flamebait.

[wieman01]

The first post sounds more like an advert than anything else and the Apple zealots roll in shortly afterwords. This thread needs to be locked, it's just flamebait.
What makes you think so?

[Adamant1988]

The first post sounds more like an advert than anything else and the Apple zealots roll in shortly afterwords. This thread needs to be locked, it's just flamebait.

I'm a happy Ubuntu user actually, I just hate when people have no problem being very forward about how ignorant they are.

[karellen]

The first post sounds more like an advert than anything else and the Apple zealots roll in shortly afterwords. This thread needs to be locked, it's just flamebait.

it's "flamebait" only because you say it is. if it would be something like "I'm switching to ubuntu" it would've been ok, doesn't it? respect people's choice and opinions even if you have different ones.

[wieman01]

Guess it is time to relax a bit... Serious as the topic might seem :-) let's not turn this thread into one of these pointless discussions that eventually end up being closed or even worse. We are (mostly) on the same page being Ubuntu users, right or wrong?

[the.dark.lord]

In my opinion Macs are more of a cult thing, maybe even moreso than Linux. I've never met a person with a Mac that wouldn't defend their beloved company until I sliced their throats (Not that I would ever do such a thing, of course).

Wrong. I used to be an Apple fanboy, but that was before I brought this iMac. Apple isn't worth all the hype it gets. I hate the locked up hardware, and OS X used to get on my nerves. I ditched OS X, and am purely Linux now ;)

[karellen]

Guess it is time to relax a bit... Serious as the topic might seem :-) let's not turn this thread into one of these pointless discussions that eventually end up being closed or even worse. We are (mostly) on the same page being Ubuntu users, right or wrong?

amen
;)

[wieman01]

amen
;)
Hey, that was naughty! ;-)

[karellen]

Hey, that was naughty! ;-)

:D...and I thought I expressed my total agreement ;)
:)

[rplantz]

I've used Macs since March 1984. I still have an old G4 next to my Linux box. Since I'm running 64-bit Linux, I find the Mac useful for some multimedia things that are not yet handled well in 64-bit.

I worked at a university that was mostly a Mac campus until the late 90s. I've seen lots of versions of Macs. The vast majority of the hardware has been more trouble free than other hardware. But there have been a few bad ones. A friend had one of the earlier PowerBooks that was shipped back and forth for repair so many times it shoulda got frequent flyer mileage.

I've always had problems with Apple's support. My first encounter was the ImageWriter II printer I got in 1985. In those days we used fanfold paper. I like to put page numbers on the bottom of each page. About 25% of the time it would place the number that was supposed to be on the bottom of page 3 at the top of page 4. The entire page 3 image was shifted about 1/2" down the page. After that, all page alignment was fine. I sent examples, including a floppy disk with a file, to Apple. Their "solution" was to make larger bottom margins. It turned out that they had used the original ImageWriter driver for the ImageWriter II but added some code to do a 1/2" reversal of the platten before printing each page. On the third or forth page it would sometimes drop the command to do this. It eventually got fixed.

My real problem with their support is that they never admitted to a problem. They seem to have the attitude that we consumers want to think that everything is okay and that we won't understand any mildly technical details.

The real beauty of Linux for me is in forums like this. I can post a problem and most of the time learn the solution within a few hours. At the very least, I learn that I'm not alone, that it's a real problem. And I have to say that the Ubuntu forum is about the best one.

[Anthem]

I have all three platforms at home, and there's something to be said for all of them, as well as things that aren't so great.

1. Mac/OSX - very polished, difficult to break, loads quickly, feels very responsive. OTOH, it's VERY pricey, not as flexible, and outside of iLife (which is great) there's a shortage of good applications unless you shell out. I'll be thrilled when KDE4 comes out, because then a lot of my favorite programs will run on OSX.

2. Linux - I love my Ubuntu boxen. I have to be a little more careful when buying hardware, but overall these are great. My laptop doesn't get good battery life, though, and there are still areas that need more polish. Can't argue with price or freedom, though, and they're rock-solid once they get set up.

3. Windows - Umm... yeah. Well, my XP machine in the basement is a champ at running Quicken... other than that, I'll just plead the fifth. We set up my wife's laptop as a dual-boot Ubuntu and Vista, and great gravy but Vista is terrible. She needs the dual boot, so I'm going to scrounge an XP copy from somewhere and wipe the hard drive. What a mess.

Anyway, have fun in the Mac world. It's not a bad place to be, if you have a need that's met by an Apple machine. If they only had a midrange headless...

[Alfa989]

1. Mac/OSX - very polished, difficult to break, loads quickly, feels very responsive. OTOH, it's VERY pricey, not as flexible, and outside of iLife (which is great) there's a shortage of good applications unless you shell out.
What are you talking about?

[Adamant1988]

I have all three platforms at home, and there's something to be said for all of them, as well as things that aren't so great.

1. Mac/OSX - very polished, difficult to break, loads quickly, feels very responsive. OTOH, it's VERY pricey, not as flexible, and outside of iLife (which is great) there's a shortage of good applications unless you shell out. I'll be thrilled when KDE4 comes out, because then a lot of my favorite programs will run on OSX.

2. Linux - I love my Ubuntu boxen. I have to be a little more careful when buying hardware, but overall these are great. My laptop doesn't get good battery life, though, and there are still areas that need more polish. Can't argue with price or freedom, though, and they're rock-solid once they get set up.

3. Windows - Umm... yeah. Well, my XP machine in the basement is a champ at running Quicken... other than that, I'll just plead the fifth. We set up my wife's laptop as a dual-boot Ubuntu and Vista, and great gravy but Vista is terrible. She needs the dual boot, so I'm going to scrounge an XP copy from somewhere and wipe the hard drive. What a mess.

Anyway, have fun in the Mac world. It's not a bad place to be, if you have a need that's met by an Apple machine. If they only had a midrange headless...

You DO realize that pretty much any Linux application can be run on a Mac... right?

[wieman01]

You DO realize that pretty much any Linux application can be run on a Mac... right?
That might be possible given the very similar architecture of both system. But I don't think it is that trivial though. I recommend this site:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/intro/chapter_1_section_1.html

Will KDE 4.0 make life simpler for MAC users?

[mips]

Will KDE 4.0 make life simpler for MAC users?

Dunno about that as I understand it not the entire KDE4 will be functional on Windows & OSX.

[tgbrowning]

Interesting. I'm fed up with Windows and getting out. I'm having absolutely no luck getting Ubuntu to work (in point of fact, installing it has killed the batteries on two Presarios already) but expect I will, in some fashion, somewhere down the road. Even if I have to go out and special order a machine and have somebody else do the install. It'll be worth it to me.

The only reason I've run Windows is because my job more or less requires it. I work for the Oregon Department of Revenue and they're locked into Office Version whatever, so I've been stuck. But I'm 11 months away from retiring and will be able to do what I want shortly.

Have I considered Apple and the Mac?

The answer to that is HELL no. Not an option.

I detest their design philosophy. As a programmer, I want to have control of my machine and Apple basically doesn't want anybody who hasn't been d mentally conditioned to do exactly what Apple wants. It's their right to take that line, I admit. But it's still authoritarian as hell and not something I will put up with. I've been forced to work with iPod crap and iTunes and seen what damage they can do to a functioning system, since I have to keep the home wireless network up and running for my wife and kids.

The basic quality that connects both Microsoft and Apple, in my mind, is consummate greed. Jobs went one direction to get his money and power needs scratched, Gates went the other (Closed vs Open architecture) and ultimately, they have morphed into the front and back sides of a coin. Very little difference to the user.

Hope you enjoy being controlled completely by the soul-less corporate needs of Apple. I'm tired of being controlled by the soul-less corporate need ofs Microsloth.

It's like bloody presidential elections: No real difference between the choices.

