Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Surge Protector Usage | Benefits of Being a Father Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Surge Protector Usage | Benefits of Being a Father Next »
Accurate!
Windows?! Userfriendly?! this has to be a joke. MS Vista relies on a user already knowing the system. That! is not new user/return friendly. Also, both macs and linux arn’t as stable as they wish they were.
I can just imagine someone coming from windows to linux
for the first time.
“Where is the start button?!”
and asking why they cant open exe files…
TO be fair, Linux can open many .exe files with no additional software…
only with wine,
which is not installed in most distros by default, some do have it though.
Negative, I’m a c/c++ programmer, binaries compiled that rely on header files for the windows operating system won’t run, however just an exe will run just fine. exe’s are what the gcc compiler compile c code into btw.
There’s still that whole PE/ELF difference that you’re not accounting for…
KDE has a start button, they just don’t call it Start
they call it “The Finisher”
Macs are stable!
Do you not know how to read Venn Diagrams? Chart
says Macs are { Stable, User-Friendly } but NOT
customizable. Insanely annoying is what Macs
actually are. Buncha wannabe hackers use em.
Annoying how? I would assume they’re only annoying if you have no idea how to use one, but that would be pretty difficult since most 5 years olds can use them.
And no, the wannabe hackers are using Windows. That’s why there are so many viruses for Windows.
Thank you, and my reply was to the guy who said Mac & Linux are not as stable as “they wish they were,” when in fact they are.
Obviously thats how you find macs to be, And your entitled to your opinion. Enjoy!
Yeah, they are stable for 2 reasons. They control the hardware that their machines run on and they are running a BSD kernel.
Stable? Have you ever tried running network of Mac’s?
I’ve been IT for a decade now, and trust me when I say this:
they won’t do concurrency.
well well, you’re just full of complaints, aren’t you? and what would you suggest, Computer King?
i’m full of Opinions, not complaints. I find that hurtful. And i’d suggest you make a decision of your own when it comes to choosing an Operating System.
You lost me on “windows vista”.
You read the whole thing. i know you did.
Nerd Rage!
Is this graph made by computor componies?!
no because if computers were ponies then they’d suck at graph making
Other than Vista, this is OK. On this graph, Vista appears circled about here:
(Vista)
Every OS relies on the user already knowing the system. A beginner wouldn’t be able to jump right into either of them; it would just be a faster process in Windows or Mac. In that context, the diagram is definitely accurate.
I don’t see why. No one told me how to use Mac or Windows, I just figured it out. With Linux, you need a 400 page manual and help of half a dozen experts just to install a modem.
Only if you are using an inferior modem that relies on proprietary software that wasn’t designed with anything but Windows in mind… most people buy their computers with windows already installed, usually with a disk image specially made for that particular hardware. If you were to buy a computer with a good distribution of GNU/Linux already installed with all of the kinks worked out for you it would be a similar experience as with your first time using a mac or Windows machine. People always say that Linux is hard to install, and thats why it sucks…. but INSTALLING ANY operating system on a computer sucks. Most GNU/Linux installs go really painlessly, just as they do in Windows. But sometimes they really suck, just like they do with Windows.
mac is wats not!
I have run Linux systems for about 13 years at this point. They tend to be so stable that it is beyond all reason to expect greater stability. There are major Linux computer systems that run for years without a reboot.
I actually use linux sometimes, i like it just to play around and since its open source, it takes less power to run than windows. I wouldnt do anything major with it though
Being able to read the source of programs you’re running has absolutely nothing to do with power usage. Trolling maybe?
He doesn’t literally mean electricity, nimrod. Less resources.
haha, fail. go back to b, noob.
this is truth. 100%
I disagree. Linux is all 3.
Yeah, but only if you know how to do everything and can program to a certain degree. Otherwise, people’d get pretty darn confused.
nope, can’t program a lick, not particularly geeky, and i’m responding from a netbook running Ubuntu… You should check it out, it’s really easy to use, or so says my 70 year old, terrified of computers, mother…
I use Ubuntu and don’t know a damn thing about programming.
I use Ubuntu, like Crystal. Ask me, one of the best OSes. Ask Linux disto sites, it is the #1 distribution.
User-friendly? Main goal, so YES!!!
Stable? Yes. When a program crashes, only THAT program crashes. (Nothing Force Quit can’t fix.)
Customizable? Oh Baby!!!
That was once true, not anymore. With the modern distros like Ubuntu (Especially Ubuntu) Linux has become easy to use, extremely customizable, and of course, extremely stable. In fact, among people who have never used computers, Ubuntu is easier to learn and pick up than Windows! The problem comes when Windows users switch to Linux. They tend to have some issues.
Still, to do the things in Windows I have done in Linux I either would have had to pirate a lot of software, or pay thousands of dollars for the rights to use the software and OS
I used to always use windows xp, and my friend introduced me to linux and i actually caught on pretty fast, now i have two computers, one with windows xp, and the other with Ubuntu
Wow. That’s a lot of comments about Ubuntu.
Vista=Games, iTunes, Blackberry updates, watching TV and running mapping programmes.
Ubuntu: Photo editing, Video editing, and pretty much anything else that is actual work.
You have no idea how wrong that statement is.
“you wish”
which is precisely why all the NES emulators and DooM programs in Synaptic don’t work. Or why I would have to use the terminal to get a program to work.
Agreed, anything not easily worked out for the user themselves can be found online. At least the current big varieties.
The only thing I had trouble with on my computer with Ubuntu was fixed despite transparent Windows favoritism for D-Link and Intel’s older hardware. Now, more manufacturers are catering for cross platform use, and in fact a new printer I got was installed by clicking “Add Printer”, rather than spending 15 minutes adding drivers. I’ve seen relatives ecstatic that they can now use their computer without being hounded that they aren’t downloading Windows bloatware.
I fail to see how OS X isn’t any more customizable than Windows or Linux is.
Erm, less customizable, rather.
Yeah. I agree. And Linux is definitely very user friendly. At least Ubuntu. I’m not sure about other distributions, a lot are great for programming and professional stuff, and I’m pretty sure a lot of those are also for beginners. I think Linux should be in the center.
Uh-huh. Give a PC with Ubuntu on it to a novice and see how far they get.
Uh-huh. Give a PC with Windows on it to a novice and see how far they get. Have you seen such PCs? Full of viruses & spyware, slow as snails.
Comment WIN of the year.
You agreeing with the Stereotype of Windows, just gave me the biggest Facepalm moment of the year. When i’ve got viruses, they’ve always been my fault in my way or another.
.
You’ll see, if Macs take off rapidly and become the main PC of choice, people wanting to destroy them with viruses will multiply. They have plenty to gain.
.
My point of view, remember before you reply, is that All OS’s suck in one way or another.
I think you would have to try pretty hard to get a virus on a linux machine. As in executing a file called, “this_is_a_virus.bin”, which will respond with something like, “You do not have permission to execute this file.” Then you will have to go make it executable. Then your run it again. It will respond with, “You do not have permission to modify this file.” In which case, if you have to ask yourself what it is attempting to modify and decide if you are going to give it access to the entire system by running it as root via sudo.
Finally someone knowledgeable, and yes I know that is true, as long as you stick to the distros repositories you need no firewall AntiViri or any type of security software at all, the irony to this though is that there are Linux distros whose sole purpose is to be a firewall to windows *cough*IPCop*cough*
2/10
Even winboxen behind firewalls running Microsoft Forefront and Malwarebytes.org’s spykiller, can end up infected and bugged all to hell. Fuhgeddaboudit.
You automatically fail for using the word “winboxen.”
