Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: HopperJF on December 01, 2004, 06:11:05 PM
-
I seen this discussion on the Mac Format board.. which do you prefer and why?
I know this may be accused of as flamebait, and I know Windows will probably win because the user base is larger.. but I am more interested in WHY you think its the best rather than how many of you think what OS is the best.
I love OSX simply because it is so reliable and so easy to use, and so comfortable. I don't know why I thnk that - I just do and I'm not talking bull either.. I mean I could easily flog the Mac and get an x86 box if I preferred Windows.. or ANY x86 operating system for that matter. Before OSX that is a different story, but in them days (1990s) I really enjoyed working with AmigaOS because like the MacOS, I felt comfortable using it and it was reliable and fast. (AmigaOS 3.1 would boot off my hard drive in 5 seconds flat.. on a 14MHz Amiga 1200!!) but times have changed, although AmigaOS 4 looks very nice, I decided to switch to a more up-to-date operating system with better support. Linux would have been nice but it is awkward to use and I'd be lost in a spaghetti of different distributions and architectures.
I wanted things simple - like the Amiga.
MacOS was the only way to go, and boy am I glad I made that decision. I don't want to support a monopoly, one of a bad product at that, so Windows was out of the question. A nice Mac was what I needed. And OSX is just the best release of the operating system by far, it is absolutely revolutionary compared to all the other OS's on the market, INCLUDING the much-praised Windows XP which I happen to think is a load of bollocks, badly written drivers, ugly eye-candy and compatibility issues, whilst OSX is a seamless upgrade from the previous generations of the MacOS whilst retaining all the attribues that make MacOS so great and pleasurable in the first place.. which includes ease-of-use, reliability and functionality.. not to mention being friendly.
The only good OS Microsoft have made in my opinion is DOS. If DOS was still being developed and supported I'd probably use it as well as OSX but it doesn't so..
OSX wins hands-down, no matter what the Windows users may say.. I have used both and OSX is definitely the better OS. OSX is the way to go baby!!!
Next?? :-)
-
I've just thought to make this less of a flame-risk and more interesting, not just Windows or OSX but ANY OS you prefer to use and why. :-)
-
I like my OS X too, it's got largely all the stuff I need but I wish they'd stop adding features. If I could install a cutdown version with all the sort of stuff I don't need taken out, it would fly on lower end machines and leave more power to throw at graphically intensive games or something else, perhaps video editing or rendering 3D stuff.
It's one of the best of the bloated OS bunch though. :-D
-
I dont have a Mac so I'd say Windows... Win 2k to be exact.
-
Betcha this thread devolves real quick...
I gotta say, either OS should work fine. Just make sure you get MS Office to complete it!
Sorry! Didn't realise this was posted in the Amiga Software discussion forum. I'll drop off the thread.
-
I find OSX a bit "Computing for those that don't want to be computing". It's a nice, and I could live with it if I had to, but I do prefer WinXP (with the eyecandy switched off).
I hate eye candy... I want just enough gui to do the job in hand :-)
-
@HopperJF
Are you joking??
OS X really kick ass :-) It is a great operating system, probably the best outhere for home users.
MAC RULEZ :-)
-
I first used Windows in 1995 after not having used a computer since 1991 (Amiga WB1.3). I thought it was pretty good when I first started using it, but after a few days I started getting annoyed. It seemed that Windows was fighting me every step of the way. Things that should have been obvious were tedious and stupidly designed.
Then after being forced to use Windows every day at work, my annoyances became extreme stress. To cut down on the stress, I made a text file which I called "Windows Stupidity" listing all bugs and bad design that Microsoft never fixed. I added to it whenever I found a new bug or moronic design. That text file got pretty damn big! Anyway, when OSX came out I was thrilled. It blew away Windows! (at that time Windows NT/2000 - I haven't used XP)
Of course, then I decided to severely upgrade my Amiga and I'm happy and calm now. The Amiga is far from perfect, but I can almost always get it to do what I want - without it actively preventing me from doing things. Modern technology seems to be more about controlling the users and protecing investment, rather than ease and freedom of use.
-
I regularly use AmigaOS, Win2K and OSX 10.3
There's plenty to admire and dislike about all of them. OSX, IMHO is great for no hassle home computing, but alas at work it's largely a pain in the bum. I have to spend half my time in the terminal to get anything useful done.
