PDA

View Full Version : Mac vs PC



Freeman
01-04-2007, 04:34 AM
The new macs are better, still work well together with hardware, and is compatible with windows. Does anyone think that Microsoft will buy Mac, merge into one massage company, and the age of Mac vs PC be over? Tell me what you think about it. JF

jscheuer1
01-04-2007, 05:40 AM
Does anyone think that Microsoft will buy Mac, merge into one massage company . . .

I bet they would give good massages.

djr33
01-04-2007, 06:50 AM
I love macs for graphics, but PCs are needed for other stuff.

This debate is futile to begin since it gets heated quickly. Also, you then need to distinguish between linux and windows PCs, and perhaps even versions therein. And OSX is great while OS9 has serious issues (though still superior in some ways to windows).

In short, and this is final and pretty much undisputed:

Each is best at:

PCs*:
The internet (compatiblity and such).
Programming (never even seen anything to program with on a mac, and they don't read .exe's)
Gaming (few games for macs, though they're just fine if they do make them)

MACs:
Graphics (generally, PCs aren't horrible either, but macs are usually smoother)
Video (same as above, basically)
(oh, and they're pretty)

Note that sound is distributed between both.


(*I'm assuming windows and leaving linux out as I don't have much experience/knowledge of it.)


Also, macs ARE expensive, but generally, for the price, are just as good or better than PCs. You can't get a cheap mac, but you can get a cheap PC. Doesn't mean that macs are 'more' expensive, though they do start higher.
(Arguably, you can make your own computer for less, and this assumes new computers, etc.)


I use both interchangably. That's RIGHT... INTERCHANGABLY. If you know what you're doing, they're the same.
Mac invented the mouse. Then PCs decided to have TWO buttons!.... etc. Recycle bin vs. Trash. Taskbar vs. Dock. Ctrl vs. Cmd keys (same combos). Etc.
(Blue screen of death vs. hmm... nope ;)...but that's outdated with XP... mostly)


And now that OSX 10.4 is compatible with windows.... :)

I will say that ignoring the lack of compatibility of many things (though that includes viruses :)), the mac OSX interface is a lot friendlier than XP. Vista is trying to copy it, but from what I've seen it's just silly. (OSX has gone towards silly lately too, though, but it's not annoying... yet.)

Last note:
Rant:
Why do macs still ship with single button mice? That's so illogical. OSX finally supports two buttons... but...... !?

Twey
01-04-2007, 04:24 PM
PCs*:
The internet (compatiblity and such).Uh? What's wrong with the Internet on Mac? :p

Programming (never even seen anything to program with on a mac, and they don't read .exe's)There are some very good programming resources for OS X -- Apple's Cocoa (http://developer.apple.com/cocoa/) is said to be lightweight, simple, and easy to work with. Interpreted languages seem to be a favourite with Mac users too -- things like Perl, Ruby, Python.
MACs:
Graphics (generally, PCs aren't horrible either, but macs are usually smoother)
Video (same as above, basically)This is, I believe, due to the 64-bit architecture. I'd assume (I don't have a Mac to compare) that a PC with the same number of CPUs running a 64-bit OS would perform equally well. This benefit may no longer apply with the new Intel Macs.
(oh, and they're pretty)Personally, I prefer both Beryl and the original Vista/Longhorn theme (the black one -- I think the new one is hideous).
(*I'm assuming windows and leaving linux out as I don't have much experience/knowledge of it.)The appeal is mostly to developers and power-users, but normal users can usually get to grips with user-friendly distributions easily enough. It suffers from the same compatibility problems as Mac OS (since it's not Windows), but I believe security is generally better, although not necessarily as good as something like OpenBSD. A lot depends on the administrator, though, of course. Customisability is a large bonus, especially for power-users or even users who are just starting to fiddle with things.
the mac OSX interface is a lot friendlier than XP.I think most of the Linux interfaces are too. KDE definitely is. e17 is too, although it's unfortunately not finished yet. For eye-candy, few things currently beat Beryl's capabilities.
Why do macs still ship with single button mice? That's so illogical. OSX finally supports two buttons... but...... !?Because the Mac fanboys would explode if Apple decided to abandon such a long-lived Mac symbol :p

djr33
01-04-2007, 06:01 PM
Again, can't comment on the Linux stuff.

Internet on a mac?
It's not compatible. Now that FF is available, it does most everything that can be done on a PC, but other resources, like shareware (something I consider part of the net, since it's a download and search to find it) and AVI/WMV files are less easy to use/play. Also, much of the time, sites just work in weird ways on macs, especially with safari or IE5.
It's possible to do it if you know what you're doing, but it's weird.
Also, things like IM programs are all designed for PCs, and SOME have mac VERSIONS with SOME of the same features, but it's all PC based.
In this sense, it's all about popularity, and the macs get left behind.

Programming:
Yeah, but it's so easy on a PC. On a mac, it's just a lot more work. I didn't say it wasn't possible... but... yeah.

Graphics/Video:
this has always been the case, even before anything to do with 64bit. They're just designed like that. For example, quicktime is integrated into the system in OSX (similar things existed in 9), so that video is just a normal part of the system, not something additional. Basically, it's just smoother. For the same parts and such, I'm almost positive a mac would be smoother. The same used to be the case with sound, but it's evened out, though I'm no expert with sound stuff. One big thing is the availability of programs for PCs, such as music generation apps (esp. freeware).

Design/'Pretty':
Well, I was kinda kidding, but I actually meant the physical look (as well as interface) that macs have.

Mice:
ha. Yeah.

Twey
01-04-2007, 06:25 PM
Yeah, but it's so easy on a PC. On a mac, it's just a lot more work. I didn't say it wasn't possible... but... yeah.I disagree entirely. Windows development is a nightmare (comparatively speaking). If you want any sort of support at all, MSVS is pretty much obligatory. Third-party compilers tend to be fiddly to set up, and of course don't come bundled with development files for proprietary libraries like MFC. COM and COM+ (and so most of the basic Windows API, which is based on them) are hideous. Interpreters are available, of course, but very little support is provided by the operating system (the main cause of which is Windows' lack of dependency handling for applications) meaning that if one wants to install an application written in an interpreted language other than those supported by WSH, one must distribute both the interpreter and a separate native program to set up file associations properly or to start the program. Likewise, all interpreted files must have appropriate extensions (since Windows doesn't support the shebang-interpreter line found so commonly on UNIX-based operating systems).
other resources, like shareware (something I consider part of the net, since it's a download and search to find it)I downloaded my whole operating system from the Internet -- does that mean I'm using the Internet by using it? :)
AVI/WMV files are less easy to use/play.Still not a part of the Internet...
Also, much of the time, sites just work in weird ways on macs, especially with safari or IE5.That's because Safari is unusual (although I'm using Konqueror quite happily at the moment, which is based on the same rendering engine as Safari, and most of the Web seems to be fine -- excepting the usual IE-only pages, of course) and IE5 is just broken. Again, this software isn't a necessary part of the operating system as IE is on Windows.
Also, things like IM programs are all designed for PCs, and SOME have mac VERSIONS with SOME of the same features, but it's all PC based.For Linux, I find that there are several available free clients; not all with all the features, perhaps, but Internet Backgammon has never been my thing anyway. Important things (like actually sending/receiving messages) and things that can be important (file transfer, webcam, &c.) all work acceptably.
Design/'Pretty':
Well, I was kinda kidding, but I actually meant the physical look (as well as interface) that macs have.Ah, in that area I'll agree. I always think that it's what appears on the screen that counts, though -- my PC is a beige box :)

Oh, and Linux also runs on Macs, of course.

jscheuer1
01-04-2007, 06:48 PM
. . . but Internet Backgammon has never been my thing anyway . . .

Oh no! Internet Backgammon is an essential phase of a coder's development! It must be mastered. No wonder you're so weird. :p

BLiZZaRD
01-05-2007, 03:36 AM
Uh? What's wrong with the Internet on Mac? :p


Two words: CSS in IE 5.5

'nuff said.

ROTF

Twey
01-05-2007, 10:11 AM
Oh no! Internet Backgammon is an essential phase of a coder's development! It must be mastered. No wonder you're so weird. :pHuh. I always preferred chess (especially shogi) anyway :)
Two words: CSS in IE 5.5

'nuff said.Yeah, we've established that IE5 is worthless :) There are other browsers available for Mac OS, though, if I remember correctly.

BLiZZaRD
01-05-2007, 02:13 PM
Yeah, we've established that IE5 is worthless :) There are other browsers available for Mac OS, though, if I remember correctly.

Yes that is true... I was just trying to use the same methods of contempt that I see in a lot of blogs and news articles bashing [insert OS here] where the writer will pick one flaw from years past or an older version and use that as the methodology in which to base their arguments :D

boxxertrumps
01-06-2007, 12:50 AM
I Have to point out My preference for Linux, even If i cant Get The Damn BIOS set up right...

But Im Never going To By An Apple Product, solely based On Their commercials.

The Ipod commercial; there Are people Inside Of People. thats Just Twisted.
But then the Mac Computer Is Boasting About how Its Better Than PCs.
It Not. It's OS Better than Windows. Not As much Of A Piece of junk. But if you put in the same OS, then a PC will always run faster. it can be upgraded, whereas a Mac is going to stay the same forever. also, macs usually contain heavy metals which are dangerous to dispose of.

so... Linux OS > OSX > Windows.
but my best friend Link is being retarded about me saying that windows is a cluster**** of idiocy wrapped in binary. He Agrees with me on the apple stuff though.

mburt
01-06-2007, 01:15 AM
Listen, boxxertrumps. Do Me A Favor And Stop Typing Like This :)

djr33
01-06-2007, 05:49 AM
But if you put in the same OS, then a PC will always run faster. it can be upgraded, whereas a Mac is going to stay the same forever. also, macs usually contain heavy metals which are dangerous to dispose of.
Mostly wrong.

