PDA

View Full Version : Why is OS X (supposedly) better than Windows???



laxmanb
June 13th, 2007, 09:21 AM
Why doesn't OS X get the same flak that Windows gets on these forums AND Why is OS X supposedly better than Windows???

LightB
June 13th, 2007, 09:37 AM
Because I said so.

steven8
June 13th, 2007, 09:38 AM
Because I said so.

Sold me. I just placed my order through the online Apple store. Thanks!

thisllub
June 13th, 2007, 09:57 AM
How many MAC viruses have you heard of?

You can do more with Windows - for a while.

runningwithscissors
June 13th, 2007, 09:59 AM
Because "Ooh! Shiny!" works as an excellent sales pitch.

johnny4north
June 13th, 2007, 10:04 AM
the only thing better is ubuntu, on a mac..:idea: Can you dual boot linux and osx on the same drive.?..:)

Spr0k3t
June 13th, 2007, 10:07 AM
Because OSX is NOT Windows. That's not much of an argument as it would be swapping spots for last place if you ask me.

LightB
June 13th, 2007, 10:14 AM
In all seriousness, it's because the OSX kernel is BSD based, which means it's not a piece of crap when it comes to vulnerabilities like the NT kernel (Windows)

runningwithscissors
June 13th, 2007, 10:19 AM
In all seriousness, it's because the OSX kernel is BSD based, which means it's not a piece of crap when it comes to vulnerabilities like the NT kernel (Windows)1) OSX doesn't use the BSD kernel nor is the kernel "BSD-based".
2) The NT kernel is not crap

steven8
June 13th, 2007, 10:23 AM
1) OSX doesn't use the BSD kernel nor is the kernel "BSD-based".
2) The NT kernel is not crap

From wikipedia:


Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the BSD implementation of Unix in NEXTSTEP

So I guess BSD is in the mix somewhere.

I don't think the NT kernel is crap, though.

runningwithscissors
June 13th, 2007, 10:29 AM
From wikipedia: Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the BSD implementation of Unix in NEXTSTEP

So I guess BSD is in the mix somewhere.It's the BSD userland with the Mach kernel. The kernel itself has nothing to do with BSD.

Also, according to this article (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520) the performance of OSX is less than stellar when it comes to comparison with Windows. Linux, of course, pwnz all.

LightB
June 13th, 2007, 10:30 AM
The NT kernel is indeed crap for today's use. It was designed as single user not multi user and the core is directly connected into way too much user level APIs which is one of the major things that give it so many vulnerabilities. App vulnerabilities transform into kernel vulnerabilities. Why do you think you always see that cliche of "...an attacker may gain control of your system..." updates while patching explorer.

And no need to play semantics, I've read up on where OSX comes from. The point is, the kernel is built on the idea of network security as a whole, NT is not.

runningwithscissors
June 13th, 2007, 10:39 AM
The NT kernel is indeed crap for today's use. It was designed as single user not multi user and the core is directly connected into way too much user level APIs which is one of the major things that give it so many vulnerabilities. App vulnerabilities transform into kernel vulnerabilities. Why do you think you always see that cliche of "...an attacker may gain control of your system..." updates while patching explorer.
Uh .... what? There is dislike for MS and then there is blind zealotry.

Windows NT was developed as a multi-user system for servers right from the start. So you're wrong about that. It is _not_ connected directly to a lot of user-level APIs. In fact the internal API isn't documented at all. All third party developers have to work with the Win32API.

"Attacker may gain control of your system" does not automatically translate as a kernel vulnerability. Most of the time it's just administrative access, which has nothing to do with the kernel.

Circus-Killer
June 13th, 2007, 10:44 AM
to answer the original question why does ms get flack when mac doesnt. well, this is clear proof that true linux users who know what they are talking about arent entirely against proprietory programs. sometimes proprietary does have its place.

the issue isnt that we dislike proprietory software. the issue is in microsofts dirty tactics. you dont ever hear mac threatening linux users with lawsuits, do you? that is just one example out of a million.
point being, that ms play dirty, whereas mac is just a company trying to do business.

LightB
June 13th, 2007, 10:55 AM
Uh .... what? There is dislike for MS and then there is blind zealotry.

Windows NT was developed as a multi-user system for servers right from the start.

Well, not very well compared to it's unix like comrades.


So you're wrong about that. It is _not_ connected directly to a lot of user-level APIs.

It's too deeply embedded then. Use any words you want to define it. The point is, vulnerabilities in main APIs often trickle down to the kernel through user applications.


In fact the internal API isn't documented at all. All third party developers have to work with the Win32API.

"Attacker may gain control of your system" does not automatically translate as a kernel vulnerability. Most of the time it's just administrative access, which has nothing to do with the kernel.

