SciForums.com > Technology > Computer Science & Culture > Microsoft vs Linux vs MAC PDA View Full Version : Microsoft vs Linux vs MAC Post ReplyCreate New Thread USS Exeter08-24-07, 09:29 PMYour general opinion on the software groups. Which is the easiest to use? Which has more modification options, etc. domesticated om08-24-07, 11:50 PMWindows XP followed by Ubuntu on ease of use. Vista is the modern incarnation of Windows ME IMO. Windows has the most compatibility, most games, most software, most dumbed down UI. Ubuntu is close......but needs a little work. Mac........ well......Mac seems targeted towards certain genres, and has performance/stability, but lacks the all around compatibility of windows. Mac is excellent for use by the professional whatevers (graphic designers. media and music gurus, computer animation, etc)........but that's an "out of the box" kinda thing as opposed to windows (which has the ability to do the same junk as a mac, but you have to build it up to it). USS Athens08-24-07, 11:59 PMMicrosoft, because I've never used Linux. Linux :deal: Because Microsoft is for capitalists running DOS :deal: USS Exeter08-25-07, 12:41 AMOne of the many advantages of linux is that there is no need to buy viral programs because it is already hardwired into the software. Like the old saying goes: "Bugs crawl in through Windows." John9908-26-07, 08:52 AMSame turd different wrapper. Personally the MS interfaces and file system is easier for me to use because it is like second nature to me. I never saw MS OS's as less secure just the fact that is where the hackers focus. Like when that dude was asked why he robbed banks he said 'cause thats where the money is' Avatar08-26-07, 10:05 AMThere is no God OS, for each particular task the best tool should be used. Read-Only08-26-07, 10:30 AMYour general opinion on the software groups. Which is the easiest to use? Which has more modification options, etc. Just like clothes - there's no such thing as one size fits all. Each has different strengths and weaknesses and is better at some task than the others. For overall general use and for sharing information with other users, MS is WAY ahead of the pack. There are many more applications and games written to run on Windows than all the others combined and multiplied by a factor of 50. Sock puppet path08-26-07, 10:38 AMAmiga OS all the way baby!!!! John9908-26-07, 11:09 AMAmiga OS all the way baby!!!! My dad used that. I put alot of time into BeOs, thought it was going to take over the world:( Fraggle Rocker08-26-07, 08:46 PMMicrosoftware is built by computer geeks for computer geeks. So-called software "engineers" assume that because they enjoy spending half their lives figuring out how software works and the other half troubleshooting it, the rest of us are like that too. Macs are for the other 99.999% of the human race. We want our computers to be appliances and don't care if they don't have fancy bells and whistles. We want to turn them on, push a button, and have perfectly toasted data pop out. We want something to go wrong maybe two or three times a year, like it does with our cars. The rest of the time we don't want to have to even think about the frelling things. James R08-26-07, 11:18 PMIf you think Microsoft is built for computer geeks, you ought to try Linux some time! I've just started using Linux a bit (I've got a dual-boot Windows/Linux system now). As a slightly-reformed computer geek myself, I kinda like playing with Linux. But you certainly have to get down to the nitty gritty. The OS doesn't baby you like Windows does. Being able to use a command line is an absolute must. But I like the history associated with Linux. Linux had a GUI long before Apple computers did, and way before Microsoft. The whole concept of mice and windows and so on was invented by a bunch of guys at Xerox, working on Unix. draqon08-26-07, 11:23 PMmy negligence of Linux comes from its lack of programs Fraggle Rocker08-26-07, 11:33 PMThe whole concept of mice and windows and so on was invented by a bunch of guys at Xerox, working on Unix.As a person who has been an efficient touch-typist since I was 16, I think the mouse is an invention of the devil. I have to keep taking my hands off the keyboard to perform functions which, for example in the old WordPerfect, could be easily done with Function Keys. The mouse requires me to re-learn basic hand-to-eye coordination through my trifocals. Virtually every mistake I make on my computer is due to an error in handling this idiotic little rodent, including its belief that it knows what I want to do better than I do and clicks in the wrong place. As for GUIs, I want words on my computer; if I wanted a bloody cartoon show I would have turned on the TV. GUIs and the mouse are fine for games, but not for work, unless you happen to be a graphic artist, and absolutely not not not for word processing. James R08-26-07, 11:59 PMFraggle: I only installed Linux about a month ago, and have been trying to get to grips with its interface conventions, some of which are quite different from Windows. I installed Emacs, probably the most popular editor on Linux/Unix, about a week ago. The main reason is that I use LaTeX quite a bit to produce documents, and there's a very nice add-on for Emacs which lets you write something like this: $\oint E.dA = \frac{q_e}{\epsilon_0}$ and have it rendered in the editor immediately as \oint E.dA = \frac{q_e}{\epsilon_0} which