Win2K, is of course the spawn of that great bane of computer software, MS. Despite this I find it pretty useful. Of course it can be a total pain in the backside too, but so can OSX or AmigaOS.
AmigaOS, on the whole suits me down to the ground. Only the lack of applications is the drawback for me. In terms of what an OS should feel like, to me it is perfect - the balance between ease of use and flexibility is just right.
-
Karlos wrote:
I regularly use AmigaOS, Win2K and OSX 10.3
There's plenty to admire and dislike about all of them. OSX, IMHO is great for no hassle home computing, but alas at work it's largely a pain in the bum. I have to spend half my time in the terminal to get anything useful done.
Win2K, is of course the spawn of that great bane of computer software, MS. Despite this I find it pretty useful. Of course it can be a total pain in the backside too, but so can OSX or AmigaOS.
AmigaOS, on the whole suits me down to the ground. Only the lack of applications is the drawback for me. In terms of what an OS should feel like, to me it is perfect - the balance between ease of use and flexibility is just right.
Karlos expressed my views better than I did :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
I find OSX a bit "Computing for those that don't want to be computing". It's a nice, and I could live with it if I had to, but I do prefer WinXP (with the eyecandy switched off).
I hate eye candy... I want just enough gui to do the job in hand :-)
I feel exactly the same about Windows.. I mean who runs Windows because they are interested in computing.. most users run it because they HAVE to for compatibility purposes, or simply because its the only OS they are aware of..
MacOS is definitely more enthusiast orientated if you ask me..
-
I use Windows XP. It's the mainstream OS that's why. I also like the OS X GUI but... it's no use. For me.
-
ikir wrote:
@HopperJF
Are you joking??
OS X really kick ass :-) It is a great operating system, probably the best outhere for home users.
MAC RULEZ :-)
No I'm not joking, I feel exactly the same as you.
-
tolismlf wrote:
I use Windows XP. It's the mainstream OS that's why. I also like the OS X GUI but... it's no use. For me.
OSX is also a mainstream OS :-)
-
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Btw at local university students can choose to use OS X, MacOS 8 (yuck! terror!) or Windows XP. I don't know why but Window XP machines are always populated, few activists are using MacOS 8 (!) and OS X machines stay unused. You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page) but Macs are still mostly unused... There are also few Linux machines for email reading via Pine. They are almost always occupied, too.
-
>>You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page)
That's strange! My guess is the university must have an app that tracks print jobs and chrages back the students, but the app is not avilable on the Mac so they waive tha charge?!?
I wonder if you could emulate a Mac on the PC and print from the emulation to avoid a charge? :)
-
FastRobPlus wrote:
>>You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page)
That's strange! My guess is the university must have an app that tracks print jobs and chrages back the students, but the app is not avilable on the Mac so they waive tha charge?!?
I wonder if you could emulate a Mac on the PC and print from the emulation to avoid a charge? :)
PearPC :-D
-
HopperJF wrote:
I seen this discussion on the Mac Format board.. which do you prefer and why?
I know this may be accused of as flamebait, and I know Windows will probably win because the user base is larger.. but I am more interested in WHY you think its the best rather than how many of you think what OS is the best.
I love OSX simply because it is so reliable and so easy to use, and so comfortable. I don't know why I thnk that - I just do and I'm not talking bull either.. I mean I could easily flog the Mac and get an x86 box if I preferred Windows.. or ANY x86 operating system for that matter. Before OSX that is a different story, but in them days (1990s) I really enjoyed working with AmigaOS because like the MacOS, I felt comfortable using it and it was reliable and fast. (AmigaOS 3.1 would boot off my hard drive in 5 seconds flat.. on a 14MHz Amiga 1200!!) but times have changed, although AmigaOS 4 looks very nice, I decided to switch to a more up-to-date operating system with better support. Linux would have been nice but it is awkward to use and I'd be lost in a spaghetti of different distributions and architectures.
I wanted things simple - like the Amiga.
