Which System is better? Windows, Mac or Linux? And what distribution/version do you like the best?

[DarkPrince86]

I like both Mac and Windows and if you use windows right it can be a lot more powerful than OSX. Every system has its faults.

 

True tbh, windows can be very fast, very reliable and work perfect if you know what your doing.

 

I'm not saying it's the perfect OS but people who say omg trojan! virus!...it does make me wonder what sort of none-legit sites they browse because in 14 years of windows use i've only ever had 1 virus and that was when i was just starting out and i dont even use anti-virus apps in windows (i do a check every few months + spyware checks etc).

 

People are always very quick to say windows is {censored}, but i fear most of those people have no idea how to use a PC at all.

 

With that said, i dont think either are better or worse than each other, windows, linux and mac all of their own little faults which annoy me in one way or another.

 

For linux i'd say OpenSuse because it's very sleek, powerful and unlike ubuntu, it actually has speed, i can only fault the package manager but that is going to be fixed in 11.

[ Suzie's Soliloquy]

Overall, it's really a matter of personal preference which decides what OS you use; for example I intently dislike the Microsoft Corporation; so any alternative to Windows is welcome. Other than Vista and ME, I don't feel they've released a truly horrible OS...

[DarkPrince86]

Re: bloat - Yeah, Vista's fairly piggish, but by 2008 standards it's not so out of place. On my Macbook Pro with OS X 10.5.3, I have Safari, Colloquy, and MSN Messenger running. Total RAM in use currently is just over 1.1GB. I have yet to install any recent desktop version of Linux on real hardware, so I can't compare it. Maybe someone here can show some information?

 

Yes it is out of place, it's 2008 and not one single OS manages to reach the same amount of space vista takes up, and when you use nlite to remove just the bloat you can get windows down to fit on a CD (thats over 3gig of bloat) and that's with aero etc.

 

Vista caches ram much like linux/osx does, however windows does a very poor job of implementing this properly.

 

Re: network stack - I'm not sure why you are having problems, but my Vista (and Windows in general) networking has been problem-free. Whether I'm on wired or wireless, I have no complaints. The Vista "Network and Sharing Center" is a little odd, but I'm slowly getting used to it.

 

My issue is its VERY slow compared to xps, leopard or linux, this is a very well known problem with the new network stack, they was supposed to fix this by SP1 but they havent, thankfully they did fix the "cant connect to workgroups" problems (it would just display a while empty folder then lock up), if you didnt get that, u were lucky.

 

Re: audio stack - while I'm not sure I'd say it's "total {censored}" I can say I am annoyed they ditched hardware acceleration. I've been a loyal Creative Labs fanboy for years JUST for this, and it pains me that when I upgrade my gaming desktop and move it to Vista I won't be using a Creative Labs card. The audio stack definitely needed a re-write, I don't think they did as good a job as they could have.

 

It is total {censored}, if you have onboard audio this causes major problems (for instance, if your installing a big app, your audio will stutter/freeze for a second), while it's fine with creative cards etc it causes higher cpu spikes, which will may not be bad if your doing nothing, but if your encoding/multitasking, it's a problem, this is also why drivers are still poor, hardware accel was left on right till the very end.

 

Re: driver code - Obviously someone knew something, as ATI's drivers at Vista RTM, while not stellar, were far more mature than nVidia's. ATI didn't even miss a monthly driver release cycle, while nVidia got really quiet and had a strange driver schedule from that point on pretty much.

ATI drivers were only just "basic" enough for aero upon vista turning RTM, they have only just reached true mature stage where its half way near the speed of things on XP.

 

Nvidia make poor drivers on XP, nevermind vista, ati knew nothing, none of the hardware providers knew anything about it up till the last build released. M$ didnt bother to inform anyone until then, that's why you saw ALOT of suppliers having problematic drivers for over a year, nvidia is still having those problems (nforce drivers for vista is just ugh)

 

Re: UAC - a popular Vista dis. Ya know, on my laptop I put Vista x64 on, and I decided to keep UAC enabled. It really doesn't bother me much, and when it does I don't mind it. It could use some tweaking, and what I wouldn't give for some kind of verifiable "whitelist" function to say "this app with this hash is ALWAYS safe" but for now I don't mind hitting "allow" on the rare app that wants it. OMG ONE CLICK. And of course, UAC can be disabled for the really whiny people that REALLY hate it so much.