Bite me, I’m oldschool
I run Windows and I have none of those problems. If you’re a complete retard about computers then yeah maybe you should get a Mac.
OH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!
Wait, you serious?
Gotta admit, I agree. It all about whether you hang out at infected porn sites or just reconsider opening a page you don’t know.
Years of Windows, zero problems. Even if a virus has found it’s way, my anti-virus program has blocked it before it could even work.
Never understood Linux, though. And Mac is quite complicated as well.
I don’t understand people saying Macs aren’t flexible. They are user friendly, but there is plenty of room for Mac techies to explore, there’s even a programmer called applescript bundled that allows you to create your own programs!
yeah and the programs you create have to be run by steve jobs to see if he approves them and if he doesn’t then you have to bow to his will. all mac users are steve jobs slaves
You’re confusing “Macs” with “iPhones”, you know. And even then, that’s not the truth. *sighs* Ignorant people.
I spent tens of hours maintaining Windows because it slowed down to half its original speed every six months and I had to reinstall. Over the course of maybe a year and a half. No software installations other than a few in the first day. Any new user in Ubuntu (current Linux market leader) with problems will be directed to their comprehensive forums where an experienced user can walk them through any problems they have.
You were doing Windows wrong, then. Unless you had something like Windows ME, then I don’t think anyone’d blame you. Seriously, though, Windows definitely has more capability to get viruses than, say, a Mac. But you would still need to be a complete computer-tard to manage it. Things like using torrents or Limewire will quickly get you boned. Avoid downloading questionable files and you’ll be fine.
so it comes with them? noob.
Comment fail. PCs are not full of viruses and spyware. Only if the user willingly disables security measures of vista or windows 7 will you even get a virus. Other than that, using old outdated windows versions thinking those are still valid leads to viruses because of outdated security. Viruses and spyware rest solely on the back of the user. Macs get viruses as well you know and certainly are far from hack proof. Not even moreso than a windows machine.
You are repeating a number of myths.
A Windows machine left unprotected and connected to the Internet will become infected all by itself within 12 hours. Windows itself is designed to warn you when you do not have an antivirus package installed, for Chrissake.
Macs are no more secure and no less susceptible to viruses than Windows, BUT – it’s a real big but – no one’s been able to hack into a Mac yet without using social engineering first to get the user to divulge his password to the software, and no one writes viruses that run on Mac OS. So it’s inherently safer. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Just my two cents worth here. I don’t know enough about Linux to comment on that, but Macs are good for certain things such as recording, video editing ect and windows is just an averaged out system that does some of almost everything, some things not anywhere near as good as macs. But as for the viruses, Ive have vista for nearly a year now and I havent bothered to put on an antivirus and I havent needed to cause I havent ever had any. Vista and 7 are trying to be more user-friendly but I think Macs still take the cake on that one.
Actually, I did. My mother, who has never used a computer in her life, bought a laptop recently with Vista on. She couldn’t find her way on it. After a couple of days I installed Ubuntu on it and now she’s happily emailing, surfing the web, sharing photos and playing games… Of course, had her budget been a little higher I would have bought her a Mac
NOt sure if you were being sarcastic or what, but actually, when you give a computer novice an Ubuntu computer, they DO tend to pick up using the computer a lot easier than they do Windows. There are a lot of features that make it easier for the normal user. One menu option to find and install software instead of having to shop/download, install, and troubleshoot. One click updates of ALL software. Easy hardware installation. Printer installation is also very easy. Menus are intuitive.
I find that most of the people who get tremendously confused are WIndows users who are switching.
I’ve done it. Puppy for older computers, Ubuntu for newer ones. Either will work quite nicely, I get virtually no assistance questions when I install those OS’s Windows is a freakin headache.
I got a new Toshiba, a fine computer, despite the OS. I’ve spent the last two days setting it up, and I’m not done yet. It updated more in two days than my Ubuntu has in a month. My Mobile modem is plug-n-play under Ubuntu. My iPod Classic is plug-n-play in Amarok and Rhythmbox.
On average, from a clean install, it takes about 3 hours for me to configure Ubuntu to my liking. That’s everything-from installing the programmes I like, setting up e-mail, and browser bookmarks. And stuff works out of the bag. If it doesn’t, I can fix it.
Someone did a usability study, placing novices in front of XP and Ubuntu and asking the user to perform 10 common computing tasks like emailing an attachment and burning a CD. Even though most of the users were familiar with Windows, they found it easier to perform tasks in Linux, even if they had never used it before.
With Vista, Windows regressed considerably on the UI front. Windows is less intuitive than ever. I convert novices to Linux (like my 56-year old mother) all the time without any problems. Of the three, Linux is the most stable, the easiest to use, and the most customizable.
93% of the world runs on PC’s. A simple clue would be to walk through the software section of your local electronics store. Hmmm – 10:1 PC:Mac ratio. I think software options would classify as customability. Enjoy your simple, limited, home computer experience! Unless, of course, you are making home movies – in that case, enjoy your Mac!
haha XD
Did Macs start global warming? I don’t think a PC can survive a nuclear war. Given my experience with the durability of Apple products, maybe a Mac can, though.
Unless they explode, which happens once with iphones. The better quality of apple is a myth. Windows can be installed on any pc so if you install it on a low-quality one thats your own choice.
*once in a while, i meant. I want an edit-function on failblog.
I kind of wondered. If an iPhone always exploded once, you might have something. But I guess quality depends on who you ask.
It wan’t a comparison. It was sarcasm. And by disagreeing with me, you are agreeing with wizbang when he uses the volume of a given product to determine its worth. I shouldn’t have to point out, again, how stupid it is to say something is better just because there are more of them. And since that was his entire argument as to why PCs are better than Macs, I would hope you wouldn’t agree with that either.
too long, did not listen
Take your ritalin. Listen to that.
You are a fool. It has nothing to do with volume, and everything to do with compatability to the rest of the entire planet. It never ceases to amaze me how upset and defensive Mac owners get. Macs are like PCs with training wheels – people who can’t handle the real world need their rose colored glasses. When we have Macs launching shuttles, running missle defense systems, keeping planes in the air,and running the world’s security systems, I will consider one. If I need a computer to build cool slide shows, edit home movies, and look really “pretty”, I will consider one. Since the later is not likely, I will stick will my 3Ghz quad 4 CPU with 4Gb of DDR3 PC1500 and continue to surf, compile, play, and compute without training wheels, thank-you very much.
I find it funny that people still refer to computers with Windows installed “PC”. A Mac is a PC, a box with Windows is a PC. Second, to all those up in arms about applications. Null point. If I really NEED to use something that requires Windows, I’ll easily press the option key during bootup and Boot Camp into my Windows partition, but it’s rare. Can you, running Windows, boot into a superior OS? No sir, you cannot. In fact, it’s been benchmarked that a Mac will run Windows BETTER than a box thrown together with equal specifications. The whole “training wheels” comment makes me laugh. You Windows user always say something like that eventually. You’re outright saying that a Windows computer is harder to manage, operate, and maintain, and you’d be correct. I moved from a Windows box to my Mac Pro a year ago, and I’ll never go back. Not because it’s the trendy thing to do, or because they are pretty, but because it works better. But maybe you’re right, who would want an OS that is easier to operate and get done what you want to get done. That’s crazy talk. My Mac can do everything your Windows box can do, and do it more efficiently.
AMEN. BTW, buddy did not scare me with his stats, I’ll just run down and get MYself a DUAL quad core 3Ghz MacPro with *8* Gb DDRSDRAM
Throw in a 30″ display and my slide shows will look great.