Browning>>>

[RAV TUX]

I have been using Ubuntu for about a year now. I just am not satisfied. There are far too many things that need tweaked or altered to achieve the functionality that I demand. Windows was my OS before Ubuntu and hopefully every visitor on this website knows better than to rest their computing on that hopeless product. In my eyes Mac OSX is the only alternative. Ubuntu is not functional with my Ipod, the Firefox build crashes or freezes constantly and it is relatively slow. All this and more points to Mac as the sane choice for the desktop user.

Mac OS X is nice I will not argue that, but I honestly think there is not much wrong with Windows XP either.

I prefer and use Linux, there are things in Linux I can not find in Mac OS X or Windows XP, I currently actively use 4 Linux distributions:

1. Oz Linux/Oz Rx (rpath based, utilizing Conary)
2. Foresight (rpath based, utilizing Conary)
3. Ubuntu (Debian based)
4. elive (Debian based)

Honestly I like elive a lot but it is under deep development, still stable in my opinion, I hope to have e17 working in Oz Linux one day, but I am very busy developing a multiplicity of Oz projects.

My point is, is that as a developer Mac OS X does not offer the freedom to develop that I need.

Given a choice of Mac OS X or Windows XP I choose Mac OS X.

Given a choice of Mac OS X, Windows XP or one of the Linux distros like those listed above I choose Linux.

There are many more Linux options that are outstanding, like Wolvix, Sabayon, Zenwalk, Aquamorph, Puppy, etc. etc.

( and yes Windows Vista is not even a option for me)

[Flump5000]

i dont use windows at all in my house. (im forced to at school) in my living room i just switched my desktop to ubuntu and i have a 17" imac in my bedroom. when i go to college i think ill pick up a mac pro or macbook pro.

[karellen]

I'll definitely give mac os x a try (and not only) if I could afford a mac...
who knows, maybe someday...;)

[3rdalbum]

I think if I bought another Mac and used OS X exclusively, I wouldn't enjoy computing so much.

What can match the thrill of installing a new version of the OS and finding that its kernel multitasks EVEN BETTER and with more speed than the one preceeding it?

I'm sorry, but OS X cannot reach these kinds of speeds. And it doesn't have any of the features you find on Linux or real Unix that I love.

By the way, the operating system does contain DRM. iTunes' backend is Quicktime, and Quicktime is described by Apple as being part of the operating system.

[stmiller]

I've picked up two used macs, for far less than the apple.com sticker prices:

15" Powerbook G4 (867Mhz): I traded a 60GB iPod for this Powerbook, in a straight trade. I just responded to an ad on craigslist.

Dual 2Ghz Powermac G5: purchased used, cheaper than what new macbooks today cost.

So if you hunt, you can find goodies out there and avoid the apple tax.

[Alfa989]

I've picked up two used macs, for far less than the apple.com sticker prices:

15" Powerbook G4 (867Mhz): I traded a 60GB iPod for this Powerbook, in a straight trade. I just responded to an ad on craigslist.

Dual 2Ghz Powermac G5: purchased used, cheaper than what new macbooks today cost.

So if you hunt, you can find goodies out there and avoid the apple tax.
You are not avoiding any "tax" those are used machine, so they are obviously gonna be cheaper...

[stmiller]

You are not avoiding any "tax" those are used machine, so they are obviously gonna be cheaper...

I'm not talking about sales tax. :p People refer to the 'apple tax' as the markup and premium price apple puts on their new hardware vs. the cheaper identical machine from the PC land. Or others refer to it as the cost of the premium hardware to get OS X.

[[Rolamoto]]

Well having used Macs for 20 years and currently running both OS X 10.4.x and Ubuntu, I beg to differ. I've seen every Apple marketing campaign and boy, do they have people fooled - all paying the Apple luxury tax for their vendor lockinware. Complete with DRM!

Doing anything reasonably simple on Mac like preventing automount of some given volume requires console activity. And because Apple fails to document things, you end up on user forums, hacker tips, etc. So ultimately it feels like Linux. And unlike Linux you're never quite sure whether the next x.x.x.+1 release from Apple will break your script. And unlike Linux they never admit "yes we have a bug" until a year later when they ship the fix.

If you tried Ubuntu on a Mac, I feel your pain, but think it's largely because Ubuntu package maintenance just doesn't ever give the very latest stuff you need to fix the PowerPC bugs. Linux support for PowerPC is really incredible. Try T2 Linux.

This baloney about "vastly superior" makes me laugh, I have been through 20 years of that from Apple. After years of lecturing us on the merits of OS 9 they give us BSD Unix. After years of lecturing us about PowerPC they go Intel x86. The list is really endless. Right now they sell basically commodity PC hardware and *nix with some window dressing. That makes them equivalent to just another Linux vendor and truth be told, they want out of the business to sell music and video and cell phones.

Oh did I forget to mention Mac is the only market left where you pay money for every last little pathetic utility that Apple should have shipped in the OS to get things done. On Linux they're all free and on Windows they're all free, even.

And did I forget to say, OpenOffice has lagged on Mac for years?

Mac is an expensive dead-end as far as I'm concerned. We're migrating completely to Linux.

So, tell me, how what aplication that ships with W*****s lets you edit music?
...
Oh, wait, it doesn't have one! OS X does (garage band) And what about movie editing?
There is w*****s movie maker, but its a P.O.S. OS X ships with iMovie, and if you buy a new mac you can get Final Cut (Express, but still Final Cut) for $99. Yes, Macs are expensive, but they are only by apple, i.e. they totally control the quality of the computer and can spend time optimizing the software for the specific platforms they choose to sell. BTW OO.o is made by Sun, not apple, so how is it Apple's fault that it lags behind?

That being said, I need to also say linux has free aplications that do more than w*****s ever will, and at a huge savings.

[Chrisj303]

I have been using Ubuntu for about a year now. I just am not satisfied. There are far too many things that need tweaked or altered to achieve the functionality that I demand. Windows was my OS before Ubuntu and hopefully every visitor on this website knows better than to rest their computing on that hopeless product. In my eyes Mac OSX is the only alternative. Ubuntu is not functional with my Ipod, the Firefox build crashes or freezes constantly and it is relatively slow. All this and more points to Mac as the sane choice for the desktop user.

You can still use ubuntu with your new shiny Mac!

It is very easy to setup a multiboot on an (Intel Mac). I tripleboot OSX/Ubuntu/XP on both my macs.

When it comes to audio/video, or i need things to just work,first time, then i boot into OSX.

If i'm just 'playing' or fiddling about, then i boot into ubuntu.

XP, is there just in case! - i just like having the option of having it there if needs be.

[Flump5000]

just get osx and ubuntu like me. i use osx for my main computer and ubuntu on my old pc.

[Prisma]

In my point of view Macs are computers with an elitist (for the rich by the rich) view of the market. The only advantage they have over Linux is the media production suites like Adobe or their own pro tools like Final Cut Pro, also another advantage is 3rd party support. If Linux can get this too I don't see any reason why you would want to buy a computer like the Mac.

[wieman01]

In my point of view Macs are computers with an elitist (for the rich by the rich) view of the market. The only advantage they have over Linux is the media production suites like Adobe or their own pro tools like Final Cut Pro, also another advantage is 3rd party support. If Linux can get this too I don't see any reason why you would want to buy a computer like the Mac.
I thought MACs have become considerably cheaper and Apple is far from taking an elitist approach.

[jazz1]

I think Apple should add a new character to their ads. Mac, PC and Ubuntu ;)

[RAV TUX]

OS X is nice for a commercial alternative.

[Peter Mount]

My current plan is to buy an Intel Mac for my next confusor and run Ubuntu and Windows on it as well as the Mac OS. That way I can more fully test the web sites I develop as well as have a Unix based OS that is fully compatible with the hardware (or so I'm told :) ). I'm thinking having apps on Ubuntu (or Kubuntu on the Mac) will help me keep costs down for software.

