FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Denthúl]

I think my comparisons would be slightly different to yours

OS X would, fair enough, be the MP4-23, but Windows would probably be the F1.08 in its current form. Sure, it's got some problems, but it's a steady enough performer.

...of course, Debian with Openbox would be the MP4-4

OS X is the F2008 (Need I remind you guys the F2008 was the car that won?), Windows though I'll agree is the F1.08.

Linux is the Renault

You couldn't drive the F2008 in the wet, though. The MP4-23 was the best all-round car on the grid, no doubt about it.

while the Design industry revolves around macs i had to purchase one, a Macbook! though in doing so id never go back to a PC i do not miss the constant error messages, the need for virus scans, the component compatibility issues etc etc windows has toooo many bugs!
A Mac does everything i need it to do,mostly design and multimedia plus internet browsing, its stylish and user friendly! if i want gaming i have a PS3. blu ray? ill watch that on the TV as well.

I'm a PC-user. I haven't had the need to scan for viruses since 2003 and the last time I got an error message was only because I was fiddling around with the kernel.

Mac's are overpriced you can get a Lenovo Notebook that can do everything you would want to do with a PC for £350-400

all Mac's are good for is power users - vid editing and design.

Power users != video editors, web/graphic designers or sound artists. Those are multimedia users.

while the Design industry revolves around macs i had to purchase one, a Macbook! though in doing so id never go back to a PC i do not miss the constant error messages, the need for virus scans, the component compatibility issues etc etc windows has toooo many bugs!
A Mac does everything i need it to do,mostly design and multimedia plus internet browsing, its stylish and user friendly! if i want gaming i have a PS3. blu ray? ill watch that on the TV as well.

Agreed.

As to why a MacBook Pro is superior, it's got a lot to do with the world's best Operating System, industry standards and industry-leading construction. MacBooks are the most popular line of notebooks (Fact, look it up) for a reason, and only part of it is their style (On that note, VAIOs are also fairly pretty. Thinkpads are...Ahem...Not)

OS X is far too limited in certain areas (particularly hardware usage being allowed by the operating system) and inefficient in others. A lot of people that favour OS X over Windows do so because the themes are different, the programs are different or they can have the dock. Those are not Mac-only features. The fact that there are limits to the amount of processes you can run built in to the basic system is ridiculous (266? What good is that?). Fortunately, you can at least change them if you know how, but then it's highly unlikely that Apple will give you this information (because finding out where these things are could lead you to alter other, important parameters) and I was somewhat disappointed when I tried to look around the Mac community.

Bugs, also, seem to be fixed in the same way that Microsoft go about doing it. Not good.

[Jensonb]

OS X is far too limited in certain areas (particularly hardware usage being allowed by the operating system) and inefficient in others. A lot of people that favour OS X over Windows do so because the themes are different, the programs are different or they can have the dock. Those are not Mac-only features. The fact that there are limits to the amount of processes you can run built in to the basic system is ridiculous (266? What good is that?). Fortunately, you can at least change them if you know how, but then it's highly unlikely that Apple will give you this information (because finding out where these things are could lead you to alter other, important parameters) and I was somewhat disappointed when I tried to look around the Mac community.

Bugs, also, seem to be fixed in the same way that Microsoft go about doing it. Not good.

Sir, might I ask what it is you intend to DO with your computer? I don't know of anyone else who has ever found a Mac restricting. Mac OS X Leopard is the most secure, reliable and user-friendly operating system on the market.

There is a vast number of ways in which Leopard, OS X in general even, is superior to Windows. Do not pretend it's all "fluff", and don't belittle those advantages anyway. What's wrong with an OS which works correctly, is pleasant to use and has handy features out of the box?

Why do so many geeks assume everyone is a tinkerer?

(266 Processes is too few? SERIOUSLY man, how many do you NEED? Ever heard of the law of diminishing returns :S)

[Denthúl]

OS X is far too limited in certain areas (particularly hardware usage being allowed by the operating system) and inefficient in others. A lot of people that favour OS X over Windows do so because the themes are different, the programs are different or they can have the dock. Those are not Mac-only features. The fact that there are limits to the amount of processes you can run built in to the basic system is ridiculous (266? What good is that?). Fortunately, you can at least change them if you know how, but then it's highly unlikely that Apple will give you this information (because finding out where these things are could lead you to alter other, important parameters) and I was somewhat disappointed when I tried to look around the Mac community.

Bugs, also, seem to be fixed in the same way that Microsoft go about doing it. Not good.