Dude, better take a windows one. Saves you half the money
Whether you like windows or OSX, i don’t mind. But there are no high end apples for a reasonable price, you’re fooling yourself. An apple with good stats cost twice as much as a comparable windows-pc.
$$$o very glad to hear you have $$$$$ money $$$$ $$$$hooting out of your a$$$hole. Meanwhile I can build a PC from scratch with those precise same specs for less than half what you paid to Steve Jobs.
I’m a Mac administrator for a large corporation by the way.
Buddy implied there were no good Macs, I was saying that there are, not talking price. In terms of cost, and the admin. can back me up (or shoot me down, always ready to learn,) that Macs are bundled with more things and are higher quality so value is equivalent.
This is very true! You do really get what you pay for. Besides, who wants to screw around all the damn time with the maintenance necessary to keep a Windows box running?
Dual quad core? surely you mean either a core2quad or core2duo. You can’t buy a mac with 2 quad cores in it… or can you? The only thing you can put two cpu’s in is a server.
Mac Pros are 8-core computers, with two separate 4-core processors. Mac OS can actually handle all those processing cores, unlike Windows.
Um, you actually can boot into a different OS on a Windows Machine. I’m dual booting Vista and Ubuntu on this machine. I just can’t boot OSX because Apple won’t let me. That’s sort of part of the “customization” part of the venn diagram above. I can run Vista or Ubuntu on anything I want. I have to run OSX on a Mac.
Right now, I’m running Vista, though. Why? Because while Ubuntu may be neat and all, and it earns me geek cred, it’s really not better and it’s definitely not easier to use than Vista. It has its cool stuff and its drawbacks. Maybe I’d use Ubuntu more if I had virus problems, but I really really don’t. I don’t even know how to get a virus without doing something aggressively stupid.
An on the training wheels analogy: You’re outright saying that it’s better to ride a bike with training wheels, because it’s easier and crashes less.
@Joey
You can’t run Vista on just ANYTHING…. On x86 based processors maybe, and they have to be at a specific minimum to even have a useable system, so that would mean that anything less than a P4 just wouldn’t work with Vista. Also, Vista won’t run on PPC based processors (including Cell), ARM, Itanium, SPARC, and so on. The Linux kernel will though, and that may or may not include Ubuntu.
In other news, Linux seems to be only hard to use for people who have been using Windows for quite some time. Mac users seem to transition to either Windows or Linux rather smoothly, which I find odd.
As for getting viruses in Windows without doing anything, try a clean install without running updates/patches or installing any “protective” software. It may take a few days before you notice anything, but you would be in a world of hurt shortly after. If you monitor your internet and network connections for those days, you’d see massive amounts of port scans, pings, and connection attempts, then one successful connection(s) which then that PC would be turned into a zombie and used to spread its infections elsewhere, and cause nothing but headaches.
Minimum specs, are you serious? How irrelevant can you get? How many OS’ CAN run on a PDP-1? But okay. I can’t run Vista on everything. I can’t run OSX on everything, either. On a Mac, you can run OSX and also something else. On a PC you can run Vista and also something else. Score one for…um…what’s your point?
Have you every tried running a clean Windows machine? Have you? I haven’t. I doubt what you’re saying is true. My anti-virus software (which I installed once when I set up my computer and haven’t needed to worry about since, since it’s non-intrusive and updates and protects automatically) alerts me when it stops a virus, which has happened maybe twice in the last two years. I can look at the log and see that there aren’t dozens of viruses a day trying to hijack my computer.
And deliberately not updating your OS counts as aggressively stupid, even disregarding security reasons.
wizbang – Just because you’re incredibly ignorant doesn’t mean you’re right. For example, were you aware that OS X uses open standards for nearly everything, while Windows uses proprietary, Windows-only protocols that aren’t compatible with ANYTHING? For example: Macs use open standards such as OpenGL, OpenCL, TCP/IP, MP4, Webkit, they’re based on UNIX and are fully compatible with other flavors of UNIX as well as Windows. Macs speak SMB natively, did you know that? Not only are Macs more compatible and use more open standards, Macs are compatible with more systems than Windows boxes are.
And naturally you didn’t provide any examples of these “training wheels”, I’m assuming mostly because your head is up your ass. And seriously, you have 4 GB of RAM? You consider that to be either impressive or something you can’t do on Macs? My Mac has 10 GB of RAM, Is your mind blown yet? And my CPU is dual quad cores (that means
so it’s quite a bit more powerful than yours, since that seems to matter to you for some reason. You also didn’t mention which video card you have, but I have a GTX 285. You got anything else you want to be proven wrong about?
I can’t even believe you clowns. Plain and simple fact is that the world runs on PCs, not Macs. And I was raised on Apple products. When the IBM compatable world took off and left Apple in the dust, I abandoned them. I see no point in running a system that the vast majority of the world does not use. Again – show me a missle defense system that runs a Mac – or anything outside of a studio for that matter. Your ignorance of the PC world does not offend or scare me – just keep living in your little bubble while the rest of the world powers forward around you. The is a PC based planet, plain and simple. You can argure that point till your blue in the face, and the facts will still be there, 93% of the planet runs PCs.
And BTW – your specs still do not impress me – unless you are crunching missle trajectories, 10Gb of RAM is pointless. And unless you sitting 6 feet from your monitor, 30″ is a waste of money. Keep your Macs boys – your ignorance of that fact will not convert me, as I have already evolved from the Mac World. Good day sir.
… you’re several varieties of stupid, you know that? Stop posting your false percentages and claims. 93% of the world, PUH-LEESE. You’d be luckier than a jew with super powers in a concentration camp if that statistic was true.
Want to know what system runs the planet?
The internet?
The missile defense systems?
The databases? The servers? And about every goddamn heavy-traffic system or essential system one can imagine?
It has many different flavors. One of them is Macintosh.
It’s called Unix. Unix can out-preform ANY operating system, simply for the sheer fact it can utilize the hardware it is given (ANY hardware, btw, as it is just as flexible and adaptable as Linux) more efficiently than any other system. It’s the OS that people fall back on when sheer power, reliability and durability are the call of the day. It doesn’t fail, it doesn’t need virus protection, it doesn’t need constant non-stop updating to keep from going belly-up, it doesn’t blue screen, it doesn’t need defragmentation, and I’m just going to stop there because windows is perhaps the most problematic of all the OSes out there. Oh, and sweet geezus is it old. 1969 by wikipedia’s estimate.
It is, however, possibly the most un-user friendly, which puts itself in its own little orb somewhere on this graph.
Now GTFO and take your mac bashing with you. Sheesh.
Don’t bother comparing UNIX to Linux, Linux OSes are a subset of UNIX, which is probably why my system runs a fair bit of SUN software (Solaris is also UNIX). And as you pointed out, Macs are too (at least recently), and Macs aren’t unfriendly.
Did you know that there is a Linux OS that runs on the xBox, while Windows refuses to? Heres some other examples of Linux ports (compatible platforms):
x86
iPhone
iPod
MIPS (my router uses this platform, its firmware is Linux based)
Some Palm PDAs
Most PDAs shipped with Windows Mobile
Note that Windows Mobile is not the same OS as regular Windows.
DERP DERP DERP
xbox runs windows – It runs it’s own version of windows that Microsoft made for xbox. If it doesn’t run windows then it runs a Microsoft-made operating system designed for xbox, which makes it windows in everything but name
That’s nonsense, just because Microsoft made both systems doesn’t mean that the Xbox one is anything like windows. The codebase could be completely different
Oh yeah. WE’RE the clowns. And you really aren’t one to talk about ignorance when you think studios are the only place you’ll ever see a Mac. And as I said before, more does not equal better. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of programs for Macs. How many programs do you have on your PC? Is it less than, say, 500,000?