[Ultra Magnus]

Mac lovers are an odd breed... I think those "get a mac" adverts were a bad idea - it just served to increase the smug levels in the mac community - Allot of posts seem to claim that mac is "5 years ahead of anything else" - hmmm - in what way - The GUI is good looking, expose is nice - it does group windows together better than the beryl plugin - I've only ever used mac software on windows (eq itunes, quicktime, safari) and I couldn't stand them - horrible, horrible buggy software. Granted Macs make the nicest hardware out there but in terms of software Ubuntu really isn't that far behind.

[gosh]

I agree with you.
I am using Ubuntu for a fair period now, but keep bumping into things.
Just bought a Macbook Pro. It is brilliant. (but expensive...). All things that cause me trouble with XP and Ubuntu are running in a click of a sec.
BTW I installed Feisty through Parallels so I will keep an eye on Ubuntu.
And I use open source software as much as possible (OpenOffice.org, Azureus, Firefox)

[SPRL]

IMHO: I think the two best choices are Linux and Apple. I have been researching these (+MS Windows) now for 2 years. I use Ubuntu exclusively and it runs great for me minus a few bugs that aren't a big deal. I find people have a real preconceived notion about Apple though. Most of the conjecture that I read and hear are second hand and at best are based on myth or outdated performance problems, like the BSOD in Windows. The one thing I don't like about Apple is there advertising and trying to find out what the computer can "really" do is a real dig. Youtube has helped allot, just check out KOST, Mellenium12, garethhallnz to see the capabilities and the debunking of Mac myths. Well I hope to purchase a Mac in the near future as well, but in no way am I going to give up my Ubuntu machine.

[stmiller]

Mac lovers are an odd breed... I think those "get a mac" adverts were a bad idea - it just served to increase the smug levels in the mac community - Allot of posts seem to claim that mac is "5 years ahead of anything else" - hmmm - in what way - The GUI is good looking, expose is nice - it does group windows together better than the beryl plugin - I've only ever used mac software on windows (eq itunes, quicktime, safari) and I couldn't stand them - horrible, horrible buggy software. Granted Macs make the nicest hardware out there but in terms of software Ubuntu really isn't that far behind.

Never used OS X, I see. :)

[Chrisj303]

I think Apple should add a new character to their ads. Mac, PC and Ubuntu ;)

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w268/chrisj303/pcmaclinux-thumb.jpg

[ashvala]

Well... I my self use OS X & it rocks... I dont run boot camp but OS X is great.
I use a Intel Core 2 duo 2 MGz processer with iSight.. I doubt the usage of the iSight on linux... Overall it was a good switch

[eiskalt]

wow, I have my ipod and all the rest of my icrap hooked up to my dell inspiron 9400 running ubuntu. IT boots fast and looks like mac osx, without paying 8 thousand dollars. Ubuntu is like the way computing used to be, it makes you feel like your part of the operating system. Instead of mac osx which is like the os that runs an atm or my ti-89. You just use it, you dont ask any questions or have to think. So hell with you mac fan boys, and well yea windows xp was ok, but vista is garbage.

[Chrisj303]

You just use it, you dont ask any questions or have to think..

And this is a bad thing?

Most people just want there computers to work you know.

You can have your Casio, i will keep my Rolex.

[misfitpierce]

I actually sold my macbook because OS X made me miss Ubuntu... Altho mac is my next suggestion rather than linux... I find mac too easy (I mean 3rd grade easy) and its still locked propriaty software much like windows but it is unix based so it is still better. To each their own tho... come back and try Ubuntu after Gutsy comes out maybe it'll become more ready for ya :)

[Chrisj303]

I actually sold my macbook because OS X made me miss Ubuntu...

Why didn't you just install Ubuntu on your Macbook?

[misfitpierce]

Tried that actually on new core 2 duo book and wireless was a pain and could not get it running. So I just took it back to get my money back. :) I am most likely buying a DELL-Ubuntu laptop with the money as it comes pre-config'd with my favorite OS and has more powerful options than the macbook processor and more based.

[Chrisj303]

Pity, - wireless is fine now (MadWiFi).

Macbooks are beatiful machines..

[SunnyRabbiera]

I too am considering a mac, but my only worry is upgrading from point to point...
Leopard is going to be 10.5, what kind of hell would I have to go through to get 10.6???
I heard that upgrading between versions is a big drag in OSX

[Chrisj303]

I too am considering a mac, but my only worry is upgrading from point to point...
Leopard is going to be 10.5, what kind of hell would I have to go through to get 10.6???
I heard that upgrading between versions is a big drag in OSX

You heard wrong.

APPLE > SOFTWARE UPDATE > (check off what you want) > OK

Thats it.

[SunnyRabbiera]

alright, so OSX is an option for me...
But I will wait till Leopard comes out before I go the Mac route.

[AlphaMack]

You heard wrong.

APPLE > SOFTWARE UPDATE > (check off what you want) > OK

Thats it.

Let me know how that software update from 10.4.11 to 10.5.0 works out.

[Chrisj303]

Let me know how that software update from 10.4.11 to 10.5.0 works out.

Oh, in that case, i back up my data to an external, boot from leopard and install:)

Just like i had to with Ubuntu - update didn't work.

I'm downloading leopard 9a499 as we speak, and hope to install it tommorrow.

[aysiu]

You heard wrong.

APPLE > SOFTWARE UPDATE > (check off what you want) > OK

Thats it.
Not for my wife it wasn't it (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=80341)

[bwtranch]

If you have seen some of my posts then you know I have a soft spot in my heart for Apple. I hope that you are not making this change for the wrong reasons. I sense that you feel that in some way you were let down. I do not believe that anyone here let you down. My system is the best and greatest eve,r Mac included. Maybe you should look in the mirror?

[spockrock]

I like macs, but top of the line hardware is a bit much, when it comes to laptops I love their laptops, desktop no thanks I will keep my pc and overclock it. Also the Apple PMU is the worst thing ever, it sucks so hard I wish they would just get rid of it.

[Sporkman]

I too am considering a mac, but my only worry is upgrading from point to point...
Leopard is going to be 10.5, what kind of hell would I have to go through to get 10.6???
I heard that upgrading between versions is a big drag in OSX

Simple fix for that: Don't upgrade. :) If your current version is working, and since MacOS is relatively secure as it is (so I hear), then "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," so to speak.

[Lord Shank]

This has been something of a conundrum for a lot of users, especially those who are more familiar with OS X. It is sad to say that all of the distros are taking away force from e the collected evolution of the GNU/Linux platform. I have been a Mac user since its inception in the eighties, and I have seen it mature from its hypercard, oregon trail, monochrome days, to the DRM GUI-fest that it is now. I have been preparing some content for people that I hope to have out shortly, which is basically a culmination of aggregated information with some concise analysis. For now though here is a quick take from the intro.

-If developers for *NIX could combine resources, imagine the force and speed with which accomplishments could be made. I admire the achievement of guys like Stallman, but at the heart, what they do is not always helping. As it has been pointed our before, the world is not totally prepared for FLOSS. We have the issue that the internet for the most part is proprietary, as well as several applications that we do not have open source alternatives to. One example that I give frequently is Ableton Live. As an audio pro, I cannot work without it. There is nothing like it in the "free" world, yet many zealous critics tell us that we should not use software such as this, due to the lack of "freedom." What is not always said is that the real freedom of the computer is the ability to do whatever you want with it. I am not a programmer, I have studied it, but I do not have the will to hash out code. When I want to create, I wish to use my computer now, not tinker. I do not think that there is a problem with paying for someone to do the hard part and write the software. This is where Linux, and GNU all have problems.

If users would look at software as investments in their lives, then we might see an influx of the needed funds for Linux and the like to evolve. Give a few bucks to your favorite project, this basically what licensing does. Instead, what we have is a sparse group of freedom fighters who are stretched too thin. I love the work that they do, but it is just not enough to compete with intrenched software firms head to head. Simple issues such as ATI support (which I believe will continue to stay in its abysmal state unless AMD cracks the whip), inability to make simple hardware feature work out of the box, sleep problems, numerous bugs in burgeoning software which often go unfixed due to this discontinuation of a project, and more are all banes of the movement. Organization, and support (monetarily) are at the heart of the problem with the FLOSS ethos.