MacOS was the only way to go,
Thanks for a supporting a partly owned Microsoft OS for PowerPC i.e. at least MS's $150 million USD was invested during Apple Corp's dark days.
and boy am I glad I made that decision. I don't want to support a monopoly,
You may already have supported Microsoft by purchasing any 8bit PCs with MS BasicOS installed e.g. Commodore, Apple, MSX and ‘etc’.
one of a bad product at that, so Windows was out of the question. A nice Mac was what I needed. And OSX is just the best release of the operating system by far, it is absolutely revolutionary compared to all the other OS's on the market, INCLUDING the much-praised Windows XP which I happen to think is a load of bollocks, badly written drivers, ugly eye-candy and compatibility issues,
For GUI look, use either Silver or Royale themes(only with Windows XP 2005 MCE). The royale theme is similar to AOS4’s blue metallic window scheme.
whilst OSX is a seamless upgrade from the previous generations of the MacOS whilst retaining all the attribues that make MacOS so great and pleasurable in the first place.. which includes ease-of-use, reliability and functionality.. not to mention being friendly.
The only good OS Microsoft have made in my opinion is DOS. If DOS was still being developed and supported I'd probably use it as well as OSX but it doesn't so..
OSX wins hands-down, no matter what the Windows users may say.. I have used both and OSX is definitely the better OS. OSX is the way to go baby!!!
Next?? :-)
MacOS X and DOS are somewhat contradictory. No matter how you skin it, Microsoft still gets you. ;)
-
itix wrote:
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Yeah because tellytubbies XP is much better! :roflmao:
:crazy:
-
bloodline wrote:
FastRobPlus wrote:
>>You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page)
That's strange! My guess is the university must have an app that tracks print jobs and chrages back the students, but the app is not avilable on the Mac so they waive tha charge?!?
I wonder if you could emulate a Mac on the PC and print from the emulation to avoid a charge? :)
PearPC :-D
Hey it works the other way around too. You can have the better PPC architecture and emulate Windows XP on a Mac if you reeealy want to!! :crazy:
-
HopperJF wrote:
itix wrote:
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Yeah because tellytubbies XP is much better! :roflmao:
:crazy:
You can switch tellytubby mode off on XP... you can't on OSX :-(
-
Why is OSX and DOS contradictory?
I just dont like Windows :-)
-
bloodline wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
itix wrote:
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Yeah because tellytubbies XP is much better! :roflmao:
:crazy:
You can switch tellytubby mode off on XP... you can't on OSX :-(
Wronnng :lol:
-
HopperJF wrote:
itix wrote:
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Yeah because tellytubbies XP is much better! :roflmao:
:crazy:
It has been replaced with Royale theme in MS Windows XP MCE 2005.
-
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
itix wrote:
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Yeah because tellytubbies XP is much better! :roflmao:
:crazy:
You can switch tellytubby mode off on XP... you can't on OSX :-(
Wronnng :lol:
Then tell me how, because OSX is really annoying.
-
HopperJF wrote:
Why is OSX and DOS contradictory?
Both are fundamentally similar.
I just dont like Windows :-)
Your choice...
-
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
FastRobPlus wrote:
>>You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page)
That's strange! My guess is the university must have an app that tracks print jobs and chrages back the students, but the app is not avilable on the Mac so they waive tha charge?!?
I wonder if you could emulate a Mac on the PC and print from the emulation to avoid a charge? :)
PearPC :-D
Hey it works the other way around too. You can have the better PPC architecture and emulate Windows XP on a Mac if you reeealy want to!! :crazy:
Note, Virtual PC is a Microsoft product... :-P
-
I use AmigaOS on a daily basis because a well equipped Amiga1200 machine takes pride of place on my computer desk as my "main machine". In addition to the Amiga I use a fairly modern laptop which runs WindowsXP, and I normally use that alongside my Amiga so that the Amiga's monitor is my main screen, and then I can turn to the side slightly to use the laptop if I need or want to.
I can't really comment on OSX because I've never tried it for long enough to form an opinion, but I have to say I always hated the MacOS of old. Since a lot of people have told me OSX is very much improved I wont hold that against it - I just wont form an opinion.
If we're talking about an AmigaOS V Windows thread, then in my opinion AmigaOS wins, in the context of which is the best operating system. WindowsXP has more features and appeals to the modern computing world more so than AmigaOS, but if we're talking about which is the better "Operating System" then I have to say AmigaOS wins hands down, especially if you talk about the literal definition of an Operating System.
I generally use AmigaOS for everything that I can, and then turn to Windows when I find that there's no equivalent application on AmigaOS which can perform the job as well as that on Windows. This means that I usually do things like DVD writing or CD/DVD ripping on the PC because raw processing power is needed for that, and the applications aren't really there to allow me to do it on AmigaOS.
