Linux Vs. Mac: Which Is The Better Alternative To Microsoft Windows?

[DC@DR]

This article is really a good guide for people who're seeking for Windows alternatives :-)

The switch from Windows XP to Vista has created a world of opportunity -- not only for Microsoft, but for supporters of competing operating systems. While Microsoft is hoping it can move its customers easily to a new version of Windows, Apple and the Linux community see the transition as a chance to demonstrate the advancement and advantages of their OSes -- and maybe steal some customers.
Full details are here: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201002048.

[Adamant1988]

It really depends on the person. I think that OS X is probably a superior solution for me because it has what I want without the Windows problems I don't want. Plus a lot of my gadgets are Apple made so, no biggy with migration, most hardware like printers and supports OS X, so I think it'll be an easier transition for me.

[Sayers]

The report felt bias.

[KiwiNZ]

I think people need to move away from this idea of Windows is better , Linux is better , Mac is better as sweeping statements.

They need to think in terms of Horses for courses. In other words what is best for their circumstance and the uses they are going to out their computer.

[DoctorMO]

The linux guy was being untra fair, pointing out the niggles that 1 in 1000 get; and pointing out problems that hark back to previous versions. The Mac guy was still more fair than some reports but still very blind to the odd niggles you can get in Mac. I dumped my powerbook, I never used it because it just felt so closeted... didn't help that Apple removed the iLife tools when I upgraded to 10.3 effectively removing all my photo albums did not put me in a good mood.

[swoll1980]

niether. while both have some really cool features they can't replace window entirely

[Turboaaa2001]

Here is the current obvious answer:

If you want plenty of official support and a working OS that won't give you a headache by not letting you change anything then MacOS is the answer.

If you have some time and energy to spare, and want an OS that has a ton of community support and allows you to customize it without yelling at you then Linux is better.

It all depends on what the user is willing to put into it.

[Dr. C]

It really depends on why one leaves one leaves Windows

If the reason has anything to do with:

Corporate monopoly power
Propriety software
Vendor lock in
DRM
Lack of freedom, restrictions on what one can do with software
EULA's
or similar "evil" doings of Microsoft etc.

Then the obvious choice is GNU / Linux or maybe a BSD or even Solaris, but not Mac OS X. Moving from Windows to Mac for the above reasons is like jumping out of the frying pan into the fiire. Mac is a far more "closed" system than even Windows Vista.

There may be other valid reasons to move from Windows to the Mac but freedom in any shape or form is not one.

[Zzl1xndd]

niether. while both have some really cool features they can't replace window entirely

I'll disagree here I know a number of people that use just Linux or Just Mac. I am one of the former.

[dragonwings]

easy to awnser this one

a: someone wants easy and has money =mac

b: someone wants easy cant have = linux

[original_jamingrit]

That report was a little biased, but it was probably targeted toward the general user.

In my opinion, no OS the best, it depends on what you need/want as a user. For some people that's one of the flavours of Windows, for others it's OSX, and for others it's GNU/Linux or BSD or some of the more obscure OS out there. Each one satisfies different needs for different people, is all.

[DjBones]

haha.. i guess the whole philosophy of open source and freedom of choice kinda makes any kinda arguement from the linux side hard..
linux is exactly what i want, which is really what it comes down too.

((alot of my friends have mac's, but i take solace in the fact that atleast its not microsoft.. and diversity can only breed success))

[runningwithscissors]

Let's face it. OSX is a bloated piece of **** used mainly by self-important drooling fanboys who think they're being "productive" by staring at an accelerated 3D desktop.

Overpriced hardware and a slow OS. It's only the shiny plastic that keeps Apple in business.

[tigerpants]

I use both. For all the fanfare and hurraphing that surrounds OS X - The MOST ADVANCED OS IN THE WORLD PEOPLE!!! i have to say that its err... ok. Still prefer linux.