Sir, might I ask what it is you intend to DO with your computer? I don't know of anyone else who has ever found a Mac restricting. Mac OS X Leopard is the most secure, reliable and user-friendly operating system on the market.

There is a vast number of ways in which Leopard, OS X in general even, is superior to Windows. Do not pretend it's all "fluff", and don't belittle those advantages anyway. What's wrong with an OS which works correctly, is pleasant to use and has handy features out of the box?

Why do so many geeks assume everyone is a tinkerer?

(266 Processes is too few? SERIOUSLY man, how many do you NEED? Ever heard of the law of diminishing returns :S)

Yes, 266 processes is too few. I'm running 57 now, and the only thing I'm actually doing is browsing the web. When I want to work, I can increase that number dramatically. My laptop, which is a much lower spec than my desktop, runs between 60 and 80, because there's a lot going on in there. If I didn't strip out the things I don't want to run on either system, it would be much higher. As for what I do with my computer, quite a lot and usually all at once. Programming, video decoding and encoding, constantly running the Folding@Home client, running virtual machines and system monitoring tools. Yes, the average user won't use this many things, but you'd be surprised at how many processes are running when the computer is 'idle'. And then on to the principles of it: why limit? It's completely unnecessary and, to some, even offensive.

There are also a vast number of ways in which Windows is superior to OS X. Hardware is key, here. Let's start with anybody who wants to run an AMD64 system with OS X on. Wait...they can't. How's that a good thing? Apple are lucky that, at the moment, Intel have the edge on AMD, because only a couple of years ago Intel were quite far behind and there are a lot of people out there who would find it ridiculous that Apple are only supporting PowerPC and Intel-based systems. Which leads me on to the next point: pricing of a system which comes with OS X.

Unless you want to buy a generic desktop and hope that the chipset and other hardware are supported by the operating system, or spend forever researching and finding all of the compatible components that you can put together in an OS X-supporting system (and remember, not everyone is a tinkerer, so likely not too many people who want to use a Mac system will be system builders), you have to pay over-the-top prices for inferior hardware. People claim that Windows is overpriced. Yeah, it is. OS X on the other hand is quite inexpensive. However...

For a Mac Pro with the following specification:

Quad-core CPU clocked at 2.8GHz
4GB RAM
2x500GB HDD
2xATi Radeon HD2600XT Graphics Cards (256MB RAM each)
Optical Drive

You would pay $3,179/£2,149. For an equivalent system (I run one of these):

Quad-core CPU clocked at 2.6GHz
4GB RAM
2x500GB HDD
ATi Radeon HD4870 Graphics Card (512MB RAM)
Optical Drive
Floppy Drive
Card Reader
High-end Creative Audigy Sound Card
Very Fancy Case (Well, if you're saving that much)

You would pay around $800, $1000 at most. I paid £425 for mine and I even bought some excessive things like a Scythe CPU cooler despite not overclocking and an over-the-top case with all kinds of dust filters, mesh-panels and ventilation. Why pay five times as much for a picture of an apple on the front?

Now, on to some other points. Leopard being the most secure operating system on the market? No. Some form of BSD (OpenBSD, most likely) would be more secure. Why? They're designed around security and stability and are highly popular in the world of servers. Reliable? Any UNIX or Linux operating system can win here. Reliability comes from the user as much as the system. I've got a Windows machine that I constantly push to the limits, but I haven't ever encountered a problem with it. Not even with old hardware, and it's 64-bit Vista of all things. Similarly, I've got a Linux one that, again, I push to the limits and have no worries about. But a third machine, again Linux, I can cause to crash at will. Of course, being my test-bed, where a lot of software in the development phase is run, that would be expected. If I ran tested those programs on OS X, it would crash. If I ran them on Windows, again, it would crash.

Finally, working out of the box is, again, not solely down to the operating system. The reason OS X works 'out of the box' on any Mac system that you buy is that all the hardware is designed specifically for it. Try it on a production computer and you'll soon find that, actually, it's not any better than Windows at getting things right first time. Nor is Linux. These claims are mostly tossed around the internet by Apple themselves and many Mac devotees who haven't touched a Windows machine since the days of Windows 9x systems and so aren't really qualified to comment. Windows, Linux, UNIX, BSD and OS X are not perfect systems. Each one is better than the others for certain things. Claiming that one is the be all and end all of the operating system world is like saying that Ferrari is F1. It is simply ridiculous to say so.

