Jump to content

Linux or Mac OS X ?

The_true_power

By The_true_power,
in Linux - *nix

 Share
134 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The_true_power
The_true_power
Posted
Posted

Hi, members of the "Hackintosh-community",

 

One day I saw a Video on Youtube. In this video, a men boot into OS X with his Dell.

I was very impressed and i wanted to do it.

But unfortunately, it didn't work on my PC (Usb-problem). After this bitter defeat, i installed Ubuntu 7.04 "Feisty Fawn" on my PC, it's working fine.

But now i'm wondering : "Why should I install OS X on my desktop if Linux is even good as Mac OS X except that it's free and with infinite possibilities ?"

 

Certain people says : " I like the Mac OS X theme and all his superb softwares." Well, this is how my desktop looks like :

capture1fc0.th.png capturebf0.th.png

and i think that almost every software has a freeware equivalent. (do you know some exceptions ?)

 

That's my opinion, what do you think about it ?

 

TTP

Link to comment
https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/56856-linux-or-mac-os-x/
Share on other sites
bliss
bliss
Posted
Posted

well ive tried ubuntu and also got deskop effects running (beryl) its very nice and very fast and you've got a lotof options but it feels beta and on my card you cant run any opengl app under beryl. so you have to log out and log into normal gnome just to use google earth or play a game. but on some cards it also works...

 

i do like macos more... but ubuntu is also nice - nicer then vista

Headrush69
Headrush69
Posted
Posted

Before jumping to OS X I was running Linux exclusively for 3+ years.

Although Linux has made great strides, and distros are much better than they were before, OS X still has a polish that no distro I've tried has.

 

The little touches are the type of things that aren't on a feature list, and you might not even recognize them, but in day to day use I find they make a difference and what separates Apple software from competitors. (The interface.)

Things like consistent textedit box focus, working drag and drop anywhere it makes sense, simplified dialog boxes. (Although this part is application designed.)

 

Edit: Had Beryl running on my old distro. Although there were some cool effects, I found most weren't too useful.

(The key is making those effects useful and sometimes more subtle effects are better.)

BlueAvenue
BlueAvenue
Posted
Posted

As you can see from my signature,i am dual booting Mac OS X Tiger and PCLinuxOS 2007. I think they

are both excellent but different. I have been using linux as my main os for almost 2 yrs so i am more

comfortable using it, but i am using Tiger more and more as time goes on.

Since i am using Mac for free that really helps the case for using it. One advantage linux has is that it

has thousands of programs and they are free. Quite often a good program that you might want for Mac

costs money like Toast 8. I love how easy it is to delete a program in Mac. As someone else stated, i

love the look and polish of Mac.

What is has come to now is that i boot into either one based on a whim of that day. Finally ,i would not pay the $160 for Tiger unless linux did not exist. I firmly believe that Tiger is superior to any Windows and

could be #1 in usage if Jobs let it be sold for the pc.

R2k.
R2k.
Posted
Posted
I would like to know why should Mac OS X being better than Linux...

 

X is easier to use.

have better programs.

 

linux needs less hadware resources

you need console knowledge to use it properly

 

X is nicer ;)

 

cheers

 

~R

The_true_power
The_true_power
Posted
  • Author
Posted
X is easier to use.

have better programs.

 

linux needs less hadware resources

you need console knowledge to use it properly

 

X is nicer ^_^

 

cheers

 

~R

 

Thanks for your answer Rzk ;)

But wich software are you talking about exactly ? This is very important to me, so I'll know if I install Mac OS X. ;)

 

@Tetrasoft : Wich OS do you generally use ? Mac OS or Ubuntu ?

sandmanfvrga
sandmanfvrga
Posted
Posted

Linux is good, but the system suffers from a fatal flaw: being open source and not ONE distro, everybody does things differently. Sure on newer distros, you can (with broadband, forget dial up I have tried) install new apps, but on OS X you can download .dmg (disk images) or whatever and take to any mac with the requirements for the app, drag it to applications and there you go. Some apps have install scritps/front ends like Windows, but it is SO simple to install things in OS X. NO other os does this. Linux IS good, to me I can install apps I want to try as easy as windows and be one a unix based os that is far superior to windows. I wish I could run it here at work. heh

Headrush69
Headrush69
Posted
Posted
Thanks for your answer Rzk ^_^

But wich software are you talking about exactly ? This is very important to me, so I'll know if I install Mac OS X. ;)

Your asking for specifics that aren't really going to come.