If so, then your argument about software is null and void. And it’s too bad my specs don’t impress you, since:
1. You are the one who posted your specs first
2. My specs are all better than yours
If you really think 10GB of RAM is pointless, then you have obviously never used a higher end program like Final Cut, Logic or even Photoshop. And apparently you’ve never tried to run 20 or 30 apps at the same time either, something I do on a regular basis.
If you think a 30″ monitor is pointless you really are an idiot. But since nobody actually mentioned 30″ anything, I’m not sure why you brought it up. Personally, I use an HP LP2475w monitor, because it has an H-IPS panel. Surprised that it works with a Mac? Yeah, that’s because you’re very, very ignorant.
And believe me, nobody wants to convert you to using Macs. But I am explaining why you’re wrong about everything you’ve said here. Sorry if you don’t like that, but that’s just tough cookies. Please buy a clue.
10 gigs of ram? Hot damn I’d love to have that. But, I’m stuck with Vista and my measly 8. Say, maybe you know the specifics of Mac better than I do. Is it like its parent system, in that it can utilize a theoretically endless amount of ram and rom, or does it have a limit? I know it ain’t anywhere near window’s limit, the damn crapbox. I hear linux is pretty high up there, but not quite as high as the powerhouse itself.
The RAM limit of a Mac is the number of RAM slots Apple designed it with. If you could get one-terabyte DIMMS, you could probably run an eight-terabyte Mac Pro. With the biggest heatsinks in the Universe.
12GB on my rig running Linux. Gentoo and Arch to be exact. Virtualization and gaming eat it up. Yes. Gaming. In. Linux. As well as 3d work in Blender and a little bit of audio editing.
Plus I got parts extremely cheap from Intel directly (through my job). Come on, a Core i7 for less than $120, what’s not to love. Overkill is good when its overly cheap.
What games have you found running natively on linux that use anything near 12GB of RAM – the only ones I’ve found don’t come anywhere near using up my 4GB (+1GB On GFX card)
Dude, stop.
Just stop.
OS wars died out in f*cking 1992 for Chrissake. No machine is inherently any better than any other machine; that’s probably THE stupidest argument on the entire Internet.
Seriously. Stop.
did you REALLY just put an apostrophe in the word want?
Actually, hundreds of thousands of aps for Mac are not enough if PCs have millions. That’s one of Murphy’s laws.
70% of webservers run on Linux, this should give you a bigger clue, that this goes against the flow of the market so heavily. That means that every time you load a website, there’s a 70% chance your accessing a linux box. Despite this popularity, its still harder to infect this distro of linux (Apache) than Windows servers.
Fricking awesome logic FAIL.
The reason being is because those OSes are sold for profit. Linux is free. And yet, Linux still runs the vast majority of the world’s web servers. No one knows what percentage of the world runs Linux as opposed to Windows and Mac. You can’t go by sales, and most web surveys are not even close to scientific. A lot of people (especially in America) are stuck on the idea that free is somehow bad, and a worse alternative to paid.
Anyways, enjoy paying through the nose for software and Operating Systems that Linux users get for free legally!
I fail to see how Windows isn’t stable. It’s the crap people download while using Windows that makes it fail. Not Windows itself.
Yeah. Thats pretty much about right. If you take care of your MS pc, it will take care of you. in a way.
Except if you don’t take care of your Mac, it will take care of you too, *any* way.
The main reason Macs don’t crash it’s because people treat them as tools for only one type of activity and only install the apps they need for that. The most simple example is designers buying Macs. Of course it never crashes if you have only Photoshop installed and no antivirus.
Nope.
You’re totally right. Your compelling and well-articulated argument has totally changed my view and turned my life 180 degrees. Thank you.
I’m just sick of taking these arguments and picking them apart, your assertion is ridiculous, of course people run different things. Macs are widely used as personal computers, and if your main problem (or example of their inferiority, for that matter) with them is that n00bs use them, what does that tell you? That people use them for varied, real world applications, that they abuse them and take no precautions, and they still run.
Your argument is actually perfect for Windows. The only time I’ve used it is at jobs running one or two inventory/billing programs, and even then supported by a professional IT department.
My primary computer is a Mac, and I use it for simulating neural networks, for performing fault analysis, and for generating finite element meshes, among numerous other things.
Of course, my Mac does crash from time to time. Most of the time, I can “kill -9 [offending proc ID]“, but about once every couple of months I have to press and hold the power button to force my Mac to shut down.
Thats why you can install windows on a Mac. so if you NEED to use a windows program (on the RARE occasion), you can.
As opposed to Linux, where people install all kinds of things to them and they continue to work great!
But you are right. Why in the world should people expect to be able to install software on their computers and actually still be able to use their computer!
I’ll refer you to an image on FailBlog, showing a DISPLAY Samsung Omnia with a blue screen of death. I doubt the manikin hand did much downloading in its store window.
really, amazing that certain drivers crash my windows box constantly (nvidia gforce drivers) but run great on my ubuntu box. My camera crashes windows but doesn’t ubuntu. Hell windows crashes my windows. Oh and its virus free. So you mean to tell me that windows crashes only when you download a questionable file? Tell that to a n00b.
…are you serious??
Linux gives you a bigger penis.
Well, Mac has absolutely no customizations at all, and the user has absolutely no choices in how he uses it. Mac makes the decission, you obey. That is why it is so hard to create software for Macs, they have such limited options and capabilities. Of course, this is much of what makes it so stable.
Linux is definitely the most customizable, but I think Mac OSX and Windows aren’t far apart in that category?
maybe it should have been ‘3rd party driver support’ instead of ‘customomizable’???
i dont know…i dont know mac at all.
Possibly this. You go ahead and try to get a high-end video card for a Mac for example. Usually the one that comes with it is good enough for most things, but yeah, the latest offering from ATI or Radeon? Um, no.
For the most part though, OS X has drivers built in for frickin’ EVERYTHING. It’s almost creepy how well plug ‘n play works on that thing.
I have a GTX 285 in mine. Is that not high end enough for you? Don’t make comments when you have no idea what you’re talking about, thanks.
I hadn’t been keeping up with the specs. I said the one it comes with is “good enough for most things.” I’m a Mac administrator for a pretty big company so I do know of what I speak. That’s a good card yeah but I’d still like to be able to use whichever card I want; surely there can be a way for them to make this happen.
You did say that, but you also said “You go ahead and try to get a high-end video card for a Mac for example”, indicating that you do not, in fact, know what you’re talking about.
The limitation regarding which cards you’re able to use in a Mac is strictly due to the fact that Intel Macs use EFI instead of standard BIOS. If Microsoft ever finally implements EFI on a large scale like they said they were going to do with Vista, Macs will be able to use every EFI card that PCs can use.
The problem once again is that Apple is ahead of the curve, and we’re just waiting for Microsoft to catch up. Once every card maker starts making EFI-based cards this whole situation will be a non-issue since they will be, by default, compatible with Macs.
Flash modding Nvidia cards is a much cheaper alternative all the way around, meaning instead of buying that expensive Mac Only gtx285, you should be able to take just about any off the shelf 285 and flash it with a different firmware (the one included on the Mac version).
See, this. Is what I’m talking about.
I think that you’ll find a Mac is QUITE customizable, and should be in the middle.
mm-hmm! *finger snap*
Linux is far MORE customizable, however. And it’s plenty user friendly. (With the exception of trying to install windows products.)
you still can’t install windows products on OS X though. having used linux and windows, i can say linux is probably the most customizable. especially appearance wise. when i think customize though, i think appearance and making the desktop your own.
Yes you can, just as you can in Linux, using Wine. Or Crossover.
And nvidea cards………..