Canonical, and Ubuntu are doing a lot to fix this. By bringing users out into the open, and doing their damnedest to romance hardware vendors into native support, they are giving the *NIX movement a voice that is well heard by corporations that make the hardware that we all rely on. By sending clear messages to guys like ATI, that we are tired of them ignoring the needs of users, it gives us force. Don't just do something, tell them why.
To be blunt, Linux has a long way to go. I would be on the band wagon full time if it were not for the fact that two of my Apple machines have ATI video cards. I don't want to have a 128MB graphics card that only supports 2D graphics in my laptop, that along with the host of other glitches that plague my systems keep me on OS X. I just do not have these problems in OS X. To some extent it does boil down to getting what you paid for. I understand that in the case of the Mac, there is a higher premium to pay, one that is often associated with elitism and the like. This is not always true. I buy refurbs, and chose computing over driving since I live in a city. The fundamental need of my use dictate what I have to buy on my limited budget. Granted, I would love to not spend money on software, but the adage about "the best things in life" just isn't always true.

In the end, philosophically, I believe a lot in the FLOSS movement, but from a realistic stand point, it does not get the job done for me. I will still use GNU/Linux as a hobby, but not for my critical creative work. I hope this to change in the near future, and I will continue to support distros like ubuntu for average users looking to get into computing, or upgrade from XP. I feel that Linux is more than adequate for a typical user (as in word proc, spreadsheet, internet, music and video playback, photos, etc), and is a great way to escape the Windows tax. It all depends on what you need.

[DjBones]

i guess its just how you look at it..
but don't you get a weird feeling by buying a closed source operating system that controls hardware and every other aspect?
and just like goth kids.. they are all the same haha

although i remember a good comparison that linux sacrifices usability - not in my opinion, but that seems to be the consesus these days - for price,
while mac sacrifices price for usability. (although the mac osx_86 guys throw a wrench into that one ;] )
as torvalds said "using osx is pointless because anything it can do linux can do better" .. although would you expect anything less from the man?
maybe im just to much of a FOSS hippie haha


oh, and to Lord Shank above me,
diversity can only breed success -- open source is not in a hurry nor has it ever been ;]

[macbookmaster]

If ur gonna switch to mac OSX do it.... if u ever want to get linux u can pust it on that so what eve! MAC OSX FOR LIFE (and ubuntu)

[joeyea]

The problem I have with mac is that its too user friendly. you cant get right inside it and change anything you want very easily. Its even worse in that case than windows I think. Macs are great because every thing works, it looks nice, its got some good software but I don't find that enough. its sort of the easy route. And open source software gives your a vast range that you can't get with paid for stuff, and if you could you'd have to be rich. Im only 15 so i've got no money, and i didnt like windows so linux was the only logical choice for me but i found it to be excelent.

sorry for the lecture, and im sure most people dissagre with me but thats my veiw

joeyea

[kellemes]

The problem I have with mac is that its too user friendly.

Man, it's hard to please the user. :popcorn:

[joeyea]

lol i guess im just wierd

[Aesir09]

ok dude, i used to be obsessed with macs. then i stopped, what so great about them, they are corporate noobs who dont let you take control

the OS: gay, bright stupid and trying to have visual effects

the comps: upped 500-1500 dollars of actual worth

the program compatibility: none

:popcorn:


not saying that windows is better, because its not.

but atleast with windows you can game.

[kellemes]

lol i guess im just wierd

Nah.. you're just having fun fiddling for free.
I'm doing the same thing for about 15 years, so I know where you're coming from. :)

[joeyea]

hehe nice that someone understands :)

[karellen]

The problem I have with mac is that its too user friendly. you cant get right inside it and change anything you want very easily. Its even worse in that case than windows I think. Macs are great because every thing works, it looks nice, its got some good software but I don't find that enough. its sort of the easy route. And open source software gives your a vast range that you can't get with paid for stuff, and if you could you'd have to be rich. Im only 15 so i've got no money, and i didnt like windows so linux was the only logical choice for me but i found it to be excelent.

sorry for the lecture, and im sure most people dissagre with me but thats my veiw

joeyea

you're 15 so you have a lot of spare time. others don't. that's why they want everything to work as good as possible

[DeadSuperHero]

Yeah, I'm probably going to save up for a MacBook Pro for when I go to college...
But my desktop will stay as Ubuntu, so that's good enough for me.
On the other hand, those new iMacs look even more ridiculously beautiful...

[david_e]

The problem I have with mac is that its too user friendly. you cant get right inside it and change anything you want very easily.
Just open a terminal and play around with vim and gcc to install && configure UNIX software. You will discover that OS-X can be very user unfriendly: no real package manager, fink and macports puts duplicates version of the system libraries etc... It's really an hell to mantain! :)

[joeyea]

lol
im not sure that's a good thing

i sorta made myself unclear its not really the user friendly aspect its more not being able to get inside, but i now see i may have been miss-informed

[david_e]

lol
im not sure that's a good thing

i sorta made myself unclear its not really the user friendly aspect its more not being able to get inside, but i now see i may have been miss-informed
OS-X is UNIX like BSD so you can play with the interior of the system. Moreover its core packages are all open-source stuff (SAMBA, OpenSSH, CUPS, Python and so on..) except for the graphical libraries. And there are 3rd part package managers with 3rd part repos (like fink). So you can play well with the interior of Mac.

The only problem is that you have to stick with apple's version of the libraries (which are very old usually) or you have to supply alternative versions in separated directory for example fink puts everything in /sw or something may break if you are in apple's way. But at the end the system becames a mess with multiple versions of the same library, multiple packages managers and so on...

[cprofitt]

I have been using Ubuntu for about a year now. I just am not satisfied. There are far too many things that need tweaked or altered to achieve the functionality that I demand. Windows was my OS before Ubuntu and hopefully every visitor on this website knows better than to rest their computing on that hopeless product. In my eyes Mac OSX is the only alternative. Ubuntu is not functional with my Ipod, the Firefox build crashes or freezes constantly and it is relatively slow. All this and more points to Mac as the sane choice for the desktop user.

If you wanted support for a media player in open source why would you buy and iPod or a Zune?

[Dave Crowhurst]

If you wanted support for a media player in open source why would you buy and iPod or a Zune?

I think that the original poster was indicating that he is fed up of having to rewire his house every time he buys a new lamp :)

I tried Ubuntu and just found it too much hassle to get working. OSX is a great option for those people that want something to 'just work', which Ubuntu is a looooong way from being.

[Depressed Man]

Meh, by that you mean OSX on a Mac. OSX itself works as well as Ubuntu (worse in some cases) when you try to install it on any other X86 computer. OSX on a Mac is kinda like a preinstalled Ubuntu on a computer. It better work or the company should be out of business.

[Chrisj303]

OSX is a great option for those people that want something to 'just work', which Ubuntu is a looooong way from being.

Is there anybody that dosen't want something to 'just work' ?!

[Chrisj303]

OSX itself works as well as Ubuntu (worse in some cases) when you try to install it on any other X86 computer.

The problem with osX86, is that you lose the total hardware/OS integration.

It is this tight integration (as well as a great OS) that makes Mac's what they are.

[Enverex]

Is there anybody that dosen't want something to 'just work' ?!

Many people, because "just works" is heavily debatable. What one person sees as "just works" may lack things someone else needs and have to change it to suit. It also means no options to allow people to specifically tailor things for their own needs and requirements.

[aysiu]

I've seen no evidence that Mac OS X "just works." My wife has had endless problems with her Powerbook. She still loves it to death, but it doesn't "just work."

[the.dark.lord]

I've seen no evidence that Mac OS X "just works." My wife has had endless problems with her Powerbook. She still loves it to death, but it doesn't "just work."

I could say the same of my iMac, before I switched it over to Ubuntu.

[Charlie91]

If you're just a user and have money to spare, Mac is really better than Windows. And even if you have money, just donate that to Ubuntu, and not completely abandon it. In the end it's our own personal choice, and it's rude to boast that you're leaving Ubuntu. :(

[david_e]

The problem with osX86, is that you lose the total hardware/OS integration.

