# OSX VS Vista VS Linux



## FreerideFox (Jul 14, 2007)

In one of the current threads, I heard someone say "will Microsoft ever have competition?" 

But really, I think even Vista is really ...well...not that great. put most all software aside. Sure you can just go to frys and get a cheap program for PC, thats great! But when it comes down to purely how an OS operates... I still find Microsoft lacking. 

Linux is free, looks like vista but can be installed on a machine with even a P3 and 64MB of ram. I've seen it done. 

I'm pretty experienced with Mac OSX Tiger. I've found that really, a LOT of the features that existed are now "new" innovations into vista. I use mainly Final cut Studio Pro on my mac, which works really well.  So far, I've found that Tiger was the most stable..and best to use.

Vista on the other paw, seems just to be such a pig. I'm going to have to conform to it some time, but seriously... 1GB RAM minimum? and yesterday I was on my friends machine with 1GB and vista home basic, it runs slower than my computer with XP at 256MB. 

I dunno, I dont really know a ton about computers... which do you think is best? Sorry if this has been done before. I felt like I had to defend OSX and Linux. I feel both these OS are superior to vista. 

ohh, and Tiger is installed on my powermac pro G5 so if that helps. only thing that keeps me on windows, is school. I need to be able to easily swap documents.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jul 14, 2007)

Er.. OSX *is* Linux, just with a decent GUI.
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/guides/planetccrma/OS_X.html

I also note that, when you decide to upgrade your hardware here in a couple of years, that your machine will have an INtel based chipset in it and you'll be able to boot into either OSX or Windows.
That's how I have my system set p.
I wouldn't have bothered with installing XP, but I *had* to due to my last job requiring me to use IE to access the company's 'virtual office'.
Runs like a champ either way.

Both are good OSes, but I really like OSX much better because I don't have to stress over getting an especially sneaky e-mail virus, dealing with the overhead of having anti-virus software installed and running in the background, shutting out everything with a firewall, dealing with pop-ups online... little stuff like that makes it a much more 'laid back' environment to work and/or play in.


----------



## HaTcH (Jul 14, 2007)

In my opinion, that was Microsoft's biggest downfall... Integrating Internet Explorer into a CORE component of the OS.

Virtually every issue anyone has with Windows is because of IE or something closely related.

Anyway, I've not really used Vista to any real mentionability, but I have used the others.

OS X... Why bother? It is, as Swampwulf said, just another GUI for Linux. KDE (another GUI) actually lets you pimp out your UI and have it look exactly like Windows 9x or OS X. It's awesome. YES! If you like having all your application bars shared at the top of the screen, KDE lets you do that! (I personally hate that, and thats why I cant use a Mac for an extended period of time...) But its there, incase you wanted it.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 14, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Er.. OSX *is* Linux, just with a decent GUI.
> http://ccrma.stanford.edu/guides/planetccrma/OS_X.html
> 
> I also note that, when you decide to upgrade your hardware here in a couple of years, that your machine will have an INtel based chipset in it and you'll be able to boot into either OSX or Windows.
> ...



Um... OS X is FreeBSD. BSD is not Linux. While the commands are the same and shares allot of the same software (they are compatible), the kernel (the core of the OS) are completely different. The difference between FreeBSD and OS X is the interface and the added PowerPC legacy support to make things easier for Mac Developers. 

Personally I think Mac OS X is kinda clunky because you have to rely on short cut keys to do some simple things that a right mouse button can easily do. Plus I don't see the need to keep the program running in the background after you close out all the windows. I dunno, I guess its just because I'm used to Windows and KDE. Unfortunately I have to learn how to use Mac OS X because of where I work we have allot of Mac labs and laptops that need maintenance and repair. So now I'm trying to install a virtual "hackintosh" on my laptop to learn it. Yes, you can install Mac OS X in a virtual machine and yes you can install it on a PC.


----------



## HaTcH (Jul 14, 2007)

Lol.. Best thing I ever did was dual boot my laptop. That way, I can take advantage of a Windows environment and a Linux one.


----------



## Bloodangel (Jul 14, 2007)

Those three in a very basic description, as we learned them in one of our opening lectures in Computer Science in college.

OSX - Built like Linux, but trying to look pretty.

Linux - Designed to crash less. Can be a bitch to get stuff to run.

Windows - Designed to do almost everything from the get go. Can crash like an engineless plane sometimes.


----------



## sgolem (Jul 14, 2007)

I use all three, though I haven't tried Vista yet... I'll just comment on XP.

