XP vs. OSX

[BWF89]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/BWF89/XPvsOSX.png

Which is better, Windows XP or Macintosh OSX?

In a couple of years my parents will be getting a new computer, and I don't want this computer to Window$. I think Linux is pretty much out of the question so I'm going to try to get them to get a Mac. Can you guys come up with some reasons why Mac is superiour to Windows?

Also, the Mac must be compatible with a Cannon S520 printer and a Compaq S200 scanner...

[Quest-Master]

I prefer OS X much more than Windows, through personal experiences.

Such a clean, fast, and smooth OS; I'd use it alongside Ubuntu if I had a PowerPC. Of course, I don't, and many do not have one simply because of that.

I don't know about hardware support, but most commercial games and software work on it nowadays (Photoshop and such).

[chz]

wuts wrong with letting them use linux? i like the OSX interface, but theres the whole issue of use of windows programs. grab virtual PC for like...$100 US, when instead u can get vmware on linux for 1/3 the cost. another reason i wouldnt get the mac is because i think they are extremely overpriced. I dont mind paying for a good product, but theres the issue when the market is asking for one price, and mac is asking for 3 times the price. so when u have a problem, and u try to fix it, expect to pay....3 times what u would for a PC.
as far as XP, its nice also, very much more stable than the previous 95,98,Me...but if ur looking for a lightweight windows i'd go with 2000.
all in all, i was very very veeeery picky when it came to linux. redhats were worth less than the dust on my computer, slacks just never worked out of the box, debian had too much tweaking to do, but still came out nicer than the others, and mandrakes nothing but bloatware. if u want super easy, windows like linux, go with xandros. its debian based, and there is phone support for your parents, so they dont have to nag you all the time. ubuntu is great, but i do think its a little bit more involved than xandros. I actually dropped xandros for ubuntu, but i dont know if thats the smart decision for the novice computer user.

so in conclusion, my opinion, NO OSX...NO XP...just linux...=). Xandros or Ubuntu....u decide

[socrazy143]

OS X is built on the BSD platform therefore it is Unix based and much more stable. The problem is that OS X and Linux desktops are equally hard to get used to, therefore I would suggest loading ubuntu onto a spare computer and showing it to your parents. Let them play with it then talk them into buying an HP entry level server which is basically a PC without an OS (if you choose no OS) or build your own PC (a lot easier than it sounds) and then install ubuntu onto it. They will spend less for a much more powerful computer and a better OS. Spend the dough on the hardware not the OS.

Just my 2 cents.

[jakeslife]

Well first off, you said that they will be getting one within the next few "years." By this time linux--namely Ubuntu--should *crosses fingers* be ready for them.

[Zundfolge]

Everyone asks when Linux will be ready for mass consumption ... It is and its called Mac OSX.



If I could afford to buy a new Mac I'd dump Linux in a heartbeat for OSX (of course I'm a professional Graphic Designer so a Mac is really best for me professionaly anyway).

When compared to XP, there is no comparison ... allowing a "non-geek" type to run windows is like allowing a 4 year old to play with a loaded revolver ... at least OSX is safe from virii and spyware (like the rest of *nix) and its very easy to use (everything is done via GUI).

[ubuntu_demon]

on the choice between ubuntu and OS X :

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=6557

[BWF89]

Why would anyone dump Linux for OSX? Linux is open source. OSX is the same philosophy as Microsoft (without the whole taking over the world thing)...

[eBopBob]

Firstly, I've no idea why you're asking now - It's too early to tell. Who knows what'll happen in a few years time. Maybe Linux will then be ready for the general user, maybe not.

Although between XP and OS X, I'd have to say XP. I've never used OS X however I know Apple is very expensive. You can build your own computer, or buy a Dell or Medion and get Windows. Windows isn't as bad as many people claim - It is stable, easy to use, and so on. The only thing I may be able to understand is price (But then try and compare it to Apple and Windows is VERY cheap).

[Zundfolge]

Why would anyone dump Linux for OSX? Linux is open source. OSX is the same philosophy as Microsoft (without the whole taking over the world thing)...

There is open source software available for OSX ... and since its actually BSD you can just install X-11 and run all the same stuff we run on Ubuntu.


But the biggest reason I'd dump Linux for OSX is Adobe (but then again, Adobe software is what I use to put food in the cupbord and a roof over my head).



But to your original question, OSX (if you can afford the hardware) is much better for newbies then XP.


Also, the Mac must be compatible with a Cannon S520 printer and a Compaq S200 scanner...
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=OSCompatibilitySupportAct&keycode=macdr&fcategoryid=231&modelid=6611
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=OSCompatibilitySupportAct&keycode=macdr&fcategoryid=231&modelid=6608

[BWF89]

Yes, there is open source software avalible for OSX but it's not an open source operating system. There is OSS avalible for Windows too but it too is not an open source operating system...