You can play semantics all you want, but what you are stating here doesn't really refute anything I said. There is plenty of information out there outlining the facts and the evidence, and as far as I can tell, NT was built with the mentality single user or for intranet. Otherwise, it was a poor architecture to follow for hostile environments.

slimdog360
June 13th, 2007, 11:03 AM
from the apple site


Beneath the easy-to-use interface and rich graphics of Mac OS X lies Darwin, an open source, UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies as mach and FreeBSD.


UNIX users will feel right at home because Mac OS X offers a complete X Window System implementation for running X11-based applications. Fully integrated with the OS, X11 for Mac OS X, based on the open source XFree86 project, gives UNIX users the ability to run thousands of X11 applications concurrently with other Mac OS X applications.

SunnyRabbiera
June 13th, 2007, 11:19 AM
the issue isnt that we dislike proprietory software. the issue is in microsofts dirty tactics. you dont ever hear mac threatening linux users with lawsuits, do you? that is just one example out of a million.
point being, that ms play dirty, whereas mac is just a company trying to do business.

Indeed, Apple has made no claims to us in any way.
Mainly its because I think they learned their lesson from when they tried to lock down the GUI when windows exploded onto the scene, remember that not so long ago Apple tried to make claims on the GUI but the court decided that you could not patent a GUI interface...

too bad times have changed since then in terms of hardware and software politics.

laxmanb
June 13th, 2007, 11:22 AM
Ins't it true that most programs running on X11 in OS X already have active Windows ports (GIMP, OpenOffice.org, etc.)??

And I really feel that Apple's security record is worse than MS's ever was - they've had lots of exploits released in the past few months... I really think once OS X reaches a critical market share for hackers to go for it (about 2.5% right now), then malware will take over OS X as well.

LightB
June 13th, 2007, 11:26 AM
Ins't it true that most programs running on X11 in OS X already have active Windows ports (GIMP, OpenOffice.org, etc.)??

And I really feel that Apple's security record is worse than MS's ever was - they've had lots of exploits released in the past few months... I really think once OS X reaches a critical market share for hackers to go for it (about 2.5% right now), then malware will take over OS X as well.

Well ok but I won't hold my breath till Windows loses the malware throne ok? I might die.

runningwithscissors
June 13th, 2007, 11:36 AM
Well, not very well compared to it's unix like comrades.
Not really, no. The kernel, at least, is indeed well designed. It was designed by the same team of people that implemented VMS, which is well known for being quite robust.


It's too deeply embedded then. Use any words you want to define it. The point is, vulnerabilities in main APIs often trickle down to the kernel through user applications.That doesn't make sense at all. If a user-level resource can wreak havoc in the kernel, it is by definition, a kernel vulnerability. And I don't think I've heard about a disproportionately higher number of NT kernel vulnerabilities when compared to other OSes.


You can play semantics all you want, but what you are stating here doesn't really refute anything I said.
I am not playing semantics, I am just pointing out that you are making unverified claims.


There is plenty of information out there outlining the facts and the evidence, and as far as I can tell, NT was built with the mentality single user or for intranet. Otherwise, it was a poor architecture to follow for hostile environments.No, there is no such evidence at least in regard to the NT kernel. Which you attacked. Yes, Windows is a poor product. The NT kernel, while not being the best around, is still not "a piece of crap" as you stated.

karellen
June 13th, 2007, 11:37 AM
you may find these useful...
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/

LightB
June 13th, 2007, 11:46 AM
Not really, no. The kernel, at least, is indeed well designed. It was designed by the same team of people that implemented VMS, which is well known for being quite robust.

Then blame how Windows implements it. This thread is Windows vs. OSX after all.


That doesn't make sense at all. If a user-level resource can wreak havoc in the kernel, it is by definition, a kernel vulnerability.

More semantics. Yet no denial of the fact that user application vulnerabilities have fairly often hit the Windows core.


And I don't think I've heard about a disproportionately higher number of NT kernel vulnerabilities when compared to other OSes.

Then make it Windows vulnerabilities. In which case it's enormously disproportionate when it comes to critical flaws. And if you add them all up, some never even get patched.


I am not playing semantics, I am just pointing out that you are making unverified claims.

Verified by who? Certainly verified by the information I've come across. Microsoft sponsored information? Not so much. I really don't care much to "verify" anything to you, believe what you want.


No, there is no such evidence at least in regard to the NT kernel. Which you attacked. Yes, Windows is a poor product. The NT kernel, while not being the best around, is still not "a piece of crap" as you stated.

Moot point. It's a piece of crap in Windows. Is there some other wonderful OS running NT out there?