 

I have to move files around alot, edit things etc, UAC constantly gets in the way of this, it even nags you if you want to copy a file to C: for god sake.

 

I've never met ONE vista user who likes it, apart from you, one click? while that's true it makes installing things 3-4 more clicks than it should be, as with everything in vista, everything is now 5-6 clicks more than it used to be with a very very VERY inconsistent UI so everything looks out of place.

 

Re: WMP11 - Not sure what's wrong here. It seems to run OK for me. I even fool with the 64-bit WMP11 and got some codecs for it. Not sure there's any benefit to that, but hey, 64-bit is the FUTURE!

 

Anyone remember the early builds of wmp11? you know, the ones that were really fast, when it was final, it has a rather slow UI under XP, i was hoping it would look nicer in vista but giving it the whole transparency thing makes it look horrible and i find it alot more sluggish in vista, i'm not the only one to notice this.

 

Vista has grown on me. I wasn't sure I liked it at RTM, and while I ran it on and off on my laptop most of 2007, I still ended up back on XP64 (or OS X). SP1 kind of cleared any doubt for me, and I decided to give it another shot, and so far it's run really well for me. I still have my gripes, some of which are fairly serious (WTF is with Media Center installing a bunch of {censored} the first time it's ran?) but overall it's nice to look at without being too gaudy, runs very smooth for me, and is modern. Whether being modern is good or bad, who knows. It's a little of both I guess.

 

Funnily, vista grew on me when longhorn was shaping up, then through the beta process it got worse...and worse...and worse...then the speed went {censored}...then practically everything good was removed, speed is different for everyone, for me the animations SLOW productivity down and i find aero starts to lag with alot of apps open, which is pure hell if your doing coding/web site design etc and this is on a quad core setup.

 

Media Center, ugh, slow POS anyway.

 

SP1 made me realise that vista isnt going to get better.

 

Roll on "7", i guess, least that is what vista was supposed to be (and is actually fast already very early on in the build/testing process)

[vaporATX]

The thing I hate most about Vi$ta is everything feels like it was just tacked on at the last minute. It has an inelegant and disjointed feel to the interface. Plus, it is butt ugly in its default form.

[ Suzie's Soliloquy]

I have to disagree there; I found Vista actually nice to look at in its default form, nothing on Aqua, but still something. But when you start to put in your own settings (I'm not talking about GUI modding here) Its inconsistencies really shine and it looks atrocious to me >.<

[V Plamondon]

I have been using Windoze since 1.0 and I can tell you sincerely, Windoze in it's current incarnation does not measure up to Linux or OSX.

 

Microcraps goal is not to provide a good, functional, stable OS, all it wants to do is make MS Money.

 

Consider below;

 

Dos/Windows Architecture

Windows 1.0 -> Windows 2.0 -> Windows 3.0 -> Windows for Workgroups 3.1-> Windows 95 -> Windows 98 ->Windows 98 SE -> Windows ME

 

Windows NT Architecture

Windows NT 3.1 -> Windows NT 4.0 -> Windows 2000 -> Windows XP -> Windows Server 2003 -> Windows Vista -> Windows Home Server -> Windows Server 2008

 

Windows MinWin Architecture

Windows 7.0

 

From Windows 95 onwards Microcrap began to modularize the technologies included with their OS's such that the underlying kernel and the main Windoze API's have changed very little over 29 years.

 

The DOS/Windows Architecture endured for 14+ years and the Windows NT Architecture will be with us for 17+ years and Windows next MinWin architecture will not be introduced until 2010 or later (given Microcrap's track record, I expect later).

 

This should mean, having been with us for so long, these OS architectures should be the most stable available, but the aren't. Why? I'll tell you why;

 

Over Windoze lifetime their have been about 61 versions (by my count) not including minor point releases and service packs, and about 124 distinct Microcrap products other than OS's and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of versions of those products, the mystery reveals itself, Microcrap is about cranking out product and making money.

 

When you examine Microcrap's technologies, they aren't actually half bad from first glance. If they had actually concentrated on making half the products they actually have done, Windoze would be very, very different today.

 

It's a shame a large share of developers didn't write software for more platforms other than Windoze, it would give Microcrap the incentive to slow up and make better products, but of course, a Leopard doesn't change it's spots.