[Zundfolge]

I see your point ... however since the OS comes with the hardware its not an extra expense (of course thats one advantage of Linux ... Upgrades are free).

I don't see open source as that much of an advantage from a technical position, however if you're really dedicated to the ideals of open source software then I can see where you would prefer Linux to OSX or XP.

However, if thats your motivation then Apple is probably a little less evil then Microsoft :p

[BWF89]

I'm in with Linux because of the free software ideals. I actually decided a few weeks before I had even tried my first distro that I was going to use Linux for the rest of my life. I got a little nervice when I tried it out for the first the because I had been telling my parents why Microsoft was evil and Linux was so great. I was like "Please god, don't let Linux suck". Luckily it didn't...

[CowPie]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/BWF89/XPvsOSX.png

Which is better, Windows XP or Macintosh OSX?

In a couple of years my parents will be getting a new computer, and I don't want this computer to Window$. I think Linux is pretty much out of the question so I'm going to try to get them to get a Mac. Can you guys come up with some reasons why Mac is superiour to Windows?

Also, the Mac must be compatible with a Cannon S520 printer and a Compaq S200 scanner...
XP, its much more configurbale + I hate the dock.

[#Greg]

Adobe software is available on Linux nowadays... Crossover Office, I believe, can run loads of Adobe software, comes pre-installed (if you choose) with Xandros.

Also, this is somewhat of a pointless thread, you can't decide on neither software or hardware NOW when in a couple of years they'll both be completely different to how they are now.

[eBopBob]

I'm in with Linux because of the free software ideals. I actually decided a few weeks before I had even tried my first distro that I was going to use Linux for the rest of my life. I got a little nervous when I tried it out for the first the because I had been telling my parents why Microsoft was evil and Linux was so great.
So you're against Microsoft because of it's paid-for software?
Can I ask, and I mean no offence, have you taken any business management classes recently?



Adobe software is available on Linux nowadays... Crossover Office, I believe, can run loads of Adobe software, comes pre-installed (if you choose) with Xandros.
From what I've heard though none of the programs run as well as they do in windows, and since Adobe Photo Shop is a graphics program, and if you do intensive graphics work, you need it to run just as well.



Also, this is somewhat of a pointless thread, you can't decide on neither software or hardware NOW when in a couple of years they'll both be completely different to how they are now.
This I totally agree on.

[shimon]

ubuntu is ready i tossed some oldees on it before my 60 year dad he can't remember his phone number anymore but gnome is easy enuff for him to use and browse the internet

[TravisNewman]

eBopBob, at some points I think you're comparing the wrong things... you say that Windows is a lot cheaper than OSX, but it really isn't. IBM-compatible PCs are cheaper than Apple computers, but MacOSX Panther retails for $129. That's not an upgrade version, that's full. You're looking at $299.98 for Windows XP Professional full version.

I see where you're coming from, but you can't rate an OS on the price of the hardware it runs on, you have to rate it on the OS itself, and the OS itself is a lot cheaper.

[Zundfolge]

The only Adobe product that functions well under Wine is Photoshop ... however if you want to run Illustrator or InDesign (which I live in) then forget it ... I couldn't even get InDesign to install under Wine, let alone run.

Photoshop, however, ran as well under Wine (when I was running Mandrake) as it did under XP.

I haven't succesfully got Wine to run under Ubuntu.


Thing is, since there are MacOS X versions of all the Adobe software, I'd think they could do Linux ports quite easily (since OSX is Unix).

[shimon]

Ubuntu Is Good Enuff For Them!!!

[BWF89]

So you're against Microsoft because of it's paid-for software?
Can I ask, and I mean no offence, have you taken any business management classes recently?
When I said 'free software" I ment "open source". Free software is just another name for OSS...

If I were to get a Linux for my parents I would probably go with a commercial version of it anyway. SuSE if I had to choose...

[eBopBob]

eBopBob, at some points I think you're comparing the wrong things... you say that Windows is a lot cheaper than OSX, but it really isn't. IBM-compatible PCs are cheaper than Apple computers, but MacOSX Panther retails for $129. That's not an upgrade version, that's full. You're looking at $299.98 for Windows XP Professional full version.

I see where you're coming from, but you can't rate an OS on the price of the hardware it runs on, you have to rate it on the OS itself, and the OS itself is a lot cheaper.
Sorry about that. Yeah, what I did mean was that overall a computer with Windows is cheaper than a Mac with Os X.



When I said 'free software" I ment "open source". Free software is just another name for OSS...
Not really... you can have software which is free, however not Open Source, while you can have paid software which is Open Source. Free doesn't mean Open Source while Open Source doesn't mean free. ;)

[YokoZar]

The only Adobe product that functions well under Wine is Photoshop ... however if you want to run Illustrator or InDesign (which I live in) then forget it ... I couldn't even get InDesign to install under Wine, let alone run.