OS X: I think it's clean, fast, and for certain things its easy to use.  I feel the GUI gets in the way.  The dock especially, since there's no way to get rid of it completely that I know of, and in programs like Photoshop, you're going to use all the sides of the screen.  I find myself opening programs by accident all the time.  I also think it's harder to multitask (which it can do very well), since all you see is arrows over programs that are running instead of what the programs are actually doing.  Finally, I've had bad luck with Apple's hardware, and even worse luck with their customer service.  Since you can only get OS X on Apple's hardware, this is a minus for people like me who would want the software, but not the hardware.  Of course, there are ways of getting it on non-Apple machines if you look for them... >_>

Linux: I love Linux.  I use Ubuntu as my main operating system on my pc.  However, I think it still has at least a few years before it's ready for the average user.  The biggest plus for me is how much you can customize it.  I've just kept it in gnome, and it still looks completely different than it did when I first got it.  Oh yea, and it's free.

Windows XP: Flawed, but it works.  In my opinion, you're able to run it easily enough, and it has enough compatibility, that the positives outweighs the negatives.  Thing is, if people don't know what they're doing, they tend to really fuck things up when it comes to keeping it clean.  It also has the taskbar instead of the dock, which is a big plus for me.


----------



## Rhainor (Jul 14, 2007)

My personal, exaggerated-for-hilarity view on Linux*:  "Kinda hard for stuff to crash when you can't get stuff running in the first place."

_* Note:  I've never personally used Linux; this is just based on what I've heard._


----------



## net-cat (Jul 15, 2007)

Vista: Largely based on Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2) which is far less screwed up than Windows XP (NT 5.1), is far less of a resource hog than people make it out to be. Yes, it requires 512MB of RAM  in the same way that XP requires 256MB of RAM. However, the "you need 1GB/2GB/4GB to use Vista" idea comes from idiot OEM's who will install any program that the vendor pays them a few bucks per unit to install. Like any other OS, it's not without it's problems. (Especially the x64 version in terms of hardware compatibility.) Unless there's a specific program or hardware you need, there's no reason to say "no" to a system with Vista on it. However, with the exception of maybe XP Tablet PC Edition, there's really no reason to upgrade a working XP/2000 system. If you get a new system with Vista Business or Vista Ultimate, you can call Microsoft licensing and downgrade to XP Pro. (Or XP Tablet or XP Pro x64. But nobody cares about those.) Gamers might want to give Vista a miss until more DX10 games come out, too.

OS X.anything: Forever doomed to a minor role because it only works on Macs. That aside, it's actually a fairly decent OS. It's BSD underpinnings make it a very robust OS and Apple seems to be improving it with every point release. It has the added advantage of being able to run a small subset of Microsoft software (which, lets face it, can be hard to do without in some cases) natively, and the Intel Macs can use Parallels to run just about any non-3d accelerated Windows application in existence. Gamers and people who like to tinker with their hardware need not apply.

Linux: Linux has it's uses. They've come a long way in desktop support, and there's an unbelievable amount of free software available for Linux. Unless you want to spend hours fuxxing with Wine or run Windows in a virtual machine, you're pretty much SOL for Microsoft Office. Gamers and people who like to have the bleeding edge of technology need not apply.

XP: Even though it's not listed by the OP, I'll still cover it in the interest of fairness. It's certainly the most mature and has all of them beat in terms of hardware and software support. It doesn't really offer any advantages over the others, other than how much it can be stripped down and still be "Windows XP." (Yes, you can strip Linux down to fit on a floppy and you can strip Mac OS X down to Darwin, but if you find either of those things useful, Windows XP probably isn't what you're looking for anyway.)


----------



## Janglur (Jul 15, 2007)

Honestly, between those three choices?

I choose seppuku.

Vista is a flaming pile of crap.  OSX lacks the configureability I desire (it's too simple!) and Linux, well, we've discussed the driver issues.

I'm stickin' with XP until either something better comes along, they add better driver support for Linux for my devices, or Vista stops sucking.


----------



## Aikon (Jul 15, 2007)

OSX:  I bought a Mac Mini about two years ago and this was my first mac.  OSX Tiger wasn't as pretty as I had hoped, though not ugly and was much better than XP.  It's a very quiet OS that doesn't nag you like Vista does.  Most everything is easy to do, only gripes with this OS is there's less software available to it than Windows, and I had problems with it crashing and hanging on me.  Also, Apple has some quirky way of doing things... like no true maximize window button (sorry but I don't know if I'd ever get used to it), can't edit filenames in the save dialogs, etc.  I enjoyed my experience with it, though I couldn't find a single damn good image browser like ACDSee to use, which is a huge thing for me (90,000+ images and growing!).  I sold my Mac to get Photoshop CS2 and a new Wacom because my XP machine was faster.  I have been thinking about getting another Mac when Leopard comes out, Boot Camp looks very interesting.  