There is a barrier surrounding linux, its like a soft membrane made up of uncertainty and doubt. Most switchers hit this membrane and bounce off. Once you penetrate the membrane, there is a whole new lovely fluffy weird world made up chocolate houses. dancing bunnies and flowers that sing happy songs.

But to get there people need to make the breakthrough. More needs to be done to make this happen. It won't becuase linux is too disparate - it has no common driving force, no focus. This is its strength - to compromise this would be to compromise linux's soul.

In short, those that want to, come to linux and dwell in chocolate houses with lemonade fountains. Others go to OSX which is like a giant shiny glittering pointy thing that looks great from a distance but when you get there you look at it and think "is that it?"

Windows for me, at least, is unsuable. I hate it. I hate everything about it. Its shoddy, cheap, poorly thought out crapware design by a monkey to annoy its organgrinder. So I don't use it anymore. Never will. I have no idea about how great/poor/weird (delete as applicable) Vista is, cos I've not ever used it properly. All I know about it is from what I hear from its users, none of which can be repeated here.

Comparing OSX with linux isn't really possible. Linux, I think, has better apps for alot of tasks. Try finding a decent sound converter in OSX that you dont have to pay for. Finder needs to die. Its crap compared to Nautilus. Repositories are a brilliant resource. Multiple desktops (ONLY IN LEOPARD, PEOPLE - REMEMBER THAT).

I have a 64-bit, dual core mac book with 1 gig on memory. My 1.8g celery laptop with 512meg of memory with Ubuntu running on it, runs faster. By a long way.

Less is more.

Viva la difference.

(I still like OSX, but not Apple)

[tigerpants]

Let's face it. OSX is a bloated piece of **** used mainly by self-important drooling fanboys who think they're being "productive" by staring at an accelerated 3D desktop.

Overpriced hardware and a slow OS. It's only the shiny plastic that keeps Apple in business.

£ for £, the mac book was better value than the equivalently priced windows based laptops. They are no longer overpriced. But OSX is slow.

[bobbocanfly]

<fanboy>

UBUNTU FTW!!!! UBUNTU IS WELL BETTER THAN "W1NDB10W$$$$$$$$ OR MAC OS X. BLATES PWNS THEM ALL.

</fanboy>

I love Mac OS X, it looks good and would be what i dual booted Ubuntu/Linux with if it was Open Source. Seeing as it is not open-source, still has some of the unfriendly traits of Windows and costs a fair bit i dont use it.

Personally i dont think that Windows is a good OS at all. If there was a list Vista and XP would be right at the bottom of that list. The only reason they are so widely used is that Bill Gates is such a good businessman. Im almost certain that if every single operating system in the world got the same amount of cash, same amount of advertising, they were all free and the massive use of Windows hadnt happened, hardly anyone would think of using Windows.

**Awaits massive flaming**

[happy-and-lost]

I hate all sweeping statements.

[Hex_Mandos]

Personally, I'd take Windows over OS X (I find it to be massively overhyped), but I like Linux more than either proprietary OS.

[%hMa@?b<C]

they go on to say that apple provides hardware is complete BS.
Intel makes the processor, ATi makes the graphics chip, IIRC Seagate makes the HDD. What the hell are they thinking?

[Turboaaa2001]

Well I don't know about you but I don't live in chocolate houses and drink from lemonade fountains (the bunnies may have done something in it!)

I do view Linux as my way out of the mold. Everyone uses their Linux rig differently and can customize it in any way imaginable. Unlike Windows that slows down after customization or MacOSX that is non-customizable.

In my opinion Mac enthusiast are hypocrites! They claim non-conformity and artistic style from an OS that will fall apart if changes are made.

[Nunu]

My personal view on this is...

If you need to do major graphics then yeah Apple might be an option.

If you need compatibility then Windows might be and option

If you want both and don't mind a bit of configuration then go for Linux

Personal opinions, i am sure we had similar arguments before. There is only one thing that mac can't do that the others can... Left Click.