[Metuas]

The DOS/Windows Architecture endured for 14+ years and the Windows NT Architecture will be with us for 17+ years and Windows next MinWin architecture will not be introduced until 2010 or later (given Microcrap's track record, I expect later).

 

I cringe every time I see twunk_16 in a computer bought two years ago. Considering my G5 is 64-bit (although from what I understand PowerPC 64-bit is a very different thing from Intel 64-bit), and here I have this PC capable of running 16-bit applications.

 

On the subject of MinWin, I heard that they had postponed the MinWin kernel and kept the Vista kernel for Windows 7, at least.

[S.SubZero]

I cringe every time I see twunk_16 in a computer bought two years ago. Considering my G5 is 64-bit (although from what I understand PowerPC 64-bit is a very different thing from Intel 64-bit), and here I have this PC capable of running 16-bit applications.

64-bit Windows can't run 16-bit code. Windows x86 can, because the overhead to do so is fairly low and MS still has a lot of customers who run legacy apps or whatever and need 16-bit support. Heck, one thing even gamers whine about with 64-bit Windows is that they can't run their old Warcraft 1 and other ancient {censored} on it. They don't buy Windows x64 JUST because of this.

 

The x64 architecture is sort of a compromise, but a good one. They just took the 32-bit stuff and grafted 64-bit to it. This makes it sort of "not really" 64-bit, but it has the benefit of being very backwards compatible with no speed penalty (since the CPU can switch in and out of x86 mode as needed) and the benefits of 64-bit computing can still be there to a great extent.

[DarkPrince86]

lol it's not really your average school, it's a private one, about $20,000AUD (about $18,788.00 USD) per year, per student!!!!! (very, very expensive!!!!)i love mac hehe

 

Just wondering, which private school? i miss australia so much

[Metuas]

To make it clearer, S.S, I have a 32-bit PC. So it could, I guess, run 16-bit apps. I don't see myself actually using any in the near future, though.

 

About x64, though, if the computer retains back-compatibility, why is there a need for x86 and x64 applications? And why can Leopard (when it's on a 64-bit computer) run 64-bit or 32-bit apps, while Vista or XP need a 64-bit or 32-bit app for their x86 and x64 versions respectively? And what is it about PowerPC that makes its 64-bit so similar to its 32-bit?

[SDRacer48]

Another dumpster fire thread just asking for fanboyism from both sides...

 

Why do these stupid questions always get asked? The question of "Which OS is better?" is merely a matter of stating a personal preference. You will not change anyone's opinion either way, because, again, it is a matter of preference...

 

Done...

[S.SubZero]

About x64, though, if the computer retains back-compatibility, why is there a need for x86 and x64 applications?

I was about to say "64-bit desktop computing is still relatively new" but since we are comparing to a Mac, the reasoning is a little different.

 

And why can Leopard (when it's on a 64-bit computer) run 64-bit or 32-bit apps, while Vista or XP need a 64-bit or 32-bit app for their x86 and x64 versions respectively? And what is it about PowerPC that makes its 64-bit so similar to its 32-bit?

 

Windows, at it's core, hasn't changed much in a very long time. For better or worse, old software still works in newer Windows OSs. I was on another forum and someone mentioned an old game (Age of Empires) didn't work in XP64. I have AoE, so I threw the disc in my XP64 box and installed it. Ran without a hitch. Mind you, the disc says "Win95/NT" on it, which shows how old it is. The disc was made in 1997. Since Windows doesn't change much, the software doesn't need to be designed beyond the OS of "now".

 

Apple's OS, on the other hand, changes constantly. Even the hardware platform has changed *completely* twice over the last 10 years. Since Mac OS is a bit "turbulent" compared to Windows, they had to have some way to keep some kind of backwards compatibility, even in the short term. One of the ways they can do this is by designing the now popular "universal binary". This lets one app run on two very different architectures by the binary simply knowing both platforms. Back 10 years ago, they used "fat binaries" for the transition from 680x0 to PPC. Same concept.