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
Linux wins at customisable
I stand by my previous comment.
Good to know.
What is this “You Wish” OS, and where can I buy it?
Neverland Ranch
too early.
zing!
LOL
If it is really that good, I must try it someday.
Linux is user friendly..
…it’s just very selective about who its friends are.
*high fives*
but some distros are reeaally user friendly
and some are not… so generalisation ‘Linux is/not user friendly’ is not a good idea 
Ah, but the necessity of making a decision on a distribution, and installing something that didn’t come with your computer is not user friendly. (And gentoo is not user friendly at all… yet I still use it. Hm…)
Macs are customizable if you know what you’re doing.
Windows is stable if you know what you’re doing.
Linux is user-friendly if you know what you’re doing.
I’m pretty sure this graph was depicting an average user, however… =P
Good point. I don’t have any problems with stability in Windows. But I know what I’m doing.
Well stated.
The way I see it: They all have a web browser, so the average user really doesn’t care so long as they can check their Facebook, browse YouTube, and read GraphJam.
haha, reminds me of the passage about Apple products in “Stuff White People Like”
“It is also important that white people are reminded of their creativity, and remember you need a Mac to creatively check email, creatively check websites, and creatively watch DVDs on planes.”
LOL, I’ve been meaning to get that book.
While Mac’s are customizable, they don’t have as much software because of the closed architecture network, so it’s harder to share things like games, applications, add-ons, etc. The closed architecture network is also one of the reasons Mac’s are not very susceptible to computer threats (the other being fewer than 1% of all computers are Macs).
What closed architecture network are you referring to? OpenGL? BSD? Last I checked they were pretty open?
Are the Cocoa APIs any more closed than Windows APIs?
It’s always safety vs liberty, isn’t it?
Mac OS marketshare is actually creeping scarily close to 12%, partly thanks to the fact that if you buy a Mac now, it won’t go obsolete for ten years.
Yes, Macs only have hundreds of thousands of applications, instead of millions. Clearly they’re completely useless. And what closed architecture network are you talking about, exactly? TCP/IP? There are no viruses on the Mac because nobody has been able to write one for the Mac that actually runs on its own and self propagates. That’s why there are no viruses on the Mac.
This. Closest they’ve gotten is getting a box to pop up that says “put in your password” and if you say “hey, wait a minute, I’m not installing anything right now” then it fails.
But there are still plenty of vulnerabilities in trusted section of software that does make Mac OS very open to actual intrusion rather than running a malicious program. I suggest you google pwn 2 own.
I didn’t know Linux is a stable operating system. Ill have to look into it
Just don’t try to customize the kernel until you are comfortable with the OS as a whole. Also, NEVER EVER be tricked into running “rm -rf /”, unless you like headaches and enjoy reinstalling your OS. Think of it as the same as running the command “del C:\WINDOWS\System32″ in Windows (or something to that effect, it’s been forever since I’ve messed with Windows).
Linux is very stable, hope you enjoy it as much as I do. And if you play games, check out winehq.org to see how your games (or any Windows program) will perform in Wine.
Odd, because the only fault listed on here for a Windows operating system is stability… I haven’t had a crash in months, a restart was done yesterday (it was the thirty day mark), and I don’t have issues with system stability.
Mind you, a lot of this might be that the people who use this computer are both computer techs by trade, and know what not to do to…
So true. Have you tried Windows 7 yet? It’s pretty awesome.
I’m using it now. really surprised me with how stable it is. i wouldn’t count microsoft out of the stability side just yet..Win7 is running better then XP for me x3
Lol, don’t you mean Vista 1.0? Vista was more like Vista 0.6 alpha, then with SP1 it was 0.8 Beta.
Vista = Windows 6.0
Win7 = Windows 6.1, or short-handedly, you’re going to be paying out the ass for an incremental update.
84 days and counting for my Amahi home server. One restart after installing a kernel update. Not too shabby.
Windows 7 in VirtualBox on previously mentioned server, 23 days 13hrs, basically for stability testing and program compatibility checking before I start building systems for people using 7. Not bad for a Windows OS.
This was obviously made by someone that knows little about Windows. Current longest up time record is held by a Windows machine, and yes its a public box. So you can safely slap Windows there in the middle.
You’re going to have to provide a link to prove that. I’ve seen UNIX systems that have had years of up time.
google for longest uptime
I think you are confusing web servers with machines. I have seen a unix computer handling some operations at a nuclear reactor that has never been offline in its 30+ years of service.
Well if the web server was up for years the computer(machine) had to have been also.
It appears you only read the first sentence of Brent’s post.
yeah and how much did this system cost?
How should I know, hardware is obviously reliable enough to support the OS. You could have years of uptime with a $200 computer as long as it does not break and has power.
Windows 7 is the ‘You Wish’. And no I am not one of these people who is just saying that its good to fit in, I hated windows I came off Linux!!!!!!
Thank you.
Windows 7 is just erasing the mistakes made in Vista. There are no earth-shattering advances in usability in it at all.
[I tried to post this and it said it was awaiting moderation...not sure why...trying again without the website link...sorry if it posts twice.]
Actually it’s a very different from Vista. I’ve used both. I won’t argue that Vista didn’t suck…it did. But Windows 7 is a completely different OS. It’s not a Vista upgrade.
Snow Leopard on the other hand…
On the other hand what? Snow Leopard was completely rebuilt from the ground up. The changes on the back end are absolutely massive, with every component reprogrammed in 64-bit. Not to mention the addition of Grand Central and OpenCL. Win 7 did absolutely nothing on that scale, it’s basically a skin for Vista.
And yet it still costs 8x as much as Snow Leopard. Go figure.
*caugh* thepiratebay *caugh*
Lets see here…
I use puppy linux for a quick boot CD for computers that don’t have a hardrive.
I use windows xp and vista for just about everything else.
I would use Mac but… not paying for something that can’t use windows applications.
Your argument against Win 7 costing 8x as much as Snow Leopard is to steal it? On what planet is that a viable response? You can steal Snow Leopard too, what’s your point?
I have a portable HD for booting Macs for any reason, which is faster than a CD. And why would you need Windows applications on a Mac? Were you under the impression that you can’t get software on a Mac or something? I find that to be pretty hilarious.
I mean it’s not like there are millions and millions and millions of people using Macs or anything, right? Oh wait, no. It’s exactly like that. I guess none of them are using software, huh?
Macs can run windows products, on account of that it can run Windows.
Look again at the code base, it’s Windows 6.1 which is still essentially Vista 1.0. Just look at Vista as Vista Beta Edition 0.8.
Not different at all I’m afraid, and they could have simply just released another service pack, but instead are just trying to make back some lost revenue.
I’m quite happy with my Windows. I can’t imagine not having Windows.
You are deprived
I thought Windows was alright, too. And then I got my Mac and life just got that much sweeter. ^_^
mac os should go in the middle, windows should just be its own separate bubble. maybe under “looks pretty.”
Mac is good definitely not that good. Besides the Mac stability is owed to that there are not many viruses made for it not because it is extremely secure. The reason so many window’s crash and get viruses is because there are so many more owned than macs. I believe Microsoft OS market share is around 85-90% while Macs are maybe around 10%. So why go after an OS that has around 8-9 times less users?
*Windows’* not window’s
and *Windows’ OS* not Microsoft OS
sorry
How can you explain the majority of servers running apache
(Linux) then? Wouldn’t crackers make viruses for them instead
to bring down teh interwebz?
y’know, it could be because Apache is free.
The green circle should be “hardware flexibility” since that is where MacOS is limited compared to the other 2. Without hacks, you can only rum MacOS on macs.
Why would you want to?