It is this tight integration (as well as a great OS) that makes Mac's what they are.
OS-X has the best HW/OS integration available, but I find Linux to be a better OS, and easier to tune && use.

For example I don't really like the "dock thing": it's really cool and good looking, but it's really unpratical to use, a plain old taskbar is by far easier and faster to use.

You can tune Linux to behave like you want, but with OS-X you must behave like Apple thinks you should to use their system.

I am still using OS-X on my MacBook because of its better battery duration performances and because of the wifi card whose support on linux is not really good at this time.

[Depressed Man]

The problem with osX86, is that you lose the total hardware/OS integration.

It is this tight integration (as well as a great OS) that makes Mac's what they are.

But take any OS, Windows, Linux, or OSX and configure/build it to run on that specific machine and you'll always have a system that works.

Hardly an indicator of a great operating system to me (at least).

[jrharvey]

Your making a mistake... OS X is not what it is cracked up to be. The support for ubuntu is REDICULOUSLY superior to mac. I have a mac powerbook and believe me when you have a problem it takes days to figure out. In Ubuntu, there is always someone to help figure out what is wrong. I have used macs since I was in elementary school and while it is superior to windows, I would gladly have Ubuntu over OSX. It is also waaaaay too expensive.

[Alfa989]

Your making a mistake... OS X is not what it is cracked up to be. The support for ubuntu is REDICULOUSLY superior to mac. I have a mac powerbook and believe me when you have a problem it takes days to figure out. In Ubuntu, there is always someone to help figure out what is wrong. I have used macs since I was in elementary school and while it is superior to windows, I would gladly have Ubuntu over OSX. It is also waaaaay too expensive.

1.- It's you're ;)
2.- The support is kinda the same. But no specialized support in Ubuntu...
3.- Takes days? Apps>Utilities>Disk Utility>Repair permissions... Solved... And I don't need to edit conf files or do any crappy terminal work...
4.- Waaaay too expensive? Do the comparison, and then we'll see... ;)

[jrharvey]

Ok well its up to you but i guess its whatever you use it for. I like ubuntu more but hey I guess thats why we have choices. Everyone is different.

[n3tfury]

woo hoo, yet another OS comparison thread.

[Cannaregio]

I have been using Ubuntu for about a year now. I just am not satisfied. There are far too many things that need tweaked or altered to achieve the functionality that I demand. Windows was my OS before Ubuntu and hopefully every visitor on this website knows better than to rest their computing on that hopeless product. In my eyes Mac OSX is the only alternative. Ubuntu is not functional with my Ipod, the Firefox build crashes or freezes constantly and it is relatively slow. All this and more points to Mac as the sane choice for the desktop user.

This is ludicrous. You switch to a (expensive) proprietary system because of ipod and firefox? You'r nut.

Ipod I don't use, so no help on that, even if I'm sure there are ways to solve your problems, but on the second point, my advice: just ditch Firefox and use Opera if you have speed problems. In fact, just ditch firefox and use opera even if you don't have any problems at all.
Opera is raw mighty speed in windows, GNU/Linux and Mac.
Firefox is a fine browser, but you need to add extensions like a mad man to have it almost as good as opera out of the box.

You switching from Linux to Mac OSX = you switching back to a proprietary and closed and DRMmed operating system. Paid software is some time better but often times WORSE than open source. Funny isn't it?

Harsh words, but still the truth imho. Enjoy your choice. Good luck.
See you when you'll come back.

[Xranger60]

This is ludicrous. You switch to a (expensive) proprietary system because of ipod and firefox? You'r nut.

Ipod I don't use, so no help on that, even if I'm sure there are ways to solve your problems, but on the second point, my advice: just ditch Firefox and use Opera if you have speed problems. In fact, just ditch firefox and use opera even if you don't have any problems at all.
Opera is raw mighty speed in windows, GNU/Linux and Mac.
Firefox is a fine browser, but you need to add extensions like a mad man to have it almost as good as opera out of the box.

You switching from Linux to Mac OSX = you switching back to a proprietary and closed and DRMmed operating system. Paid software is some time better but often times WORSE than open source. Funny isn't it?

Harsh words, but still the truth imho. Enjoy your choice. Good luck.
See you when you'll come back.

I do agree that firefox and ipod compatility are a tad bit trivial to switch an OS over. But let's not go ahead and assume that everyone values open source, or cares that hardware needs to be licensed to work with an OS. That would be a blunder. The average user is quite frankly not going to care one way or the other. For the sake of the average user experience, these qualities do not make Ubuntu superior to Mac OS.

[Cannaregio]

The average user is quite frankly not going to care one way or the other. For the sake of the average user experience, these qualities do not make Ubuntu superior to Mac OS.

You have a point there, but why should we care - even more than ubuntu already does - for this idiotical "average user"?
I mean, GNU/Linux is giving him an opportunity to be at the same time more effective, to spare money and to acquire knowledge, you agree?
Now, you say, the "average user" doesn't care.
If true, this is just because the "average user" doesn't understand **** from shinola. So let him slurp DRMs, I say. Let him disappear from our horizon, he's just slowing us down. He doesn't deserve this attention, and I really do NOT understand the many linux using people that even wish to "windowise" Gnu/Linux... probably in order to avoid any risk to offend the "average user" and his/her very low GUI inprinted and peer-pressured standards.

Maybe the "average user" does not even exist.
You have maybe two kinds of "average users": brainwashed zombies, that will sleep forever no matter what we do and offer, and you have zombified brains with some surviving grey matter, people that you can wake up and pull out of the advertisement and patent infested scorching desert they have to slurp, away from the many frill infernos they are compelled to live in and work with. "What? CLI? You must be nut: clicking like a madman on a slow GUI is so modern"... Ha! And yet after a relatively short while they usually do realize the point.


And it might even work, coz we bite.
We are like vampires I fear: once we bite users on the neck with our free philosophy, they'll (mostly) enjoy it and join us.
Hehe. Maybe they even "might care" one of these days.

[Alfa989]

This is ludicrous. You switch to a (expensive) proprietary system because of ipod and firefox? You'r nut.
WTF? Those ARE important things...


You switching from Linux to Mac OSX = you switching back to a proprietary and closed and DRMmed operating system. Paid software is some time better but often times WORSE than open source. Funny isn't it?

1.- It is propietary and closed, but bare in mind that it's still better than Ubuntu... ;)
2.- It's funny to see people talking about things that they haven't used in their whole life... I'd like you to point out where's Mac OS X's DRM... Because there isn't anything like that there... :)
3.- My experience tells me that: Paid software is ALWAYS better than OSS. Period.

[Xranger60]

Let's not take an attitude that a computer user is idiotic because they do not wish to accept linux. For them, the experience is thus- travel to store, acquire computer, set up computer, computer works. Now here's the real question... for somebody who is only interested in using their computer to play games, listen to mp3's, and browse the web, what advantages lie in switching to Ubuntu? Sure, you'll have a solid OS, an open source community, and a free OS... but most people are still not going to pay any interest. No, most people are not going to buy a box without an OS and load linux on it.

As computer users, the linux community forms a tiny minority. It is comprised of those who value open source programs, more customization options, and a better knowledge of their computer. But this will never be the majority of people, or anywhere near it.

For the purposes of light computer using, Ubuntu is totally unnecessary. Browsing the web, listening to audio, and playing games can be done on any OS, and it's done well enough in Mac and Windows. Maybe some users that don't use linux prefer open-source- open source programs are available on all platforms, case in point: Firefox.

Ubuntu's qualities may sound great to somebody with enough interest to install it. But most people will not have interest. At all.

[Depressed Man]

Even with the point you raised, Ubuntu can fit that role perfectly. And it's free too compared to what you would pay for Windows and OSX (granted it's not as much as usually buying it in a box but it's still coming out of your pocket).

