Bitten by the Mac bug!

[Mark]

I was running a Unix-like OS on a Mac circa 1991 - ten years before OS X made that official. I even self-compiled an X11 install for it and used it as a development desktop. Using a one-button mouse on a graphical system designed for three was certainly interesting.

As I've said before - horses for courses. I own a Mac but use it more to experiment on. Save for Parallels, I've never purchased a single Mac application (nor downloaded one illegaly), which demonstrates how much I use mine (though it's always switched on and always running iTunes for podcasting and whatnot).

[Robert]

Originally Posted by DRZ

Use your ears, they are better than any oscilloscope. The difference, to me at least (and many others) is clear as day.

Its not about the numbers (although they are there to be tested if you want to be that anal) but about the music. Music sounds noticeably better to me on my iAudio X5 and so thats the better player for me. If you prefer to have a shiny wheel interface or you prefer a glossy finish on the front then thats cool with me, whatever makes you happy

FWIW your iPod doesn't play anywhere near the full gamut of available audio formats either, but thats not really the point

No I don't prefer to have a shiny wheel. It just works. The battery lasts ages, the screen is nice and it sounds GOOD.

[Garp]

Originally Posted by petemc

Theres a difference between compatible and knowing the exact hardware inside your laptop.

For me this whole debate basically rests on 1 thing. Adobe. Adobe do not write native apps for Linux so instantly its not an OS I'll use. I don't care how good it is. No Photoshop / Lightroom, no install. Do *NOT* suggest the gimp Its completely different to Lightroom and totally unsuitable for me. So basically its Windows or OSX. I've been using Windows since 3.11 and its boring really. Vista is lots of flashing things without polish. Out the two OSX is nicer to use on a daily basis. Its not faster, and its not able to make the perfect round of toast. It just suits my lifestyle and has apps I know I'd miss if I had to go back to Windows. So its more expensive, but so are SE & Nokia phones over some crappy Samsung or Motorola and you pay the extra because the phone is nicer to use.

Definitely no arguments there from me. Vista is a big waste of time.. possibly the first time I've regretted installing an OS from the first week, and looked forward to downgrading next time I could be arsed (which I've done.) Thankfully image editing is not part of my daily job or I'd be continually thwarted by GIMPs quirks and sheer non-user friendliness in places. I had to do something as simple as stitch a series of photos together the other day at work and that took me about 10x longer than it would have done in Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, but as I'm Linux bound at work that's all I had to use.

My point about BSD is not that folks should use Linux (BSD != Linux), its that OSX, by being BSD, should be very easy for Apple to release to run on PC architecture, opening up a huge market for them. The fact that you can actually install OSX on normal PCs through a few small hacks proves that. Apple could even do it with a "Guaranteed Hardware" list and state that whilst OSX may run on other hardware, you're on your own. With such a large open source technical community out there that have solid knowledge on BSD, it wouldn't take long for the community to get hardware working on it either.

[Dr. Z]

Originally Posted by petemc

Yes I know. You opened with the classic Mac = fashion accessory cliche

No, with tongue firmly in cheek I joked with Will.

Climb down, sonny.

I don't see why they need to release osx to everyone. If anything MS need to make IE availabe on osx and nix more than apple need to release osx. what will it prove? Linux is free and yet doesn't have a giant % of the desktop market. Before you say its not a desktop os its being used that way by plenty I'm sure. I know a few osx users jumped to ubuntu. My old uni considered using Linux as the main desktop os back in 1999. 9 years on and its still not ready as a desktop os?

Because until they release OSX to everyone, you can't fairly compare it to anything else.

There is a gulf of difference between a paid-for piece of software and one developed by people in their spare time when it comes to timescales. Considering its origins and the way it is developed, Linux is awe-inspiring. Its not a company, its a load of amateurs around the world doing things very, very well. It supports more hardware / platforms than any other OS I can think of off the top of my head, and can be configured to be just as pretty as OSX if thats your poison. Software support is getting better - Just like OSX would be dead and buried without 3rd party apps, that is all that is holding Linux back at the moment - and there is no real reason for it! It wont be that long now. Usability is getting better for the man in the street to pick it up. Wall-Mart are selling Linux-based PCs etc etc.

[leowyatt]

Originally Posted by Garp

The fact that you can actually install OSX on normal PCs through a few small hacks proves that.

You actually need to buy specific hardware to get it to run on normal PCs. You can install it on any machine but I can guarantee alot of the hardware won't work. You need to buy the hardware that is found in any mac and install it on that machine when built.

I'm happy for the OS to be restricted to specific hardware because I know it will work, I'm also happy to pay the extra for the machine because I get the whole package, hardware and software.

End of the day Drz you will always champion Linux and others here (myself included) will champion OSX.

[petemc]

Originally Posted by DRZ

No, with tongue firmly in cheek I joked with Will.

Climb down, sonny.

Yes I'm well aware that you were joking with Will, hence my . Don't sonny me sonny jim.

Because until they release OSX to everyone, you can't fairly compare it to anything else.

Its just an operating system that runs on x86 hardware. Just like Vista, XP, Linux, BeOS.

[Desmo]

Have to say I agree with DRZ on the OS X front. Because it works with a limited set of hardware, it can be appear to be more stable. I wonder how it would cope in the big bad world of unlimited hardware combinations?

[Mark]

Not very well at all.

But then again, does that really matter? It's quite possible to run Windows and Linux on a Mac, so if you want to do a comparison, you have a platform on which to do it.

PS - Windows runs pretty well save for some very specific Mac hardware quirks. Haven't tried Linux.

[petemc]

Originally Posted by Mark

But then again, does that really matter? It's quite possible to run Windows and Linux on a Mac, so if you want to do a comparison, you have a platform on which to do it.

Exactly. I don't want to sound too fanboyish but it seems a silly point to score in the epic battle of this vs that. Linux is better because it was designed with multiple hardware configs in mind. If it doesn't work with something you, or some beardy bloke writes the driver for it and away you go. OSX fails at something it wasn't designed to do? Well thats like saying my Corsa is rubbish as a track car unless we do lots of things to it to make it work that way. (Yes I know it'll still be rubbish as a track car because its a Corsa )

[Desmo]

I think the point DRZ is making though is that everybody praises how stable it is and they give ALL credit to the OS, whereas it's actually an OS/hardware combination.