I’d like to be able to build a machine to whatever specs i want to run MacOS. Can only do that now with windows and linux.
You can run Darwin on PC’s, which is what OS X is built from.
Darwin is not OS X. Sorry to burst your bubble. @blah, the reason Apple doesn’t allow OS X to be installed on random PCs is because of one main reason: Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
The vast, vast majority of Apple’s income (i.e. almost all of it) comes from hardware. If Apple were to allow OS X to be installed (legally) on random PCs, what do you think would happen to Apple’s hardware sales? Yes, they would drop through the floor, taking Apple’s income with it.
This isn’t theory, Apple has already tried this. Back in the 90s, Apple allowed a few specific hardware companies including Motorola, Power Computing and a few others to make Mac Clones. The results were immediate and devastating, Apple began to hemorrhage money. People nearly stopped buying Macs at all for a short period of time, because the clones were just as good (using Apple’s own ROMs) and cheaper.
When Jobs came back to Apple, the first thing he did was kill the clone licenses because they were destroying Apple’s business. Some people like to say that if Apple allowed the installation of OS X on PCs, that they could make money that way, but that’s wrong. Apple only has 10% market share, and a $129 copy of OS X brings a lot less profit than a $3k Mac Pro does.
So no, Apple will not be licensing OS X out any time soon. Mostly because it would be financial suicide, and Apple isn’t that stupid.
OS X is Darwin with proprietary code slapped in. Of course Darwin isn’t OS X, there are less limitations with Darwin.
Let’s get real here people. The people who are going
to say, “Windows sucks, Mac is in the middle”, or the people who
say, “Mac sucks, Windows is in the middle” need to wake up.
This graph is accurate and non-biased, and I’m over the whole operating
system debate. Live and let live, just use what’s best for you.
*computer engineer laughing at all the Mac-o-philes above defending Apple customization.
They really aren’t customizable, except for the newer Intel-based ones, and even then you have to dual boot either Linux or Windows on them anyway…
I fail to see how they’re not customizable. Enlighten us all, please.
For starters, other than /extremely/ well supported software along the lines of Office, Photoshop, and the occasional game, no one writes code for them. Almost all of the open source and small business software I use won’t run on Macs.
So hundreds and hundreds of thousands of applications is the same thing as nobody writing programs for the Mac. And what planet are you writing this from? And why wouldn’t open source software work on a Mac? Were you not aware that it’s based on BSD unix? Were you not aware that you can just jump in the terminal and start compiling apps if you want to?
Seriously, you have no excuse for being this ignorant. You seem to be of the opinion that Office and Photoshop are the only applications available for the Mac, which is so stupid it actually makes my head hurt. Obviously you’ve never actually used a Mac or ever tried to get software for one, or you really wouldn’t be spouting such blatantly ignorant garbage.
Macs are the only machines that can run Linux, Unix, OS X AND Windows. You can even run all of them simultaneously. Saying Macs aren’t customizable is just plain ridiculous.
Anything that is open source has source code. Just compile it for your architecture.
The “You Wish” part should be white, not dark blue.
RGB is additive, not subtractive.
Uhm. All three OSes are user-friendly… so it doesn’t make any sense.
Mac OSX is TOTALLY customizable! More than Windows!
::nod:: You can make Mac OS **look like Windows** for crying out loud.
Although why you would want to do that, I don’t know.
Masochism.
“Customizable” is about more than looks…
Windows 7 rules!
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Three words:
“THAT IS AWESOME!!!!”
I gotta show this to a friend of mine =^_^=
Okay, let’s look at a couple facts:
1. Market Share does not mean superiority in an OS. Just because there are more of something, doesn’t make it better. If that were true, you would be admitting rats are a better life form then humans. Are Windows users like rats?
2. If you are going to claim Mac can’t be customized, please cite examples. Mine is quite customized, more so then I ever could get done on my Windows box. That is from quick, easy to deal with customization programs, freely available on the web. Half the Windows customization I saw required a degree in computer science or required luck to install.
3. If you are going to cite Linux as user-unfriendly, please check out the various out of the box GUI’s. Some are quite advanced and easy to use. Unbuntu was mentioned already.
4. Yes, it is true, there are less pieces of software available for Mac. Of course, what is available is usually much better then anything available on the Windows side. Crap doesn’t survive in the Mac market.
5. The myth that Macs are only good for home movies is pretty sad indeed. Many professional musicians, and most professional graphic artists, and desktop publishing companies rely on Macs.
6. I haven’t tried Windows 7, but all the people I know who are Windows users, ones WITH experience and knowledge that I trust tell me one thing: It is what Vista SHOULD have been. So it only took a couple years for Vista to get out of beta and into Windows 7. Be happy you had to pay $300 for the right to beta test it, and now even more for the release. And while we are on the subject…
7. Before anyone quotes the tired old “Macs cost more” line, remember, we may pay more up front, but our machines last longer, require less trips to technicians (if any) and have lower priced operating systems. Sure you can save money by having a friend of a friend fix your broken Windows box, but how much will it cost you without that? Who’s to guarantee that it won’t happen again? Your long term costs are higher. Think of it like buying a Ford vs. buying a Kia. One costs more up front, the other costs you continuously down the road.
Looks like someone’s a little hurt that their precious Mac didn’t win the center spot…
Windows-bashing is all well and good, but you would have a lot more credibility if you would actually TRY Windows 7 first.
I run Windows 7 ON my Mac. Did your head just explode? Yeah, Macs are actually more useful than PCs. Win 7 is pretty much the same as Vista, they just made Vista run better. Not really impressed.
Your mac needs to run windows 7 to be better than a pc?
But they are all personal computers, so it doesn’t really matter…
I run it when I want to play Portal. Otherwise I’m in OS X for everything else. If Win 7 were better I would be in it all the time. But since it’s not better, I only use it for games. To do everything else, things like working, writing, editing, composing or doing anything else you can think of, I do it in OS X.
Isn’t that kind of the point? I have the best of both worlds, and you don’t. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but you do need to have the reasoning ability of at least a high schooler.
Why haven’t you compiled Wine yet? Portal runs great on my little rig running linux. Check out winehq.org.
1. If that argument is true, then people that have iPods must also be rats. Market share has nothing to do with an OS superiority, but it does mean that Windows is more popular than Macs. That’s it.
2. You can build a custom PC with whatever combination of case, processor, motherboard, graphics card, etc, that you want. Can’t do the same for Mac. PC is more customizable.
3. It’s still a pain to get the same or equitable equivalent programs on Linux that you could easily get for Windows.
4. Great games aren’t readily available for Macs. Also, I would argue that having a variety of programs to choose from is better than having everything pre-installed e.g., choosing between Word 2007 and Open Office, or being able to choose between Firefox and Google Chrome. Having a bigger market for software promotes creativity and specialization.
5. So? Anything you can do on a Mac, you can also do on Windows or Linux. You’re just saying that Mac has software that people use; big deal, so does everything else.
6. Argument assumes that Vista is STILL in beta; it is not. Admittedly, it sucked in the beginning; however, so did XP, but after SP3 it was considered a damn good OS. Vista IS a good OS after security issues were fixed; it is not mandatory to switch to Windows 7. The premiums paid for the extra features in different versions of Vista are still worth it (e.g. being able to pick up an HD signal) even if you don’t switch to 7.
7. Granted, Macs are more reliable and last longer than PCs. But once you buy it, you can’t upgrade the hardware, and hardware gets old pretty quickly nowadays. PCs are flexible, capable of evolving from a simply 250 dollar budget desktop into a bitchin’ quad-core screamer that plays every video game known to man without even breaking a sweat. If my machine can’t meet a task, I can buy parts and upgrade it until it can do what I need it to. If your Mac can’t do something, then that’s it; either accept your Mac is old or pay out of your ass again for a better Mac.