Really the only difference for anyone who just wants what you mentioned is "is it going come preinstalled on the computer". And that is where Linux suffers the most sadly. Because it doesn't have the advantage of coming soley with the hardware (ala Mac) [well there although there are companies that specialize it, but they're nowhere as big as Dell, HP, etc..], and they don't have the business connections and what not to get them preinstalled on the mainstream ones.

Hopefully with Dell now being vocal about drivers and offering hardware with Ubuntu installed and that EU think tank idea, maybe we'll see a shift. Then that would give us a fairer indicator of just how well Linux can replace a market that has been dominated by Windows.

[Chrisj303]

@Xranger60

Spot on. Thats honestly how I feel about Linux in general.

The reality is, is that the majority of users wouldn't even be able to install Ubuntu correctly ( Hda what? "bootloader"??) - let alone operate it.

I switched my dad from XP over to OSX (on my hand-me-down iBook!), and that took him a good couple months to "get it" !! - and OSX is as easy as it gets.

If I had switched him over to Ubuntu it would have been nothing but a total disaster.

[Chrisj303]

Your making a mistake... OS X is not what it is cracked up to be. The support for ubuntu is REDICULOUSLY superior to mac. .

Are you having a laugh? Thats just not true. There are some fantastic mac forums on the net. Including Apples own forums.

There is also Applecare (3 year cover is being given away free with Macs now).

And OSX's integrated help menu is also really very good.

You sir, come across as just another deluded fanboy.

[Cannaregio]

@Xranger60

If I had switched him over to Ubuntu it would have been nothing but a total disaster.

Well, I beg to differ: my own experience is totally different. For what it is worth.
I refurbished (read "eliminated windows") both my sister's laptop and my parents' old box (my sister is "the contrary of a geek" and my parents are quite old, btw).
Both boxes are now running ubuntu feisty. Smoothly. Since various months (and I am NOT going to upgrade them to gutsy any time soon :-)

Everybody is happy. My sisters, my parents and me.
My best award was mother telling me "Thanks!. Windows works better now".
She didn't even notice that she's running a different OS.

And I don't have any more the firewall and rootkit cleaning problems I had before, when they were still using XP.

Of course - if you prefer to pay through your nose - you can switch to a Mac operating system instead of windows.
But I deeply despise proprietary software, and I see no point in paying through my nose.

[Chrisj303]

Everybody is happy. My sisters, my parents and me.
My best award was mother telling me "Thanks!. Windows works better now".
She didn't even notice that she's running a different OS.
.

Don't think for a single second that ^that would be the norm.


But I deeply despise proprietary software

I really couldn't care less. (regarding prop. software) I use my computer to get stuff done, not make some awkward statement regarding Open Source software. I listen to copyrighted music, I watch copyrighted movies - I use copyrighted software, so what? it works.. And for my needs there are no Open Source solutions that come even close to what I'm using on the OSX platform.


Of course - if you prefer to pay through your nose - you can switch to a Mac operating system instead of windows.

Not really ' paying through the nose'. If you take the specs of my Macbook and try to find a PC laptop equal - the difference in price will (if there even is one) be pittance. Certainly not enough to keep me with windows (and an ugly laptop).

[david_e]

For me. Linux is more reliable, faster and easier to use than OS-X.

I don't understand why my 16 months old laptop with Linux is totally outperforming my brand new Intel MacBook when running the same code. And I really miss a package manager in OS-X: I have to trust Apple for their "security fixes" as I don't have a way to keep the core libraries up-to-date.

Maybe many users are unable to see the advantages of Linux over OS-X and Windows and they think that Linux is just a cheap copy of the other OS, and they feel that everything that is different from what they are accustomed to is wrong, but they are really missing the point: there are so many things I wish I could do with OS-X as easily as with Linux, but I am forced with OS-X on the MacBook until there is a better support for my hw (or a support as good as with my other Linux laptop). You just have to understand that Linux is a different OS and that you can't blame it why it doesn't act like Mac or Win.

The "out of the box" thing is ridicolus as it's something that is related to the user: I found really hard to make "iTunes" play my large ogg collection, while I never had problem with xine or mpd... For me mpd just worked out of the box, while iTunes didn't and, by the way, the support for the ogg format on iTunes is really really bad even with the right codecs. So I ended by building mpd from source on the MacBook and I am using it instead of iTunes... something that a standard OS-X user is incapable to do... where is all this out of the box easy experience?!? :-D

[karellen]

huh....X vs Y, my choice vs yours...the eternal fascination of persuading the other(s)...:)

[Macintosh Sauce]

The problem I have with mac is that its too user friendly. you cant get right inside it and change anything you want very easily.

I disagree. Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is quite customisable. I have been poking around in the System and Library folders and what I have discovered is amazing. You can customise many things...

Today, I tried a variation on the standard Leopard Dock colour. See my new Licorice coloured Dock, using the same style of graphics that Apple put in the OS?

http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/macosx/desktops/leoparddesktop22-small.png (http://www.jamesnrhodes.com/personal/macosx/desktops/leoparddesktop22.png)

[b9anders]

changing the colours of a dock isn't exactly a sign of being highly customisable.

[Chrisj303]

There are many, many alterations you can make to the OSX desktop/Finder. Granted - you often have to use third-party apps to do this, but there are almost always free - and it can be done..

[3rdalbum]

Whatever you say, Mac OS X is still 5 years ahead of any Linux distro in terms of usability, polish and stability.

And Mac OS X is 5 years ahead of any Linux distro in terms of bloat, restrictions, and bad security design. OS X ships with security flaws that aren't even planned for KDE 4 yet!

(BTW what is so "usable", "polished" and "stable" about OS X anyway? Just because it looks like a Simpson fridge, doesn't make it any of those things.)

[cprofitt]

Have fun with OSX... I just can't use an OS that forces me to use a companies hardware... its criminal in my mind.

[Alfa989]

Have fun with OSX... I just can't use an OS that forces me to use a companies hardware... its criminal in my mind.

OMG!!!

Nokia's making me buy one of their "smart"phones in order to use S60!!! OMG!!!

Criminal bitches!!!

[Chrisj303]

OMG!!!

Nokia's making me buy one of their "smart"phone in order to use S60!!! OMG!!!

Criminal bitches!!!


:lolflag:



I especially like the "making me.."


Spot on mate!.




I just can't use an OS that forces me to use a companies hardware...


Yes you can.

Its called OSx86.

[aysiu]

Yes you can.

Its called OSx86. It's also called illegal:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#License_Problems

[PreviousN]

Just a bit of info for Mac Fanatics:

OSX is based on the Mach kernel. From my understanding, this type of kernel loads parts dynamically. Meaning, if one part crashes, the whole system doesn't go down.

In theory, this is great. In practice there was performance problems due to this (from wikipedia):
Since the kernel was privileged (running in kernel-space) it was possible for malfunctioning or malicious programs to send it commands that would cause damage to the system, and for this reason the kernel checked every message for validity. This caused a serious performance impact.

It is my impression to overcome the performance impact is apple decided not to use these "checks" for validity.

If I'm right, as memory recalls, Mac OS X is BLATANTLY more insecure than ubuntu (even with its monolithic kernel). If I'm wrong, then its fuel to say that Mac OS X is actually slower than ubuntu.

I'm not writing this as hate. I have been using Macs since the Apple IIe. But honestly, you've gotta learn how to avoid Steve Job's "marketing speak" and the Reality distortion field. Things just aren't that good for apple.

When they can't learn to sell a mouse with more than one button until 2003...something wrong.

Example of marketing speak: "Introducing apple's first quad core macpro!"

Meaning: this is the first time we've done this....What's so special about that? Certainly, quad core computers existed before apple introduced their iteration. But fanboys take it to mean that apple did it first. And they defend it to the death. I once had a user (I'm a tech consultant) say that they've been using Macs since the 1960s. Come on!

In short....Macs are goodish. They're better than windows. But they are closed source. I'm sure apple hires more marketing people than programmers. How many programers are there out there for ubuntu? Thousands? Tens of thousands? One is bound to be better "advertised" and one is bound to be "better".