Circus-Killer
June 13th, 2007, 12:09 PM
personally, i dont believe security issues falls into this discussion (although many people do use it as an argument). the reason i say this is because all OS's have flaws, and will have flaws. an OS is a too bigger thing to be made absolutely flawless. whether its windows, mac, or nix, there will be security vulnerabilities that will be fixed later by patches. one could argue its not about whether or not there is flaws, but the AMOUNT of flaws that are present or the rate at which the flaws are found. again, i dont think this is valid because the amount of flaws exploited is related to market share. the more market share, the more of a target you are. and as for how quickly flaws get found and patched, that too is a bit of a topic.

but i still believe that it is fruitless in this discussion, every OS will have its good and its bad. again, to re-iterate, from my own point of view, i feel that the only issue with MS is their shady tactics. if windows worked well, cost cheaper, and ms had better business practices, i would actually use windows. but when you cant trust the company with your private information, then it becomes a problem. i dont need my information being sent around the net by one lone MS programmer whose dirty code was never found because of the closed source nature. i also dont need an os that restricts media in the way that windows does. etc. etc.

anyways, dirty business practices is my main gripe with MS.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 01:16 PM
personally, i dont believe security issues falls into this discussion (although many people do use it as an argument). the reason i say this is because all OS's have flaws, and will have flaws. an OS is a too bigger thing to be made absolutely flawless. whether its windows, mac, or nix, there will be security vulnerabilities that will be fixed later by patches. one could argue its not about whether or not there is flaws, but the AMOUNT of flaws that are present or the rate at which the flaws are found. again, i dont think this is valid because the amount of flaws exploited is related to market share. the more market share, the more of a target you are. and as for how quickly flaws get found and patched, that too is a bit of a topic.

I really don't know why people feel like bringing up this stupid market share argument again and again and again. It has been discussed to death allready and shown to be to simplistic, to put it mildly, at least a thousand times.

But here it goes again:
1.) There are counterexamples. Apache is often cited.

2.) While market share may certainly play a role, claiming that it's the only issue is simply ridiculous. For example, when MS released SP2 for XP they claimed that XP was now several times (I don't remember the exact number, I think it was 20 times) less likely to be hit by a worm attack then before. How did they achieve this? By simply blocking remote access to all the services running on XP. Now obviously, better security had nothing to do with market share here.

3.) Even if market share were the only reason, why should I as a consumer care? That my choice is more secure is what matters, not why it should be more secure.

@LightB:
Just concede that your original claims about the NT kernel were unfounded and be done with it.

LightB
June 13th, 2007, 01:21 PM
Maybe the language used was unfounded, but not the gist of what I said. It was very founded. :)

koshatnik
June 13th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Why doesn't OS X get the same flak that Windows gets on these forums AND Why is OS X supposedly better than Windows???

I used Mac OSX properly for the first time the other day - using Flex2 to talk to Filemaker DB. The IT consultant I hired uses a mac book, so I had a play. Have to say I thought OSX was an underwhelming experience, and certainly not worthy of the endless hype attributable to it. But then, what is?

Font rendering, supposedly a plus for OSX, was poor - my ubuntu fonts look better. Its a nice desktop enivornment, but all this crap about it being "the most intuitive of all OS" is just that - crap. No such thing as intuitive, only familiar. As I am not familiar with OSX, therefore I found it unintiutative.

It is a well integrated OS, but then it should be. The Mac Book specs were poor for the price - Apple computers are not good value for money at all, and the IT consultant told me that he had the laptop for less than a year and had been in for repair twice - so Apples poor hardware track record remains. I dont know a single Apple user that has not had hardware issues with their particular model.

Had a play in the terminal and found that it understood most of my linuxy commands, so that was nice. It is a hideously bloated OS though, and most of the bells and whisltes it has are annoying and gimmicky. Its search features are very good though.

Overall, I won't be buying one. No compulsive reason to have one to be honest. My 300 laptop running ubuntu does the job just as well. I dont think OSX is any "better" than anyting else. Its all much of a muchness, it just comes down to personal choice.

peterbrewer
June 13th, 2007, 02:10 PM
The search feature is the only thing I like about it. Then I discovered beagle (Kerry in my case as I use KDE) and the Mac is nothing.

brim4brim
June 13th, 2007, 02:33 PM
At this stage, I think Ubuntu has surpassed Mac OSX in many ways.

There are only a couple of things Ubuntu does worse:
Driver support (third parties although Mac's aren't great in this area either)
Fixing Ubuntu when things go wrong usually involves the Terminal (not that big an issue considering most average users couldn't fix Ubuntu even with GUI's to help them.

mech7
June 13th, 2007, 02:38 PM
At this stage, I think Ubuntu has surpassed Mac OSX in many ways.

There are only a couple of things Ubuntu does worse:
Driver support (third parties although Mac's aren't great in this area either)
Fixing Ubuntu when things go wrong usually involves the Terminal (not that big an issue considering most average users couldn't fix Ubuntu even with GUI's to help them.

How about looks.. a feature forgotten in almost every distro :)

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 03:05 PM
Mac OS X is an extremely well designed and created operating system. It's all a matter of preference, but I find that the Macs have better performance on less hardware, so when given excessively powerful hardware have even better performance than that. Let's not forget all the style involved, either.

laxmanb
June 13th, 2007, 03:13 PM
I have heard that Tiger performs poorly on Mac Minis with 512 MB RAM (in a review)...