1. saying you can switch the OS is stupid. They are different. The reason you buy the mac is for the OS and the computer, not just one part. so... it's not worth comparing, though I doubt there's any proof even if you did/could. Now with the intel thing, it's possible to switch; that's true... so.... maybe it's different now. But I still say Prove that a PC runs faster. Plus... linux? windows? unix? (OSX is based in unix). Note that the first 'PC' was the personal computer introduced by APPLE. ;)

2. 'PC will always run faster'... uh? for the price? same stats? what? That's illogical. Same parts would run at the same speed.

3. Macs can be upgraded. I got extra ram, I have a new internal harddrive (as well as an external one), was considering whether to add a new card to the computer with a 'eSATA' port (theoretically 5x faster than firewire) but decided against it, and that's just me. Lots you can do. It is true-- there is LESS available to upgrade with, but it's quite possible.

4. the heavy metals thing is interesting, but I haven't heard that. If true, which I'm not saying it isn't, then I doubt that no PC manufacturing company has not/is not doing the same.


And... commercials? You just don't like them? ...?
So if you like a commerical you go out and buy the product?
:p

jscheuer1
01-06-2007, 06:56 AM
I've never like heavy metal. Acid rock was about as far as I would go and I haven't been into that in many, many years.

Twey
01-06-2007, 01:52 PM
Heheh :)

Plus... linux? windows? unix? (OSX is based in unix).Not really. The kernel is a BSD kernel, and I believe OSX uses some UNIX-like utilities, but the operating system Apple have built on top of the basics is very different.
But if you put in the same OS, then a PC will always run faster.Unlikely -- you're completely failing to take in the hardware differences. As djr33 said, Macs start considerably higher in terms of hardware.
it can be upgraded, whereas a Mac is going to stay the same forever.There is a certain monolithic approach to building a computer that Apple are quite fond of, but it's going much too far to say that a Mac will "stay the same forever."
also, macs usually contain heavy metals which are dangerous to dispose of.The substances used to build any computer tend to be difficult to destroy safely. I don't think the weight of the metal used is the primary factor, though.
A programmable terminal called the Datapoint 2200 is the earliest known device that bears any significant resemblance to the modern personal computer.I sense that this discussion is starting to get heated. Please remain calm, and be assured that the wings of this aeroplane are not on fire.

BLiZZaRD
01-06-2007, 09:24 PM
So if you like a commerical you go out and buy the product?


Isn't that the whole point of commercials?

djr33
01-06-2007, 10:21 PM
Exactly. But, generally, I look beyond the commercials to what matters.

Remember this argument is 'which computer is better', not which computer has better commercials :p


I agree with Twey here.

And, in the end, it's all about preference. Really... they all do the same thing.

I love macs because they never get viruses... not that they're immune, but no one bothers to write them. Odds are just against it.

And I like how they work. So... for me, I like editing on a mac.

But I'd always want a PC to do internet/gaming/programming type things.

Twey
01-06-2007, 11:37 PM
Exactly. But, generally, I look beyond the commercials to what matters.Psst. I think he was joking. ;)

jscheuer1
01-07-2007, 12:55 AM
I don't know what ads ran recently in other locales but in most of the US market we had a run up to the holidays of these Mac and PC ads for Apple where each machine is personified, Mac by this hip kid in jeans and PC by this older Bill Gates (if he gained some weight) looking type fellow in a suit. I always ended up feeling sorry for old PC though and will probably buy one of his machines again. I have yet to get my first Mac and would probably do so mostly for niche testing of scripts, if I get around to it.

djr33
01-07-2007, 03:53 AM
Psst. I think he was joking.
Right. But I wasn't ;)

Twey
01-07-2007, 12:11 PM
I don't know what ads ran recently in other locales but in most of the US market we had a run up to the holidays of these Mac and PC ads for Apple where each machine is personified, Mac by this hip kid in jeans and PC by this older Bill Gates (if he gained some weight) looking type fellow in a suit.The question is, which would you trust with your data? :p

Echoes (and parodies) of these adverts have spread wide, across national boundaries.
I have yet to get my first Mac and would probably do so mostly for niche testing of scripts, if I get around to it.That and to show off. I'm pretty sure most people get Macs just because they fit in with the decor of a given room :) It's a kind of "look at me, I'm rich enough to pay 5× the price of a normal computer just so it'll match my walls" kind of culture.

jscheuer1
01-07-2007, 06:35 PM
. . . to show off. I'm pretty sure most people get Macs just because they fit in with the decor of a given room :) It's a kind of "look at me, I'm rich enough to pay 5× the price . . .

Times must be tough across the pond. Here it is more like 1.5 times the price. That and the fact that Mac's usually manage to come with the latest hardware (example recently: bluetooth) add-ons sooner than a PC does, is why I am even considering it. I've been of the mind that the extra cost represents those extra add-ons and perhaps other minor hardware superiorities and the cost of the scale of production. Though this thing about the one button heavy metal mouse has me a bit worried. :)

Twey
01-07-2007, 07:20 PM
Here it is more like 1.5 times the price.Here it's possible to get a cheap (pre-built) PC for around £200, not including monitor (between £50 and £200). The only Macs I've seen have ranged between £1,000 and £2,000, although I admittedly haven't looked too hard.
That and the fact that Mac's usually manage to come with the latest hardware (example recently: bluetooth) add-ons sooner than a PC does, is why I am even considering it.It's usually possible to get the addons and attach them at home.
I've been of the mind that the extra cost represents those extra add-ons and perhaps other minor hardware superiorities and the cost of the scale of production.Almost certainly.
Though this thing about the one button heavy metal mouse has me a bit worried. :)I think I'd be afraid someone would use it as a murder weapon... :p

jscheuer1
01-07-2007, 08:49 PM
Here it's possible to get a cheap (pre-built) PC for around £200, not including monitor (between £50 and £200). The only Macs I've seen have ranged between £1,000 and £2,000, although I admittedly haven't looked too hard.It's usually possible to get the addons and attach them at home.

That makes perfect sense when I think about it, the price variance. It actually is about the same here then but, this doesn't apply to relatively equivalent systems. I guess I am, unintentionally, a bit of a show off myself. I will no longer even consider buying a computer that I cannot easily pick up and carry around with me so, I was only looking at laptops/notebooks (basically the same thing anymore). I also require one with decent storage space, a good monitor, a keyboard that is as much like a desktop's as possible, a decent allotment of RAM, and one of the faster CPU chips available. Once you establish these as your criteria, similar Macs are not that much more in price.

I know about adding on but, it is easier to get one that comes with. The easiest way to upgrade a desktop is generally to throw in a card, this is true with laptops as well but there are only one or two slots so, it is better to get whatever you want/need included. Also, on a laptop the card sticks out a little and becomes a hazard to itself during transport if not removed and replaced each time.

yoshi555
01-07-2007, 09:01 PM
They cant because they can there a micrsoft company

Twey
01-07-2007, 09:13 PM
Once you establish these as your criteria, similar Macs are not that much more in price.Of course not. The point I was making was that a lot of people get them without knowing the advantages, just because they look cool and the person in question can afford them.
The easiest way to upgrade a desktop is generally to throw in a card, this is true with laptops as well but there are only one or two slots so, it is better to get whatever you want/need included.Ah, yes. Mine was a moot point with laptops, of course.
They cant because they can there a micrsoft company... what?

djr33
01-07-2007, 09:31 PM
Guys, the price argument is stupid. for the price of a mac, you could get an equivalent PC. You CAN get CHEAPER PCs, but they aren't as good. When it comes to something like video editing, the price of a 'low end' mac is fine, since that's a 'high end' PC-equivalent.

I have no intent to claim to be cool because I use a mac, but I use it because it is very stable for what I do, video editing, and it works great. Better than any PCs I've tried.

jscheuer1
01-07-2007, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by yoshi555
They cant because they can there a micrsoft company what?

I think he was referring to the original post in this thread and positing that Apple is already a Microsoft company. I still think (going back to post #1) that they would probably give really good massages.

djr33
01-07-2007, 09:38 PM
Ha.

But Mac massages would be more expensive, though higher quality ;)

Twey
01-07-2007, 09:44 PM
Guys, the price argument is stupid. for the price of a mac, you could get an equivalent PC. You CAN get CHEAPER PCs, but they aren't as good. When it comes to something like video editing, the price of a 'low end' mac is fine, since that's a 'high end' PC-equivalent.I know this. I was commenting that some people don't understand this, and get it just because it looks good (or, indeed, because it's more expensive).

djr33
01-07-2007, 09:51 PM
Perhaps. But it's not "MORE" expensive. That's the important piece. It IS expensive, but so is a top of the line PC. With the exception of the (I think failed/unpopular) 'mac-mini', almost all apple products are designed to be top of the line (or close, anyway).

Shotgun Ninja
01-08-2007, 04:46 PM
So... how does the ability to run Windows make Mac better...? Can't you just buy a Windows computer for that? That IS what they're made for, you know. Plus, Mac Boot Camp is slow and glitchy, like a game emulator. Mostly because it has bits and pieces of the hard drive to search for to find the Windows-formatted segments, and that can lead to segmented system files. Unless, of course, you did a disk defrag before installing Windows, but even then, it still sucks. Just because. It's Mac. It may look pretty with it's 'system-level video driver' and all, but beauty is only skin-deep, as much of the core progrmming of the operating system is slow and poor at multitasking, at sharp contrast to the Linux-based Windows32 system. (Yes, it's Linux based. Cheap Microsoft *******s...) But I digress. Why get a Mac to run Windows? Simple answer: WHO CARES WHY? JUST DON'T!