Generally I use the Amiga for most things because it is my preference, and I will continue to do so for as long as it remains my preference. I can't see that situation changing for a while yet.
Brian
-
All I want to say is "to each their own". I don't care who likes what or why. If you like it and are happy with it, then by all means use it.
I use a Mac G5 and I like it. I have a PC with Windows XP Pro from before I had a Mac. I have tried Linux and many other OSes on it. Nothing came close to making me as happy as my Amiga did. My Mac comes *closer*. Its not there yet, but I don't think anything ever will be.
-
Hammer wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
Why is OSX and DOS contradictory?
Both are fundamentally similar.
I just dont like Windows :-)
Your choice...
Tis. And that even includes me using the amazing Windows XP you all rave about :-)
-
Hammer wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
FastRobPlus wrote:
>>You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page)
That's strange! My guess is the university must have an app that tracks print jobs and chrages back the students, but the app is not avilable on the Mac so they waive tha charge?!?
I wonder if you could emulate a Mac on the PC and print from the emulation to avoid a charge? :)
PearPC :-D
Hey it works the other way around too. You can have the better PPC architecture and emulate Windows XP on a Mac if you reeealy want to!! :crazy:
Note, Virtual PC is a Microsoft product... :-P
So??
I don't know why all you Windows-defenders think I hate Microsoft because I hate Windows :lol:
I have a bloody Xbox here for crying out loud! I just think MacOS is a hell of a lot better and half a decade ahead!
-
bloodline wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
itix wrote:
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Yeah because tellytubbies XP is much better! :roflmao:
:crazy:
You can switch tellytubby mode off on XP... you can't on OSX :-(
Wronnng :lol:
Then tell me how, because OSX is really annoying.
How is it more annoying than Windows???
-
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
itix wrote:
I'd choose Windows. OS X is slow and software support is inadequate. OS X GUI design is just a horror.
Yeah because tellytubbies XP is much better! :roflmao:
:crazy:
You can switch tellytubby mode off on XP... you can't on OSX :-(
Wronnng :lol:
Then tell me how, because OSX is really annoying.
How is it more annoying than Windows???
Because I don't like eye candy... I already said...
-
HopperJF wrote:
Hammer wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
FastRobPlus wrote:
>>You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page)
That's strange! My guess is the university must have an app that tracks print jobs and chrages back the students, but the app is not avilable on the Mac so they waive tha charge?!?
I wonder if you could emulate a Mac on the PC and print from the emulation to avoid a charge? :)
PearPC :-D
Hey it works the other way around too. You can have the better PPC architecture and emulate Windows XP on a Mac if you reeealy want to!! :crazy:
Note, Virtual PC is a Microsoft product... :-P
So??
I don't know why all you Windows-defenders think I hate Microsoft because I hate Windows :lol:
I’m not serious in any of my postings; so don’t worry... :-P
-
Hammer wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
Hammer wrote:
HopperJF wrote:
bloodline wrote:
FastRobPlus wrote:
>>You can even print for free from Macs (from XP it costs 5 cents per page)
That's strange! My guess is the university must have an app that tracks print jobs and chrages back the students, but the app is not avilable on the Mac so they waive tha charge?!?
I wonder if you could emulate a Mac on the PC and print from the emulation to avoid a charge? :)
PearPC :-D
Hey it works the other way around too. You can have the better PPC architecture and emulate Windows XP on a Mac if you reeealy want to!! :crazy:
Note, Virtual PC is a Microsoft product... :-P
So??
I don't know why all you Windows-defenders think I hate Microsoft because I hate Windows :lol:
I’m not serious in any of my postings; so don’t worry... :-P
:roflmao:
-
HopperJF: your super-nested quotes are making me dizzy. :crazy:
-
In my personal opinion, it's hard to say. I use different OSes for different things.
Windows is for games, as is my Xbox, Playstation 2 and Nintendo64. (No, I haven't bought a cube as I haven't seen any games making me want to buy one) My XP box also serves the use of Firefox for web browsing, and recently became a Cygwin terminal to my linux boxes. Windows is good for newbs, and is what I give my mom and sister, so they know what the heck to do with the thing.
Linux is for mythtv, which I got working over the Thanksgiving holiday last week in USA. Seems pretty darn cool. It promises to have more features and mroe stability than any PVR software I tried on either Windows98SE or Win2000. I was disappointed to see Win2000 hang solid literally every other day for this task... Gentoo proved far far far more difficult to set up for this.
