why?

[ATIRAGEPRO]

"I use random 133tage for my post titles when i cnt think of anything to say..."

I totally agreed with everything you posted above but this.

How does Mac OS X limit users?

Mac OS X doesn't limit anyone in my opinion. I think Both can do exactly the same things. The thing about it is, it all depends on the software ppl develope for it.

I could be wrong bout it though.

 

[The General]

If people think "Oh, I can't use my Windows-only programs in Mac OS X, therefore Mac OS X is limiting and has compatibility issues." Then they are sorely mistaken. Sure, you might not be able to use Winamp in Linux or Mac OS X, but theres Audacious, XMMS, and Beep Media Player, all excellent Winamp skin compatibile clones of Winamp. (I'll post screenshots later )

If they think "Oh, I can't use iTunes in Linux, therefore it has compatibility issues and isn't ready for the desktop." then they are sorely mistaken as well. RhythmBox is an exellent clone of iTunes (yes, even feeds iPods) for Linux.

Basically the point I'm trying to get across is that there are alternatives to every piece of software that you use in Windows. They all work just as good, if not better. And most of them are free.

 

[Iantosca]

The General, you make excellent points. I switched from Windows to Mac and found the same or similar programs to those of windows to handle my everyday needs. This coupled with the lack of viruses, spyware, system crashes, etc. I, and I stress, I, feel that OS X has treated me infinite times better then Windows.

 

[The General]

Excellent, isn't it? Absolutely excellent.

 

[Deathawk]

Windows crashing and bootup speeds have nothing to do with Windows user friendliness? Surely you jest.

If I had a friend who looked nice and did what I told him to, but got started doing it slower than another friend of mine, don't you think our relationship would be strained a little bit. Also, if he got frustrated doing the task, and threw all the materials at the wall, shattering them, but my other friend did it in record time with nothing broken, which would I spend more time with?

But your friend doesn't do that unless you make him, which is why I don't understand why you guys always talk about Windows crashing. I can run my Windows over 2 weeks straight, without it crashing, running applications all night, and using it in the day. I am using Windows XP Pro SP2 and Windows 2000 Pro(I think SP4) The only time it does crash, is when it overheats, or I get a BSOD, which I dont' anymore. I was getting the BSOD's from either Daemon Tools or Starport, or both of them. Both of them were installed, uninstalled Starport, didn't get any problems. And hey, a rebooting once every 2 weeks isn't really a problem anyway.. is it?

Just like how you won't get viruses if you don't do stupid stuff..

 

[The General]

I can run my Windows over 2 weeks straight, without it crashing, running applications all night, and using it in the day.

And hey, a rebooting once every 2 weeks isn't really a problem anyway.. is it?

I've run Linux on my desktop for 7 months straight using it every day. The only time you should ever have to reboot is if you make a hardware change, or get a new kernel.

 

[macdude425]

TWO WEEKS?

Let's see...I've run...

Mac OS X...1.5 years straight, everyday, 6:00 AM to 1:30 AM the next day (with the odd week off for vacation), NO crashes, and although I don't customarily leave it up for two weeks at a time, I have before, with no problems.

Linux...had to forcefully reboot once, and it was because of sheer stupidity. I compiled a new kernel and didn't make an initrd, so it crashed immediatly. Otherwise, nothing.

Just like how you won't get viruses if you don't do stupid stuff..

I 100% disagree with that statement. I've seen fully protected computers get infected with viruses because patches haven't come out yet. No other operating system has this problem, especially to this degree.

 

[Jayce]

You always hear the MAC vs XP argument, but what about Linux VS MAC? Or does Linux and MAC have some kind of peace treaty?

 

[The General]

Linux users and knowledgable Mac users aren't as hateful and ignorant as Windows users. For me, Linux is becoming less and less needed ... I'm finding myself using the Mac more than my Desktop. I may just have to sell the Desktop and get a quad-Xeon Mac Pro.

But when it comes to which is better, Linux and Mac users don't argue with eachother, because we both know they each have their uses and are both excellent. So there's nothing to argue about.

 

[Deathawk]

I've run Linux on my desktop for 7 months straight using it every day. The only time you should ever have to reboot is if you make a hardware change, or get a new kernel.

To you, and to Mac dude...

There is no need to run a computer for all that time. Infact, it's better to shut your computer off when not in use. I was only saying what I said to prove system stabillity(It is true though, I have done it before, even though I shouldn't have, it's a Snipped...NOOOO PROFANITY!!! old 333mhz laptop.) When you leave a computer on, electricity passes through hardware, and friction wears the hardware down.

And for viruses, using a good AV/IS is all you need. Even then, keep it safe and you should be good. Hey, I'm not saying you're protection is 100% and you're never going to get a virus if you even do play it safe, but you'll be fine... chances aren't very high for you to get a virus if you do what you're supposed to.

And if I remember correctly, Macs are still vulnerable to viruses..

And The General, I believe you talked about generalizations earlier in this topic, yet you generalize about Mac and Linux users =\ Whatever, not even a concern to me. But to say Windows users are hateful and ignorant? That's another generalization.. =\