And thank you Blizzard, for summing up in advance exactly what I was about to do.

Twey
01-08-2007, 05:51 PM
much of the core progrmming of the operating system is slow and poor at multitasking, at sharp contrast to the Linux-based Windows32 system. (Yes, it's Linux based. Cheap Microsoft *******s...)Er... you've got it the wrong way around. Mac OS X is far more closely connected to Linux: it's built on top of BSD, which is a variant/clone of UNIX, as is Linux. Windows, however, has virtually nothing in common with Linux, or UNIX in general, apart from a brief affair with POSIX compatibility (one of the lowest levels of it, too, from what I recall).
Why get a Mac to run Windows? Simple answer: WHO CARES WHY? JUST DON'T!If one were to, say, use Windows once every fortnight or so in order to test scripts in IE, it would be rather a waste to buy a whole new machine, no?

djr33
01-08-2007, 06:05 PM
Windows, like it or not, is popular, so there is a big advantage in having it for the use of some applications, especially for freeware/shareware that only exists for windows. There are other similar things like this, too.

Freeman
01-08-2007, 08:09 PM
So... how does the ability to run Windows make Mac better...? Can't you just buy a Windows computer for that?

Macs are rather nice for compatibility. You don't need to set the correct jumpers on each piece of hardware to make it work, saving time. They are nice for graphics and processing. Now in my mind, if you like pcs and macs, why wouldn't you want a computer that could run both. You could have two hard drives, one for each os. Why wouldn't you want a machine that looks pretty, runs smoothly, can use both os? And does anything think that Microsoft will merge with mac to have good messages? Wait, I mean a massive company? JF

BLiZZaRD
01-08-2007, 09:32 PM
I really think we need to end this thread/debate.. we are making Twey use words like "fortnight" now, it is only going to get worse.

With all the advancements and new technologies in software vs. hardware, it is a simple thing...

Programmers will get both, or find a way to use one as the other. General users will buy the one they are most comfortable with, or know. This will leave out Linux, as everyone is still scared it is all text and command lines.

For Apple/Mac vs. PC people will either buy a newer version of the one they are replacing, or buy one with the better commercials.

People don't want to be bothered with the size of their RAM or HD or know which processor is installed. If you ask 80% of the internet browsing population I dare say less than half could tell you the specs of their computer without right-clicking on "my computer" and selecting "properties" (or insert MAC equivalent here).

My grandmother knows hers has an Intel chip inside because of the "pretty little sticker on the black box thingy with the green lights that her typewriter and tiny television plug into"

But I can guarantee if she ever needs to buy a new one it will be as similar to the current one as possible.

jscheuer1
01-08-2007, 10:43 PM
Macs are rather nice for compatibility. You don't need to set the correct jumpers

Jumpers, that's a blast from the past! I'd (thankfully) forgotten all about jumpers. Get a decent laptop and you won't have to worry about those, regardless of the OS.

djr33
01-08-2007, 11:43 PM
Blizzard has a real point about familiarity.... I'd be tough to convince to start editing video on a PC since I'm used to a mac, and it would also be hard to convince me to give up my PC for other things (such as web design).

If you grow up on Pepsi, you likely won't drink Coke later. The reverse is true. This is why corporations spend billions of dollars to target the teen generation, when individuals are old enough to make their own decisions and still young enough to be impressionable and have a long, healthy (or perhaps not quite so healthy) coke-or-pepsi-drinking future.

To continue the metaphor, which is better, coke or pepsi? Opinion... simple as that. In the end, both will rot your teeth just as fast, or quench your thirst, or whatever intended 'purpose' they may have.
In the same sense, both mac and windows, plus linux, function as computers that allow a variety of tasks. Though with either (any) will allow for almost every task (assuming you aren't specifically doing something dependant on the operating system, such as designing a windows compatible something from a mac), but each does have advantages, such as graphics and overall 'smoothness' on a mac, and various things beforementioned on the PC (such as, especially with linux, controllability/customizability, something that is somewhat lacking in macs).

With a user who knows what they are doing on either, it's easy enough to do most, if not all, tasks. It's all about preference. The question is more "Which do you prefer, Mac or PC?", not "Which is better, Mac or PC?", certainly not "Mac vs. PC".

They are both different and similar, so it's not quite like comparing apples and oranges, but more like oranges and tangerines. They're similar, but each has advantages and disadvantages. (Actually, I could continue that metaphor for quite a while, considering that oranges are regular and inexpensive (PCs), whereas tangerines are more rare but arguably better, or certainly toward a certain taste that fewer people share.)

As time goes by, as shown obviously by the intel change of macs, so the operating systems are now compatible, they merge to a point of being the same.

DOX and Mac OS1 surely were very different (though I have no experience in either, except just a bit of pseudo-dos within windows), but they have merged now to where they're both very similar.

However, I will note that macs have, for the most part, started the trends, such as mice, desktops, trash (aka recycle bin), etc. etc. However, Windows has (later) contributed to these, such as with the TWO! button mouse. Hehe.


Hmm... what's a jumper? Why is a jumper related to laptops, specifically, or is it?

As for compatibility, it's not much of an issue now. Some formats, like .rar, are a bit harder to deal with on a mac due to not having as many freeware/shareware resources available, though it's still possible. Other popular formats like .wmv and .avi also have trouble, but there are (slightly limited) workarounds. The only files that really aren't compatible on Macs are .exe's, though I wonder if that has or will change soon with OSX 10.4 (built for intel and such). (I don't know, as I'm am still running 10.3.)
One thing that is an issue is file extensions, which windows still requires, with the exception of a few programs that are able to ingore them (I think I remember this.... but I can't think of which at the moment. I think it was mostly with image files, so perhaps just things that are easily recognized), whereas Macs just ignore them, so sometimes you end up with a file just named 'filename', not 'filename.ext'. So the conversion from mac to pc is to add that extension, which is a bit tedious and only hard if you happen to not know the file extension required. Though, note that the transition from pc to mac is never an issue in that sense.
In the past there was an issue with compatiblity in several areas, but that no longer exists.
I suppose one slight downside is that the color-schemes and gamma of the displays (or rather output of the computers) varies from mac to pc, so this causes some trouble for graphics. The most notable for this forum would be 'web colors' which I believe are about 212 colors, not 256, as those are the ones for which mac and pc color-schemes overlap. Another example of this is shown in video, especially related to the gamma, not so much colors, and how it translates to a PC from a Mac or vice versa with images/video. I find that to be particularly important due to my field of video editing. When I make a video on my mac and I watch it on a PC, the results can be hard to see because mac gamma makes things brighter (it's based on a curve, so it's not just linear... very complex, so not gonna get into it right now), but this can be corrected, though it is an exta step. To add to the complications, NTSC (the format used by TVs, encoded on DVDs, etc., at least in the US and other countries, as opposed to PAL, used in other locations, which aren't compatible, in framerate, dimension and color-scheme) varies, so a TV, PC and Mac will all display the same video differently. The easiest way to demonstrate this would be to play a DVD on a PC, a Mac and a TV and watch.


(or insert MAC equivalent here).Apple menu>About this Mac, then click 'More info...'

boxxertrumps
01-09-2007, 01:34 AM
I'm pretty sure most people get Macs just because they fit in with the decor of a given room :)
Who Has White Walls?

To Summaries this thread:

Windows = Monolithic(All Parts of your OS Hive are codependant, and integrated into the kernal, if process A fails, process' C and D also fail, also working with security holes.), takes alot of time to fix bugs. Yay For bells and Whistles though.

Mac = Expensive, bad for the Enviroment(Heavy metals, improper disposal), and their Ads directly bash Desktops, impossible to upgrade except for RAM, Only one mouse button, Almost No Games...

Linux = Modularized kernel, Difficult to use at first, open source, Fast Bug Fixes, They Have a little Penguin as their mascot...
http://www.ypok.com/img/2807/linux-penguin.jpg

djr33
01-09-2007, 02:43 AM
WHOA!
That's not a fair summary at all.
Those things are true to an extent about Macs, but that makes them sound terrible.

To summarize, you need to be objective and use the previously stated facts. Many of the things stated above have not been mentioned before (in relation to linux and windows, not so much Mac).

BLiZZaRD
01-09-2007, 03:22 AM
What is REALLY funny...

re-read the very first post:



The new macs are better, still work well together with hardware, and is compatible with windows. Does anyone think that Microsoft will buy Mac, merge into one massage company, and the age of Mac vs PC be over? Tell me what you think about it. JF


This has NOTHING to do with Mac vs. PC vs. Linux..

To answer the question...

No, I personally don't think Windows and OSX will merge into one large company. Microsoft already battles "monopoly" issues in frivolous court battles every year, doing so would just cause more problems for the new "Macdows" company that became of it.

In anything, there will always be a David and a Goliath, it is just how humans work.

Aragoth
01-09-2007, 03:28 AM
WHOA!
That's not a fair summary at all.
Those things are true to an extent about Macs, but that macs them sound terrible.

Yeah, jeez, he forgot about how Mac's never get viruses. But then again, isn't that because 95% (completely made up abstract statistic) of poeple use PC over Mac? Logically, if you were going to be a (insert 4 letter word of choice), you would go after the one that had the majority of people on it... Would be nice to see Apple get their asses handed to them though in their "No Viruses" campaign...

Freeman
01-09-2007, 04:31 AM
if you were going to be a (insert 4 letter word of choice), you would go after the one that had the majority of people on it... Would be nice to see Apple get their asses handed to them though in their "No Viruses" campaign...