Both OSes are pretty much feature wise the same. Chances are no matter what kind or program you are looking for it is available. Like someone mentioned, there may be more "free" applications on Linux, but for the the "average" end user type tasks OS X has free equivalents also.

 

Also, many Linux apps can be compiled and run on OS X also. I recently had KDE running on my OS X and used Quanta the web editor all the time.

 

You also have the option of running Linux in a virtual machine using Parallels or VMware Fusion so if you have a must have Linux app that won't work any other way you can go that route.

 

As to look and feel, its a personal judgement but I think most people still feel OS X is a more finished, polished product.

This isn't to say Linux is capable, but you just don't have the same cohesion when you have competing Desktop Environments, toolkits, etc, like Linux.

 

It would be easier for us if you named applications that you need or want and we can tell you if OS X has the same or better equivalent than Linux, rather than just randomly guessing them.

 

Edit: Fixed spelling mistake that made sentence confusing.

The_true_power
The_true_power
Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for your answer sandmanfvrga ;)

 

@headrush : Well, i don't really need any ^^ i'm just a ... computer fanatic :P If something interest me i try to learn use it and when i learned use it, i learn use something else.... lol. So i think i will try to resolve my problem and install OS X on my pc. :wink2:

sandmanfvrga
sandmanfvrga
Posted
Posted

I am not a Apple/OS X fanboy though, and OS X has a fatal flaw: you NEED Mac Hardware to be perfect. Now Hackintoshes claim to be "perfect" but they are not seeing as you need to NOT use Software Update and get updates from Apple and other things. I mean when it comes to it, if you don't mind the hacks and such, the OSX86 is fine and still better in my opinion to Linux.

Headrush69
Headrush69
Posted
Posted
@headrush : Well, i don't really need any ^^ i'm just a ... computer fanatic :P If something interest me i try to learn use it and when i learned use it, i learn use something else.... lol. So i think i will try to resolve my problem and install OS X on my pc. ^_^

I wasn't trying to suggest that you shouldn't use Linux. I learned lots using it, especially since I stuck with Gentoo.

I was more referring to your questions as to which programs are better, just pointing out it is very subjective and that by using OS X you can get the best of both worlds.

(Either Linux in a VM, or as a recompile or since OS X is based on BSD, console based commands are very similar and often the same as you would use in a Linux BASH session.)

Kenta
Kenta
Posted
Posted
Sure on newer distros, you can (with broadband, forget dial up I have tried) install new apps, but on OS X you can download .dmg (disk images) or whatever and take to any mac with the requirements for the app, drag it to applications and there you go. Some apps have install scritps/front ends like Windows, but it is SO simple to install things in OS X. NO other os does this. Linux IS good, to me I can install apps I want to try as easy as windows and be one a unix based os that is far superior to windows. I wish I could run it here at work. heh

I'd have to disagree and say distros that use stuff like apt have the easiest install (when the program is in the repos, that is.).

 

What could be simpler than either typing apt-get isntall application or opening a package manager and selecting the application/s you want to install.

 

No browsing or looking for the application online, just type the name in and install.

 

Though when you have to install from a package file or compile from source, it gets to be a hassle.

Headrush69
Headrush69
Posted
Posted
I'd have to disagree and say distros that use stuff like apt have the easiest install (when the program is in the repos, that is.).

You still have to start package manager, find the package and then supply the root password.

(Sure for a seasoned Linux user that knew the package name and worked from the command line it would be quick.)

 

What could be simpler than either typing apt-get isntall application or opening a package manager and selecting the application/s you want to install.

Well, I would say a DMG that automatically opens a window with the APP icon and an alias to the Applications folder and all you have to do is drag the icon onto this alias is still easier. :blowup:

 

No browsing or looking for the application online, just type the name in and install.

In theory sounds nice but often these repositories/lists are so bloated with duplicate functioning apps and "interesting" names that for all lot of users it would take more than just ap install programA. (Average joe wouldn't know the name of a music collection app was Amorak, Juk, or Rythmbox, so some searching is still needed.)

So the user would still need to find out about each app before they installed it anyways.

 

Of course APT and portage are miles better than the old days of just RPM. (Dependency hell ;) )

EPDM
EPDM
Posted
Posted
Hello, that's well fun to talk over this OS-war, but please can you give some arguments ? I would like to know why should Mac OS X being better than Linux...