Vista: A bit prettier than OSX Tiger, lots of eye candy.  Dreamscene has potential but it's not quite there yet.  It's a very stable OS (save for some third-party apps giving me trouble, I'm looking at you ACD Systems), it's slightly better than XP was, and XP was pretty good.  Getting around Vista is easier than XP was and slightly easier than OSX; I love the new start menu.  So far, Vista has been as secure as Microsoft promised, I know that won't last forever, but I feel a lot easier browsing the web than I did with XP.  Performance is a bit slower than XP, but so far I haven't noticed any "WinRot" that dogged previous Windows versions.  Overall, I feel Vista is just a visual, stability, and security upgrade over XP, which kinda disappointed me considering how long it took to make.  It does what it's supposed to do.  The new apps like Photo Gallery and DVD Maker aren't as good as I had hoped.

Vista does have a lot of faults... mix of old icons and fonts in UI, backup utility sucks ballsacks, nags you a lot, and lack of Ultimate Extras have sucked so far (except Dreamscene, which is still in beta).  Vista isn't as bad as certain people make it out to be.  It's right on par with OSX, except nosier.  It isn't really UAC though that's noisy, it's the task bar notifications.  It uses a lot of memory, but what did you expect?  It's a new OS, it's not going to get any smaller.  New technology requires more memory, it's simple math.  I'm happy with Vista, but I expected so much more out of it.  Search was a helluva lot more powerful in the Beta days, removing all the power options for it was a major hit IMHO.  Spotlight is way better, though Spotlight also had some quirks about it too (don't remember what exactly though).

Linux:  Can't comment on it, I used it once and didn't like it.


----------



## Oni (Jul 15, 2007)

FreerideFox said:
			
		

> I dunno, I dont really know a ton about computers... which do you think is best?


That depends what you want to use the pc for.


----------



## ADF (Jul 15, 2007)

One is a bolted down brand name operating system, loaded with DRM and restrictions on who is allowed to develop for the system and markets their OS more like a fashion accessory than a tool.

Another is a monopolistic corporate bastard who thrives on cash cows and bending market rules to maintain market dominance, who cares more about meeting the needs of their partner companies than their very customers.

And the last one is a server operating system posing as a user friendly OS, that lures people in with promises of a better way only to dump them in a bucket of illegible computer terminology because they refuse to de-geek it enough for the mainstream market.

So it is either evil, mega evil, or a butt load of needless confusion and poor software support. Additional options?


----------



## Oni (Jul 15, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> One is a bolted down brand name operating system, loaded with DRM and restrictions on who is allowed to develop for the system and markets their OS more like a fashion accessory than a tool.
> 
> Another is a monopolistic corporate bastard who thrives on cash cows and bending market rules to maintain market dominance, who cares more about meeting the needs of their partner companies than their very customers.
> 
> ...


*laughs*A very interesting and informational response. ;d



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Additional options?


Can you install any of them on a decade old dell?


----------



## ADF (Jul 15, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I answerer your question with another, why would I want to? 

I have a gaming system; that means I either bend over for Microsoft, cut my selection into a fraction with Mac or wrestle with technical manuals on Linux. 

Gaming is supposed to be easy and fun, I just want to install and play. Which of course means I need to have lubricant at the ready for MS. I can take some technical hardships, otherwise I would be on console instead of PC, but I have yet to get a copy of Linux running to this date and I don't want to wait for the charity of another to provide support just so I can play the latest games.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 15, 2007)

Aikon said:
			
		

> OSX:  I bought a Mac Mini about two years ago and this was my first mac.  OSX Tiger wasn't as pretty as I had hoped, though not ugly and was much better than XP.  It's a very quiet OS that doesn't nag you like Vista does.  Most everything is easy to do, only gripes with this OS is there's less software available to it than Windows, and I had problems with it crashing and hanging on me.  Also, Apple has some quirky way of doing things... like no true maximize window button (sorry but I don't know if I'd ever get used to it), can't edit filenames in the save dialogs, etc.  I enjoyed my experience with it, though I couldn't find a single damn good image browser like ACDSee to use, which is a huge thing for me (90,000+ images and growing!).  I sold my Mac to get Photoshop CS2 and a new Wacom because my XP machine was faster.  I have been thinking about getting another Mac when Leopard comes out, Boot Camp looks very interesting.
> 
> Vista: A bit prettier than OSX Tiger, lots of eye candy.  Dreamscene has potential but it's not quite there yet.  It's a very stable OS (save for some third-party apps giving me trouble, I'm looking at you ACD Systems), it's slightly better than XP was, and XP was pretty good.  Getting around Vista is easier than XP was and slightly easier than OSX; I love the new start menu.  So far, Vista has been as secure as Microsoft promised, I know that won't last forever, but I feel a lot easier browsing the web than I did with XP.  Performance is a bit slower than XP, but so far I haven't noticed any "WinRot" that dogged previous Windows versions.  Overall, I feel Vista is just a visual, stability, and security upgrade over XP, which kinda disappointed me considering how long it took to make.  It does what it's supposed to do.  The new apps like Photo Gallery and DVD Maker aren't as good as I had hoped.
> 
> ...