No need to talk this way. I don't think that they will ever merge into one massive company. People do and are set in their ways and put there rather quickly when young. It also has to do with what their parents use and think is good or not. When I first was arguing with my padre (being old and set in his ways) about this I used this point: If Microsoft and Apple did combine into one massive company, not only would they be sued by everyone for monopolizing things, but hundreds if not thousands of companies would go out of business. Thus, Millions of people would be out of a job and if they did that then not alot of people would want to or be able to buy any of their machines. I am not arguing Linux because they don't make computers, at least that I know of. JF

BLiZZaRD
01-09-2007, 05:09 AM
I am not arguing Linux because they don't make computers, at least that I know of. JF

They don't make computers the same way Windows and OSX don't. But you CAN buy a computer (http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/index.html) pre-installed with *Nix OS just as you can with Windows or OSX, and those are priced about the same as a Windows PC.

Twey
01-09-2007, 09:26 AM
Who Has White Walls?Well, half the walls in my bedroom are white :p
we are making Twey use words like "fortnight" now, it is only going to get worse.Haha! That's not a popular word in America?

djr33
01-09-2007, 11:22 AM
It was, Twey, in the 1800s.

Twey
01-09-2007, 08:07 PM
Ah, well, here it's still in common use.

djr33
01-09-2007, 10:04 PM
Probably due to it being left over from the British influence on America during the 1800s. I dunno.
It's still a word and people of moderate intelligence know what it means.

I think of fortnight and score in the same sense.... both are outdated descriptions of days. Is score still in use there?

jscheuer1
01-09-2007, 10:32 PM
Well, a score is an actual number (20), nothing to do with days necessarily.

Twey
01-09-2007, 10:38 PM
Is score still in use there?Only rarely, and mostly in estimates (and, stereotypically, agriculture).

djr33
01-09-2007, 11:07 PM
I know it's not neccessarily days. But just that it feels like it's related. Or something. Or at least time, a lot, "four score and 7 years ago..." that kinda thing.

jscheuer1
01-09-2007, 11:20 PM
I know it's not neccessarily days. But just that it feels like it's related. Or something. Or at least time, a lot, "four score and 7 years ago..." that kinda thing.

Your Lincoln is showing. Yes, that is perhaps the most famous historical use of the term (certainly in US history), there it meant 20 as well. It can also just mean 'alot' which is what we would often say here these days even though it isn't even proper grammar, yet. Score is much more usual nowadays as the result of or as an accomplishment within a sporting event.

Score!!!

boxxertrumps
01-10-2007, 12:37 AM
WHOA!
That's not a fair summary at all.
im sorry, thought those would be the first things that would come up... and what am i missing?

tech_support
01-10-2007, 03:46 AM
Hello, I'm a Mac and I'm a PC.

djr33
01-10-2007, 04:46 AM
That's great :D



EDIT:
I just realized a logic issue.

"Hi, I'm a Mac."
"Hi, I'm a PC."

....
"Hi, I'm a linux."?
....
"Hi, I AM LINUX!"?
...
"Hi, I'm a PC, but don't worry, I have linux."

Masterskinnie
01-24-2007, 04:30 PM
Hey I'm a linux, too
Ubuntu Linux that is.:)

Masterskinnie
01-24-2007, 04:36 PM
I would definitely say that Linux is the best OS out there. The scales are climbing and linux is where the market is going to be in ten years. Those Windows users need to start getting used to the system, unless your a mac, then you should jsut consider it. not a big rush:)

Twey
01-24-2007, 05:03 PM
"Hi, I'm a PC, but don't worry, I have linux."So how would Apple personify that? An old fat guy with bionic implants? :p

djr33
01-24-2007, 06:47 PM
Perhaps with an old sci-fi style robot, moving slowly, talking in a mechanical voice. :p
(Doesn't look all that great, but.... powerful.... on the inside :p)

BLiZZaRD
01-25-2007, 02:10 PM
Just a talking Penguin I would suppose, although Twey's idea made me spit coffee in the early morning. :D

Twey
01-25-2007, 02:22 PM
(Doesn't look all that great, but.... powerful.... on the inside :p)Hm, I wonder if perhaps I didn't enable quite enough totally pointless GPU-burning eyecandy on the screenshots I posted in the desktop shots thread :p

djr33
01-25-2007, 10:37 PM
Yeah. But that's like the ugly girl who gets a makeover and finally looks good. Potential, but not at first.
(Then again, really, that cliche character is always played by an attractive actress, so the metaphor doesn't work in the first place.)
The main thing... it takes some knowledge to get Linux going. It's NOT the most user friendly. And let's face it... plenty of people have trouble with just windows.

mburt
01-26-2007, 12:38 AM
And let's face it... plenty of people have trouble with just windows.
Yeah, but in that case it's Windows' fault LOL. The problem with Linux (not so much a problem) is that not many people are familiar with it :D

Twey
01-26-2007, 11:02 AM
it takes some knowledge to get Linux going. It's NOT the most user friendly.Depends. Some distributions are more user-friendly than others. Ubuntu, SuSE, and Xandros, in particular, are reputed to be much friendlier than Windows.

BLiZZaRD
01-26-2007, 02:05 PM
The *Nix community has been stereotyped. THE COMMAND LINE (insert heavy drums and screams of fear here)

What people don't realize is that Most *Nix systems have gone to a GUI environment, thanks to Gnome and KDE finally getting it right. And set up correctly you can run *Nix withOUT using the dreaded CL for about as long as you can use Windows without running "cmd"

(and if you don't know what happens when you run "cmd" then that answers your question, doesn't it ;) )

Masterskinnie
02-02-2007, 06:03 PM
...it takes some knowledge to get Linux going. It's NOT the most user friendly. And let's face it... plenty of people have trouble with just windows.

Yes, it does take some knowledge to get it going but with redhat and Ubuntu out there, it isn't that much of a hassle anymore. It's pretty much already set up. You just have to install it and customize it to your needs and the help function is quite useful for doing that.:confused:

I see twey agrees:

Depends. Some distributions are more user-friendly than others. Ubuntu, SuSE, and Xandros, in particular, are reputed to be much friendlier than Windows.

Twey
02-02-2007, 06:13 PM
Yes... Gentoo and Slackware, for example, aren't for newbies, nor are they intended to be.

detoam
02-13-2007, 10:20 PM
This is by far the dumbest argument I have seen in EVERY forum.
1) PC is by far better suited for gaming and customization. It is by far the best for variety of software and therefore cannot be beat at what one is capable to do with the windows PC.
2) The only reason that Windows is so insecure and virus ridden is the amount of people using it. Mac does not have as many people trying to crack software or punch a hole in the firewall or some idiot like me trying to test every single limit it can be pushed to.
3) Mac is by far overpriced and over hyped. To those that say " But it comes with all the software/hardware.." Frontrow or whatever it's called is crap. and the hardware that it comes with has had the markup (really big one added to it).
4) Windows is ****. And it has been going down the hill ever since 98SE. And it won't recover.

I hate both of the systems. I am forced to use Windows as it is the most compatible and capable out there. My biggest point would be that it mainly rests on the hardware and software companies. They have been spending billions developing and improving their products for the PC base that I am pretty sure they aren't going to simply switch to a different base anytime soon. That is why I suspect that Apple has switched to a different chip.
I cannot wait until React OS comes out and Linux XP improves their stability.

Twey
02-13-2007, 10:38 PM
1) PC is by far better suited for gaming and customization. It is by far the best for variety of software and therefore cannot be beat at what one is capable to do with the windows PC.Gaming, yes; customisation, no. No matter how much fancy software there is, a closed-source system can't possibly beat an open-source system, or even one based on one such as Mac OS X is.
2) The only reason that Windows is so insecure and virus ridden is the amount of people using it. Mac does not have as many people trying to crack software or punch a hole in the firewall or some idiot like me trying to test every single limit it can be pushed to.Not at all. I think I posted this above, but here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/)'s an article that attempts to debunk that (amongst others). The actual report is on Linux and Windows, not Mac OS, but some of the same principles apply, especially to OS X.
I cannot wait until React OS comes out and Linux XP improves their stability.ReactOS is something new, but Linux XP is simply Linux, rethemed. The desktop, control panel, and most other things I can see on the screenshots are actually GNOME; the applications the captions claim to be "MS Word" and "MS Excel" are really OpenOffice.org Writer and Calc, respectively; and the only way it runs Windows applications is via Wine, which is available for all current Linux distributions, as well as Mac. ReactOS' Windows emulation is also based on Wine, although I believe they've made modifications to it. There is no real reason to choose Linux XP over a real Linux distribution, since a I daresay a power-user will soon get tired of the interface and try to modify it into something resembling a standard Linux distribution anyway.

TheBigT
02-13-2007, 10:39 PM
In my personal opinion, I would not give up my PC. The most I use it for is coding and surfing the internet. One of my activities requires notepad++ and the other requires FF. I do not need an expensive computer.

This debate will never end because it is a matter of personal preference. My neighbor, who is a 10 year old girl, only needs a PC because she only uses AIM. On the other hand my cousin does video editing and graphics design, so he can't live without his Mac.

boxxertrumps
02-13-2007, 11:23 PM
lets just hope that windows doesn't use their predatory practices to drive linux out of the picture.
like netscape... poor poor netscape...

BLiZZaRD
02-14-2007, 12:21 AM
To do that, or even to start doing that, Windows would have to start gaining a foot hold on the server market. Where, Linux still holds a vast majority. Windows is not worried about the home PC at this time, and if they are then they are doing other things to make their wares more appealing to the masses.