 

Well for one thing. Graphic card support.

 

There are mainly 4 graphic card chipsets around.

 

NVidia GForce (and derivates)

ATI Radeon (and derivates)

S3 (and derivates)

Intel (and derivates)

 

And usually only the Intel (onboard) GFX are supported out of the box. The problem gets worse as you know that the ppl who can benefit the most of these linux 3D-desktops are the ones with ATI and/or NVidia gfx-cards. Yet these are usually NOT supported on many distros.

 

This "problem" get even worse on the Live-CD's. Since you usually try those before actually installing a Linux. But then you get dissapointed because knoppix-Vxx doesn't run on your standard ATI Radeon PCI-E card (which is already over a year old) let alone that olde ATI AGP Radeon 9800pro (which STILL isn't supported on most distro's today????)

 

If the 2 major gfx-cards don't get supported out o/t box then it's no use to even start thinking of going to linux. Definitly not with beryl 3D-desktop.

Kenta
Kenta
Posted
Posted
You still have to start package manager, find the package and then supply the root password.

(Sure for a seasoned Linux user that knew the package name and worked from the command line it would be quick.)

Well, I would say a DMG that automatically opens a window with the APP icon and an alias to the Applications folder and all you have to do is drag the icon onto this alias is still easier. :P

In theory sounds nice but often these repositories/lists are so bloated with duplicate functioning apps and "interesting" names that for all lot of users it would take more than just ap install programA. (Average joe wouldn't know the name of a music collection app was Amorak, Juk, or Rythmbox, so some searching is still needed.)

So the user would still need to find out about each app before they installed it anyways.

 

Of course APT and portage are miles better than the old days of just RPM. (Dependency hell :( )

Forgot about package names.

 

 

Yeah, i guess it can be easier if conditions are met.

 

So I'll have to admit that OS X does it best in general.

madoon
madoon
Posted
Posted

i've used windows for many years... and although each version is a much more stable the the pervious they are still not that stable...

my first experience with linux was with fedora.. which was disapionting to say the least... but when i got my new laptop and tried ubuntu.. that was so much fun.. you just feel that OS is much more powerfull... now i have never used mac in my life, except for when i was in elementry and my school had computers...over 10 years ago..i think i was even black & white or maybe my memory..

so since mac is unix i thought it would be a more powerfull version of linux...big mistake... its been only two days since my install... and all i have successfully done is install the ethernet and MSN messenger...perhaps i will change my mind about MAC...its still early...but that wont change till i can get this sound driver installed....

 

Linux By Far...

Headrush69
Headrush69
Posted
Posted
so since mac is unix i thought it would be a more powerfull version of linux...big mistake... its been only two days since my install... and all i have successfully done is install the ethernet and MSN messenger...perhaps i will change my mind about MAC...its still early...but that wont change till i can get this sound driver installed....

 

Linux By Far...

You're comparing an open source OS that is made to run on as much hardware as possible to trying to setup a hacked OS on your hardware although it was designed to run on a specific, somewhat proprietary hardware set. Not exactly a fair assessment using that criteria.

OStourist
OStourist
Posted
Posted

I'm surprised noone has mentioned this yet

but the main reason I want to switch from Linux to Mac OS X is...sound!

In my opinion the linux sound system ALSA is at best a patchwork buggy mess.

If you have on-board sound(AC'97 for example) then the fact is that there are programs that

will NOT be able to mix their sound with others unless you hack and even then it doesn't always work.

 

Here are two experiments you can do (1) Try a java application that uses sound.say jin(a popular chess client)

then (2) open up rhythmbox to play some mp3s and see if u can play anything . No sound? that's because java applications

are oss only so you must do aoss javapp to get sounds mixed in with rhythmbox. But that won't

work with java applets as they are not command line launched..maybe aoss firefox?

Can you say gross hack?

 

Another example ..VMware with XP guest in linux host..try searching the forums for people

who simple cannot get XP to play sound because /dev/dsp is in use by linux.

Again some hacks have been posted for vmware 5.5 but I'm still waiting for a solution

for Vmware 6

 

This is important for me as my two favorite programs are java based and i like to listen to music

or watch movies at the same time..

 

Finally I should say that I really like Fedora and have been using it for a while

but this and other issues(that are not Fedora's fault) make me keep trying OS X

on my P4 i915 system(no sound yet alas) or waiting for the day OpenSolaris becomes stable

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...