Macintosh Vs Windows

[Picard[1up]]

Love my macs as I like the OS and GUI compared to everything else, windows has it place for much of my gaming although UrT and a few other games I perfer to play on my mac. But I run Macs and custom built PCs with Win 7 / XP and Ubuntu and ZenWalk.

[VaporTrail]

I love Windows, respect the Mac stand point for being a potentially better graphic design OS, and give kudos to those willing to try Linux. I'm satisfied with my crappy Vista on my main computer, but wish there was a few things I could change.

To be honest, both are decent, I just get tired of all the Mac-***s who go to school here who think everything Mac made is superior to anything else in existance. (And don't hesitate to tell you at every turn.) When in reality, there's not THAT big of a difference between the two. 

[Tits_McGee]

GNU / Linux


How can it not be awesome? Just look at those guys (Linus Torvalds, inventor of the linux kernel, and RMS founder of GNU)! Trust me, they KNOW about computers.

[Cuomo]

I think it's sort of like comparing apples and oranges..
I use a macbook, and use Mac OS for everything outside UrT and pr0nz =D
umm anyway..lol
for urt, windoze ftw, because i just generally get better fps, can run xfire, a real version of vent, can alt+tab(cmd+tab fawks up urt), and maps load faster.
but theyre just different. If you don't game and your that end user retard apple expects you to be, then yes, mac all the way. It honestly does have less problems if you don't know your computers. On the other hand, if you know how to avoid viruses (*cough*pick the right torrents*cough*) what? torrents are technically legal! anyway, then yeah, windows can work for you.
my point is, if ur the computer nerd who likes to game and knows what youre doing, dont spend an extra leg.. just buy a PC; and if you're retarded, or an old person that isn't accustomed to PCs, get a mac.
that sounds negative toward apple but its really not, their customer service and product quality is far superior, its just that i can handle my comp on my own. =)

[SnKQuaKe]

A custom built quality PC can be had for less than a Mac.
Or for equal cash, you get way more bang for your buck.

[Lurker]

Due to the state of current American laws and company policies, I believe that Apple computers are currently the best solution in the market [for people like me]. Currently, computers that run Mac OS X and computers that run Windows NT (equivalent to the current Mac OS 10.*) are using the same hardware. That is, ever since Apple switched from PowerPC powered to Intel powered motherboards, they pretty much have the same thing in the cases. The differences?

1. When you buy an Apple computer, you are essentially also paying for being able to sport the Apple brand.
2. The Extensible Firmware Interface
3. Apple's End User License Agreement for Mac OS 10.*

Notice how I did not mention operating system. Since they contain the same hardware, the same software (Operating System) should be able to run on both. However, it can't.

To run Mac OS X on a non-Apple branded computer, you break the EULA. While that is currently in the legal gray-area, Apple has complete right to refuse to provide updates to your operating system, leaving you vulnerable to any security risks that might affect the operating system. What about virtualizing Mac OS X using a professional virtual desktoping software like VMWare? That's great, but Apple will not release anything to help virtualization companies support Mac OS X. This will make Mac OS X support sparse, or shoddy at best. But wait, Windows and Linux runs perfectly in VMWare. Also, VMWare fusion, the mac version, is substantially cheaper than VMWare Workstation, for Windows. That's a price difference of $100, not exactly chump change. What about native installation of Windows and Linux on Apple-branded computers? Well, Boot Camp essentially is a partitioning manager that supports Windows. Linux is not supported. This is due to the Extensible Firmware Interface. Apple computers currently do not have a BIOS like non-Apple branded computers. This makes it very difficult to install native linux, and so your option is Virtualization. Again, this would be substantially cheaper.

Okay, so this leaves the price difference. I think being able to legally obtain updates, have a cheaper way of Virtualization, and access to a lot of proprietary software and toolkits is well worth the extra money.

But will this effect the average user? No. The average computer user probably has never heard of Linux, due to advertising failures. The average computer use has no need for more than one operating system.