To the mods/admins, apologies - this should probably be in Technophiles but there isn't actually a topic on it and, out of laziness, I'm not going to create one. :/

[Jabberwocky]

TBH I think most programmers and webdesigners are rubbish at the moment. eg 2 years ago I was in the Falkland Islands (little place that no one ever wants to go to twice) anyway internet speeds where around the 10kb/s as you can imagine 10 years ago on the internet that would of been fine. however due to rubbish designers etc the internet was almost impossible. The same goes for Programmers, can anyone really tell me what are the major differences in how anyone uses the computer from using say windows 98 and windows vista? for a day to day user there is very little difference. Now how fast would Windows 98 be on a computer that has the power that would run vista? How big and lumbering is the programming of vista in comparison.

I wounder how much of Vista is written in machine code? like things like Elite etc was!!!!

[bud]

Didnt Microsoft have to pay Apple for copying the fundamentals of their OS?

Denthul youre obviously a tinker programmer arent you? in that case Apple is not for you because you like to mod your hardware. Not everyone is into that, and people who just want something out of the box that is tried and tested then a Mac is for them! not all the packages out there with Windows on them run smoothly.

oh and you say you havent scanned for virus in 5 years or so, but i bet you still have anti virus software?

[la-ultima-curva]

interesting topic for a formula one forum....

as a power user, i use a mac pro tower and couldn't imagine using a windows based machine, although i do own a pc which is running vista. needless to say i can't remember the last time i turned the pc on (my ps3 might have something to do with that).
but what i prefer is purely based on my needs, and i'm sure people on this forum have different needs from their respective computers (some awesome insight i have there). so to go around saying such and such os is better is pointless... utterly pointless.
mac v pc, ps3 v xbox, mclaren v ferrari... its all the same. buy into what makes sense and suites your needs, fanboyism loyalty will only give you high blood pressure.

[Jensonb]

OS X is far too limited in certain areas (particularly hardware usage being allowed by the operating system) and inefficient in others. A lot of people that favour OS X over Windows do so because the themes are different, the programs are different or they can have the dock. Those are not Mac-only features. The fact that there are limits to the amount of processes you can run built in to the basic system is ridiculous (266? What good is that?). Fortunately, you can at least change them if you know how, but then it's highly unlikely that Apple will give you this information (because finding out where these things are could lead you to alter other, important parameters) and I was somewhat disappointed when I tried to look around the Mac community.

Bugs, also, seem to be fixed in the same way that Microsoft go about doing it. Not good.

Sir, might I ask what it is you intend to DO with your computer? I don't know of anyone else who has ever found a Mac restricting. Mac OS X Leopard is the most secure, reliable and user-friendly operating system on the market.

There is a vast number of ways in which Leopard, OS X in general even, is superior to Windows. Do not pretend it's all "fluff", and don't belittle those advantages anyway. What's wrong with an OS which works correctly, is pleasant to use and has handy features out of the box?

Why do so many geeks assume everyone is a tinkerer?

(266 Processes is too few? SERIOUSLY man, how many do you NEED? Ever heard of the law of diminishing returns :S)

Yes, 266 processes is too few. I'm running 57 now, and the only thing I'm actually doing is browsing the web. When I want to work, I can increase that number dramatically. My laptop, which is a much lower spec than my desktop, runs between 60 and 80, because there's a lot going on in there. If I didn't strip out the things I don't want to run on either system, it would be much higher. As for what I do with my computer, quite a lot and usually all at once. Programming, video decoding and encoding, constantly running the Folding@Home client, running virtual machines and system monitoring tools. Yes, the average user won't use this many things, but you'd be surprised at how many processes are running when the computer is 'idle'. And then on to the principles of it: why limit? It's completely unnecessary and, to some, even offensive.

There are also a vast number of ways in which Windows is superior to OS X. Hardware is key, here. Let's start with anybody who wants to run an AMD64 system with OS X on. Wait...they can't. How's that a good thing? Apple are lucky that, at the moment, Intel have the edge on AMD, because only a couple of years ago Intel were quite far behind and there are a lot of people out there who would find it ridiculous that Apple are only supporting PowerPC and Intel-based systems. Which leads me on to the next point: pricing of a system which comes with OS X.

Unless you want to buy a generic desktop and hope that the chipset and other hardware are supported by the operating system, or spend forever researching and finding all of the compatible components that you can put together in an OS X-supporting system (and remember, not everyone is a tinkerer, so likely not too many people who want to use a Mac system will be system builders), you have to pay over-the-top prices for inferior hardware. People claim that Windows is overpriced. Yeah, it is. OS X on the other hand is quite inexpensive. However...