Also, they just shut off everybody who bought Core Duo Macs by making Leopard 64-bit only...

And I find applications like Windows Photo Gallery and Media Center to be stylish+intuitive as well...

Hendrixski
June 13th, 2007, 03:31 PM
At this stage, I think Ubuntu has surpassed Mac OSX in many ways.

There are only a couple of things Ubuntu does worse:
Driver support (third parties although Mac's aren't great in this area either)
Fixing Ubuntu when things go wrong usually involves the Terminal (not that big an issue considering most average users couldn't fix Ubuntu even with GUI's to help them.

Try installing OSX on anything that doesn't come from Apple. They own their platform hence the drivers are all there. If you were to try to load it on a Toshiba Tablet, or any laptop for that matter, then you will see that OS X SUCKS compared to Ubuntu in the field of driver support.

Fixing Ubuntu via the terminal is still the most popular option, but many many things can be fixed through graphical applications. It's a cultural difference mainly.

Here's a funny one. Try to upgrade the hardware in your Mac... oh ... oh .wait... oh SH*T my Mac just blew up.

I really wish there were more to Mac than just hype that was created by some marketing clowns who got payed a lot of money to come up with slogans and catchy names. At least they can diminish some of Microsofts dominance in the United States. They should work on overthrowing Microsoft abroad too.. I mean.. there were like what? a total of 3 Macs sold in Europe! ever!

Linux has twice the userbase of Mac with none of the obnoxious marketing, and for a good reason. it's better!

kamaboko
June 13th, 2007, 03:40 PM
I think before year end we need about 47,000 more threads (in addition to numerous threads in existence) asking which OS is better: Mac, Windows, Linux. That way we'll all have a chance to say the same thing tens of thousands of more times again.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 03:43 PM
I have heard that Tiger performs poorly on Mac Minis with 512 MB RAM (in a review)...

Also, they just shut off everybody who bought Core Duo Macs by making Leopard 64-bit only...

And I find applications like Windows Photo Gallery and Media Center to be stylish+intuitive as well...

The Mac mini is a doomed desktop system. That's not Apple's market and never was.


Try installing OSX on anything that doesn't come from Apple. They own their platform hence the drivers are all there. If you were to try to load it on a Toshiba Tablet, or any laptop for that matter, then you will see that OS X SUCKS compared to Ubuntu in the field of driver support.

Fixing Ubuntu via the terminal is still the most popular option, but many many things can be fixed through graphical applications. It's a cultural difference mainly.

Here's a funny one. Try to upgrade the hardware in your Mac... oh ... oh .wait... oh SH*T my Mac just blew up.

I really wish there were more to Mac than just hype that was created by some marketing clowns who got payed a lot of money to come up with slogans and catchy names. At least they can diminish some of Microsofts dominance in the United States. They should work on overthrowing Microsoft abroad too.. I mean.. there were like what? a total of 3 Macs sold in Europe! ever!

Linux has twice the userbase of Mac with none of the obnoxious marketing, and for a good reason. it's better!

Spreading misinformation is completely ignorant. Firstly, let us look at another familiar piece of machinery in our homes: Game consoles.

Have you ever had the desire to install the OS from a game console onto another system? Absolutely not, why would you do that? The entire thing to LOVE about these game systems is that the operating system is designed for the hardware, and the hardware is designed for the operating system. A mac is no different.

Now, concerning upgrading the hardware... well..
The All in one iMac cannot be upgraded? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQslXT1Se3w)
Macs can't be upgraded? part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_T0dObD-Nk)
Mac Price comparison as well as UPGRADES to the mac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQvHkKzEBc)

So, before you make such statements about the Mac, I suggest you do a little watching of these videos.

Also, I have two things to say about the userbase:

1) Prove it. Apple can tell you the amount of numbers of Macs sold, and operating and come up with a good estimate. So, I want you to provide some decent evidence that says that Ubuntu/Linux computers have a greater marketshare than Macs. Otherwise, you need to apologize to everyone on the board for spreading misinformation.

2) Mac vs PC marketshare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUYR5uvl35k)

By the way... the KOST makes a lot of very educational videos for those of you who aren't exactly familiar with the Mac, and keep feeding into it's myths. I suggest you take the time to watch, lest you remain openly ignorant.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 04:13 PM
Mac OS X is an extremely well designed and created operating system. It's all a matter of preference, but I find that the Macs have better performance on less hardware, so when given excessively powerful hardware have even better performance than that. Let's not forget all the style involved, either.

Well, I work with OSX every day and though it certainly has many nice things going for it, performance certainly isn't one of them. On the contrary, once you really start to use it, it's awful.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 04:31 PM
Well, I work with OSX every day and though it certainly has many nice things going for it, performance certainly isn't one of them. On the contrary, once you really start to use it, it's awful.

