mac or windows? which do u think is better

[gdude335 0]

design goes to mac. programs are good for editing on mac but windows has way more programs. I prefer windows cause of all the games on it

[vladimir1405241474 0]

I like pc more! you have much more games on that...but that means you also have to use windows to play games, what I dont really like!Mac is better if you want to work...the operation system of mac is not that easy I think.Pc is better...

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I keep wondering how people find the Mac OS hard to use. I can only assume they don't use it much and because its 'not windows' it is therefore hard.

[Soleq 0]

I keep wondering how people find the Mac OS hard to use.  I can only assume they don't use it much and because its 'not windows' it is therefore hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I completely agree with you. It's like those who believe that driving a clutch is hard. It's not hard, it's just different. Except that the analogy should really be inversed, which I don't really want to bother typing out right now.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I noticed an above comment about 'what windows is for'. So, I decided to do a quick rundown of what the different OS's are 'for'First, Windows:Windows is an excellent OS for gamers because it is 1. Cheap, 2. Fast for games, 3. Has lots of games. It is a reasonable OS for people who do tasks that require MS Office, but not the best because of the multiple security vulnerabilities inherent in the Windows/office framework. Windows is an ok OS for programmers. It has a decent number of programming environments, but all of them cost money or are ports from unix/linux. Game programming and such can be done on windows because often as not the games are being compiled for windows, and this makes things easier. Other programmers will find it at best nothing special, and sometimes the compilers for windows are outright buggy.Windows is a TERRIBLE OS for anyone/anything involved in security. Windows of all flavors has multiple gaping security holes, including remote exploits(Exploits that can be executed remotely without use of a worm or virus to gain control of a target system). Windows is an acceptable system for graphic artists. It has a multitude of graphics software including photoshop and painter, as well as a wide assortment of 3d graphics programs. However, windows's stability problems as well as sometimes shaky support of certain standards means that these products may occasionally crash for no good reason. This is rare but it happens. Also, the weaknesses of windows networking code and networking model mean that it is hard to string multiple workstations together to use cluster computing for large rendering tasks. Most people don't need this, but its true.Ok, Mac OS XNot the greatest platform for gamers because it does not get all the games that windows does. It usually gets the latest games after windows and then still at the original release price. That being said, Macs do get most of the 'big' games and they generally run just fine.An Excellent platform for generic office work. Some specific needs however may not be met. For those needing microsoft office, it exists on the Mac, in a well executed version. In addition, the mac version does not suffer from the same security problems posed by the PC version. Mac OSX runs on top of FreeBSD which is very stable and crash resistent, helping to avoid crashing and data loss. Finally, OSX has system wide services such as spellchecking that enable spellchecking in all office programs including things like email.Programming. Apple released the Xcode tools which give the OSX platform access to the same tools as *nix users. Not all IDE's may have been ported however, and since I don't do much programming I cannot personally vouch for the exact level of quality. that being said, a programmer friend of mine recently bought an ibook and loves it. Therefore, It seems reasonable for me to think that programming tools on OSX are at least 'very good'. I suggest looking around to make sure whatever you need is available, just as a precaution(cause I can't tell you here and now unfortunately)Security. Mac OSX runs on FreeBSD, which is rather secure. Not to the degree of something like say..openBSD but still very solid. Like any *nix system tools exist to further lock down the system and avoid attack. Graphics. Mac OSX has the most robust set of tools available. The major 3d Graphics program providers have mac versions. Photoshop and Painter and such are also all available on OSX. OSX also has built in color matching and monitor adjustment controls that are vital to high end graphics work. Furthermore, the *nix backend allows macs to work together on rendering projects, which is helpfull for large pieces of work. Final Cut Pro HD is the best consumer video editing software on the market(some say best period), and is available only on the Mac. In addition, I understand that a number of pre-press software packages are mac only.And one more oddball category:UsabilityOSX does not have the disk fragmentation problems of the assorted windows versions. OSX also handles multi-tasking much more gracefully. OSX's memory handling prevents a crash of one program(which almost never happens anyway), from hurting the stability of the rest of the system. For the sake of completeness: LinuxProgramming: Like all the flavors of *nix, Linux was made by programmers for programmers, and therefore has a full set of every possible tool a programmer might need. It is fantastic by all reports from my programmer friendsGaming: Not a lot of it, sadly. Nuff saidGraphics: Linux has access to the GIMP, and a number of other imaging tools. A version of the GIMP, called Film-GIMP(and I think it is now called by yet another name) exists for video. None of these programs are as robust as Photoshop or Final Cut Pro, but they are free, which is nice. Some 3d programs like Blender exist for Linux, but far from all. Crossover office will allow linux users to run photoshop as well as many other windows programs, which helps. Wine is a free program that does things similar to crossover, but is not quite as robust. So, not a terrible choice outright, but still significantly weaker than either windows or mac. Security and Networking: Once again, fantastic marks. These tasks are what *nix was really made for, and what it is trully good at.Office Tasks: Once again, linux has problems. Openoffice is quite nice, but isn't at the level of MS office(sadly, because I really want to get rid of MS office). Like with graphics, Wine or Crossover office, etc, can help deal with this problem. Still, Linux has limited support for assorted hardware like scanners or digital cameras which you might wish to use in the assorted office tasks people do. That being said, none of these things might apply to you and it would therefore be just fine.General Useability: The last time I used linux it still had a long way to go. Different flavors have different methods for installing software, and there are multiple different GUI setups, which is both good and bad. Good for reasons of choice, but bad for useability and consistency, which is very important(Warning:this opinion may be a result of bias due to my training in ergonomics, just fyi). Kernel 2.6 apparently has made the user interface much snappier, which is good. Still, setup and configuration as well as software installation, really the entire genre of 'intuitiveness' still has a ways to go. Once again, this may not matter to you, and if so, good for you.