If we start seeing Windows take over the internet servers then we can worry. Until then Linux at home is just a preference and dare I say, something to be "in the cool" with. Saying "Oh I run Linux" just to be the center of attention.

I used to think that is how I was, but I rarely volunteer that I run Linux at home and work, and I never really care what others think about my choices.

If I could triple boot with OS X, Win XP and Fedora Core 5, I would, but I am not that technically inclined yet.

tech_support
02-14-2007, 06:08 AM
Windows might just buy up Linux.

djr33
02-14-2007, 08:47 AM
...and kill it.
Like Disney and DVDs. To create a market, they lock the DVDs up for like 10 years at a time. Strange.

However, the good news is that it is just fine... open source, so they'd have to buy it from everyone. But... not like they don't have the money ;)

Merciless
02-14-2007, 11:46 PM
MAC's were obviously designed for girls :D ROTFLOL :p

besides im pretty sure i was harassed as a young child by macs, the screen attacks you, Any gamer with a mac is instantly destroyed and everybody knows that,

and the only point of linux is its endless supply of mesmerizing screensavers, which they put on there with the assumption that you would never actually USE your linux computer. and like macs, good luck trying to play games on a linux.

BLiZZaRD
02-15-2007, 12:35 AM
Play games? My default install of Fedora Core came with over 200 games. I have open source downloads of WoW, gauntlet, Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy, book worm, bejeweled, and about 14 gig worth of others...

If you know how to use your Linux and it's applications there are only a handful of games you can't play that you can on a Windows machine... and those games suck any way. :p

djr33
02-15-2007, 12:57 AM
I'm just ignoring that ridiculous post, merciless.

detoam
02-15-2007, 01:23 AM
Gaming, yes; customisation, no. No matter how much fancy software there is, a closed-source system can't possibly beat an open-source system, or even one based on one such as Mac OS X is.Not at all. I think I posted this above, but here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/)'s an article that attempts to debunk that (amongst others). The actual report is on Linux and Windows, not Mac OS, but some of the same principles apply, especially to OS X.ReactOS is something new, but Linux XP is simply Linux, rethemed. The desktop, control panel, and most other things I can see on the screenshots are actually GNOME; the applications the captions claim to be "MS Word" and "MS Excel" are really OpenOffice.org Writer and Calc, respectively; and the only way it runs Windows applications is via Wine, which is available for all current Linux distributions, as well as Mac. ReactOS' Windows emulation is also based on Wine, although I believe they've made modifications to it. There is no real reason to choose Linux XP over a real Linux distribution, since a I daresay a power-user will soon get tired of the interface and try to modify it into something resembling a standard Linux distribution anyway.

There are very many ways to customize Windows. Far more in my experience than with Linux Or MacOSX. It's far easier as well. I do it most of the time. Since I am a cripple and have nothing else to do. I have made XP as small as 150MB with functioning network. And I have completely changed appearance of it in various ways. Don't ask how. I am not a coder. Nor am I a genius. I just did. Just because it is closed-source does not matter.

As for Linux XP. Yes it is true that it is just a Linux that tries to look like Windows. However it has many compatibilities with Windows. And React OS has been around for about 10 Years. The only reason it does not get around too far is because of people's attitude. I have noticed how snobish Mac and Linux users are.
I am maybe not a supporter of windows, but I have not, yet seen anything that is as friendly to user and as compatible with other software as windows is.

About the virus thing. Are You actually trying to say that there are more Mac users in the world than Windows?

boxxertrumps
02-15-2007, 02:17 AM
if you've gotten xp down to 150mb, YOU ARE A GOD.
i want a screen shot.

but as for customization, making your own skins is difficult and many windows users just stick with the default.
But everything set aside, accessibility is only ones own preference. but i have found that if every computer in this world was suddenly a linux, many people would just stop using them due to not wanting to learn. i have been trying to get kubuntu installed, with no luck, so i have mail ordered an older version disk.

but when i talk to other people about linux they think that you'll have to be a master programmer and know command-line to use it, or that it's extremely difficult to install.

which reminds me, ill have to convince George the think-tank manager to pre-install edu/k/x/ubuntu on the comps they sell. if its (hastle)free, everyone would get it.

PS: PROPAGANDA!!! (http://www.microsoft.com/canada/getthefacts/default.mspx)
EDIT:
I didn't know this existed...
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/install%2eexe?highlight=%28exe%29

djr33
02-15-2007, 05:09 AM
Far more in my experience than with Linux Or MacOSX.Exactly. And you just happen to be wrong.

Look, I'm not particular fan of Linux, and I'm happy for now sticking to windows myself (and Max OSX), though I will say I like linux as a server.

However, there is no chance that, as Twey says, a limited system is more customizable than an open one. That just simply defies logic.

It might be EASIER to change the more user friendly OSs, but that doesn't mean they ARE more customizable.

If you really want with Linux, you can totally recode the entire thing. Hence open source. With Windows... you're stuck, at least with some basic settings.

Twey
02-15-2007, 03:13 PM
As for Linux XP. Yes it is true that it is just a Linux that tries to look like Windows. However it has many compatibilities with Windows.As I said, no more than are provided by wine on any other distribution.
And React OS has been around for about 10 Years. The only reason it does not get around too far is because of people's attitude. I have noticed how snobish Mac and Linux users are.Hm... debatable. I agree with you that many Mac and Linux users can be snobbish (I.E. look down on those who use something other than their preferred operating system), but don't confuse that with looking down on the operating system itself. It is most likely due to the latter that ReactOS is still unstable: most Linux users simply don't care enough about Windows or its software to want to run anything like it, whether it's on a Linux-based platform or not.
About the virus thing. Are You actually trying to say that there are more Mac users in the world than Windows?Certainly not. As I said above, the article to which I linked actually applies to Linux, but thus relates somewhat to Mac OS X via UNIX. The point it makes is that the "Windows is attacked more because it's used more" argument doesn't hold true, since on the server market UNIX-based operating systems hold a vast majority -- and servers are often more tempting targets.

tech_support
02-17-2007, 12:42 AM
..."Windows is attacked more because it's used more" argument doesn't hold true,...

Of course it is.

http://macosx.com/forums/mac-os-x-system-mac-software/291144-what-makes-mac-not-get-virus.html

boxxertrumps
02-17-2007, 01:24 AM
Only partially true.

windows being attacked more is attributed to many causes.

- Every program has control over the kernel
- MS products are usually rushed and "integrated" to push a competitor out of the market
- most popular PC operating system, best chance for a successful widespread infection
- closed source, users cant fix bugs they find, only report them to MS.

Twey
02-17-2007, 03:14 PM
As boxxertrumps says, it's one factor in the equation, but it's entirely false to say that it's the only reason Windows is compromised more.

tech_support, I see no evidence in that link to back up your point?

jscheuer1
02-17-2007, 04:10 PM
I still think that it is reasonable to say Windows PC's get attacked more because they are in the vast majority. PC's far outnumber servers and are in general easier targets than servers. Most hackers/attackers are less sophisticated and so go after the more vulnerable PC target. Even when they become more advanced and go after servers, the disproportionate number of Windows servers attacked may be due in part to the attacker's familiarity with attacking Windows, gained in their 'infancy' attacking PC's.

mburt
02-17-2007, 04:13 PM
How many mad programmers do you know that only run Windows :p. As John said, I think Windows users are more generally vulnerable.

Twey
02-17-2007, 08:23 PM
The basic procedure of attacking any operating system tends to be similar. I certainly can't imagine anyone familiar enough with Windows to attack it -- who would have at least a working knowledge of UNIX -- who would be dissuaded by the concept of attacking a UNIX-like system. Rather, the opposite would likely be true, especially with open-source UNIX variants: someone used to working with an open-source system may come to depend upon scanning the source for security holes, and would be cautious about moving to a system where he or she could not depend on this crutch.

jscheuer1
02-17-2007, 10:32 PM
The basic procedure of attacking any operating system tends to be similar. I certainly can't imagine anyone familiar enough with Windows to attack it -- who would have at least a working knowledge of UNIX -- who would be dissuaded by the concept of attacking a UNIX-like system. Rather, the opposite would likely be true, especially with open-source UNIX variants: someone used to working with an open-source system may come to depend upon scanning the source for security holes, and would be cautious about moving to a system where he or she could not depend on this crutch.

Huh? Sounds like you are finally agreeing with us. Like we tell folks looking for help, please make your post clear and explain everything that might be important. A link to your problem page would help as well. :)

Twey
02-17-2007, 10:52 PM
Hmm? Sorry, I'll reword it -- perhaps I was unclear. I believe that anyone who has enough familiarity with computers and Windows to be able to attack it would also attack a UNIX system without hesitation, thus ruling out your theory about Windows crackers preferring to attack Windows, even if there are UNIX servers available as targets.

tech_support
02-18-2007, 04:56 AM
tech_support, I see no evidence in that link to back up your point?

First line,


Low market share. No ones bothering to write viruses for OS X, (yet).

Twey
02-18-2007, 02:04 PM
That's one person's opinion, not evidence; too, he mentions that being part of the problem, and everybody else in the thread goes on to back up the other point.

djr33
02-20-2007, 06:20 AM
I think the question here is whether we are talking about personal computers or servers. The OS is a subcategory of each.

That's like saying Apples or oranges when talking about juice and fruit... you can't just say apples are definitely better because they are the better fruit, if there's a chance oranges are the better juice ;)

As for the question about viruses...
duh.