Yet for programmers, people who maintain servers, etc. linux is inevitably better. It's not just once that I have trouble programming in Windows. Things just don't seem to work as well. Linux servers just run better (even Windows guys will admit to that). However, you will inevitably need a Windows machine to test your programs on. After all, if you are looking for a consumer base, Windows is where you find it. It still has the greatest share in the Operating System market. Then, if you want to tap into the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad market, you need a Mac. Even if you just wanted to program for Mac, a test environment is likely needed. After all, you can't just make a freeBSD compatible piece of software and expect it to work on Mac (OS X was based off of freeBSD). Mac OS X has a proprietary Cocoa layer that you have to deal with.

[Casper]

Ive always thought mac's hardware was a lot better. They have better ram and memory most of the time, not to mention they look pretty slick 
However, i dont like their software at all. Look at the iPod touch: it is cool.But not jailbroken, apple limits its potential so so much. You can only get things from the app store, and they constantly update firmware to stop jailbreaking (although only idioits update it anyway)
With windows, you can get nearly anything for free. I dont understand mac computers all that much, mainly because ive never owned one. However, if its anything like the Ipods, forcing you to use one of their programs and give you no other choice, it definitly goes to windows. Sry to not include linux, but i frankly have never tried it and know barely anything about it 

[Panda[1up]]

Linux is only good for running servers.

[Lurker]

Ive always thought mac's hardware was a lot better. They have better ram and memory most of the time, not to mention they look pretty slick 
However, i dont like their software at all. Look at the iPod touch: it is cool.But not jailbroken, apple limits its potential so so much. You can only get things from the app store, and they constantly update firmware to stop jailbreaking (although only idioits update it anyway)
With windows, you can get nearly anything for free. I dont understand mac computers all that much, mainly because ive never owned one. However, if its anything like the Ipods, forcing you to use one of their programs and give you no other choice, it definitly goes to windows. Sry to not include linux, but i frankly have never tried it and know barely anything about it 

No. They are essentially running the same hardware now. The casing does look slick, but a few companies are imitating the mac look. It's not that Apple is limiting potential. One of the good things about Apple being so proprietary (much as I don't want to say), is that it really is easier to troubleshoot. Tell someone what computer you have, and they can look up all the specs immediately. Hardware problems are especially easy to pinpoint. And also, limiting what you can do on a system is also potentially very good. Let's look at the pwn2own contests for example. Nobody /ever/ tries to exploit the operating system in itself on the first day. However, on the second day people attempt to use third party applications to exploit the system. This means that the problems lie not with the Operating System but with Third Party Applications.

With Windows, a lot of things are proprietary and limited as well. Let's take the desktop environment: it is pretty much built in. And, you really have to know your stuff (same as with jailbreaking [not using a jailbreak application but finding a jailbreak exploit in the first place]) to change it around. Let's look at linux, it is very easy to change desktop environments. I can choose GNOME, KDE, Xmonad, XFCE, and a myriad of other desktop environments.

[Lurker]

Linux is only good for running servers.

Really? I have yet to see Windows [NT] or Mac OS X do this: http://xmonad.org/

[aravir]

Linux is only good for running servers.

Really? I have yet to see Windows [NT] or Mac OS X do this: http://xmonad.org/

Linux user here, too.  But I still run fvwm 1.24r with my same fvwmrc from 1993.

I don't need no stinkin' eye candy. 

[Lurker]

Linux is only good for running servers.

Really? I have yet to see Windows [NT] or Mac OS X do this: http://xmonad.org/

Linux user here, too.  But I still run fvwm 1.24r with my same fvwmrc from 1993.

I don't need no stinkin' eye candy. 

Looks to have more eye candy than xmonad =P

[|$|CandyMan]

Linux is only good for running servers.

Really? I have yet to see Windows [NT] or Mac OS X do this: http://xmonad.org/

Wow... You can tile windows efficiently.... [Keeps pretending he's impressed]

[Lurker]

Linux is only good for running servers.

Really? I have yet to see Windows [NT] or Mac OS X do this: http://xmonad.org/

Wow... You can tile windows efficiently.... [Keeps pretending he's impressed]

It's actually really useful when I'm programming...

[Casper]

Linux is only good for running servers.

Really? I have yet to see Windows [NT] or Mac OS X do this: http://xmonad.org/

Wow... You can tile windows efficiently.... [Keeps pretending he's impressed]

I find it very ironic that more people were spiteful in a debate on operating systems than a debate on religion xD
Haha i take that as computers > god
lmfao xDDDDDD