Performance wise it does things that we would not be able to do on other computers without a specialized environment. A Mac is capable of doing media creation faster and better than any other PC that were to try to start off on Equal footing. If it's capable of doing that, how can you say it lacks performance?

Now, I know, "Linux is used to make movies too!" Yes, it is, in a specialized environment. Why do you think we're not hearing what distributions Pixar, and Dreamworks are using? They're using a specialized environment to dedicate more resources to the creation of media, and not the desktop.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Performance wise it does things that we would not be able to do on other computers without a specialized environment. A Mac is capable of doing media creation faster and better than any other PC that were to try to start off on Equal footing. If it's capable of doing that, how can you say it lacks performance?

First off, who says what you proclaim is actually the case? Just because you recite an advert doesn't make it true.
Second, I can say it lacks performance as I'm confronted with poor performance by OSX every day, doing something one might describe as media creation btw.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 04:42 PM
First off, who says what you proclaim is actually the case? Just because you recite an advert doesn't make it true.
Second, I can say it lacks performance as I'm confronted with poor performance by OSX every day, doing something one might describe as media creation btw.

What kind of media creation might one be doing? Because if you were (Like I was) confronted with G4 macs that were never maintained in anyway shape or form and have seen nearly irresponsible levels of abuse by the people running them, yet still blazing along for the hardware in them, then you can't complain.

I ran a G4 mac (bare minimum specs) at school to take digital imaging. In some ways, it was a LOT faster, despite the fact that the school had loaded software on it do to this than and the other which stole the resources. In other ways it was slower than my brand new fresh 2 GB of Ram system with an ATI Radeon X800 Pro card.

So, I'm interested in knowing WHERE you deal with these macs, and what you're using them for. Because what I've seen of an ENTIRE COMPUTER LAB full of old G4s is that they perform very well for the abuse the school puts them through.

neorou
June 13th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Just my 2 cents: one is not better than the other. To me, the answer truly depends on the individual. Sure, OS X seems to be the more innovative OS, but there is a new Windows on the scene, and you still can't install OS X on any hardware set you want to...

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 04:51 PM
So, I'm interested in knowing WHERE you deal with these macs, and what you're using them for. Because what I've seen of an ENTIRE COMPUTER LAB full of old G4s is that they perform very well for the abuse the school puts them through.

Well, I'm not talking about some school computer lab, but about a big publishing house that's all mac. Which means up to date hardware, up to date software, a professional IT staff full of Apple experts and unfortunately, still poor performance.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 05:05 PM
Well, I'm not talking about some school computer lab, but about a big publishing house that's all mac. Which means up to date hardware, up to date software, a professional IT staff full of Apple experts and unfortunately, still poor performance.

As opposed to?

Sp4cedOut
June 13th, 2007, 05:07 PM
The reason Macs are used for media creation is the same reason Windows is used by everyone else, tradition and software support.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, PC give you better hardware for your dollar. If I had to choose between buying a Window PC or a Mac, I'd choose the Windows PC, since I'd be running Linux mostly anyways. I prefer to build my PC though, so that leaves Mac out of the question.

laxmanb
June 13th, 2007, 05:07 PM
Actually the POWER macs had better performance than PCs in stuff like video & audio editing- something to do with CPU architecture. With them running x86, performance should be equal with Windows - only you can easily upgrade most PCs you buy and it's harder to do with a mac

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 05:08 PM
As opposed to?
Good performance.

ThinkBuntu
June 13th, 2007, 05:08 PM
Few, if any, security vulnerabilities and viruses. A hallmark of its Unix roots
Based on the Mach kernel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel)), which isn't too shabby
A very usable OS that never crashes (Zero crashes in six years for me)
Likable graphic design
Superior bundled applications to Windows

Need I say more?

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Actually the POWER macs had better performance than PCs in stuff like video & audio editing- something to do with CPU architecture. With them running x86, performance should be equal with Windows - only you can easily upgrade most PCs you buy and it's harder to do with a mac

No, the Macs power lay in the combination of operating system and hardware. They're actually faster and more powerful than your run-of-the-mill-super-powerful-pc.


Good performance.

You know what, maybe I was wrong in my wording. Macs don't provide great performance for media creation, they offer the BEST performance, for media creation (aside from highly specialized in-house systems which MAY perform better, the world will never know)

Sp4cedOut
June 13th, 2007, 05:22 PM
No, the Macs power lay in the combination of operating system and hardware. They're actually faster and more powerful than your run-of-the-mill-super-powerful-pc.

sure....

Ozor Mox
June 13th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Reasons I almost bought a Mac twice...

I like the look of the hardware.
The OS looks much nicer than Windows, though I'd certainly keep using Ubuntu.
Computers that work as an entire unit seems like a nice idea.
The shininess and marketing keep getting to me...can't...resist...
The idea of a good computer dual booting what is supposedly a good OS with Ubuntu seems like the ultimate machine!
I have heard good things.
I have never owned a Mac before!
I'll probably need a new laptop reasonably soon.