Photoshop, however, ran as well under Wine (when I was running Mandrake) as it did under XP.Acrobat works well too.


I haven't succesfully got Wine to run under Ubuntu.Have you tried the Ubuntu wine packages at the winehq.org website, rather than the ones in the Universe repository? The Ubuntu backports project also has the packages.

[CowPie]

Acrobat works well too.

Have you tried the Ubuntu wine packages at the winehq.org website, rather than the ones in the Universe repository? The Ubuntu backports project also has the packages.
Follow this guide for some WINE help: http://wiki.shareaza.com/static/ShareazaLinux

It includes how to get IE and WMP installed on Linux...

[MrKrabs]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/BWF89/XPvsOSX.png

Which is better, Windows XP or Macintosh OSX?

In a couple of years my parents will be getting a new computer, and I don't want this computer to Window$. I think Linux is pretty much out of the question so I'm going to try to get them to get a Mac. Can you guys come up with some reasons why Mac is superiour to Windows?

Also, the Mac must be compatible with a Cannon S520 printer and a Compaq S200 scanner...
Hi. I am new to these forums but I thought since you were asking about the Macs you might like to know about something that is supposed to be happening inthe next few months.

Below is the article. Enjoy.


EXCLUSIVE: Apple to drop sub-$500 Mac bomb at Expo
December 28, 2004 - With iPod-savvy Windows users clearly in its sights, Apple is expected to announce a bare bones, G4-based iMac without a display at Macworld Expo on January 11 that will retail for $499, highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret.

The new Mac, code-named Q88, will be part of the iMac family and is expected to sport a PowerPC G4 processor at a speed around 1.25GHz. The new Mac is said to be incredibly small and will be housed in a flat enclosure with a height similar to the 1.73 inches of Apple's Xserve. Its size benefits will include the ability to stand the Mac on its side or put it below a display or monitor.


Along with lowering costs by forgoing a display (Apple's entry-level eMac sells for $799 with a built-in 17-inch CRT display), the so-called "headless" iMac will allow Apple's target audience -- Windows users looking for a cheap, second PC -- to keep their current peripherals or decide on their own what to pair with the system, be it a high-priced LCD display or an inexpensive display. Sources expect the device to feature both DVI and VGA connectivity, although whether this will be provided through dual ports or through a single DVI port with a VGA adapter remains to be seen.

The new Mac is expected to have a Combo drive only, but will possibly have an upgrade path to a SuperDrive at a higher price. It is unclear how big the hard drive capacity will be, although sources indicate it will be between 40GB and 80GB.

Other expected features of the iMac include:

* 256MB of RAM
* USB 2.0
* FireWire 400
* 10/100 BASE-T Ethernet
* 56K V.92 modem
* AirPort Extreme support



In terms of software, Apple will include a special iLife suite (minus iDVD) as well as AppleWorks, sources believe.

The new Mac is expected to be introduced by Apple CEO Steve Jobs at his keynote address on Tuesday, January 11, but is not expected to be available until later in the first quarter. Sources indicate "issues" have arisen in production of the new Mac, but that Apple never planned on shipping the new device immediately upon introduction. The plan is to air freight the new model from its manufacturing plants in Asia for at least the first three months of shipments, sources report.

The announcement of the new, inexpensive Mac will be a dream come true for Mac aficionados who have begged and pleaded for years to see just such a PC. Until now, the company has downplayed speculation that it would get into the low-end PC market. "In terms of our pricing, I feel very good about where each of our product lines are priced," Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO, said in October. "To date, we have chosen not to compete in the sub-$800 desktop market and have put that R&D investment in expanding our products in the music area, in software, and in hardware."

So what has changed to motivate Apple in producing a low-cost Mac? In a word, iPod.

"Think of your traditional iPod owner," said a source. "This new product will be for a Windows user who has experienced the iPod, the ease of use of the iTunes software, and has played around with a Mac at an Apple retail store just long enough to know he'd buy one if it were a little cheaper."

Apple executives announced on October 13 that 45% to 50% of its retail store customers bought a Mac as their first PC or were new to the platform in the fiscal fourth-quarter. The company has refused to divulge more exacting figures on iPod buyers who also buy a Mac, for competitive reasons.

According to sources, internal Apple surveys of its retail store customers and those buying iPods showed a large number of PC users would be willing to buy a Mac if it were cheap enough, less of a virus carrier than PCs (which all Macs already are), and offered easier to use software solutions not available on Windows-based PCs. Now, Apple feels it has the answer.