Linux is also a firewall box, cvs server, verilog simulator, and will probably bea PCB layouter and stuff too if I ever get everything going on it.
Linux is pretty stable, though I haven't seen many problems with my WinXP box and I don't turn any of these machines off. I never had a PC to use DOS or Windows until after college, and got used to unix environments during my studies. I also use Solaris at work. KDE seems quite agreeable, and offers options for most things so you can change most things if you don't quite like the default way.
Amiga is for email. You know all them email worms, viruses, trojans, etc. going around? I ain't gonna get none of 'em. Period. It's also generally more agreeable to use than Windows. I'm not fond of some of Windows' design decisions, and I'm also not fond of the inability to change them. AmigaOS has been much more intuitive for my personality, and where I didn't like what it did by default I was able to find a utility to change it and make me happier. I like to tinker with things, and Amiga was great for that. With a PC, if you wanted something, you went and bought it. No need for hacking, or rewiring, or adapting, or anything, and was no fun. It's something to develop neat things for, that already exist many times over for other platforms, and thus other platforms don't seem to need crazy ideas figured out anymore. It's already been done over there.
I don't currently have a laptop, but have pretty much decided to get an iBook when I do get a laptop. For the things I imagine using one for the OS is irrelevant. Reading PDF files, typing code in a text editor, watching DVDs, etc. You jsut don't need any particular OS at all for that stuff. I don't envision a laptop as a games machine, that's what my XP box is for... Plus it's unix-alike now, so I should be able to settle in with OSX pretty easily, and I already know I don't like Windows, and I don't look forward to getting Linux running and maintaining it on another machine.
Linux and other unix things are great to use. They are not great to maintain, they can be pretty darn hard to maintain. I imagine Apple has found a way to make it less stressful than Linux has.
-
Here's why I prefer WinXP (over OSX)..
1. It's more stable in my experience (I had serious problems with shoddily-programmed Mac apps, mainly browsers, crashing to the point I had to constantly reboot the system)
2. The GUI is much faster and more responsive, with or without the "eye candy" (which, as others have pointed out, can be disabled in 2 seconds)
3. XP boots and installs much faster (not really a 'major' reason, but true nonetheless)
4. Windows has a much better developed application base for most things...ever tried MacUAE, or checked out the Mac demoscene?
5. "IF" things do go wrong, Windows is generally easier to troubleshoot and repair
6. I don't like being raped as a consumer -- i.e, "Mac Edition" video cards, and things like RAM always cost three times as much, just to run what to me feels like a bloated home-brew Debian compile - and this doesn't even include the entrance "wham"...a $3000 system that comes with a Radeon 9600???
Now - if I were an "artsy", "I drink cappuccinos and smoke cigs" designer or something, that was more interested in how my computer blended with my drapes than actually using it...then maybe I could see it. :P
-edit- fixed double numbers :)
-
Overall, I like the GUI of Windows better, though I wish it had a "real" shell. Explorer isn't great, but it's usable. The MacOS Finder is a real pain for power users.
I agree too much with -D-, so I'll just quote him. :-)
1. It's more stable in my experience (I had serious problems with shoddily-programmed Mac apps, mainly browsers, crashing to the point I had to constantly reboot the system)
I think a lot of modern Mac programmers are still doing things the old way.
2. The GUI is much faster and more responsive, with or without the "eye candy" (which, as others have pointed out, can be disabled in 2 seconds)
Seeing how Apple is the self-proclaimed World Genius for GUI Design(tm), I find it very hard to stomach. I saw a demo on a dual G5, and I thought the GUI was very slow and unresponsive. From the Apple menu, it took three seconds to open up the window that shows information on the system, and it did absolutetly nothing to let you know it was doing anything (unlike AmigaOS, which gives you that "Attempting to..." message in the title bar.
I'd expect a dual G5 to be just a wee bit faster, even with the eye candy turned on. :-)
3. XP boots and installs much faster (not really a 'major' reason, but true nonetheless)
Fully loaded with Apache and MySQL among other dev tools, my system has a boot time of 45 seconds. With everything off, it boots in 18. I've seen Windows machines boot in 3 minutes, but those systems are either running Win98 with high-end business tools, or they have a hundred spamware background tasks. No OS is gonna boot fast if it's loaded with junk. My Linux box with Mandrake takes about 1:20 to boot. At least Windows ships pretty clean, but Mandrake comes pre-installed with tons of junk!