Honestly if its ease of use you like in Vista over XP google up ViStart and ObjectDock. ViStart gives you the Vista start menu and object dock is well... an object dock similar to the Mac OS X Dashboard (except its not always on top). You can actually make XP look and feel like Vista by downloading the Vista Transformation Pack. Personally I just use ViStart and OjbectDock.

And as for Mac OS X.. google up Mac OSx86 or Hackintosh. I think the OSx86 Project has the most information about getting Mac OS X running on PC's since hardware wise the Intel Macs and PC's are identical hardware with exception of that DRM chip.


----------



## Oni (Jul 15, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Oni said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I predict the dawn of console gaming. ps5 pownz personal home built pc. ;d I am content running windows here, if I want to complicate my life, I'll run linux. Was never fond to macs for some reason, fad or trend perhaps.


----------



## Aikon (Jul 15, 2007)

Ron Overdrive said:
			
		

> Honestly if its ease of use you like in Vista over XP google up ViStart and ObjectDock. ViStart gives you the Vista start menu and object dock is well... an object dock similar to the Mac OS X Dashboard (except its not always on top). You can actually make XP look and feel like Vista by downloading the Vista Transformation Pack. Personally I just use ViStart and OjbectDock.
> 
> And as for Mac OS X.. google up Mac OSx86 or Hackintosh. I think the OSx86 Project has the most information about getting Mac OS X running on PC's since hardware wise the Intel Macs and PC's are identical hardware with exception of that DRM chip.



I was never big on transformation packs to be honest.  I'd rather have the real deal, though kudos to the people doing this stuff, it amazes me what people can do with the computer.  There's other smaller reasons why I like Vista that I didn't have enough space to write about like shadow copies, it saved my ass a few times already.  The new UI is awesome, except for the inconsistencies I mentioned.  Also, Windows Calender... a HUGE program for me, I needed something like this years ago.  It's easy to forget about it because I take it for granted, but it's saved my ass numerous times (I use it for reminders).  

As for OSx86, I dunno if I want to try that again.  I don't like downloading software, I used to but now I have a job, and can afford software if I ever need it.  Although, I think Apple should release OSX for the PC, it never will because it makes money off of hardware.  I'm waiting to see if they're going to refresh the Mac Mini with a Core 2 Duo, and upgrade the design to allow 4 GB of RAM, if it does I'm getting one.  Rumor has it though, they're getting rid of the Mini.  Bleah.


----------



## Shapeshifter (Jul 15, 2007)

> Um... OS X is FreeBSD. BSD is not Linux. While the commands are the same and shares allot of the same software (they are compatible), the kernel (the core of the OS) are completely different. The difference between FreeBSD and OS X is the interface and the added PowerPC legacy support to make things easier for Mac Developers.


Grr, you beat me to it.

Personally, I've never had any use for Linux. I ran it for a bit, then went back to Win2000 for my server needs. Some of my friends use whatever the current popular flavor is (mostly Ubuntu these days), but it's fairly obvious that at least half of them use it just to play the OS superiority card. I really have yet to meet many people who need (or want) Linux of any flavor on a desktop. It really is not for basic, average users. It takes some substantial knowledge of how a PC works to get the OS set up and configured. I'd recommend it to someone who wanted a cheap server solution, because someone trying to set up a server might actually have a need for the advanced features while also having the know-how to maintain the beast that is Linux. As stated by others, gamers and those who don't want to spend a lot of time getting into the guts of their OS ought to avoid Linux of all varieties. Yes, you _can_ get it to run Program XXXXXXX that normally only runs on Windows... if you jack with it for a long time or use an emulator. 