Reasons I have not yet...

The prices! The low-end Macbook Pro is 1299! The black Macbook is 120 more than the next model down for 40 GB more hard drive space! I'm not convinced that the high prices of Macs are worth what they would give me.
Upgrading is harder. The low-end Macbook Pro's graphics card cannot be upgraded for example.
The hardware problems such as overheating, noises, peeling paint, dodgy displays, I've seen reported have been numerous. My housemate's 3 month old one's CD drive has failed. My 3 year old Dell laptop has almost no problems.
I really like free software, so I'd want to dual boot with Ubuntu, but see no mention that Bootcamp can do this.
All the software seems incredibly expensive.
I like to tinker with my machine. I don't want to be hand held, but I do like it when my computer works.

I may yet still go for it, but I'm not at all sure.

stmiller
June 13th, 2007, 05:48 PM
The reason Macs are used for media creation is the same reason Windows is used by everyone else, tradition and software support.



This is not true. It's because of the hardware. I'm a commercial music composer as my day job.
Let me shed a few details:

Windows XP has a 2GB limit, which you can hack around to 3GB with the '3GB switch.'
So you could have 3GB available for your applications.

But one Powermac G5 back in the year 2004 could hold as much as 8GB of ram. So one Powermac G5 with 4-6 GB of ram equals TWO pcs from a creative person's perspective. So the many film composers and such use Powermacs simply because they handle ram better, and can load more samples. One given project I do has 3GB of orchestra samples loaded at once, and that is a small project. It's just not possible in Windows.

It's the same for the graphics and video world: it's the hardware. The machine can do more, and the software written can take advantage of this.
THIS is why audio/graphics/video people use macs. It's not about what benchmark one gets in Quake 3 vs. a PC.

In the windows world, there is creative software, but you are left with the limitations of the hardware and ram. I know there is 64bit XP and Vista, but the software and hardware companies are slowly getting drivers and support written for that. When you have a huge company running in progress you can't exactly switch to Windows 64bit beta drivers. And Vista 64 requires signed drivers, which is a PITA for companies (they have to pay MS).

Well, that is the current situation, from a creative person's point of view.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 05:56 PM
You know what, maybe I was wrong in my wording. Macs don't provide great performance for media creation, they offer the BEST performance, for media creation (aside from highly specialized in-house systems which MAY perform better, the world will never know)
Well, I don't think that's true either. In many ways my really old ubuntu box at home does run circles around my new Mac at work.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Well, I don't think that's true either. In many ways my really old ubuntu box at home does run circles around my new Mac at work.

And I bet your really old Ubuntu system at home is only using the Ubuntu kernel, with a more minimalistic interface (maybe XFCE?) in order to provide a positive increase in speed without sacrificing much-needed familiarity or functionality. I know the drill, I use Ubuntu on my computer right now, but I know that a similarly configured Mac (hardware speaking) would absolutely demolish even my Ubuntu PC in terms of speed.

It's the software taking advantage of hardware that allows for things to work like that... My sister's computer with a meager 256 MB of ram, a 1.8 Ghz processor, and 40 GB HD with no graphics card can run CIRCLES around the family computer downstairs with 512 MB of ram, a 3.0 GHZ processor, and two 100 GB HDs.

The hardware alone is only so powerful, it requires an equally powerful, well designed operating system to provide those massive increases in speed that allow more to be done with less.

I'm also wiling to bet that the demands on your home PC are not the same as you would be doing in any media creation. I don't know about you but my Ubuntu PC plays music, and browses the web. Maybe SOMETIMES I'll start feeling a little squirrely and I'll type a text document or two. So, by doing less with my PC at home, I give the appearance of better performance. But even my Ubuntu PC can't compare to those old trashy G4 macs in the school lab when it comes to photo editting. (note that those things were never updated either, so any bug fixes etc. effecting performance were still around)

laxmanb
June 13th, 2007, 06:01 PM
No, they don't. Macs used to have better performance with apps like Photoshop, etc. etc. over Windows. they don't any more. Windows and OS X can handle the same amount of RAM with x86 processors. If you think they have better performance, it's all in the past...

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 06:13 PM
And I bet your really old Ubuntu system at home is only using the Ubuntu kernel, with a more minimalistic interface (maybe XFCE?) in order to provide a positive increase in speed without sacrificing much-needed familiarity or functionality.

No, it's a stock ubuntu gnome install.



I'm also wiling to bet that the demands on your home PC are not the same as you would be doing in any media creation.
No, of course not. But to my surprise my Mac at work also has performance problems when doing some of the stuff I also do on my homebox.

ThinkBuntu
June 13th, 2007, 06:17 PM
No, of course not. But to my surprise my Mac at work also has performance problems when doing some of the stuff I also do on my homebox.
Also known as the unfortunate effect of Apple's incredibly selfish switch to Intel processors.