Windows is attacked the most. Yes, PERSONAL COMPUTERS.
Servers? Sure. Linux. And?
They are two seperate categories.
I'm not using my mac as a server, and it has yet to have any spyware or viruses.
As a personal computer, there is no question that macs and linux are more safe than windows for virus attacks.
Plus, it isn't all that important as anyone running a server should be on the lookout for attacks and stop them. Servers are a different type of thing than a personal computer and the majority of the users with problems-- viruses, spyware, etc etc. are inexperienced users who would have no idea how to run a server anyway, so the threat of viruses is expected and handled with servers (and will always be there), whereas with a personal computer, viruses are something unknown that just happens to attack computers. In fact, most people who have hardships due to viruses use windows and have no idea about mac or linux, or that they'd get fewer not running windows.

Twey
02-20-2007, 12:04 PM
I think the question here is whether we are talking about personal computers or servers. The OS is a subcategory of each.Yes, but since both OSes run on both, it's possible to compare the two in either field.
That's like saying Apples or oranges when talking about juice and fruit... you can't just say apples are definitely better because they are the better fruit, if there's a chance oranges are the better juiceThat's not accurate at all :) The properties that make a fruit better are different to those that make a juice better, while the property of operating systems we're discussing improves servers and desktops alike.

Masterskinnie
02-20-2007, 05:15 PM
I cannot wait until React OS comes out and Linux XP improves their stability.

Ubuntu is pretty stable itself. As with all linux os's, it is hack proof and secure from all viruses.

Twey
02-20-2007, 06:04 PM
Well, to an extent. Nothing's invulnerable. I hear Ubuntu is rather slow, however.

jscheuer1
02-20-2007, 06:30 PM
Write your own OS. Don't share it with anyone. It may be full of security holes but, since you are the only running it, who'll know?

BLiZZaRD
02-20-2007, 07:27 PM
Then you can call it MyNix :D

Twey
02-20-2007, 10:02 PM
It may be full of security holes but, since you are the only running it, who'll know?Anybody who attacks your machine, of course. Security through obscurity is no security at all: as I said before, the basic procedures for attacking almost any machine are similar :)

jscheuer1
02-21-2007, 04:25 AM
Make your holes different then, get creative.

BLiZZaRD
02-21-2007, 04:34 AM
Make your holes different then, get creative.

You know... Taken out of context, this post could be really bad...

Twey
02-21-2007, 04:38 AM
Heheh, deliberately craft holes that can only be exploited using a quantum computer on the night of the full moon as seen from the position of the Sun? :p

BLiZZaRD
02-21-2007, 04:39 AM
A buddy of mine has one of those.. he calls it "wife"

Twey
02-21-2007, 04:44 AM
Haha :) "... and the sex, the sex is great! Christmas wouldn't be the same without it!"

jscheuer1
02-21-2007, 04:52 AM
You people are so easily amused. :rolleyes:

LOL

BLiZZaRD
02-21-2007, 05:31 AM
HAHAHAHAHA We made John use chat speak! "LOL"

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

BLiZZaRD
02-21-2007, 08:15 PM
Hey, I just found this article (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000796.html) or blog whatever. It pretty much says it all, but in a contradictory way... LOL

I love the ending though:



That's the other problem with the Mac vs. PC debate: it completely misses the point. Computers aren't couture, they're screwdrivers. Your screwdriver rocks, and our screwdriver sucks. So what? They're screwdrivers. If you really want to convince us, stop talking about your screwdriver, and show us what you've created with it.

Freeman
02-21-2007, 08:56 PM
Wow. This conversation has taken many very strange turns in its course. Maybe Mac, PC, and Linux could merge into MAPUX. This company could create robots with easy user interfaces to implant in our brains. Then we wouldn't have to worry about monopolies, we wouldn't know any better.

djr33
02-21-2007, 09:28 PM
I completely agree about screwdrivers.

and the point holds true... just like so many options, the result is from the user, not the computer, so paint shop pro or gimp or photoshop, or even paint or PHP GD library.... they all output images. Dreamweaver and notepad.... they both do html (and more). In the end, it's just what is done, and what can be done.
While some things have limitations, I find that windows and OSX are almost identical.... except in.... well.... look. So.... equal, but not identical ;)

Aidanx
03-31-2007, 05:38 PM
I own a Dell XPS 710 [Details] (http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_710?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs) previously running Windows Vista but now with Linux and I have had the experience of using both the iMac on OS9 and the Mini Mac on OSX. In my opinion, the Mac has the obvious advantage of easy to use, pre-installed dedicated packages, such as iMovie, Garageband and iLife which make the creation of, for example, a news report as seen in a recent episode of "The Gadget Show" where the presenters were required to write a 600 word report with 2 pictures and a short video clip before uploading it to the show's website. In this challenge the Mac was streaks ahead thanks to its easy to understand user friendly, accesible packages whereas the PC required a lot of new downloaded software to allow the presenter to create the report. However, during my own use of OS9 and OSX, I have found that it is very restricted. It gives off the feeling that you can use what is pre-installed but anything else you want to download is a no go. On the other hand, the feeling I get from the PC, is that you are free to download whatever you want, whether it be safe or not. Now some may see this as a disadvantage but at the user's discretion, the PC can remain safe and far more usable than the Mac, in that the user can do much more of what they want on the PC than on the Mac.

Machiavelli1531
05-16-2008, 04:18 PM
I use a mac running OSX 10.5 i used boot camp to install windows XP (vista is crap) and i run Ubuntu and Kubuntu as vrtual PC's using Q (Qemu) and i need all four to get my work done and entertain myself.

The discussion shouldn't be about which OS is best because alone they all suck. I think people should be talking about which 2 OS's allow for maximum productivity , compatibility and entertainment at minimal cost.

Foot note on this whole thread.
Since the Mac vs. PC ads started everyone has started to blur the line between Machine and OS and started using the term PC synonymously with windows and that annoys me.
PC stands for PERSONAL COMPUTER and as far as i can tell the mac i'm writing this from is my personal computer so semantically it is a PC. When you say PC it COULD refer to any computer running any OS that anyone is using personally.
All to say please refer to OS's specifically instead of it bundling everything other than mac into the huge category that is PC.
I just felt it needed to be said even though everyone already knew it.

Adrian

shotgun_ninja
05-19-2008, 04:11 PM
You people are so easily amused. :rolleyes:

LOL


HAHAHAHAHA We made John use chat speak! "LOL"

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Wow. You just proved his point.


The new macs are better, still work well together with hardware, and is compatible with windows. Does anyone think that Microsoft will buy Mac, merge into one massage company, and the age of Mac vs PC be over? Tell me what you think about it. JF

Actually, Microsoft already owns majority stock.

By the way, for the lulz, is your name John Freeman, by any chance?

(If you don't realize the impact of that, go to Youtube and search "Half-Life Full Life Consequences")

andres
05-27-2008, 09:35 PM
Regarding the price- PC hardware is cheaper. If you'd like I can post specs of similar systems. Now this may be a more advanced user deal- I build all my own computers, but I have found barebone systems that only need a harddrive for a very affordable price.

Keep in mind I have never bought a fully manufactured PC in my life, so I am not current with Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, ect.

But if you compare each piece of hardware in both systems, It will be the same price or cheaper for a PC.
This doesn't make PC's better- I would say the majority of the market does not want to build their own computer. They want to take it out of the box, plug it in, and go.

I think it comes down to an OS debate on Mac and PC. Mac brags about running windows, but isn't that the debate? Why run windows on a more expensive setup?

I have used Vista, and I don't like it. I have used OSX and I don't like it. However I'd rather learn MacOS than Vista when XP is out of commission.

I don't think there is any solution to which is better, I think its what you are used to and what you can adapt to.
I like the affordability and control you get with a PC. However the lines between Mac and PC are starting to cross each other.
It used to be that you couldn't change your hardware setup on a Mac. Now you have some control of the components. I see them being more and more related in the future.

Ryan Fitton
06-25-2008, 03:47 PM
You cant say which is the best, because each system has their own advantages. For examples mAcs are better with graphics while PC's are better for office stuff like, word processing.

:)

Master_script_maker
06-29-2008, 10:11 PM
You cant say which is the best, because each system has their own advantages. For examples mAcs are better with graphics while PC's are better for office stuff like, word processing.

:)
but now there is office for mac

djr33
06-29-2008, 10:23 PM
Ryan is correct.
Mac: graphics
PC: video games, certain web things, programming, and it's a bit easier to use word processing and such

However, anyone who knows what they're doing can use either. I'm fluent in both and it's really the same thing to me. Just a couple different buttons. Macs are expensive and look prettier, though. (And they ARE better for graphics, which is why I use one.)

andres
06-30-2008, 06:17 PM
I disagree with any "PCs are better for _____" or "Macs are better for _____" unless there is software compatibility issue. PC's may be slightly better for gaming although most big games are available on both Macs and PC's.

People have ALWAYS said macs are better for graphics.

What exactly do people mean by this? Is there a piece of software Mac offers that is superior? Or is it the "Macs are able to handle graphic processing better".

If its the first, Its because I'm not a Mac user that I'm completely ignorant about its existence.

If its the second, then I think that argument is flawed- my $740 PC (Intel Duo core 3.5Ghz, 8800GT w/ 1GB, 4GB DDR800 memory) handles graphic processing beautifully. In fact, photoshop and 3DSM fail to slow down with Age of Conan (HUGE hog, uses a gig and a half of my memory) and Guitar Rig 2 (another hog) running. All on a nice 19" display.

Anyways enough rants, I think that it all depends on what you like and what you need. PC's are far cheaper, but the mac environment is desirable for a lot of people.

djr33
06-30-2008, 07:50 PM
PC's may be slightly better for gaming although most big games are available on both Macs and PC's.
Not really.
1. Macs are not gaming computers.
2. They are not generally upgraded with better graphics cards for that sort of thing, etc.
3. Many, many games are not made for both systems. The vast majority are PC only.
Macs are capable, but not the target audience, so they are not the ideal system if you're a gamer.


