Microsoft Vs. Macintosh Which operation system is the best

[galexcd 0]

But i like your idea get a mac and just multi-boot. Very smart. Now since you do that with a mac does it slow it down much? I mean i have never thought of doing that.

Unless you are using vmware or something to run the two operating systems side by side, it won't slow down the computer at all. You are just reading different partitions on the harddrive. Imagine an opperating system is a book. Now you wouldn't be able to read two books at the same time two fast, but if you could choose one book to read and only one at a time, you would be able to read it very efficiently.

[williamm 0]

Unless you are using vmware or something to run the two operating systems side by side, it won't slow down the computer at all. You are just reading different partitions on the harddrive. Imagine an opperating system is a book. Now you wouldn't be able to read two books at the same time two fast, but if you could choose one book to read and only one at a time, you would be able to read it very efficiently.

Ok i see, That makes alot more sense now that i look at it. Well i'm considering to get a mac, for my design work.

[rayzoredge 2]

There are a number of books written even on the difference of Mac-heads and windoze users... (The Cult of Apple, I believe is one). It gets to an interesting phenom - that mac users will actually proselytize non-users that they are basically going to hell, and they spend their time, like religious fanatics, "recruiting" and "converting" windoze folk. (disclaimer, I user a mac - I feel dirty every time I user windoze).

I love that. It applies to every single thing though... I'm sure Windows and Linux users love to offer their OS's and point out their superior points over the Mac OS. (Cue in the Mac-head response of: "What superior points?" )

 

From the end point of usability macs are just more straight forward. windows constantly throws unexpected curves at you (try having two drives in a windows machine and taking one out... or scrub a drive and put it into a windows machine - get ready for 8 hours of fun - "Disk Error...No OS found..." (no crap Sherlock, but of course you can't install the OS then either). I spent 2 hour ripping down and reinstalling Leopard into a mac. In equivalent terms (same level machine, same level OS) I spent 12 HOURS re-installing XP and updating it (Service Packs are never compiled into "all in one" there are like a billion pieces).

From what I understand, Apple aimed for user friendliness. This spun off a ton of spoofs where people made fun of Mac users, portraying them as retarded and/or kiddish. I'm guilty of looking at the white Mac-books as Fisher-Price-looking machines... but then again, I say that about the Asus eeePC too. But 12 hours on an XP machine? You must be an IT guy and having to install EVERYTHING... I complete my XP reinstalls within an hour, but then again, I install Windows XP Professional SP1, then install SP2, and then install all my drivers for my hardware... not to mention I do it locally on my personal machine. (I can see how 12 hours can be realistic installing from a server and having to use Windows Update.) Never had experience with Leopard... but I'm sure installing a Mac OS is probably about as hard as installing Linux, which isn't bad at all considering the power you have over the installation. Then again, that's just in my opinion.

 

And windows notorious attitude (under the software hood, I mean) of railroading users into their system is always annoying. Take the recent implementation of Silverlight - supposed to be the next Adobe Flash killer. MS and NBC (under MSNBC, duh) joined forces and crammed this down folks digital throats when they discovered the ONLY way to watch live video around the world for the Olympics was to install this plug in. They even made it for Mac users. Problem. It ONLY works on *very* high end (recent) macs AND pcs - Macs *must* be Intel-based for example. So, in an opportunity to show case new software they pissed off about 90% of mac users that don't have intel machines, and probably 50% of window users. And all during a time when people would REALLY want to be watching something they can't get anywhere else.

I was wondering what the heck happened to Silverlight. Since its inception back when I posted about it, I never heard anything about it until now. So much for widespread compatibility and usability...

 

I understand that M$ has to railroad people into using their technologies... why wouldn't any company NOT do it? There's two approaches to the whole scheme of things: rope people into using your stuff and reap in those rewards, or offer it as an "option" and garner a fanbase "voluntarily" to increase your good-guy status (*coughGooglecough*) and gain popularity for your other, more subtle money-making plans (like advertisement).

 

So for me it's a no brainer - but mac (apple, more correctly) has been following some of these monopolistic cues as well - like iTunes, iWeb and the recent launch of iPhone and the Apps store with Me.com that all but eviscerated all mac.com users usual experience with dotmac for a bunch of new folk getting shiny phones (and the launch was an abysmal mess - which they admit). But on the other end still macs provide start to finish product control. Their design is simply unparalled. Windoze boxes (until recently with HP and Dell maybe) have been some of the UGLIEST pieces of industrial design EVER conceived. They have always been something you HID from view. Macs are meant to be on display! Now folks might think that's quibbling but that means a fundamentally different relationship with the materials you are using = and the likelihood you'd use it more (the washing machine is usually in the basement for a reason.)

Keep in mind that Apple creates their own form factors. Apples are sold as wholes and no one else provides the custom potential that being able to build your own PC offers. Then again, I don't see why you can't just build a PC and install Leopard onto it, considering the fact that a computer is a computer, now with the whole fair share of Intel processors between the two. (Am I missing something here?) However, it is a very nice deal that Apple actually works in creating sleek-looking machines, and although I've never owned one, I can safely say that I don't miss the tangle of cords when playing with the higher-end Macs at my local Best Buy. In all reality, you could get away with hiding as many cords as possible by going wireless with every peripheral as Apple has worked tirelessly on improving the looks of their machines, but unfortunately, I don't know of anyone outside of custom work that actually features a case that's designed to tuck away cords or exclusively depend on hiding USB dongles and wireless receivers.

 

Then again, anything's possible, and I aim to create the best solution in lessening the tangle that has plagued PC owners for the longest time when I build my next desktop.

 

-

 

I used to be a wicked Mac basher. Nowadays, to me a computer is a computer. I don't care for all the arguments for and against PCs or Macs. They say that Macs are better for media applications... but really, it's the software. Has anyone compared iMovie or whatever Macs have to Adobe's suite of video-editing software (like Premiere, After Effects, and GreenRoom)? What about Vegas? I don't know much about the field, so I'm probably being ignorant, but last time I checked, the superiority of a machine being able to process media data lies within an Intel chip, which both PCs and Macs have access to. (I don't know why; I just know that they are better with multimedia as opposed to AMD's superiority with gaming processes with their on-die buffers.)

 

Any computer people can explain why a Macintosh is better than a PC hardware-wise? (And no, we're off the aesthetics discussion. ) I'm convinced otherwise that the guts of both computers are pretty much identical.

[williamm 0]

I think that macs and windows are nice to have in the same business. For instance. Such as a web design business. I would give the Designers a MAC. For the Adobe programs. Since mac is a design OS. Then i would let everyone else have windows. Such as techs, and secretaries. They need them also. But macs should be limited to certain people that need to use them. Like I'm a web designer and all i have is Windows Computers. I want to get a Mac, so that i can have a better design computer. When you try running Adobe on Windows computers, it takes up a lot of computer usage. Then you computer becomes slow and unstable. Unlike Mac, they will run Adobe programs and still keep the stability up. I think thats what i need to do is get a mac.So if any of you like me want to start a Web Design Business, and don't know what kind of computers to get for your designers, think about macs, it will make you and your designers more satisfied. I know i will when i get my business started.williamm@clubnet-host.com

[D d s twin 0]

Mac= Mosly used by media,desiging, and moreWindows = Home computer, for popular, most of the programs can just run on windowsBad of Microsoft, to steal Apple's Macintosh's Source.Windows got more popular, but Mac is more Powerful,Safer,faster, but that windows could'nt do is to run a Mac on a Windows,But Windows can run on a MacSoo the result is:Mac Wins!