OSX: Ohh, it makes me happy. Worlds better than OS9. A small child could install it and use it. While I don't use it day to day, my Powerbook is my dedicated music machine. It is the core of my live audio setup. I like that it takes up hardly any resources relative to, say, Windows, and that I generally do not have to screw with it for a long time to get it to do what I want it to. It doesn't have the depth of options nor the compatibility of Windows, but I love it all the same. Note that it is not really all that better for music/art/etc. I actually dislike the music and video editing programs for Mac. I took a course for ProTools and decided to never use it again. I do all my audio editing on one of my two Windows machines. That said, the Mac comes with me when I'm doing live performance (it runs my software synths and Scratch Live).   

WinXP: Home is crap. It's better than having a non-Windows OS if you are an average user, business user, or gamer, but Pro is much better. XP Pro is about the best balance of features, compatibility, security, and ease of use I've seen in any OS to date. I pretty much only recommend XP Pro to anyone who's ever bought a system from me, or who's just wanted some advice. For server solutions, I prefer Win2003 Server for its ease of use, security, and stability.

Vista: just installed Vista Business recently so I can start figuring it out. No more of a resource hog than any other Windows OS at launch. Very pretty, definitely inspired by OSX. Low compatibility due to lack of drivers. As always, I'll wait til it's been out for about a year before I can say much about it. A lot happens between launch and the first patches/service packs.

Note: there is not one single good OS for every application! That said, they are not all equal, and it is not just a matter of taste. Best bet is to try all your options out if you have the HDD space. My two cents.


----------



## HaTcH (Jul 15, 2007)

Shapeshifter said:
			
		

> WinXP: Home is crap. It's better than having a non-Windows OS if you are an average user, business user, or gamer, but Pro is much better. XP Pro is about the best balance of features, compatibility, security, and ease of use I've seen in any OS to date. I pretty much only recommend XP Pro to anyone who's ever bought a system from me, or who's just wanted some advice. For server solutions, I prefer Win2003 Server for its ease of use, security, and stability.




I have to ask, considering I've never owned a system with Windows XP Pro. What exactly is different? I've never found XP Home having shortcomings with anything I've had to do. 

Pro offers you the ability to change user permissions and do some minor networking stuff that you can't do with home.. but what really is the point? Stuff that runs on Pro runs on Home, so compatibility is out of the question.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 15, 2007)

Stuff in XP Pro that's not in Home Edition that I use on a semi-regular basis:

Remote Desktop
Windows 2000-style sharing
Windows 2000-style file permissions
Group Policy support (See: Windows Shared Computer Toolkit)
Virtual PC Support

Probably other stuff that I'm missing.

Not everyone needs XP Pro over XP Home. I'm one of the few people that does, though. XP Home and XP Pro are the same operating system under the hood.


----------



## HaTcH (Jul 15, 2007)

*shrug*

VNC.

Samba? Maybe?

No luck there.

How many users you have on your computer?

Windows has a virtual machine thats free now.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 15, 2007)

VNC = I use it for remote troubleshooting, but it has some things about it that annoy me.
Samba = There is no effort to port it to Windows.
Users = Locally, just me. Remotely, several, with access to different things.
Virtual Machine = Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. From the requirements page:



> Host operating system: Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, Windows Vista Ultimate, Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition, Windows XP Professional, or Windows XP Tablet PC Edition



Although you can probably use VMWare Server on XP Home.



			
				HaTcH said:
			
		

> Pro offers you the ability to change user permissions and do some minor networking stuff that you can't do with home.. but what really is the point? Stuff that runs on Pro runs on Home, so compatibility is out of the question.


I'm not saying everyone needs these features. In fact, I even said that not everyone needs XP Pro over XP Home as they are the same under the hood. I'm just answering your question.


----------



## Shapeshifter (Jul 16, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> Stuff in XP Pro that's not in Home Edition that I use on a semi-regular basis:
> 
> Remote Desktop
> Windows 2000-style sharing
> ...


Thanks! XD

Yeah, I don't need Pro in the sense that I don't need three computers. But having Pro makes connecting all of those computers together and sharing files less of a hassle. I consider networking and security to be essential.

Also, I had very bad experiences with Home. I tried it when it first came out, only to go back to Windows Me and 2000. I think I stuck with Mandrake Linux longer than I kept Home on my main desktop. The thing had abysmal compatibility at launch. I uninstalled it after being unable to install Nero. Home would return to annoy me when I was doing contract work as a PC tech. We'd start to wire together all the PCs on a business's network, only to find out that one of them had Home, and thus did not have the same networking capabilities as the other PCs which were running Win2003 Server or WinXP Pro.

Sooo... not a big Home fan. Not everyone needs it, but I recommend it.


----------