[Depressed Man]

It's also called illegal:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#License_Problems

"Just because something is legal doesn't make it good, and just because something is illegal doesn't make it bad."

To me, whether something is usually illegal nowadays is usually determined by how much money the person who wants it to be illegal has. Regarding that..

“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.” - Emma Goldman
“Understand that legal and illegal are political, and often arbitrary, categorizations; use and abuse are medical, or clinical, distinctions.” - Abbie Hoffman

So if you wanted to do something that may be illegal, just be aware that what your doing may be considered breaking the law [depending on where you live] (whether you personally agree with it or not) and prepare for it along those lines.

Anyway regarding OSX86. It doesn't work quite as well on hardware that isn't similar to what you'd find in a Mac. You'll have to do some self patching or fixes (reminds you of other operating systems >.>). So that's why I've never bothered going farther with OSX86, since if I'm going patch, or fix an OS to work on my laptop I might as well pick an OS with better support/help (Windows or Linux).

[Alfa989]

When they can't learn to sell a mouse with more than one button until 2003...something wrong.
Actually... Macs need only one mouse button to be efficient, so they didn't need it...



Meaning: this is the first time we've done this....What's so special about that? Certainly, quad core computers existed before apple introduced their iteration. But fanboys take it to mean that apple did it first. And they defend it to the death. I once had a user (I'm a tech consultant) say that they've been using Macs since the 1960s. Come on!
When has an mactard said that Apple was the first one to introduce quad core computers?

And what happened then was either a) the guy was stupid or b)he said '96 but you misheard it or something like that...



One is bound to be better "advertised" and one is bound to be "better".
What? Advertised products are bad and non-advertised one are great?
Yeah, right... Go study some economics, pal...

[Depressed Man]

If your going argue that, then one just has to take a look at all the **** advertised on TV to see that.. it well sucks. The arguement fails both ways (that advertised products are bad, or that they're good). Advertising is just meant to sell a product (regardless of its quality).

[MONODA]

Well if you are having trouble with your ipod then download amarok to sync with it. Also instead of firefox use epiphany. Trust me if you change to mac you will regret it.

[Alfa989]

Trust me if you change to mac you will regret it.
Mmm...

I don't think that the vast majority of people that have used a Mac agree with you...

[sultanoswing]

Mmm...

I don't think that the vast majority of people that have used a Mac agree with you...

No, but the ones who have used Linux as well will :p

[Chrisj303]

No, but the ones who have used Linux as well will :p

WRONG!

*Hint - check my sig.

[JetskiDude911]

I think OS X is a great operating system (it's my OS of choice). I started using it a little over a year ago and haven't had any problems. I love it. The only other operating system I would consider using other than OS X would be Linux. I've currently got a Linux box running Ubuntu 7.10, and I like it too. If I didn't have my MacBook, I would be using Ubuntu. It's also a wonderful operating system.

I used Windows XP for a while right after it first came out, then I switched to Red Hat 8 and used it for a number of years, then I just kind of lost interest in computers and only used them at school (which at the time still ran Windows 2000). When I started college, I got back into computers.

[Alfa989]

No, but the ones who have used Linux as well will :p
Err...

No.

[qamelian]

WRONG!

*Hint - check my sig.

You're not right for every case though. A buddy of mine who has been a die-hard Mac user for years recently dumped his Mac in favour of a PC running Ubuntu. And it only took him a week of using Ubuntu to make the decision. Macs just aren't for everyone. I understand why some folks like them, but I can't stand working on a Mac myself. Just personal preference. Linux is just way more comfortable for me.

[Chrisj303]

If I didn't have my MacBook, I would be using Ubuntu. It's also a wonderful operating system.


You can install Ubuntu alongside OSX (and windows) on your Mac if you want.

Check out the Apple-intel section of this site.

I also use Parallels to boot my Ubuntu partition from within OSX...

[PreviousN]

Ok, here's a reply to the guy who picked up on the non-technical arguments against macs. Notice he diden't argue the technical points. So lets assume that because of that, macs do indeed suck because they have a bastardized version of the Mach kernel. Even so, here's an argument to what he said.

1. "Actually... Macs need only one mouse button to be efficient, so they didn't need it..."
Response: why did they have the control click for so many years then? And you're telling me that macs pre osx were effecient? They didn't even threat processes properly. If you clicked, the cpu would stop processing! You call that efficient?!

2. when has a mactard said that? How about NOW. Here's a link to the apple website with exactally that. But since you're not going to check, heres a quote:
From http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Meet the latest addition to the Mac Pro family: The world’s first 3.0GHz, 8-core Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro. Consider the bar officially raised.

Basically they're saying "this is the first time we've done this!!" "consider the bar raised!!!"

But duh. There's never before been a mac thats 8-core. Thats because they are the people who make macs! its all steve jobs' crazy marketing.

3. I didn't mishear the person. I have an email from them saying this. Also, if you believe everything that apple tells you, then you're a tool;

"we use power pcs because they are better than intel chips" (two years later they are using intel chips). Come on!

And lastly. Yes. Non-advertised products can be just as good as advertised products. You're using ubuntu over windows aren't you?

Plus, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that there are literally hundreds more coders out there for linux. More coders=better software.

[toupeiro]

ok.. I hate to do this, but Mac boasters bring the devil out in me.. bubble bursting time...

8 core does not necessarily = better.

What that means is you have 8 processor cores trying to use the same amount of L1 and L2 cache that a single or dual core processor used. So, if your application only uses one thread, guess what? You are only getting one eighth of the cache you would get in a single core processor. That means you can actually see a significant performance degradation if your aren't truly taking advantage of parallel computing. As usual, Apple's marketing is getting in the way of their technology.

Besides, Sun is almost a year ahead of Intel in bringing out an 8 core CPU, except the Sparc can handle 64 simultaneous threads, and is fully ubuntu supported.

Sorry, Apple found their life-raft from their horribly marketed Computer product line, its called an iPod. They need to stick with those and leave the computing to companies who sell computers as computers and not furniture that beeps and comes in avocado green.

I don't have a problem with OSX, but people who brag about MAC hardware being superior need to understand that since Apple stopped using PPC, you might as well have bought a Dell or a beefy e-Machine.

[Alfa989]

Ok, here's a reply to the guy who picked up on the non-technical arguments against macs. Notice he diden't argue the technical points. So lets assume that because of that, macs do indeed suck because they have a bastardized version of the Mach kernel. Even so, here's an argument to what he said.
I did not reply to those technical arguments because I haven't got enough knowledge to do so... :) (Kernel-level stuff and the like...)


1. "Actually... Macs need only one mouse button to be efficient, so they didn't need it..."
Response: why did they have the control click for so many years then? And you're telling me that macs pre osx were effecient? They didn't even threat processes properly. If you clicked, the cpu would stop processing! You call that efficient?!
It's called "do it whatever way you want"... In Mac OS X, every option that's available in the contextual menu sits there one the menu bar too... Something, as GUI designers know, is a problem in other desktop environments...
Can you explain that "If you clicked, the cpu would stop processing"? Thank you... :)


2. when has a mactard said that? How about NOW. Here's a link to the apple website with exactally that. But since you're not going to check, heres a quote:
From http://www.apple.com/macpro/
Meet the latest addition to the Mac Pro family: The world’s first 3.0GHz, 8-core Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro. Consider the bar officially raised.
Basically they're saying "this is the first time we've done this!!" "consider the bar raised!!!"
But duh. There's never before been a mac thats 8-core. Thats because they are the people who make macs! its all steve jobs' crazy marketing.
You said: "Certainly, quad core computers existed before apple introduced their iteration. But fanboys take it to mean that apple did it first." And what Apple says is that the Mac Pro is the first eight-core Mac... Which is totally true!


3. I didn't mishear the person. I have an email from them saying this. Also, if you believe everything that apple tells you, then you're a tool;
Could you post an extract, please? Thank you.