Apple has been working on the low-end Mac for almost a year, sources report. Indications are Apple has been working mostly on finding the right mix of price, performance and features that would motivate Windows users to consider a Mac, and less on the actual engineering of the product. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to design a bare-bones PC," said one source familiar with the project. "What it takes is a team of marketing and software experts to find the right mix to convince Windows users to buy a Mac at a price that is not much more than the cost of an iPod."

Sources familiar with the product cautioned that the low-end Mac will be marketed towards a totally different audience than those who traditionally buy even a $799 eMac. "This product is not going to be about performance," said a source close to Apple. "This is going to be the basics, but with just as much of a focus on software as any Mac could ever be."

[BWF89]

You can run OSX on a regular computer right?

[alpha]

You can run OSX on a regular computer right? No macs only.

[node]

Everyone asks when Linux will be ready for mass consumption ... It is and its called Mac OSX.



If I could afford to buy a new Mac I'd dump Linux in a heartbeat for OSX (of course I'm a professional Graphic Designer so a Mac is really best for me professionaly anyway).

When compared to XP, there is no comparison ... allowing a "non-geek" type to run windows is like allowing a 4 year old to play with a loaded revolver ... at least OSX is safe from virii and spyware (like the rest of *nix) and its very easy to use (everything is done via GUI).
OSX is so NOT Linux. :confused:

[MrKrabs]

You can run OSX on a regular computer right?

Unfortunatly no. Mac OS X is strictly set up for the hardware that Apple has put together for the Mac PPC.

However if this new IMac does come to pass in just a few short months the demand for them will no doubt be very high, so there should be no shortage of good Macs available.

Just try to remember that a Mac though it is a personal computer, it is not a PC. And as such it is not compatable with the PC architecture.

However it is compatable with some/many PC periferals. Moniters, printers, scanners. Keyboard and mouse I think must be Mac but I may be wrong about that.

[SKLP]

Yes, there is open source software avalible for OSX but it's not an open source operating system.The base of OS X, Darwin, is in fact free software. It is available for x86 as well ass ppc, but the rest of OS X, apples proprietary stuff, is mac-only (ppc-binaries).
So I guess you could say Apple is less "evil" than microsoft.
But, I really don't consider Microsoft evil, they're just trying to make money, like all companies.

Mac OS X vs Windows: Mac OS X, any day.

- *NIX
- (IMO) superior interface
- Nice-looking GUI
- Superior graphics and audio technologies (Quartz, Quartz Extreme, Quartz 2D Extreme, CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreImage, CoreGraphics...)
- It's cheaper than Windows :P
- Nearly no viruses (just like GNU/Linux...)
And more...

The only advantage I can think of that windows has is
- Very supported (nearly all software today is available for windows, including drivers, games etc)

Mac OS X vs Ubuntu: Not sure....

Ubuntu, advantages
- Ubuntu is free software
- Like all GNU/Linux distributions ubuntu uses the Linux kernel, which means it supports a lot of hardware (OS X only supports macs)
- APT (w/ synaptic) means easy access to thousands of totally free applications
- If you run it on x86 hardware you can run many win32 applications through wine, cedega and cxoffice
- Cheaper (The OS is free and some free software like OO.o doesn't feel native on OS X (when running under X) so you might want to waste money on software like MS Office)
- Due to the extensive hardware support you can buy a really cheap computer...
Probably some more...

OS X, advantages
- (IMO) Better application/window management (The Dock and a single menu bar rocks :D)
- Supports the hardware supported (new macs) very well
- Lots of professional proprietary expensive software available natively (Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Flash, Quark Express, Indesign ...)
- Access to mac-only applications (f.e. The iApps[except for iTunes which is available for windows so you can run it thru cxoffice], Graphic Converter, Apples pro-apps[Logic, FCP, FCE..)
Probably some more...

[Zundfolge]

OSX is so NOT Linux. :confused:

You are correct ... OSX is BSD Unix, not Linux :razz:

6 of one ... a half dozen of the other ... close enough to "linux for the masses" to me.

YokoZar, whaduhyahknow ... there IS a Ubuntu package for wine ... got it installed and Photoshop runs fine. Acrobat Reader does as well, but there are already tools for linux that read PDF files so thats not really a dealbreaker.

I've read that Illustrator can be made to work with wine (maybe only up to V.9 though).

[arctic]

back to the initial question: it simply depends on what someone wants to do with his computer and what he is used to. if they only know windows, it can be hard to "turn" them to other operating systems. from an average user point of view, mac osx is a lot more intuitive than windows. even linux-distros can be configured to be more intuitive for the average user. however, macs are primarily workhorses for graphic design and professional printing jobs (i use g5's and imacs at work) and thus maybe a bit too much (power) for the average user. if the user only wants to do some surfing on the web and writing some documents, i would suggest something like mandrake or linspire. windows is a nono due to its rather insecure structure as long as ie forms an integral part of the kernel and as long as they are this expensive.

just my two cents.