Mac doesn’t win.
1. Wrong. The argument was that because there are more PCs they must be better, which is a false assumption. Windows isn’t worse because more people use it, it’s worse because it sucks. iPods don’t suck. See the difference?
2. Hardware is not the only part of a computer you can customize, and you can still upgrade Macs with all the parts that matter, like HDs, optical drives, RAM, video cards, etc.
3. I don’t use linux, so I don’t care.
4. Which is why the ability to run Windows on a Mac makes Macs more useful than PCs. I can boot into Windows to play games, then go back to the Mac side to do everything else. Your other argument makes no sense. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of programs for the Mac including both Office 2008 AND open office. Not to mention every browser in existence except IE, which is a good thing because IE is horrible. You have no leg to stand on with this argument at all.
5. Wrong. Try running Final Cut Pro in Windows, see how far you get. Try dual booting Windows and OS X on a PC, tell me how well that works for you. Logic Pro in Windows? LOL. Try Applescripting in Windows. Hell, try putting a slash / into the name of a folder in Windows, let me know how that works out for you. And there are hundreds and hundreds of other examples too.
6. Two things: Vista is not as good as Windows 7, and Windows 7 is not a significant improvement over Vista. Win 7 is basically a fixed Vista. Why MS thinks it’s ok to charge $250 for it is beyond me.
7. Um… I upgrade the hardware on Macs all the time. Were you not aware you could do that? My Mac has 10GB of RAM, and it didn’t come with that much. It also has 3 internal hard drives and a GTX 285, didn’t come with those either.
Heh yeah, if you’d bought it from Apple with 10GB of RAM in it, they’d have charged you $45532430989569390937.32 plus shipping for it.
“2. If you are going to claim Mac can’t be customized, please cite examples. Mine is quite customized, more so then I ever could get done on my Windows box. That is from quick, easy to deal with customization programs, freely available on the web. Half the Windows customization I saw required a degree in computer science or required luck to install.”
Move your apple bar.
I have my grandma on a Mac, everyone else on Ubuntu. Ubuntu isn’t there yet, but it does what /I/ want and it is improving rapidly in all respects.
By the way, Ubuntu makes a better Mac than Windows does. Global menu bar, dock, and all. Plus we have an app store.
Oh god, I didn’t read all of this, but I guess, it’s the typical Linux/Windows/Mac flame war.
Mac r teh best!!11oneeleven
All of them fit all the categories if you know what you’re doing.
Linux is the best. It IS user friendly
Agreed. If the definition of user friendly is ‘easy to use but make all of the decisions for you,’ then Mac is it and Linux is not. One of the flaws of Macs is that so much is ‘automated’ that there is next to impossible to tell it to do something.
Linux FTW
You’ve never actually used a Mac before, have you? What exactly are you talking about with all that “automation” bs? Furthermore, you Linux fanboys always seem to forget that OS X is running BSD Unix. You were aware that you can just open a terminal and go to town in OS X, right? Right? Yeah.
So what you’re saying is that OSX is linux minus the freedom?
Minus what freedom? Did you not see the part right up there where I said you could open a terminal and go to town? What do you think that means? It’s called CHOICE, numbnuts. You can do everything in the terminal, or you can use the OS X GUI, or you can dual boot into Windows.
I mean seriously, how do you get “minus freedom” from “go into a terminal and do whatever you want”?
by the fact that it’s not free software?
WHAT isn’t free software? OS X comes with every Mac. That means free, in case you were having trouble with that. And don’t even bother using the “but you have to buy a Mac” argument, because unless PCs suddenly became free in the last five seconds, they still cost money too.
Seriously, you guys don’t have a case.
I believe you were arguing about Win 7’s price earlier. Eventually the latest OS of either PC or Mac is going to be “free” with whichever you purchase, so your previous arguing standpoint of “costs 8x as much as Snow Leopard” would be somewhat redundant.
Please get off your Mac high-horse. You make the rest of the Mac users look bad and attract the Window and Linux trolls.
When you can prove me wrong about anything I’ve said, that’s when I’ll get off my high horse. Until then, here are some FACTS for you: It’s going to cost me $220 to upgrade – that’s UPGRADE, not a full copy – Win 7. It costs me $29 to get a FULL copy of Snow Leopard.
Now tell me again how it’s redundant. This is real money I’m talking about not Monopoly money.
By bringing the argument full circle and saying my Linux install cost me nothing?
And Linux is free, Not in your “Take it or leave it” Mac ‘Freedom’, but as in I’m free to change any part of it I’d like to. The only limit on my personal freedom is my own skill. Mac users aren’t even free enough to move their “Apple bar” from the top of the screen. So TheObject’s argument “One of the flaws of Macs is that so much is ‘automated’ that there is next to impossible to tell it to do something. ” is valid.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Windows is never, ever free. If you bought a box with no OS on it, just a formatted HD, you’ll pay $300 for the exact same box with Windows preinstalled. Windows charges a licensing fee for Windows being on the machine; that’s what that little multicolored sticker is.
Actually, an OEM copy of XP can costs £30-£50. I’m not sure what that is in American money, but it’s certainly nowhere near $300.
Hon, the cost of the license is included in the purchase price of your computer. If you notice, when you buy a linux computer from Dell or HP, the price is much cheaper. This is because you’re not paying for the license to use one of the proprietary operating systems.
Also, there are two definitions of free. As they like to say in the open source world, there’s free as in speech and free as in beer. Free as in beer means you don’t have to pay for it. Free as in speech means you may or may not have to pay for the software, but once you have it you can use it how you wish. There are many different kinds of copyright used by open source, varying from completely free and you can do whatever you want to free and you have to give credit to the original creator, free and you give credit to the original creator and can’t make money off it, free and credit and keep your derivative product under the same license as the predecessor, etc…
if anyone’s really interested in learning more about open licenses, or the General Public License ( GPL) here’s the wiki on it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl
Ah, condescension. The tool of the ignorant. Tell you what, “hon”, When you can prove that the cost of OS X is rolled into the purchase price of a Mac, then you might have a point. But until then here are some facts for you:
1. OS X isn’t serialized. It runs on the honor system.
2. Apple is a HARDWARE company. Not a software company. You think they make any money on sales of OS X? When they include it on every Mac they sell? Really?
3. You’re assuming Apple does the same thing as Microsoft. That’s a stupid thing to assume, since they work completely differently. MS makes money on software sales so obviously they’re going to charge OEMs a fee for installing preinstalling Windows.
In what way is that similar to what Apple does? Apple has no OEMs. It’s only two things: their hardware and their software. Who are they going to charge OEM preinstall fees to? Themselves?
In conclusion, buy a clue before responding next time. Thanks.
If you really think about it, since they make both the hardware and software, they are getting money for the software as well…..
Specifically the Darwin kernel, but I won’t hold it against you Xaqtly. But, OS X is more locked down as to what you can do in terms of messing with the kernel. Creating custom patches doesn’t go as easily as it does on real BSD/Linux/Unix systems, simply because Apple doesn’t allow it. And before you get all huffy and puffy, it simply makes sense that they don’t, or you’d have Powermacs or even PS3s running Snow Leopard.
So, quit being the overly defensive fanboy.
Oh I’m so glad you won’t hold something I didn’t say against me. Yes, it’s the Darwin kernel, and it’s BSD unix… which is exactly what I said. So what are you not holding against me again?
You can call me overly defensive if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that all I’m doing is correcting people who say things that are wrong. If you were as smart as you’re trying to make yourself sound, you would be agreeing with me.