Want to play games - check
do graphics - check
surf the net - check
write a book - check
send mail - check
download porn - check
burn CD's - check
left click - sorry for you MACIE hehehehe:lolflag:

Comes down to how much you got to spend thats all. not to anything else

[Hex_Mandos]

The mac guy sounds a lot like a fanboy. Most of the claims about OS X are true to Linux too (for example, the absence of viruses, OS X being UNIX-like, having rsync for backups, having a "Windows like" UI which is actually farther away from Windows than KDE, GNOME or even IceWM). I almost cracked up when I read "Macs can boot Windows! How's that for Windows compatibility?"... any real OS can multiboot (Except for Windows, which likes killing MBRs).

The only real advantage of OS X over Linux is that certain proprietary apps will work in OS X. Myself, I'd rather use Linux as a solid base OS and virtualize Windows for the few apps I might need (even though I don't need any Windows apps right now).

[Warpnow]

Ummm...I only see one option...

I think going from Windows to Mac OS would be taking a step down in customizability, control and power, why would I want to do that?

MAC OS is the exact opposite of linux. In linux, you have total control and can do anything you want. You can rebuild your applications from source if you don't like something about them...there is NO limit to your flexibility.

In MAC OS, things are easy...and you have no flexibility. Some people like this...but its basically the exact opposite of linux.

Windows is a kind of happy medium I think, where you get a fair amount of flexibility for a fair amount of "ease", and that's why I think its so popular.

[Hex_Mandos]

You can also compile apps from source in OS X and Windows, although I agree about OS X being less customizable GUI wise. I disagree about it being easy, though (figuring out how to install apps is harder than learning to use Synaptic or Add/Remove)

[Warpnow]

Of course you CAN build them from source...but let's be honest.

1. You'll prolly have to rewrite parts of the code for the compiler you're using, or the version. It never seems to just *compile* on the first try, like in linux.

2. Most applications that are windows or mac exclusive are closed source.

3. It involves a lot more steps to compile the code for MAC and Windows apps than it does linux apps.

[nick.inspiron6400]

Easy: Mac
Hard & Pointless: Linux

[cmat]

Easy: Mac
Hard & Pointless: Linux

Insightful

[aysiu]

Easy: Mac
Hard & Pointless: Linux
It kind of depends on what your needs are, actually.

But if you're speaking only for yourself, yes.

By the way, can you fix my wife's Powerbook? It can't handle WPA connections, so we're stuck with insecure WEP in our household. Ubuntu handles WPA just fine, though... even though it's "hard and pointless."

[Ultra Magnus]

Easy: Mac
Hard & Pointless: Linux

According to steve jobs Macs are designed for people who get confused when confronted with buttons - just like say... the hungry hungry catapillar is written for people who get confused by long words - I'm currently reading crime and punishment by Dostoevsky so I think I'll stick with Linux, although the hungry hungry catapillar does have some nice pictures.

[aysiu]

According to steve jobs Macs are designed for people who get confused when confronted with buttons - just like say... the hungry hungry catapillar is written for people who get confused by long words - I'm currently reading crime and punishment by Dostoevsky so I think I'll stick with Linux, although the hungry hungry catapillar does have some nice pictures.
Macs work well for both advanced users and beginners.

Same deal for Ubuntu.

I hope you weren't implying that you have to be a computer moron in order to be well-suited for a Mac.

[Ultra Magnus]

I hope you weren't implying that you have to be a computer moron in order to be well-suited for a Mac.

I seem to get into constant trouble in these forums! - It was a joke! - Macs are well known for trying to make things as simple as possible - but yes, the butt of the joke is that macs are nice to look at (like the hungry hungry catapillar) but not of very much substance - Like I said - Joke... maybe I need to improve my routine!

[aysiu]

Tone of voice doesn't translate well in a text-based medium, unfortunately. Misunderstandings are quite common on all online forums, including this one.

[SunnyRabbiera]

It really depends, I like both OSX and linux as alternatives as I like OSX's relative ease of use but linux's freedom

[Bense]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'm pretty excited to see that the masses are starting to see ubuntu as "almost easier to use than vista"

Linux vs Mac is a much better thing than a Linux vs Vista. It means that Linux is growing.