Seti
June 13th, 2007, 06:23 PM
I'd have to say that OS X is hands down better than Windows, that's a moot point. You have an OS that is stable, secure, looks good and performs.
That being said, I personally far prefer Gnome or XFce on linux to OS X. I have compared someone's Power MAC G5 with comparable amount of RAM to my P4 PC running ubuntu or slackware. In my experience, these linux desktops are far more responsive and CUSTOMIZABLE than OS X. Yes, OS X is pretty and has killer apps. As far as eye-candy is concerned, I have beryl running and provides more than enough prettiness. Also, I am satisfied fully with the apps available through GNU. One thing that does bug me with OS X is resizing windows (you have to drag from the bottom-right corner, WTF??) or the fact that all open applications share the top panel for toolbars. I guess it takes getting used to and people who use MAC are content with that, however I think it sucks.
Finally, and (I think) most importantly, GNU/linux is OPEN-SOURCE. OS X isn't. Neither is Windows. I'd rather know how my tools work than not know; I'd rather have control of my tools rather than be the tool of someone making a lot of money off me.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 06:23 PM
No, they don't. Macs used to have better performance with apps like Photoshop, etc. etc. over Windows. they don't any more. Windows and OS X can handle the same amount of RAM with x86 processors. If you think they have better performance, it's all in the past...

Please, I dare you, put 16 GB of RAM into a Win PC and see if it can take advantage of all of that. Mac Pros are like good servers in desktop form. Win PCs cannot compare.

Also, the burden of proof is on you to show that Win PCs that use Photoshop can keep up with even a less powerful Mac. I know this is not true. But, for evidence that I'm not alone in my feelings:

Do this with your Win PC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06_IPNnziqI)
Build a Win PC that can take advantage of this hardware (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQvHkKzEBc)

laxmanb
June 13th, 2007, 06:28 PM
well.. evidence in favor of either argument will be good...

and the VIsta/XP kernels are true server kernels as well...

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 06:28 PM
No, it's a stock ubuntu gnome install.


No, of course not. But to my surprise my Mac at work also has performance problems when doing some of the stuff I also do on my homebox.

Ok, what's the specs on your desktop. I can't prove a negative, the burden of proof is on you.

here's the information I want:

I want the specs on your desktop that are relevant to it's speed, and I want the complete specs for the macs you're using.

I then want to know if 'what you're doing' can be attributed to not the processor as much as well designed applications vs poorly designed applications, or a spartan application vs a tank of an application. I have found that, for instance, Krita is not as resource hungry as the GIMP on my computer (no benchmarks to test that) so I use Krita for all of my photo editing. Krita is probably faster than photoshop to be honest, but photoshop is a TANK of an application that is used for much heavier jobs and supplies much more functionality.

So, the question served up then are the applications in question here. Not all applications are created equal. Obviously, since the Mac is a work computer, you're not going to be using the same applications you'd be using at home on your ubuntu box.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 06:31 PM
well.. evidence will be good...

and the VIsta/XP kernels are true server kernels as well...

Vista is capable of taking advantage of 4 GB of ram. Total, until you start pushing it into a 64 bit kernel and all that, then it can use more ram (which doesn't really mean that it makes it more efficient to do so as Vista is a monster of inefficiency).

I'm supplied proof that Macs can be upgraded to beyond ridiculous amounts of Ram and take advantage of that. It's your turn.

Sp4cedOut
June 13th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Please, I dare you, put 16 GB of RAM into a Win PC and see if it can take advantage of all of that. Mac Pros are like good servers in desktop form. Win PCs cannot compare.

Also, the burden of proof is on you to show that Win PCs that use Photoshop can keep up with even a less powerful Mac. I know this is not true. But, for evidence that I'm not alone in my feelings:

Do this with your Win PC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06_IPNnziqI)
Build a Win PC that can take advantage of this hardware (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQvHkKzEBc)

I dare you to put 64 gigs of ram in a Macbook pro and see if it can handle it, because the Linux kernel can.

http://photoshop.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=11624

ThinkBuntu
June 13th, 2007, 06:48 PM
I'm a big Redskins fan, for the record. Just wanted to clear the air.

shearn89
June 13th, 2007, 06:50 PM
Because "Ooh! Shiny!" works as an excellent sales pitch.

totally true, along with "but its white...."

The one thing i don't like about macs is that they make it reallly hard to view system-type files (hidden files, that sort of stuff). Its a bit too idiot-proof. IMHO.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 06:52 PM
I dare you to put 64 gigs of ram in a Macbook pro and see if it can handle it, because the Linux kernel can.

http://photoshop.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=11624

I will personally send you 1 million dollars if you can shove 64 GB of ram into a laptop :P


I don't doubt that it can, but the world may never know, as it stands the maximum memory you can physically put into a Mac is 32 GB. via hardware limitations. I don't doubt that a kernel that is an actual Unix style kernel can handle it.

however, I think when we start stepping into those bounds you're stepping into server territory where any Linux system will have the kind of hardware needed to allow that much RAM.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 07:20 PM
Ok, what's the specs on your desktop. I can't prove a negative, the burden of proof is on you.

here's the information I want:

I want the specs on your desktop that are relevant to it's speed, and I want the complete specs for the macs you're using.

