Okay okay, maybe not official, and i'm CERTAIN not the first, but i felt like it just because half the time these arguments bring a lot of new things to light for a lot of people (me included :P). So...uh...Duel 1, FIGHT!

------------------
There is no signature

Mac uses 40% less letters than Linux, thus being far more efficient.

Hence, Mac > Linux.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian & A Very Massassian Xmas
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

Click here.

------------------
Fight the future.

What a pointless debate.

Windows wins in the consumer area because it offers a wide variety of applications and options. It's also fairly nice for development, just because Visual Studio is such an amazing IDE.

Mac OS wins in the beginner area because it's really easy to use. It obeys the UI principles that it took Microsoft decades to figure out (that the less the onscreen UI changes, the easier it is for the user. This is on page 1 of the effective GUI design book). And while there isn't a wide selection of applications for Mac, the overwhelming majority of home computer owners stick to HTTP, email and word processing.
The main reason there weren't a lot of Mac programs available over the past, like, decade was because Apple used to control development with an iron fist. Think Nintendo and Sony console development licensing, only worse. Now that GCC has a Mac port there really isn't any excuse for the lack of titles, but they still haven't been showing up a lot. Plus Mac games end up being even less profitable than commercial Linux titles.

Linux wins... uh... something. Out of the 3 consumer based OSes I'd say it has the best security and the most frequent updates. All of the code for Linux is open, so you have a lot more control over what your computer does. I believe the US government has a standing policy of only using operating systems they can do a total code audit of, but don't quote me on that. Linux is also being adopted by a lot of world governments - China, for instance, has its own distribution - and most of the old UNIX supporting companies are migrating over to Linux.
It's kind of a middle-of-the-road operating system. It offers all of the security and control you'd get with a UNIX, but it has a lot of end-user stuff available. Unfortunately these kinda cancel each other out - the great feature set makes it hard to use, but the focus on personal computing makes it less desirable for something like a server application.

So, practically it's just a matter of choice. I think it's also worth saying that Microsoft and Apple are definitely working toward a UNIX-like security model. (Even though Darwin uses a BSD kernel, I don't think it's there yet.)

Mac OS X is UNIX-based, Jon`C.

------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
-Robert Jastrow

...er... I said that. In my post. The last line, in fact.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited December 11, 2003).]

No, you didnt. you said that they where working towards a unix like enviroment, but the fact of the matter is, they have become just another linux port. They USE unix/linux software, they are not working towards making their system like, they are working towards making unix look like their mac system.

Linux is an ideal server OS, infact that was its origional design. Linux is very flexible hence the ability for it to go from server to personal computer very seamlessly. The biggest downside to linux is that it is fairly unknown, and a little harder to use then windows. However it has gotten to the point (with red hat and Mandrake) that it is very easy to install and run.

You must remember, linux does not run like windows or mac, it does not have 1 set installation. Linux is more like a pie where there are several pieces that will make it whole, but this pie can be good with only a couple of slices, but can also have hundreds of slices.

------------------
Im Happy

Yes he did.

Arguing about which OS is the best is like arguing what type of music is the best. Its entirely about preference, and nothing one party says will change the ideas of the others.

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

Hmm. How many OS arguements have I seen so far...

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
---@%

No, it isnt. Its a matter of technical superiority, not a matter of taste.

------------------
Fight the future.

Figures GBK would step in on this one

------------------
Official Staff of Massassi Temple:
-Chat Op
-Level Poster
-Forum Admin
-Level Comments Admin
-EC Admin

Moral to the Story: Don't Mess

<3 Gentoo <3

Actually, I just like seeing peoples replies to this, for two reasons. One, I'm considering switching to linux, and am looking for reasons as to why i should. Second, I learn a helluvalot over it. It's not stupid, if you look at it from the right POV, it's informative. Unless, that is, you're all-knowing...which no massassian is.

------------------
There is no signature

All of your questions will be answered here.

But seriously... you really are wanting to give Linux a try?