Linux is growing and it's getting more and more people involved, as time progresses I think that the ginormous open-source community and their projects will surpass apple.

Granted there are several linux power users that will say that linux has surpassed apple forever ago. This is NOT the scenario I'm referring to.

[tigerpants]

Will this argument ever end?

I mean that as a genuine question, not as sarcasm.

[cmat]

Will this argument ever end?

I mean that as a genuine question, not as sarcasm.

It's like a chain reaction. The initial post ignited a reaction that cannot be extinguished.

[glosman15]

I personally think Linux in general is a better alternative, Mac has way too much DRM crap for my tastes. However in the end, the only person who can decide which is the better alternative to Windows (if they even feel the need for one) is the person using the computer and what their needs are. I hate when politics and corporate greed get in the way of the needs of the customer and how other people feel the need to decide what is the best OS and which OS everyone should be using.

[Dimitriid]

£ for £, the mac book was better value than the equivalently priced windows based laptops. They are no longer overpriced. But OSX is slow.

Not according to Newegg.com

Apple MacBook MB061LL/A Intel Core 2 Duo T7200(2.00GHz) 13.3" WXGA 1GB DDR2 667 80GB 5400rpm DVD-ROM/CD-RW Combo Intel GMA 950 Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger - Retail

$1,094.00

COMPAQ Presario F572US NoteBook AMD Mobile Athlon 64 X2 TK-53(1.70GHz) 15.4" Wide XGA 1GB 80GB 5400rpm DVD Super Multi NVIDIA GeForce Go 6150 - Retail

$629.99

Acer Aspire AS5610-2089 NoteBook Intel Pentium dual-core T2080(1.73GHz) 15.4" Wide XGA 1GB DDR2 533 160GB DVD Super Multi Intel GMA950 - Retail

$649.99

Notice the extra features like over 2 more inches of screen size, dvd burning capabilities, better display adapters. Seems fair to me, I rather have 2 laptops ( one of these and a cheap $400 one ) than 300mhz extra on the processor on an eye-straining 13 inch display.. This systems running on Ubuntu should be alot faster to more than make up for that bit of processor difference.

This is why people dislikes mac users, misinformation and FUD.

[aysiu]

I agree that Macs can be overpriced (depending on the needs of the user), but I would like to correct your assertion that 2 inches of screen size is more desirable in a laptop.

For regular monitors, the bigger it is, the more expensive it is. For laptop screens, however, the smaller it is, the more expensive it is. 10" and 12" screens are usually more expensive on Windows PCs than 15" screens.

[Dimitriid]

I respectfully disagree, I dont have the stats but lets compair the weight on the systems. Less weight might be a valid argument ( but I suspect the weight difference wont justify $400+ bucks ) but form factor? It might be fancier on some instances like Tablet pcs ( understandeable , the stylus tablet concept is totally different ) but for most users, they keyboard will be too cramped and hard to get used to ( unless the rest of all the keyboards in the world reduce their size 1 or 2 inches ) and your eyes will probably disagree too after a while of using both systems.

I support the idea of using the right tool for the right job: A cellphone should be a cellphone, a laptop should be a laptop, a PDA should be a PDA. I dont want oversized PDAs or undersized laptops.

[lyceum]

If you are just looking for an OS to replace Windows, Ubuntu is it, hands down. If you are an artist dependent on the latest Adobe, Mac is the way to go. As an artist myself, I really don't see the "must have Mac" thing. But, I do understand that if your job says use this software and it is not Ubuntu supported, that is the end it, you must go Mac.

My wife uses Mac and we are actually having a contest right now. I drew 4 pictures, she scanned them with her Mac (not because a scanner does not work with Ubuntu, but because she is the one with the scanner). I am using GIMP for one, Ink Scape for another and Xara Xtreme for the third, all on 7.04 Ubuntu. She is using CS2 on her Mac. I am ahead of her at this point (we are doing it in our spare time) but I must say that I cannot tell any difference. So really, price and freedom seems to be the only thing I see different between the 2 at this point.