For a Mac Pro with the following specification:

Quad-core CPU clocked at 2.8GHz
4GB RAM
2x500GB HDD
2xATi Radeon HD2600XT Graphics Cards (256MB RAM each)
Optical Drive

You would pay $3,179/£2,149. For an equivalent system (I run one of these):

Quad-core CPU clocked at 2.6GHz
4GB RAM
2x500GB HDD
ATi Radeon HD4870 Graphics Card (512MB RAM)
Optical Drive
Floppy Drive
Card Reader
High-end Creative Audigy Sound Card
Very Fancy Case (Well, if you're saving that much)

You would pay around $800, $1000 at most. I paid £425 for mine and I even bought some excessive things like a Scythe CPU cooler despite not overclocking and an over-the-top case with all kinds of dust filters, mesh-panels and ventilation. Why pay five times as much for a picture of an apple on the front?

Now, on to some other points. Leopard being the most secure operating system on the market? No. Some form of BSD (OpenBSD, most likely) would be more secure. Why? They're designed around security and stability and are highly popular in the world of servers. Reliable? Any UNIX or Linux operating system can win here. Reliability comes from the user as much as the system. I've got a Windows machine that I constantly push to the limits, but I haven't ever encountered a problem with it. Not even with old hardware, and it's 64-bit Vista of all things. Similarly, I've got a Linux one that, again, I push to the limits and have no worries about. But a third machine, again Linux, I can cause to crash at will. Of course, being my test-bed, where a lot of software in the development phase is run, that would be expected. If I ran tested those programs on OS X, it would crash. If I ran them on Windows, again, it would crash.

Finally, working out of the box is, again, not solely down to the operating system. The reason OS X works 'out of the box' on any Mac system that you buy is that all the hardware is designed specifically for it. Try it on a production computer and you'll soon find that, actually, it's not any better than Windows at getting things right first time. Nor is Linux. These claims are mostly tossed around the internet by Apple themselves and many Mac devotees who haven't touched a Windows machine since the days of Windows 9x systems and so aren't really qualified to comment. Windows, Linux, UNIX, BSD and OS X are not perfect systems. Each one is better than the others for certain things. Claiming that one is the be all and end all of the operating system world is like saying that Ferrari is F1. It is simply ridiculous to say so.

To the mods/admins, apologies - this should probably be in Technophiles but there isn't actually a topic on it and, out of laziness, I'm not going to create one. :/

Okay, see, that right here is why people who use PCs uses PCs and people who use Macs use Macs. For consumer-level, you've just over-thought it.

Incidentally, it is in fact illegal to install OS X on a non-Mac, so it'd completely irrelevant whether or not it works straight off. But to address that complaint: You can't dismiss an advantage purely because of it's explanation. To the end user, it doesn't matter a damn why it works, as long as it works.

[Denthúl]

Okay, see, that right here is why people who use PCs uses PCs and people who use Macs use Macs. For consumer-level, you've just over-thought it.

Incidentally, it is in fact illegal to install OS X on a non-Mac, so it'd completely irrelevant whether or not it works straight off. But to address that complaint: You can't dismiss an advantage purely because of it's explanation. To the end user, it doesn't matter a damn why it works, as long as it works.

Please, tell me how hardware incompatibilities are an advantage.

As for the illegality of running OS X on anything not Apple-branded, well...didn't people complain about Microsoft trying to restrict the market?

Didnt Microsoft have to pay Apple for copying the fundamentals of their OS?

Denthul youre obviously a tinker programmer arent you? in that case Apple is not for you because you like to mod your hardware. Not everyone is into that, and people who just want something out of the box that is tried and tested then a Mac is for them! not all the packages out there with Windows on them run smoothly.

oh and you say you havent scanned for virus in 5 years or so, but i bet you still have anti virus software?

Nope. No anti-virus software on my box whatsoever. There's an over-complicated software firewall on there, but that's used for rules rather than protection. I only want some computers to be able to go out through my router and I only want others to be able to come in through it. Not a great idea to give everyone access to everything on a server, because people will mess about

I'm a tinkerer, aye, but I also like to do the things that OS X is said to be good for. Sound recording, video editing and web design. But I still wouldn't run it, because it doesn't excel enough at those things for me to cut back on the other features that I have at the moment.

but what i prefer is purely based on my needs, and i'm sure people on this forum have different needs from their respective computers (some awesome insight i have there). so to go around saying such and such os is better is pointless... utterly pointless.