[qwijibow 0]

Windows... Cheap..... its the most expensive OS available, you could Buy a PlayStayion2 for the price of WindowsXP

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Windows... Cheap..... its the most expensive OS available, you could Buy a PlayStayion2 for the price of WindowsXP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except none of the gamers I know ever actually PAY for windows. It comes with their computer, or they get a copy from someone, etc. Also, as far as OS's go, its cheaper than the Mac, which is the only other OS to regularly get large games. Thats why I called it cheap.

[qwijibow 0]

Except none of the gamers I know ever actually PAY for windows.  It comes with their computer, or they get a copy from someone, etc.  Also, as far as OS's go, its cheaper than the Mac, which is the only other OS to regularly get large games.  Thats why I called it cheap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well.. if your going to steal it, everything is cheap !

you cant claim a BMW is cheaper than a push bike because you know how to hotwire.

 

and just necause windows is PRE installed, does not mean you didnt ppay for it.

Linux users can usually return there windows install CD after clicking "I DO NOT AGREE TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS" for a refund after buying a new pc.

 

like i said earlyer.... i dont know about where you shop, but in england, shops like Game sell Windows Games... some of which will run on Linux native, or Linux Wine.. but ive never seen a MAC section.

[-=Wrighty=- 0]

Well, 99% of the time, if you have WIndows pre-installed it was paid for in the price you paid for the PC.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

or, you had a copy of windows left over from a while ago, or you have a copy from your friend that installed linux, or, or, or....The point is windows generally doesn't cost people money. That might be because they already have it.As for you not having a mac games section in England, no idea. It might be because there isn't a large enough mac user base in England to make it worth the space. Over here, in NC, there are mac sections in the CompUSA stores, but no linux sections.

[qwijibow 0]

or, you had a copy of windows left over from a while ago, or you have a copy from your friend that installed linux, or, or, or....The point is windows generally doesn't cost people money. That might be because they already have it.

like i said earlyer, you cannot take price into account if you are planning on stealing it.
if its pre-installed, then its proce was added to the price of the computer.

windows IS the most expensive home PC operating system available.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

But for most people it is still cheap. And you don't necessarily pay for the OS with every computer. If I buy 3 computers in a row, each time an upgrade, I might still be running the same copy of win2k(true) on the third one. So how much is win2k spread over the 3 computers? considering you pay a lot less for it OEM, about 40 bucks a computer. Still money, but at say....10 dollars an hour(dirt cheap wage), If I spend 12 hours messing with say, Linux+Wine trying to get it to run or work or what have you, I break even. You may be used to linux, but for people who aren't, it will probably take them at least that long to get things running correctly and smoothly unless they are one of the lucky people who happen to have perfectly auto-detected hardware. Then, for running games, they still have to mess with Wine, which is another pain in the *bottom*. In any case, I don't know why you make such a big deal about the cost of windows, its sorta irrelevant. Just take that out of my rundown if you don't agree with it. The fact is windows is still the best for games by a WIDE margin, cost or no.

[lastlegion 0]

Windows is the best. Most of the big programms are built for Windows and you dont want a computer without good programmes. I havnt try mac but Im happy with WIN

[qwijibow 0]

If I spend 12 hours messing with say, Linux+Wine trying to get it to run or work or what have you, I break even.

Okay.. we are all biased towards our favorites, but thats a hell of an overstatement.
i can install Linux + The Office programs + multimedia + everything i need in 15 minues on my Athlon 1.3Ghz machine.

Plus... some things dake a little more time to do in linux.... but i think the added reliability stability and securety alone is worth it.

Plus, there are things which are EASY to do in linux, which are physically impossible with windows...

for example, take my normal 3 computers, on each computer i emerged openMosix. thats as simple as a few clicks of the mouse.

and now, my 3 computers work as a single, tripple Processor Desktop computer.

Ever tried to encode a true DVD format iso from a full quality compressed media format ?
takes hours, my machine will do it in a third of the time,

this feature is invaluable to anyone who has more than one computer in their house.

how long untill windows can share cpu power whist allowing all computers to function as multiple cpu machines ?

Linux is not good at being windows... however, for those of us who use our computers for anything other than playing games, Linux is a very powerfull tool.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Okay.. we are all biased towards our favorites, but thats a hell of an overstatement.i can install Linux + The Office programs +  multimedia + everything i need in 15 minues on my Athlon 1.3Ghz machine.

Right, YOU can install linux in 15 minutes. The 'typical user' will not. And getting everything to work correctly, especially if there are any snags, (for instance the Issue I had where I had a driver but couldn't get it to install for no good reason) then the time goes up for those people dramatically.

In terms of being a powerful tool, thats usefull and all, but frankly, none of that stuff matters to me. On a day to day basis, I need email, webbrowsing, office utilities, and the ability to play music. I need that all to work, and I need for my computer to give me zero crap about it. It needs to not crash, be easy to use, and in general never make me care about the computer. If I spend any of my time messing with the computer, I don't spend that time getting whatever it that I am trying to get done, done. Some people, probably you included, see messing with and learning about computers as an end in itself. Which is fine, but others(like myself) do not, or only want to have to do this when we feel like it. My exerience with linux is that it very quickly gets in my way when trying to get work done, and that even when I am willing to sit down for a bit and try figuring things out, the documentation is sparse or just outright terrible, and it turns into layers of frustration.