I then want to know if 'what you're doing' can be attributed to not the processor as much as well designed applications vs poorly designed applications, or a spartan application vs a tank of an application. I have found that, for instance, Krita is not as resource hungry as the GIMP on my computer (no benchmarks to test that) so I use Krita for all of my photo editing. Krita is probably faster than photoshop to be honest, but photoshop is a TANK of an application that is used for much heavier jobs and supplies much more functionality.

So, the question served up then are the applications in question here. Not all applications are created equal. Obviously, since the Mac is a work computer, you're not going to be using the same applications you'd be using at home on your ubuntu box.

My homebox is an old AMD box with 1.2 GHz and 768 MB of ram. It's really ancient compared to what I use at work. I don't know the exact specs but it's a 20 inch imac most of the time, but I also get to work on more powerful machines from time to time.

And lo and behold, simply browsing with many tabs open (doesn't matter if I use FF or Safari) can be a real drag on the Mac. You get the beachball treatment a lot of times.
And don't talk about trying to print something...

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 07:33 PM
My homebox is an old AMD box with 1.2 GHz and 768 MB of ram. It's really ancient compared to what I use at work. I don't know the exact specs but it's a 20 inch imac most of the time, but I also get to work on more powerful machines from time to time.

And lo and behold, simply browsing with many tabs open (doesn't matter if I use FF or Safari) can be a real drag on the Mac. You get the beachball treatment a lot of times.
And don't talk about trying to print something...

I don't think those iMacs are as new as you think they are. I have had the opportunity to use a macbook recently, not TOO new, but still new-enough, and I saw no such behavior. I don't browse with less than 10 tabs in most instances, and it kept up with me fine.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 07:41 PM
I don't think those iMacs are as new as you think they are. I have had the opportunity to use a macbook recently, not TOO new, but still new-enough, and I saw no such behavior. I don't browse with less than 10 tabs in most instances, and it kept up with me fine.
Oh, they are, don't worry.
At the most they are half a year old.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 07:47 PM
Oh, they are, don't worry.
At the most they are half a year old.

Be that the case I find your account very difficult to believe without formal tests.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 07:59 PM
Be that the case I find your account very difficult to believe without formal tests.
Be that as it may, I still experience it every singel day at work.

And btw., I'm not the only one. In fact you'll find many discussions about OSX's poor performance on the web.

ThinkBuntu
June 13th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Be that as it may, I still experience it every singel day at work.

And btw., I'm not the only one. In fact you'll find many discussions about OSX's poor performance on the web.
I can vouch for superb OSX performance on old hardware. I ran OS 10.3 (Panther) very well on a 233MHz 96MB RAM iMac for a few years.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 08:26 PM
I can vouch for superb OSX performance on old hardware. I ran OS 10.3 (Panther) very well on a 233MHz 96MB RAM iMac for a few years.

Well, I also have an old ibook 700 MHz and I wouldn call the performance of OS X 10.2 (I think that's the version it came with) superb.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 08:27 PM
Well, I also have an old ibook 700 MHz and I wouldn call the performance of OS X 10.2 (I think that's the version it came with) superb.

I think that your idea of performance and what it means is somewhat... different. What EXACTLY do you mean when you say it has good or bad performance?

I have a very geeky (one of those always optimizing people) friend who LOVES his MacBook (not a Pro even) and highly recommends that I get one.
To give you an idea of the kind of performance this guy likes.. he has created "RAMBuntu", I'll give you two guesses what that does.

needtolookatascreenshot
June 13th, 2007, 08:46 PM
I think that your idea of performance and what it means is somewhat... different. What EXACTLY do you mean when you say it has good or bad performance?

Simple, the performance or rather the lack therof shouldn't get in my way when I'm working.



I have a very geeky (one of those always optimizing people) friend who LOVES his MacBook (not a Pro even) and highly recommends that I get one.
To give you an idea of the kind of performance this guy likes.. he has created "RAMBuntu", I'll give you two guesses what that does.
It probably is an Ubuntu LiveCD that can be totally loaded into RAM, which of course gives you great performance.

Adamant1988
June 13th, 2007, 08:53 PM
Simple, the performance or rather the lack therof shouldn't get in my way when I'm working.


It probably is an Ubuntu LiveCD that can be totally loaded into RAM, which of course gives you great performance.

Actually, when it loads, it loads completely into ram and ISN'T a live CD. it's an install. But that's the kind of optimization this guy likes to do. I know he would be complaining non-stop if his MacBook wasn't living up to the performance he expected of it.

init1
June 14th, 2007, 05:43 PM
Because OS X is based on a Unix kernel (I don't know if it is BSD or not), and thus you can use an xterm.