Pretty sure I said that one already:

[quote=Denthúl]Windows, Linux, UNIX, BSD and OS X are not perfect systems. Each one is better than the others for certain things. Claiming that one is the be all and end all of the operating system world is like saying that Ferrari is F1. It is simply ridiculous to say so.[/quote]

[Jensonb]

Okay, see, that right here is why people who use PCs uses PCs and people who use Macs use Macs. For consumer-level, you've just over-thought it.

Incidentally, it is in fact illegal to install OS X on a non-Mac, so it'd completely irrelevant whether or not it works straight off. But to address that complaint: You can't dismiss an advantage purely because of it's explanation. To the end user, it doesn't matter a damn why it works, as long as it works.

Please, tell me how hardware incompatibilities are an advantage.

As for the illegality of running OS X on anything not Apple-branded, well...didn't people complain about Microsoft trying to restrict the market?

Please tell me where I said hardware incompatibilities were an advantage (Not that I'm conceding your point, I'm simply pointing out you're mis-characterising mine)

As for your second point, it's completely flawed. Tying your OS to your own hardware is not restricting competition, since you own both parts of that ecosystem. Microsoft deliberately forced their partners to shut out their [Microsoft's] competitiors. That is restricting competition.

[Denthúl]

Please tell me where I said hardware incompatibilities were an advantage (Not that I'm conceding your point, I'm simply pointing out you're mis-characterising mine)

Erm...

Incidentally, it is in fact illegal to install OS X on a non-Mac, so it'd completely irrelevant whether or not it works straight off. But to address that complaint: You can't dismiss an advantage purely because of it's explanation.

The only part of my previous post that could be in reference to, unless you're talking about something which I didn't even bring up, is this:

There are also a vast number of ways in which Windows is superior to OS X. Hardware is key, here. Let's start with anybody who wants to run an AMD64 system with OS X on. Wait...they can't. How's that a good thing? Apple are lucky that, at the moment, Intel have the edge on AMD, because only a couple of years ago Intel were quite far behind and there are a lot of people out there who would find it ridiculous that Apple are only supporting PowerPC and Intel-based systems. Which leads me on to the next point: pricing of a system which comes with OS X.

Unless you want to buy a generic desktop and hope that the chipset and other hardware are supported by the operating system, or spend forever researching and finding all of the compatible components that you can put together in an OS X-supporting system (and remember, not everyone is a tinkerer, so likely not too many people who want to use a Mac system will be system builders), you have to pay over-the-top prices for inferior hardware. People claim that Windows is overpriced. Yeah, it is. OS X on the other hand is quite inexpensive. However...

So, yeah.

Okay, see, that right here is why people who use PCs uses PCs and people who use Macs use Macs. For consumer-level, you've just over-thought it.

Incidentally, it is in fact illegal to install OS X on a non-Mac, so it'd completely irrelevant whether or not it works straight off. But to address that complaint: You can't dismiss an advantage purely because of it's explanation. To the end user, it doesn't matter a damn why it works, as long as it works.

Please, tell me how hardware incompatibilities are an advantage.

As for the illegality of running OS X on anything not Apple-branded, well...didn't people complain about Microsoft trying to restrict the market?

As for your second point, it's completely flawed. Tying your OS to your own hardware is not restricting competition, since you own both parts of that ecosystem. Microsoft deliberately forced their partners to shut out their [Microsoft's] competitiors. That is restricting competition.

Thing is, it's not all Apple hardware. Intel boards, Intel chipsets, ATi graphics cards...these are all components that you can buy as mainstream parts and run however you would like. Having to pay £1,250+ to be allowed to run an operating system you want to is completely ridiculous.

[McLaren Fan]

Regardless of how good Lenovo's kit is, as long as they're giving plenty of cash to McLaren, I'm happy.

[Gert]

The logo won't be as big as it was on Williams' car & in fact some of the money they would otherwise have spent on the car is going trackside.

[big ron]

If the MacBook Pro was a racing car it would be the MP4-23

A MacBook Pro is more of an MP4-18. Overhyped and beautiful to look at, but little use in the real working world.

[darwin dali]

If the MacBook Pro was a racing car it would be the MP4-23

A MacBook Pro is more of an MP4-18. Overhyped and beautiful to look at, but little use in the real working world.

Why would you say that? It can run OSX and any variety of Windoze (natively!), so it's VERY useful in the real working world as it can do everything.

[EwanM]

Regardless of how good Lenovo's kit is, as long as they're giving plenty of cash to McLaren, I'm happy.

Yes, isn't this the point of the topic?