People have ALWAYS said macs are better for graphics. [Why?]
1. They simply are.
2. They are designed for this. They were the first computers to integrate standard firewire for importing video, for example.
3. Lots of pros in the industry use them-- they continue to be used and get software and support.
For example, Adobe pulled some of their products off the macs, because final cut pro was replacing the market for premiere, but now they have reintroduced it because it's an important market for them.
4. The system is designed at a base level to support graphics now, so this is especially true with OSX more than previous versions.




Yeah, you're talking about some basic 2D manipulations in photoshop. I do high end video editing, so I may be running a 3D program (or two), After Effects, Final Cut Pro, a browser or two, and, sure photoshop-- and let's toss in a 500 frame film strip, or a 5,000x3,000px image.


As I've said repeatedly in this thread, it's the user, not the system, and I'm quite content using my old copy of Paint Shop Pro 5 on an old windows 2000 computer-- I'm good at it, and it doesn't slow me down much from what I do with Photoshop on OSX. But that is NOT when I'm doing the hardest, most intense work. Simple as that.

I don't really care what I use, though I just personally prefer the feel of a mac. I'm on a PC in a computer lab at school, and certainly having no problem with it. Once you're fluent in one, the other isn't far away (after you get over some important by easy to understand differences).

And there's no better arguments for Macs than that regardless of virus security, there simply are very few attempts to mess with them, so running a PC is by its very nature being a target, whereas running a mac is standing away from the battlefield. Certainly you can get hit, if someone cares enough to write a virus, but the truth is that no one really does. If everyone switches to macs and enough users who don't know how to stop viruses do use macs, that is bound to change-- but for now the demographic is PC>Windows>Internet Explorer.

magicyte
07-08-2008, 02:14 AM
Overall, if you are a programmer, PCs are HIGHLY SUGGESTED.

-magicyte

magicyte
07-08-2008, 02:15 AM
Oh, by the way. djr33, what do the languages in your signature say?

-magicyte

djr33
07-08-2008, 03:15 AM
<?php?> | <html>|
Estudio español. | I study Spanish.
Imparo l'italiano. | I learn Italian.
Deutsch lerne ich. | I'm learning German.
accipio latinum | I take Latin.
J'étudie un peu de français. | I study a bit of French.
ادرس العربية | I study Arabic.


As for being a programmer, yeah, use a PC. You can get a lot done on a mac, but it's just not meant for that, and PCs are. Plus, lots of programs aren't available, regardless of open source, etc., stuff.

magicyte
07-08-2008, 03:31 AM
I'm good with spanish. Wouldn't you need to say Yo estudio espanol? I'm not criticizing, I'm just asking...

-magicyte

djr33
07-08-2008, 03:58 AM
This really isn't the thread to be discussing languages, but if you've got questions I'd be happy to answer them.

What you said is correct, but extra emphasis. It's like saying, "I!!!! study Spanish", in English. Because of the conjugation (verb ending) of -o, we KNOW it's for yo, not for tu or el, because they would be estudias and estudia. So in Spanish it's perfectly acceptable to just say the verb, "estudio." Like "Hablo español." is a complete sentence.

magicyte
07-08-2008, 05:59 PM
Cool. I never knew that! And you are probably right that this isn't a thread for discussing languages. Plus, I took five years of spanish from this HORRIBLE teacher (never learned much). Anyway, back to Mac vs. PC. I would agree with my dad when he says that the Mac is good with graphics. But would it have any sort of text editor like notepad? PCs are best with programming and text-editing, but are they getting any nearer to the Mac's graphics? I'm a programming guy, so I LOVE the PC, but this guy I know is a photographer and uses a Mac. He edits his photos and gets good money for it, but could there be a chance that any photographer would suggest or prefer the PC? Doubtful, but I am sure that SOME are out there, using PCs. Yeah, so there's Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X Leopard, but what about Unix or Linux? Are they better with programming or graphics? I doubt that anybody would use them, considering that there aren't many programs out there for them.

-magicyte

djr33
07-08-2008, 07:54 PM
Macs have an awkward default text editor called TextEdit. I hate it. It does have a plain text mode, but it tries to do a preview mode for rich text and even html.
Simpletext, which was on OS9, and still has versions today (but not by default, and it might not be compatible with the newest system) is just like notepad, though.

It really doesn't matter what system you use, but how you use it. So a photographer can use either. I'm working with a friend on a very graphics intensive film project. I use a mac, he uses and PC, we can both use each other's systems and we can transfer files happily (with a few weird errors). Some programs work on one and not the other, some work on both, and we find a way to make it work. In the end, it's up to the user and what works best. However, going with the design of the system, there's a definite general trend that macs will be easier to use for graphics and pcs for programming, etc. But I can do either on either, and separating them, such as a "VS" discussion is basically just silly. If you can't use both, then that's your problem, not the systems'.

Lots of people here use linux (unix is basically a version of linux, though OSX is actually based on unix, but that's another story). It's great for programming. Basically, if you want more control, a free OS, and decent compatibility with programs, then linux is fine. It is more work, so it's sorta like "if you want to program your own OS, then linux is for you!", but it's gotten easier lately and you can find GUIs that mimic windows and mac interfaces-- so you don't really need to program anything.
There is a high percentage of servers that use linux, a few that use windows, and though it is possible, basically none that use MacOS. (I had my mac running as a server for a while, but it's just not very common.)

Linux is by far the worst operating system for professional level graphics, because few people would use it, and the companies do not make the high end software. Basically, for something like special effects, a single company can determine what a software company will do-- is ILM using windows? macs? That's what the program will come out for. Or, at least a single company can have a big impact. High end graphics are limited, so the programs are as well-- not just available for anything. And linux is generally the last to get anything. There ARE programs out there, and Shake, for example, actually has a linux version, but not a windows version (I believe there is a really old version for windows, but it's very outdated), though it is generally a program for macs.
For photography, the GIMP is an open source clone of photoshop, which I don't personally like, but is generally capable of getting the job done-- it exists for all OSs.

Again, I repeat, if you know what you're doing, the OS and programs hardly matter-- not to say one system won't make it easier for you.


As an example that's easy to explain:
I usually use my mac with a fairly new version of photoshop. But if I'm on a PC, I'll happily use my copy of Paint Shop Pro 5, from about 1998, or something, and get the same stuff done. I know both programs well, and there are very few differences once you get beyond the interface. Obviously photoshop has a few features not in PSP5, but I know how to get around them when I need to.
Would I rather use a newer system? Sure. Do I need to? No.




And as for your experience with Spanish, I'm sorry to hear that. Foreign language education in the US is absolutely terrible. If you're interested, don't give up, and try to find some other ways to practice.

magicyte
07-08-2008, 08:19 PM
And as for your experience with Spanish, I'm sorry to hear that. Foreign language education in the US is absolutely terrible. If you're interested, don't give up, and try to find some other ways to practice.

I say that because I am entering Middle School. I'm not like some guy taking spanish in college, but the teacher was always hot-headed. Back to Mac-vs.-PC.

Well, which type do you prefer? Mac or PC? I prefer PC, no matter the condition. But that is because I program. If PC can handle graphics WELL and STILL do programming stuff, then I'm all for it.

-magicyte

P.S. Are there any other OSs? (Other than Linux, Unix, Windows, and OS X Leopard) Just wonderin'.

djr33
07-08-2008, 09:46 PM
An operating system is any sort of base software for a system, thus there are many, such as what your cell phone runs on. In short, no, there are two proprietary operating systems: Windows and MacOS, and then there is Linux which comes in a ton of varieties, which you can consider different operating systems if you'd like.

Me? I prefer a Mac. I just like using it more, but I can handle using a PC as well, so I don't really mind, unless I'm doing intensive graphics work-- then a Mac is better for me.


Was typing too fast-- corrected a typo, in italics now

Minos
07-09-2008, 12:21 PM
I say that because I am entering Middle School. I'm not like some guy taking spanish in college, but the teacher was always hot-headed. Back to Mac-vs.-PC.

Well, which type do you prefer? Mac or PC? I prefer PC, no matter the condition. But that is because I program. If PC can handle graphics WELL and STILL do programming stuff, then I'm all for it.

-magicyte

P.S. Are there any other OSs? (Other than Linux, Unix, Windows, and OS X Leopard) Just wonderin'.

There was an OS known as Lindows before Microsoft sued the **** out of the creator. It was a Linux/Windows hybrid. Supposedly pretty cool, but w/e, I never used it.

I prefer PC. Number one reason?! Price. $1000 for a Mac vs. building my own PC for about $600 (not in the same league as $600 Dells, :P).

And back to the OP's question, will MS buy Apple? Not a chance in hell. After MS's legal battle a few years back over being a monopoly (over something as silly as bundling IE with Windows), I really don't see them trying, not to mention getting away with, that.

TBH, I'm still not quite sure how Adobe got away with swallowing Macromedia, and still isn't considered a monopoly?

djr33
07-09-2008, 07:36 PM
A monopoly is defined in complex ways legally. That basically answers your question. Adobe is now clearly the leading company, but there are other companies as well. It doesn't technically, or I should say legally, control the market, I suppose. (Though it effectively does.)

magicyte
07-09-2008, 09:56 PM
So, there's:

Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME (I have this one)
Windows XP (I have this one)
Windows Vista

Any more I missed?

-magicyte

P.S. Does anyone know why I'm a Regular Coder, but my img doesn't say it (just Junior Coder)?