I'd debate the install, though. I've not seen an OSX machine go from CD to boot, but XP is simply the longest install I've ever seen. It takes about an hour and a half, and most of the time it just sits there "registering components".
Given that it takes so long, you'd think Microsoft would give more information about what the XP install is doing. But I suppose priting, "Proliferating our licenses and protecting our profit margin" wouldn't be very convincing. :-)
3. Windows has a much better developed application base for most things...ever tried MacUAE, or checked out the Mac demoscene?
Funny, given how few dev tools actually come with the system, and how painful it is to do really simple things. Ever try to make a Windows app without a GUI builder or one of Microsoft's bloatware compilers? A million API calls are needed to do only the basics.
4. "IF" things do go wrong, Windows is generally easier to troubleshoot and repair
Well, that depends if you know where everything is and you have decent tools. I'm not to familiar with OSX, but if it's anything like other UNIX systems, I expect it to be pretty messy at the filesystem level, complete with trucated "quick" filenames and just about everything dumped into "etc". I really, really hate the Linux file tree.
Then again, Microsoft is moving everything from the Windows folder into bizarre hidden locations in Documents and Settings. Finding a config file or a cache isn't as easy as it used to be.
5. I don't like being raped as a consumer -- i.e, "Mac Edition" video cards, and things like RAM always cost three times as much, just to run what to me feels like a bloated home-brew Debian compile - and this doesn't even include the entrance "wham"...a $3000 system that comes with a Radeon 9600???
Exactly. Plus, you can't swap motherboards. Gotta buy a whole new machine next time. Even crappy, non-ATX PC clones can be rebuilt somewhat.
Bulk warehouses rarely even stock Mac hardware thanks to Apple's vertical monopolization of their market. I heard drivers are a big culprit, but I find that hard to believe given that OSX is so close to UNIX architectually, and Linux drivers are aplenety. It can't cost THAT much to make Mac-only drivers.
I remember trying to find an ATA-100 controller for our old 200Mhz Power Mac, and at the time the cheapest I could find was about $100. The PC versions were $26 for a decent one, and the hardware is identical. I just looked on NewEgg, and the Sonnet PCI ATA controller is $77 and it's based on a Promise chip. A genuine Promise FastTrack TX2 controller is $24. Old Macs are not a pretty sight.
-
Windows has got a lot better but you still hear horror stories. You can get a good stable and even secure system but it strikes me you really have to know what your doing in order to do that.
To get a good stable and secure Mac with OS X you just switch it on.
I've been using OS X for a couple of years now and I've never had any serious problems with it. I've had it crash a few times but these are few and far between. Safari used to be quite flakey but it's a lot better now.
It's also improving, 10.3 is considerably faster than 10.2 and the minor updates often speed things along further. It was slow in the past but I've no complaints about it speed wise now - and that's on a G4.
There's a ton of software out there for it, you do have to pay for a lot of it but it generally works well and is good value.
There no stupid driver problems, I plugged in my camera iPhoto fired up and got the pictures. On windows I had to install the software and drivers first and it managed to hose my scanner in the process...
I'm like quite a few geeks who like computers but also like usability. I know of quite a few people who also have Macs these days. The desktop s by far the best I've ever used but if I'm so inclined (I'm not) I can also install KDE or Gnome. Being BSD based there's also a ton of *nix software avilable so if you like getting under the hood you can do that - but the thing is you don't actually have to if you don't want.
If you have a task to do and just want to get on with it they're great. There's a good level of integration and Apple seem to fix things that need it. It's not perfect but the things which are annoying are being removed.
Yes it cost more but as far as I'm concerned it's worth every penny. I doubt I'll ever by a PC again unless I absolutely have to.
--
BTW if you are missing a DOpus 4 style manager put 2 finder windows side by side. Works beautifully for me.
-
-D- wrote:
Here's why I prefer WinXP (over OSX)..
1. It's more stable in my experience (I had serious problems with shoddily-programmed Mac apps, mainly browsers, crashing to the point I had to constantly reboot the system)
Turn that around to Windows and I know exactly how you feel! To be honest I dislike the idea of rebooting the OS every time you change a frigging simple setting.. which is why OSX hardly ever needs to be rebooted :-)
2. The GUI is much faster and more responsive, with or without the "eye candy" (which, as others have pointed out, can be disabled in 2 seconds)
That is a fair point.
