PC and PowerPC software

[MDupreejr]

Wow, there are a lot of misinformed people, linux/unix IS a superior operating system, but it is NOT that because the people using it are smarter. Microsoft is a great company, a big company, but compared to a userbase twice there size all working together on a piece of software, they are just inferior. MS Windows is completely different than Unix based systems (Although with Win2k3 they are getting closer). Compared to unix based systems, windows systems aren't even really multiuser. Unix based machines have the potential to be setup in far more secure fashions and are able to allocate resources (and mange large resources, such as raid arrays) far better than anything MS produces.

As for Macs, their operating system (OS X) is based upon FreeBSD, which is based upon UNIX! Which means that apple's not only have a far superior chip archetecture, but also utilitize a far more advanced operating system - yet while os10 machines are generally more secure than windows machines, os10 has the potential to be locked down extremely dight (due to the fact that it is based upon unix). This also allows for apple servers to be extremely powerful (which they are - and in addition, they are extremely easy to use.)

 

[emeraldice]

Yea but extremely easy to use is a user interface problem, which is fixed w/ software. Software is easy to change; hardware isn't, especially when it costs a new machine to replace it.

 

[Echo_]

macs use upgradable hardware that the average pc user would upgrade
hd
ram
pci slots vid card in the towers
even cpu's are upgradable with aftermarket proc and mobo

 

[x86angler]

Saying an operating system is "far more superior" is subjective. I hardly felt Linux was superior when I was working with it during late 2003/2004. Finding my drivers, compiling software, failing at getting my printer and scanner set up, the struggle with audio, and going through SuSE, Mandrake, and Debian Woody was a computing nightmare. It was such a relief to come back to Windows and have everything just "work".

I remember Macs being cool back when I was in middle school. We used to play Sim City 2k on them. However, macs break the bank. Upgrading is simple, I'll give you that, just throw out your old mac and buy a new one. Its architecture isn't superior, it's just designed for different things.

Apple is superior if you're a designer.

Yes, Linux has a nice architecture. I really like the administrative root features. However, Linux is useless to me. It would be a fun hobby, but I just don't have time to learn a new O/S right now. You can usually find a nice installation feature with many of the distros, but once you get past that point you're on your own, and it is far from user friendly. Linux software is written for Linux people by Linux people.

This is a good read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html

Linux is superior if you're a "Linux" techie, a hacker, or an IT guy.

Windows is superior if you're everyone else.


I think Windows beats Linux, Unix, Mac, and whatever other O/S's people may use. This is because Windows does what I want it to, and it works good for me. There is no "better" operating system, only what works best for you.

I think we've strayed too far from the original topic though..... :amazed:



-x86

 

[gsbtech]

Let me see...

Unix/Linux - performance, stability, security, multi-tasking, networking - a good server OS and a solid platform for interoperability and customization.

Windows - ... um... I get to play lots of games dude.....

Did I leave anything out?

 

[x86angler]

Let me see...

Unix/Linux - performance, stability, security, multi-tasking, networking - a good server OS and a solid platform for interoperability and customization.

Windows - ... um... I get to play lots of games dude.....

Did I leave anything out?

Just this:
Windows - performance, stability, security, networking and a solid platform.

Windows works if you know what to do, and what not to do with it. Just like Linux, except Linux only makes up for around 1% of the computer population of the world so they don't have to worry about viruses.

Linux is THE server O/S, I'll give you that. Windows is a capable server O/S, but no so much as Linux.

Heyy, don't be hatin' gamers! It's one of the main reasons Linux isn't more widespread, you should know. Yes, actually, gaming does play a huge factor.



-x86

 

[Apokalipse]

IMO Macintosh is a better platform
but I am not one sided, as I like Windows and Linux also

I would say the G5's are more powerful than X86 systems, except maybe one with multiple Opteron 850's, but multiple socket 940 motherboards never have AGP or PCI-E 16x slots


Macintosh make their CPU's more efficient than AMD's or Intel's. a single 1.6GHZ G5 has more CPU power than a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ

AMD's CPU's are about 150% as efficient as Intel's CPU's with clock speed, and Mac's are about 200% as efficient.
considering this, you could say Macintosh's CPU's are about 4/3 as efficient as AMD's CPU's.