 

OS X takes the universal binary idea one step further by accommodating 32-bit and 64-bit versions of applications in addition to PPC/Intel. so you basically end up with a quad-binary. OS X knows how to handle this, since it was designed to allow for this flexibility. It only goes so far tho. You pop in a Mac game from 1997 into your new Macbook Pro.. yeah.. we may have some problems. Sheepshaver to the rescue? Apple's backwards compatibility only goes back so far. Windows on the other hand, only drops *16-bit* apps with the x64 OS's. Vista x32 can still run a 16-bit Windows app made in like 1991, maybe.

 

Ironically Microsoft is learning first-hand what IBM was going through back in the early 90's. When they were working on OS/2 together, IBM insisted on keeping 286 support. MS didn't want to, they wanted to focus on 386-specific architectures. IBM wanted to keep compatibility, MS didn't. It's part of what broke up that joint project. Now MS bends over backwards to keep compatibility. Funny how that worked out.

[V Plamondon]

Seeing as you are touting backwards compatibilty on Vista, please post a tutorial somewhere on how to get Axis and Allies from Microprose working on Vista.

[S.SubZero]

Seeing as you are touting backwards compatibilty on Vista, please post a tutorial somewhere on how to get Axis and Allies from Microprose working on Vista.

This? http://www.cdosabandonware.com/std_games_d....php?gameid=124

 

I do have this game. I have it on a disc I burned several years ago. I unzipped it, imported the registry, double-clicked the icon, and it ran. Played a turn and it had no problems. What issue are you having?

[V Plamondon]

I'm not referring to the Iron Blitz edition, I'm referring to the first release.

[mmmmno]

yeah............................................i'm just wanting to try it because i can't install it.... it's kinda weird how i can't, it boots into the installer and all, i format right and stuff, followed tutourials and been guided by friends who have done it, but each & every single time, at about 5-10% it just stops and has an error about some 'Intel.1.5.1' package could not be installed thing...... Tried iatkos, kalway and all. maybe i could get the latest iatkos 2.0? would that solve the problem? only issue is that my internet is really slow (512kilobits) and I only get 7gig to download per month, don't ask why it's just the way the internet works in my house lol

 

hey have you tried burning at a slower speed? I think i had that same error and it was just a bad DVD.

[applehacker]

OS X is best, but Win98SE ftw!

[DA_SONG_MAN]

Sorry to say but if Mac OS was so great, everyone would have one (despite price) plus don't see any difference in productivity in either Mac, Windows or Linux it all just depends on what you are doing and you can just search around for your solutions on almost what ever you wont to do most of the time like system tweaks that most of us use. Vista Ultimate is my OS of choice even though it chews on average 600mb of RAM it still does what I want it to do in at speeds I'm ok with.

[zeamp]

Aren't these "Which Is Better?" threads getting a little old?

[KeriJane]

Hello.

 

I'm new to the Mac world but old to the Windows world. (since 3.1)

 

I feel that Mac OS Leopard is the best OS I've come across.

 

It runs my video editing softwares at incredible speeds, though I'm not sure how much is Leopard and how much is Mac Pro.

Leopard has only ONE price level, $129. Also, it doesn't even have a Serial Number let alone Activation. The only "Keep Our Customers From Robbing Us Blind" feature is that it will only install on Apple hardware, and even that can be circumvented.

 

Apple when dealing with both Hardware (PPC vs Intel) and Software (Tiger vs Leopard) isn't afraid to put their foot down and say: "This is OLD stuff, and this here is NEW stuff. If you want to run NEW Software, at some point you have to buy NEW Hardware." (or vice-versa)

 

This policy keeps Macs current and working well.

 

 

One of Microsoft's biggest weaknesses is their insistence on backwards compatibility. This appears to hinder their newer OSs a great deal.

 

Out of all the Windows MS has sold since 3.1, I'd have to say that XP 32bit is the "Best".

XP 64bit had so much potential... you could just feel it. But never any software support! All of the software that would benefit most from 64-bit OSs (video editing, Photoshop) totally blew off 64bit operation.

I wanted so much to like Vista, but just couldn't because they took away stuff I liked and everything was so much slower and buggier. Probably when Hardware gets to that elusive "next level" Vista will perform well, though my Windows system was no slouch.

But that still won't bring back some of the XP stuff I liked so much.

 

 

Remember, INTEL has publicly refuted Vista! (That ain't going on OUR Computers)

 

Keri

 

PS. Please bring back Microsoft Comic Chat!