3. XP boots and installs much faster (not really a 'major' reason, but true nonetheless)
I installed MacOS 10.2 Jaguar in about 10 minutes. Beat that ;-)
3. Windows has a much better developed application base for most things...ever tried MacUAE, or checked out the Mac demoscene?
That is because it has the larger user base.. you can't blame the OS for that.
4. "IF" things do go wrong, Windows is generally easier to troubleshoot and repair
Mac is equally easy, and has a fantastic community too :-)
5. I don't like being raped as a consumer -- i.e, "Mac Edition" video cards, and things like RAM always cost three times as much, just to run what to me feels like a bloated home-brew Debian compile - and this doesn't even include the entrance "wham"...a $3000 system that comes with a Radeon 9600???
Off topic - we are discussing the OS not the hardware.
Now - if I were an "artsy", "I drink cappuccinos and smoke cigs" designer or something, that was more interested in how my computer blended with my drapes than actually using it...then maybe I could see it. :P
Okay :-D
-
Turn that around to Windows and I know exactly how you feel! To be honest I dislike the idea of rebooting the OS every time you change a frigging simple setting.. which is why OSX hardly ever needs to be rebooted :-)
Be careful when comparing MacOS and Windows. In the above statement it looks like you've tried to compare MacOS X with Windows98... now it would be equally unfair to compare MacOS 9 with WindowsXP :-)
-
I would like to add, One thing I hate, detest, wouldn't even shake a sock at about windows is the "Registry"... I just don't get the point!
-
bloodline wrote:
I would like to add, One thing I hate, detest, wouldn't even shake a sock at about windows is the "Registry"... I just don't get the point!
the bane of windows.
-
Star69 wrote:
bloodline wrote:
I would like to add, One thing I hate, detest, wouldn't even shake a sock at about windows is the "Registry"... I just don't get the point!
the bane of windows.
Exactly, I will defend Windows (the NT derivatives at least) as it has a hard job to do and it does it well... but why on earth they couldn't have come up with something better than "The Registry" I'll never know.
-
bloodline wrote:
I would like to add, One thing I hate, detest, wouldn't even shake a sock at about windows is the "Registry"... I just don't get the point!
Better to have one place for settings than several hundred possibly incompatible configuration files. Since it's built into the SDK it's easy to work with also. (Probably not so apparant to the end user, but that's the point of modern OSs to hide the complexity and let the user keep working...)
It sure beats the heck out of the old SYSTEM.INI, WIN.INI, etc. files.
-
I must say -- Hard comparision--
Though I do like OSX a lot (its basically FreeBDS and Nextstep put together with MacOS ).
I find both XP and OSX very stable -- though I will give OSX a nudge ahead with all the nicities built into it.
dB
a
-
bloodline wrote:
Turn that around to Windows and I know exactly how you feel! To be honest I dislike the idea of rebooting the OS every time you change a frigging simple setting.. which is why OSX hardly ever needs to be rebooted :-)
Be careful when comparing MacOS and Windows. In the above statement it looks like you've tried to compare MacOS X with Windows98... now it would be equally unfair to compare MacOS 9 with WindowsXP :-)
No I am talking about XP.
If it was OS9 against 98 then I would vote for Windows 98. :-)
-
dbalaski wrote:
I must say -- Hard comparision--
Though I do like OSX a lot (its basically FreeBDS and Nextstep put together with MacOS ).
I find both XP and OSX very stable -- though I will give OSX a nudge ahead with all the nicities built into it.
dB
a
Good choice!
By the way guys, if you haven't guessed yet I am a Mac zealot :-D
-
I don't think I've spotted any people praising Linux yet? :-?
-
It sure beats the heck out of the old SYSTEM.INI, WIN.INI, etc. files.
Think so, do you? Well after having had a corrupt registry at least 5 times (back when I was forced to use NT at work), I must say I can't agree. I'd rather have a corrupt ini file that I can easily replace or edit with a text editor, than have to totally reinstall Windows and all programs. (maybe things have improved with XP - I don't know)
When I want to make settings changes, I'd rather edit a small ini text file than have to open and search a convoluted 20+ Meg monster. Also many many programs do not remove registry entries when uninstalling, leaving loads of crap that slows down the system.
It's a fatal logic error that the most critical file on the system is also the most accessed and therefore the most likely to become corrupted.