I wouldn't say Macintosh is for techies, I would say it is for everyone. Mac Os X is relatively easy to use for first timers, and is a very secure OS.

Linux is very secure also, and is probabbly the best OS for hacking. anyone who can run Linux only using comand line is 1337.

Windows has the best compatibility, but IMO has way too many security flaws. Microsoft really do try to make their OS's secure, but I think they won't get it with any of their current OS's. I would say "longhorn" would be much more secure, they are putting a lot of effort into it

 

[ImUseless]

This is what I learned from my exposure to Mac
and UNIX(servers).

A friend was doing an audio sountrack for a motion
picture and a game(I think console, dont remember).
when I was invited to the studio to watch some initial
production work it was done on Mac products.

Most bigtime work in both audio and video is done on
Mac. I have a few friends that are studio musicians who
work for many well-known artists(from LA to Nashville)
and it seems that most of the production tools are top
of the line Mac products.

Im not an engineer but it seems that the production
engineers are the ones who choose Mac in most cases
and when money is no object. But my experience is
limited to only a few experiences first hand.

I do have a friend who is a Mac product manager and
when we used to talk Mac vs Win it was hard to argue
that when money is no object most but not all top of the
line work, when features, stability etc was crucial, many
industry leaders prefer Mac (movie, music, education) but
Im sure Windows has moved up in the industry.

Im not real familiar with unix, but again, a friend of mine
who maintains large networks implied that many large
companies prefer Unix for servers from His experience.
He is now an engineer for Ram Optical

The last experience I had was when a martial arts
professional that I used to train with was asked to appear
in a movie, the production work that I saw done was on a
Mac platform.

In terms of these friends of mine, I only state what they
have said because they travel world wide(at one time or
another) either installing, maintaining, or supply training
in the areas we are discussing. I dont claim to know $hit.

Personally, if money was no object for me I would own both
a Windows and Mac based machine(top of the line)but for
now a Windows machine works just fine.

 

[gsbtech]

Heyy, don't be hatin' gamers! It's one of the main reasons Linux isn't more widespread, you should know. Yes, actually, gaming does play a huge factor.

-x86

Gaming is the principle reason that we can buy amazing technology at cheap mass production prices. I was just playing with you X86 because I agree with most of what you are saying.

My systems at home:

Solaris 10 running on an ultraSparc - I like this one best for browsing and email. Java Desktop is the most pleasing on the eyes and I don't have to worry about malware. I do a little numerical analysis on this one as it's a true 64bit OS running on a tru 64bit processor.

Redhat Linux running on a PIII - I use this one for Java development. It has more memory than the untraSparc (because of price) so I run netbeans and JBoss. I don't use a desktop on this system as I display and work with the application on the utraSparc (now that's networking!). I also experiment and deploy Java apps to Suns application server.

Dual boot win98 and win2000 on a pII - Just for support purposes - keeps my knowledge current on those OS's.

Windows XP on AMD system - Games, MS Office, Video Editing, CD burnding, and C/C++ development. I like Visual Studio 6. I use windows for every file format or application not easily accessible under unix. I probably spend most of my home computing time on this system.

Windows wishlist: (1) better multitasking - five thread priorities aren't enough, (2) multiple desktops - been doing that on Unix sense early nineties, (3) more customization of the desktop, (4) native telnet, ftp, nsf, and x-windows support, (5) the ability to run an application across the network.

Unix wishlist: (1) uniform management console which gives me the same gui interface (with "snap-in" capability) across Unix platforms, (2) a more user friendly Samba (for excessing windows network shares), (3) better cooperation with active directory, (4) enough market share that software developers release Unix versions.