P.P.S. I'm expecting the Administrator or a Moderator to answer this question (namely Daniel, John, or ddadmin).

djr33
07-10-2008, 01:25 AM
Windows 3.1 was the first system I ever used. Obviously there were versions before that, and before that DOS.
95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and whatever they've got for us next. But don't forget about Windows 2003 Server, and also Windows NT, which is mostly for businesses/servers, but some people do have it as an OS. It's somewhere around windows 2000 in terms of time. (Basically ME was awful, so they came out with 2000 soon after. My favorite M$ OS, by the way.)


Linux, as posted above has maaany varieties. Fedora, redhat, BeOS, and many others-- those are just which ones jump to my mind.

Macs:
I don't know much about the early history, but I've seen OS7, then 8 and 9. 8 and 9 were similar-- 9 was just a bit stronger. Then came OSX (OS10).

magicyte
07-18-2008, 03:52 AM
What about Internet browsers? What types are there and how many?

-magicyte


Fixed annoying spellings.

Twey
07-18-2008, 09:51 AM
There was an OS known as Lindows before Microsoft sued the **** out of the creator. It was a Linux/Windows hybrid. Supposedly pretty cool, but w/e, I never used it.It still exists, it was merely forced to change its name. It's now known as 'Linspire'. It's a Linux distribution, but with most of the features turned off so as not to confuse Windows users, who are automatically all presumed to be idiots. There's little benefit, and it advocates practices (such as running everything as root) that are common in the Windows world, but considered very bad form on other operating systems. Due to this, about the only extra feature you're likely to get from it is a little security-through-obscurity.

Any mature, general-purpose operating system will have the features you specify. There's minimal difference in that area between Windows, Mac OS, and Linux (and other UNIX variants).
Linux, as posted above has maaany varieties. Fedora, redhat, BeOS, and many others-- those are just which ones jump to my mind.BeOS is not in the slightest bit related to Linux. It is an entirely different operating system, developed commercially by Be and then abandoned, now being resurrected in the form of its open-source clone Haiku.

There are really only three operating systems under the Windows brand. These are the original Windows series, <= 3.1 (really more of a shell for DOS than an operating system); the Win9x series, from Win95 to WinME, and the NT series, from the original Windows NT to current-day Vista (note that this was developed in parallel with the Win9x series for a period).

Likewise, Mac operating systems can be divided into only two major versions: OS<X, which was an entirely proprietary platform by Apple, hand-coded in assembly targetted at the PowerPC, and OS>=X, which is a thin proprietary layer built on top of Darwin BSD.

Linux is not, to be proper, an operating system. The general, more precise term is 'GNU/Linux'. GNU is an operating system built entirely by the Free Software Foundation and released under various GNU licenses. It lacks only a kernel, the core of the operating system which handles low-level tasks such as memory allocation and hardware interaction. This hole in the operating system is currently most commonly filled in by Linux, a free kernel developed by a group of hackers gathered by Linus Torvalds. There are efforts underway to promote interoperability between GNU and other kernels, such as the FSF's microkernel-based Hurd.

Off of the top of my head, I can think of quite a few other operating systems, which I shall simply rattle off; Google them if you are interested in more details.

AIX, HP/UX, Solaris, BSDs (including Darwin BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, &c.), QNX, BeOS, Haiku, AmigaOS, QDOS ('Quick and Dirty Operating System') and spin-offs (MS-DOS ['MicroSoft Disk Operating System'], FreeDOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS, AmigaDOS, OpenDOS, FreeDOS), AmigaOS, Microsoft and IBM's OS/2, and VMS.
What about Internet browsers? What types are there and how many?On Mac OS? Probably about the same as whatever you use on whatever operating system you're on at the moment. There are only a few non-cross-platform browsers; of the ones actually in use (>1% market dominance), they're almost all variants of IE or other browsers using IE/Win's Trident engine. IE only existed for Mac OS up until version 5, but did not use Trident, which was restricted to the Windows versions. It would be reasonable to consider IE/Win and IE/Mac completely separate browsers. Safari and Camino are also quite popular, which are Mac-targetted browsers, based on KHTML and Gecko respectively, and of course there's Konqueror, which can only run under KDE, which, for now, only runs on UNIX variants, insofar as I am aware.

BoyMac
12-24-2008, 11:48 PM
They have 4 buttons; left, right, middle and squeezing the sides.

djr33
12-25-2008, 12:14 PM
Not sure what you're talking about, but if you're referring to the mighty mouse, it's a terrible, terrible thing. I'd argue it's probably the worst component of apples now. It's a joke that it has more than one button because that's just not true. It has one button which happens to do different things when you push it in exactly some specific manner (much like a Bop-It, but harder to operate). I love the one button trackpad on my macbook, but that's because the interaction of more than one finger on the pad itself gives a lot of control-- nothing like the uncontrollable mighty mice. They're terrible, and annoy me every time I'm forced to use one at a computer that isn't mine, so I haven't had the pleasure of replacing it with a real mouse.

Sorry for the rant, but I find that to be, as I said, one of the worst things about recent apples. Macs are usually great. But never really got the whole one button mouse thing, then they add a defective 2 1/2 button mouse... hmm... :p



It would be reasonable to consider IE/Win and IE/Mac completely separate browsers.Arguable, but not really. I think of them both as old, defective versions of IE-- that is to say versions 5.0 and 5.5 (and anything before, of course). Since there is no newer version of IE for a Mac, I'd say that IE simply is a PC browser now, though some people still use it on really old macs (considering it's not even a part of OSX).

josephtaylor1995
04-05-2009, 11:49 AM
pc is more known and is more compatiable with stuff

Twey
04-05-2009, 02:36 PM
I think the idea behind the one-button mouse is that if you need more buttons, your interface is too complicated. Apple are big on simplistic user-interface design. Personally I prefer Cmd-mouse1 to mouse3 anyway, especially when dragging: dragging with the other mouse buttons has never been a pleasant task.


[on IE/Win and IE/Mac being separate browsers] Arguable, but not really. I think of them both as old, defective versions of IE-- that is to say versions 5.0 and 5.5 (and anything before, of course).You feel that IE ceased to exist at version 5.5? Interesting viewpoint :)
Since there is no newer version of IE for a Mac, I'd say that IE simply is a PC browser nowYou mean a Windows browser, I presume — IE does not run (natively) on any other PC operating system. That's not my point, though. I'm not sure why you say that IE/Win and IE/Mac should not be considered separate browsers — you didn't really explain it.

jscheuer1
04-06-2009, 04:43 AM
IE 5 Mac was ahead of its time. Now it is woefully outdated, just as is IE 5.5 Win. In a way it is a shame that MS stopped supporting Mac OS's. But that's their prerogative. I'm certainly not an authority on these matters. But it seems to me that MS's dominance is gradually slipping away. Their biggest current rival is FireFox, but there are others. Oddly enough, from my point of view, all the major browsers have assets and drawbacks. None are perfect.

But this is somewhat separate from MS's problem. They've spent so much time trying (and mostly succeeding) to dominate their market niche, while at the same time that niche has broadened. It's no longer just about browsers, search, software or OS's, and even just that much is hard for any one company to stay on top of.

I think that is where most folks who "love to hate MS" are coming from. Instead of acting like a cooperative player, MS has more often than not been angling to be the only player in town.

djr33
04-06-2009, 05:12 AM
Twey, I wrote that a long time ago, but to clarify, I think my point was basically that IE for Mac is old, outdated and worthless. It's not supported, not current, and not able to keep up any more (barely render a layout, much less do anything like javascript). No one uses it either and it doesn't ship with the current machines (last 4 years or so).
Basically, IE for Mac has ceased to exist.
If you want to consider it a separate browser, fine by me and it basically is (at least compared to IE6,7,8 for win), but at that point you might as well bring back all old browsers, like netscape (before it got enveloped into firefox), etc.

As for my reference to PC not including linux, good point, but basically true. In the big world war of computers, linux is basically Switzerland. It's not taking a side and it's not winning either. It's just doing it's own thing on the side with basically the same people it started with (but, hey, after the war, I can see lots of people moving there instead). "PC" referring to non-macs is very strange anyway, considering the term was coined by Apple. When I say "PC" fairly often I just do mean windows machines. But anyway, yeah, consider IE now a windows-only browser. (And in the sense of the specifically non-mac meaning of "PC" I suppose that still holds true of IE regardless of linux.)
I'd favor a decision to render the term "PC" meaningless, but I doubt it would actually catch on. :D

Twey
04-06-2009, 02:16 PM
I think that is where most folks who "love to hate MS" are coming from. Instead of acting like a cooperative player, MS has more often than not been angling to be the only player in town.Well, not only that: they often go out of their way to disable rivals in markets they want to get into by mangling existing standards, like with MS Java and, indeed, IE. This has the effect of not only taking over that particular niche, but making sure that the dominant product in that niche is thoroughly rubbish.

Daniel: ah, yes, that's certainly true, but not really related to what I was saying. Even though it's no longer developed, IE/Mac is/was basically a separate browser from IE/Win. They were completely different. With regards to ‘not able to keep up any more’, I'm tempted to note that IE7 isn't that good at it either :p It's all about what developers are prepared to take the trouble to support.


As for my reference to PC not including linux, good point, but basically true. In the big world war of computers, linux is basically Switzerland. It's not taking a side and it's not winning either. It's just doing it's own thing on the side with basically the same people it started withWell, that's true for some distributions, but many (like Ubuntu) are designed specifically to target the niche of novice computer users, which seems to be what Mac OS X and Vista are both trying to accomplish. It's not completely separate from the others, even on the desktop market: its share is something like 2.5% (compared to Mac's 5%) and growing steadily.