I think you'll agree makes a lot more sense. Emacs dates from the olden days of Unix, before the coming of the rodent. Thus, you don't have to, but you can if you choose do everything with keyboard shortcuts - scroll the screen, cut and paste text, find and replace, spell check - all the usual word processing tasks. You don't actually need to touch the mouse. According to Wikipedia, frequent users of Emacs have, however, been known to develop "pinky fatigue" from frequently using the "Control" key to access commands. Sounds like it might be right up your alley. On the other hand, if you want WYSIWYG, forget Emacs and other text editors. In that case, you probably have little option but to put up with M\$ Word, or (if you're a flower-power free-software Linux rebel) OpenOffice. BenTheMan08-27-07, 01:20 AMhaving used both Windows and Linux, I gotta say Windows is much better for most things. If I'm coding, I want to use Linux, but for anything else, give me Windows. To James: Check out Kile, which is a Linux based LaTeX IDE. Emacs is pretty lame. Athelwulf08-27-07, 03:20 AMIsn't Windows standardly called... well, "Windows"? (Sorry, had to be picky.) I'm a Windows native, and I haven't had much chance to use anything else extensively. I'd love a Mac, but for now I'm on Windows. My computer is dual-boot, actually: Mandriva Linux. But since I have dial-up and a fucking winmodem, I don't really use Linux. But to answer the question, I don't think any of them is the absolute easiest. This stuff is subjective. Each OS has strong and weak points. Some people forget this. James R08-27-07, 04:53 AMBenTheMan: Check out Kile, which is a Linux based LaTeX IDE. Emacs is pretty lame. Two issues with this: 1. Kile apparently needs KDE, and I'm currently running Gnome. Are there any particular advantages to KDE? 2. Emacs with AucTeX/Preview-latex gives me a half-way house with WYSIWYG equations inside the editor (no need to run LaTeX all the time and constantly flip between an editor and a DVI viewer). I think that's pretty neat. Can Kile do that? Or any other LaTeX IDE, for that matter? BenTheMan08-27-07, 11:46 AMJames--- Kile will run on gnome, I think. I found this forum post (sorry for linking to another forum) : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=807144. I think kile does have a snap preview feature---but my LaTeX documents normally compile quickly enough so that I can do all of these things in a terminal. My version is pretty limited because I can't compile directly from kile. Something to do with accessing rights or some such. I haven't tried to fool with any of the settings, mostly because I'm just glad I don't have to write my LaTeX files in a text editor like emacs:) The BEST reason for using kile is that it completes your commands for you (if you want), and it remembers your labels. So, for example, if you type /ref{} a list will pop up with all of the \labels{} (you have to compile the document periodically, this is how it keeps up with the labels). I always forget what I call equations and tables, so this is a GREAT time saver. And it has a spell checker. And it makes generating BibTeX files easy, too---it has a point and click interface. So if you need to reference a Master's thesis, you can click the menu and the master's thesis template will pop up with all the fields, like @MastersThesis{, author = {}, title = {}, school = {}, year = {}, OPTkey = {}, OPTtype = {}, OPTaddress = {}, OPTmonth = {}, OPTnote = {}, OPTannote = {} } As far as gnome vs. KDE, I don't think one is particularly better than the other. KDE looks more like Windows, at least mine does. And the computer guys here at OSU say they're practically the same. At some point there were some problems with gnome's preformance, which is why the computer guys here use KDE, but they all assure me that these things have been fixed. BenTheMan08-27-07, 11:49 AMAthelwulf---you're probably right. The Linux architecture may be better, but not if you're gaming. Plus, for example, things like Linux may give you TOO much freedom. A friend of mine deleted his trash can once. It's all about what you learn first. John9908-27-07, 03:02 PMI used Windows Vista for the first time the other day and it is damn goo. Avatar08-27-07, 03:14 PMI used Windows Vista for the first time the other day and it is damn goo. I agree. I installed it for a friend a few weeks ago and it's still the same Windows goo under all the glam. Bugs and crashes, and moronic, limiting wizards. Besides my KDE Desktop is prettier. John9908-27-07, 03:23 PMKDE is real cool. So far Vista runs same as XP even with the eye candy which is very nice and readable. One thing i notice is the way Vista displays fonts is easier on the eyes than Linux...maybe it is just me. Also the video display (YES, using right driver) is much faster than with Linux, moving windows etc. is much smoother. Not being critical of Linux but MS made one quality OS with Vista, it really is much better than XP. Also has not crashed yet and i have seen GUI in Linux crash a few times. Avatar08-27-07, 03:29 PMHumm, Vista GUI didn't crash for me, just configuration windows when I was setting everything up. Any way I'm not competent in Vista, haven't used it much, only installed and configured. But in the process it frustrated the hell out of me. Probably is really good for a simple user, but I want my terminal and config files. Post ReplyCreate New Thread