"we use power pcs because they are better than intel chips" (two years later they are using intel chips). Come on!
Mmm... OBVIOUSLY, old PPC chips can't keep up with the latest x86 processors! This is not Utopia!


And lastly. Yes. Non-advertised products can be just as good as advertised products. You're using ubuntu over windows aren't you?
Yeah, I know... And yeah, that's why use Ubuntu too! :P


Plus, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that there are literally hundreds more coders out there for linux. More coders=better software.
If the coders are not really well-organized than we're in trouble... Apple coders are full-time employees, free soft coders, however, are not.

Open source just can't produce software in the same polished and finished level that closed source can...

[macogw]

and the usability of the Mac OS X platform ;)

Which is to say, none.

[Alfa989]

What that means is you have 8 processor cores trying to use the same amount of L1 and L2 cache that a single or dual core processor used. So, if your application only uses one thread, guess what? You are only getting one eighth of the cache you would get in a single core processor. That means you can actually see a significant performance degradation if your aren't truly taking advantage of parallel computing. As usual, Apple's marketing is getting in the way of their technology.
I believe that multi-core processors can share their cachés between cores... Right?


Besides, Sun is almost a year ahead of Intel in bringing out an 8 core CPU, except the Sparc can handle 64 simultaneous threads, and is fully ubuntu supported.
Oh yes, Sun... How could we forget?
http://bp3.blogger.com/_pNJFZtinpKY/RunVvrOGofI/AAAAAAAAB1o/r5TW3cXQXgA/s400/sunstrategy2.gif


Sorry, Apple found their life-raft from their horribly marketed Computer product line, its called an iPod. They need to stick with those and leave the computing to companies who sell computers as computers and not furniture that beeps and comes in avocado green.
I've seen that exact same reversed "advice" tons of times...

Apple still produces the most polished and top-of-the-line machines along with Sony and IBM (now Lenovo)... :)


I don't have a problem with OSX, but people who brag about MAC hardware being superior need to understand that since Apple stopped using PPC, you might as well have bought a Dell or a beefy e-Machine.
1.- That's because it actually IS superior...
2.- A Dell, a Toshiba or an e-Machine Is never the same as a Mac... They look like beta-status computers...

[Grey Box]

You DO realize that pretty much any Linux application can be run on a Mac... right?
Reading this trollish/flamish thread, I had to respond to this. Honestly, the Fink project is very limited and buggy. I found it unusable by and large, and got native equivalents where I could find them. In practice, Linux apps are not freely available on OS X. You have to run an ugly X11 layer over it and it is buggy too.

Other open source software for Mac is available, and what's there is good, but before I got my macbook I was used to Ubuntu Linux's software integration and for what I use my PC for (Openoffice, Website development, a bit of coding, interacting with other computers on my network), Ubuntu is more responsive (ie: programs load quicker), more flexible and easier to use (I mean, I can get help without having to go down to the Macshop where they will try to sell me something). So, contrary to other people's impressions, I don't find OS X to 'feel' more responsive. Compared to XP, even, getting around in OS X is like wading through mud.

Honestly, if you don't pirate anything, you will end up paying around a thousand dollars extra to get a Macbook running OS X to do what my macbook is doing now with Ubuntu. The only things OS X has over Ubuntu on a macbook at the moment is better hardware integration (battery life and the touchpad and being designed for one button mice), and iChat (but even then, browse for people's "issues" with it and you'll see it's no walk in the park for many).

[toupeiro]

I believe that multi-core processors can share their cachés between cores... Right?


Oh yes, Sun... How could we forget?
http://bp3.blogger.com/_pNJFZtinpKY/RunVvrOGofI/AAAAAAAAB1o/r5TW3cXQXgA/s400/sunstrategy2.gif


I've seen that exact same reversed "advice" tons of times...

Apple still produces the most polished and top-of-the-line machines along with Sony and IBM (now Lenovo)... :)


1.- That's because it actually IS superior...
2.- A Dell, a Toshiba or an e-Machine Is never the same as a Mac... They look like beta-status computers...
I am disappointed... I really expected some real factually based responses. This looks like it was written like any other Mac fan-boyish reponse I've read over the years. A MAC today is just white shiny plastic over an IBM/PC. It has the same components inside it as any other manufacturer offers, except they charge their customers twice as much. from their hard drives to their disk controllers to their USB controllers to their FSB controllers to their memory manufacturers... All the same! You have provided no basis on their superiority, therefore your remarks carry no merit as far as I am concerned. If they are so superior, detail it. It should be easy to do, right? That graphic is funny, I can appreciate the humor in it, but its outright ridiculous if you can't see how apple has done the same thing over the years. The fact your Mac has an intel chip says it all in regards to that cartoon. That pretty much makes them Windows Pushers as well.. If MAC was so superior, they would have been able to make MAC-OS be as good of an OS as OSX, but they couldn't. They had to borrow from BSD to survive... the same way they had to borrow from intel... But enjoy your MAC, you'll have to use it twice as much to get the money you invested into it than you would have any other machine. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, it is what it is, but it certainly isn't anything more because you spent more on it.

Intel does has some cache sharing abilities, but it cannot overtake the cache footprint of another entire core, that would completely defeat the point of a multi-core chip, because as soon as one single-threaded application chewed up all the cache, the multi-threaded applications would die. If a computer only ever handled one task at a time, i guess that would work perfectly.. Software kills SMP, and until more software is written to support parallel computing, there will be a steep point of diminishing returns on multi-core technology as the core count increases. The true benefit of that archetecture is not fully attainable at this time, unless you are in the upper echelon of home computer users and are doing real-time rendering using programs designed to leverage multi-core, oryou happen to be doing seismic or astrological calculations in your home, or are hosting a High I/O database of some kind.. If you are this kind of a user, then time means money to you, Which if that were me, I would be looking at an UltraSPARC or or the NVIDIA Tesla blade (http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_43499.html) for the performance numbers, unless you have the money to build a nice x64 cluster. Now, however, you have moved into supercomputing, which is not the scope here. I'm talking the amount of computing power you can get out of a single box for the price. Dual core is still the sweet-spot for the money. By the time end-user consumer software is able to appropriately leverage eight cores, that chip will be vastly outdated in the x64 archetecture. The benefits of multi-core are seen in clustering, grid computing, and application hosting on servers. It's just a bragging right at the desktop at this time, more than it is a true benefit. If you say you've heard this "reversed advice" a thousand times, maybe thats because .. its the truth?

Sun may be pushing intel/AMD chips, but they also offer chipset revisions that are further along than you can get from Intel or AMD competitors. And they still deliver solutions in that market nobody else can. Like 8-way quad core processing in a 4U enclosure. And.. most importantly, sun did not abandon their flagship chip, UltraSPARC, they've improved apon it in a fashion that the intel and amd chips are years away from reaching. No single intel or amd chip exists for the public to buy which can do 64 simultaneous threads for the price Sun offers it.

The truth is, Apple computers are not superior anymore. They are just an alternative... and an overpriced one at that. Its funny that its so hard for people to accept that. Buy them if you want, If thats what you want to spend money on, more power to you. Tell people how much you like them, but don't try to sell this superiority talk to people who actually know better... Sun is just an alternative too, but IMO with a competitive edge over other vendors in their technology solutions. They can offer something Unique, and rather than just saying it, I've outlined what. Apple used to be able to offer something unique their PPC line. Now, they can't. Do they use quality components? Sure they do, so do Lenovo, Dell and HP. Do they offer a quality OS, I believe OSX is a quality OS. Do I believe Mac hardware is superior to its competitors, no. Research will show you they are using the same components. Do I believe OSX is superior to FreeBSD, Ubuntu, or Redhat? No, I do not. I believe it is a choice, but I've not seen anything from a technical standpoint to show me that OSX is superior. It cannot boast the hardware compatibility or software library linux can.

Sorry for the extremely long ramble. Perhaps this thread is not the right venue to dissect things like this. I do admit I get carried away when talking about technology, but its only because I enjoy what I do for a living.