Yah, and I hear lindows is crap, no offense. Mostly I want to try linux because i'm sick of the permeating GUIs ruling my life. Icons are cool, but I need to get back to roots and such...plus my computer blows, and linux optimizes sucky comps.

------------------
There is no signature

That is a load of BS.

Lets take Palm Pilots and Pocket PCs for example. Palm Pilots use the Palm OS, Pocket PCs use a version of Windows (is it CE? dunno, not really important). Is the Palm OS technically superior to the Windows on the Pocket PC? No. But many people PREFER it over Windows on the Pocket PCs.

That same example can be applied to computers. Technical superiority is a minimal factor unless that what you want.

------------------
Frogblast the Vent Core!

--End of Line--

Actually phoenix, i believe he's referring to how each OS performs. That is technical--I.E., Linux usually optimizes a system moreso that windows, seeing as how it takes so few resources to run, and runs so smoothly.

------------------
There is no signature

It's a pretty drastic first step, but Gentoo is really good for learning the internal workings of the system. A distribution like RedHat (err, Fedora) or Mandrake can get you running a Linux system with a graphical desktop, but won't make you learn the basics of the system configuration like Gentoo will. This may lead to more frustration, but I've honestly had less frustration with Gentoo than with Redhat. The Gentoo website has a great install guide that walks you through what you need to know and do, and the Gentoo forums are incredibly friendly and supportive for if (read: when) you have questions.

Edit: I'd argue that it is mostly a matter of preference. There aren't that many things you can't do in Linux that you can in Windows. Though, my system is messed up, so Linux offers me more options (dvd playing, games (yes.... yes I said games)...). And I just prefer KDE/Linux to Windows. <3 console.

[This message has been edited by fourwood (edited December 13, 2003).]

But, I don't run it anymore. I don't have enough hard drive space, and it seems too much a hassel to make it worth it. Sure, I can get some good WineX ebuilds, and get most of my games running. Even if I did manage to get every game running perfectly, I still have to worry about installers, updates and patches, and most importantly, editing software.

What's up with Windows Server 2003? How stable is it? 'Cause XP is really pissing me off. I have a lot of trouble with it... I'd be willing to try Server 2003 provided it can run games, and that I can get drivers for it (XP drivers by any chance?). I'm betting not, but then again people said Win 2K wasn't good for gaming.

Edit: How good are Wine and WineX when you use Windows DLLs?

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

[This message has been edited by Emon (edited December 13, 2003).]

Linux is stable, because people had other things than money in mind when they write its code, and so spent some time on it.

Mac is stable, like a cardboard box is stable. I've never seen a cardboard box crash. Have you?

------------------
GhostOfYoda - General doer of stuff.

Wine and WineX are okay for OpenGL games, but they suck at DirectX titles. Transgaming likes to.. uh... lie about how stable certain titles are under WineX. If it's a major title that would make people buy WineX, they bump up its stability rating by 2 points.

Unless you stick to major FPSes and NWN, Linux isn't that attractive for gaming yet. I quit running Gentoo myself.

I wish I knew where people keep saying that Win2k sucks for gaming... it's the same kernel as XP ...

Win2k plays every game I own, UT2003, JA, JO, JK, Q3A, D2X, FF XI, Myst, Riven, UT, etc.

And it runs them much better than any other OS I have ever used.

--

Linux is great, and I would be using solely linux right now if they could better implement 3D acceleration. Right now the ATi drivers are crap, and the nvidia ones aren't much better. Usually it's because linux just seems to hate my AGP slot. Oh well.

------------------
"The future is not determined by a throw of the dice, but is determined by the conscious decisions of you and me."
I am addicted to ellipses!!! AHHH!!! ...

Using a combo of Wine and WineX, I'm running JO, JA, Call of Duty, BF1942, and Counter-Strike with very little problems. WineX also supposedly now supports Max Payne 2, but I haven't installed it yet.

No, its because video card manufacturores wont release linux drivers, and even when they do, they are binary-only.


I got UT running the other night under straight Wine. It was sweeet.

------------------
Fight the future.