[mgmiller]

There is only one thing that mac can't do that the others can... Left Click.

Actually, this is only partly correct. If you use a stock Mac mouse with only 1 button, then yeah, you can't left click.

But if you plug in, for example, a Microsoft Intellimouse with scroll wheel, 2 regular buttons and 2 side buttons, they all work without any tweaking at all.

I wish Ubuntu could say as much. I did get them all working eventually, in both Firefox and Nautilus, but it was nothing like the plug and play experience with Mac, and of course Windows.

Please don't take this as a negative statement about Ubuntu, just an observation that it needs a little more evolution in this area of hardware compatibility.

[tigerpants]

Not according to Newegg.com

Apple MacBook MB061LL/A Intel Core 2 Duo T7200(2.00GHz) 13.3" WXGA 1GB DDR2 667 80GB 5400rpm DVD-ROM/CD-RW Combo Intel GMA 950 Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger - Retail

$1,094.00

COMPAQ Presario F572US NoteBook AMD Mobile Athlon 64 X2 TK-53(1.70GHz) 15.4" Wide XGA 1GB 80GB 5400rpm DVD Super Multi NVIDIA GeForce Go 6150 - Retail

$629.99

Acer Aspire AS5610-2089 NoteBook Intel Pentium dual-core T2080(1.73GHz) 15.4" Wide XGA 1GB DDR2 533 160GB DVD Super Multi Intel GMA950 - Retail

$649.99

Notice the extra features like over 2 more inches of screen size, dvd burning capabilities, better display adapters. Seems fair to me, I rather have 2 laptops ( one of these and a cheap $400 one ) than 300mhz extra on the processor on an eye-straining 13 inch display.. This systems running on Ubuntu should be alot faster to more than make up for that bit of processor difference.

This is why people dislikes mac users, misinformation and FUD.

Not in the UK. My Macbook priced very favourably against other laptop options. And Macbooks can burn DVD's. Oh, and bigger screen size does not mean better - I hate large displays personally, so bigger certainly isn't better. And the Macbooks graphics card can output to 1900x1680 and it runs 3D games like Halo no problems. Not being a fanboi, just pointing out the facts. Less is more sometimes.

Anyway, I still dont understand the point of arguing this crap. The answer has already been established and is irrefutable and unarguable - but here it is again...

You use what's best for you to enable you to get your work/play done. Whichever OS that is.

[GFree678]

For my purposes, I enjoy doing more with less. Being able to build a workstation with lots of fantastic software for a low price/free, geeky technical software that only I need to appreciate, with a computer that's fairly powerful but not insane gamer-level, appeals more to mean than a pre-packaged deal that comes with a Mac.

Macs would be the best alternative to the people who don't want to deal with the technical crap and don't have really specific needs (eg. Adobe software). Ubuntu would for most else, though having a techy on standby for any issues would be a sweetener.

[bushda]

To me the decision comes down to this: I'm cheap!

While I understand and agree what open source is all about, it's not completely the reason that I use Linux. I use Linux because it's free and it does what I want, how I want, every time reliably.

I had a Mac. In the end I sold it because I did not want to pay for OS upgrades.

[EdThaSlayer]

I say "LINUX"
one, because it is free
two,because its stable
three, because I'm..."one" with GNU/Linux

[metallicamaster3]

I love Mac OS X, it satisfys both my Linux side and my end user side.
if only we could use emerald on OS X...

[handy]

We are windows free at home, though my wife still has to use a Mac to be able to use software that is not available in Linux format, or will not run satisfactorily under Wine or it's derivatives.

Apple are far from saints regarding their business ethics, & will do whatever it takes to gain more market share. I believe the company as capable of anything that insures their survival & therefore do not trust them one little bit.

[likemindead]

100% Ubuntu here. It is better for me, but there is no way that any kind of truly objective statement could be true concerning the masses of M$ sheeple. Ha....