If you really want to tinker with the kernel, install Linux on the Mac. In OS X there really isn’t any need to tinker with the kernel, is there? It’s a consumer-based OS, which is a concept most unix/linux snobs don’t seem to understand. And then of course they translate that to “not customizable”, which is wrong. Hence my responses.
Being based on BSD, logic would assume that it would have the same characteristics of a BSD system, like portability.
Creating security patches for OS X is handled just as it is done in Windows, by the company that owns the license, not users in the community who have pointed them out and have to wait for someone else to do something about it, which can take a few months (remember the Samba issue in OS X and how long that took).
Apparently your idea and my idea of customization are vastly different. Custom wallpapers ≠a customizable OS.
Yeah, this is real. I have never ben thinking about this like the graph
Mac OS is perfect, so it needs not be customized
But you can do it anyway if you want
Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Mac OS is good for you, might be terrible for someone else who like two buttons on their mouse
Why do with two buttons what you can easily do with one?
Ever try playing a first person shooter?
I love how there are so many idiots who still believe Macs can’t use two button mice. I mean it’s not like there hasn’t been native support for multibutton mice in the Mac OS for like 13 years now or anything. I’m going to assume that’s older than most of you are.
No seriously, have any of you clowns every plugged ANY mutibutton mouse into a Mac just to see what happens? I mean let’s ignore the fact that the Mighty Mouse that ships with all Macs is a FOUR button mouse, take your favorite gaming mouse and plug it into a Mac sometime so you can stop being so damn ignorant about it.
I’m aware of this; I’ve used macs before. I’m simply pointing out the fact that nekorobo1138 is suggesting that everything Windows does with two mouse buttons Mac can do with only one.
(Mighty Mouse sucks as a gaming mouse, get yourself a Razer or Logitech mouse.)
Damn, someone get Xaqtly some Midol.
here is the problem with that statement. you can set up a mac with a right click option. heck, the apple mouse that they sell can be setup to right click. it can sense which side of the mouse you are clicking on. so could we stop with this whole 1 button/2 button argument?
Just had to look at the comments cus I knew the mac-lovers would be up in arms over anything that didn’t have macs elevated to god status.
Ironically, I think Windows users were bashing Mac users more than Mac users were bashing Windows users.
The graph is accurate, to a point. Choosing between Macs and PCs should probably be done this way (basically my opinions)…
1. Generally, Mac applications are more reliable than Windows applications.
2. Windows applications cost less.
3. Generally, Mac OSes are more reliable than WIndows OSes.
4. Mac OSes cost less.
5. Generally, Mac hardware is better in the short term.
6. Windows hardware is more upgradable.
7. Mac computers can run Windows AND Linux reliably and legally.
8. Windows computers cannot run Mac reliably or legally.
9. Mac marketing owns Windows marketing.
10. Windows iTunes blows.
11. Safari is better than IE.
12. Firefox is at least the equal of Safari, and either OS can run both.
13. Macs run next to no good games.
14. Macs own the hell out of Windows for art.
15. Stop with the mouse argument. Macs run right-click mice too.
16. While we’re on the subject, installing a right-click mouse to a Mac takes 5 seconds flat using nothing but the computer and the mouse. On a PC you actually have to install a CD, and it takes forever.
17. Garageband.
18. Windows is better for office work than Mac.
19. Linux owns Windows for office work, so no one cares. Hello, Open Office!
20. Macs have better security.
21. PCs have Windows 7.
22. Anyone who argues that one OS is better at everything is an idiot.
“16. While we’re on the subject, installing a right-click mouse to a Mac takes 5 seconds flat using nothing but the computer and the mouse. On a PC you actually have to install a CD, and it takes forever.”
Um, I’ve never had to install drivers in XP or Vista for a mouse, even my Razer Diamonback, haven’t had to in OS-X or Linux either, so that’s a mute point.
As a longtime Windows user, occasional Mac sampler, and current Linux enthusiast, I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Mac’s user friendly? My ass. I’ve never had any trouble navigating about a windows OS, but couldn’t make heads or tails of a Mac. The user friendly bit depends on what computer you’re more used to.
You can imagine a man born in the wild who joins society, which OS would he prefer?
Yes, because clicking on an icon on a doc is more difficult than clicking to Start > Programs > Program Name > Program
Yes, and because customizing a task bar with specific buttons for most used programs is much easier than shoving every single program down on a doc.
Ok Guys,
Mac OSX = A Great Operating System
Windows 7 = A Great Operating System
Linux = A Great Operating System
Will You Guys EVER stop slagging off other people just because they prefer a different platform?
If you like Mac stick with it. If you like Linux stick with that, and if you like Windows just stick with Windows. Although it never hurts anyone to try a different platform.
As for you saying macs more useful because it can run Windows :S If you want to run Windows get a Windows machine :S I can build a PC 4x faster than a 24″ iMac for almost £1000 cheaper.
At the end of the day it comes down to Personal Preference, having tried windows, mac and linux Windows works the best for me, so that’s what I use as my primary operating system.
this is probably one of the smartest coments on this page
I see. And where can I find this so called “YouWish” operating system?
There are free ‘YouWish’ operating systems. They are Windows, Mac & Linux.
You Wish = Eierlegende Wollmilchsau!
google chrome OS (due late 2009 – early 2010) will hopefully be all of these things.
I’ve never had any trouble with Windows being stable, even on a 7-year-old laptop, but I just got a new computer that has Vista on it, and….well…. -pulls out a shotgun-
i don’t really think windows is all that user-friendly. take it from someone whose job is to help people with how to use it. (-_-’) the other spaces, however, are very true, though there is some progress on mac being customizable.
macs are NOT user friendly! i’m a computer science major, and i can’t use one for the life if me!
I beg to differ. I have had my Mac since late ‘07. I find it more user friendly and more stable than windows. Macs are not that hard to figure out.
Macs are also customizable if you know what you are doing.
You sir, fail as a CS Major then.
You may want to try a different major then, like maybe finger painting. Most 5 years olds don’t have trouble using Macs, if that sheds any light on your problem.
Most computer science majors will use real BSD/Linux/Unix based systems, not Macs.
This is a sickening argument.
I have three PCs in my house. By that, I mean PERSONAL COMPUTER. 1 is running Ubuntu Jaunty, 1 is running OS X Tiger, and 1 is running Windows XP. I use them all frequently, and don’t have major problems with any of them.
I do many things in my spare time. I love to program, I record local bands, and I play a lot of games.
I program mostly on my Linux box. I’ve found it extremely user friendly. The myth about requiring to use the command line is a joke. Any program that’s needed can be installed from the Add/Remove software app in the Applications menu. Of course, you can use the command line if you want (which is what I use). It also comes out of the box with PHP, Perl, and C/C++ compilers. If I’m writing a web app, I just type “sudo apt-get install apache2″ into the command line for the first time, and open it in a web browser.
When I’m recording bands, I use my Mac hooked up with an MBox from Digidesign. I simply plug it in, and it works. I control it from ProTools, and it’s a cinch to produce. There’s no other OS that I’ve found that gives you that ease of use combined with the power.
Lastly, I play games most often on my Windows box. Sure, I have to install anti-virus software, but I do that on all three boxes anyway. I don’t use it to browse the internet very much, and hence, it doesn’t get slowed down and loaded with viruses that much. It’s also used for running programs which only run on Windows. I’ve had no major qualms with it, and don’t see what all teh fuss is about.
I’m wondering how much work it will take to make these people get it into their heads that every OS is good for separate things, and you shouldn’t bash them for not being able to do something that they aren’t written to do.
Thank you!!
Thank you.
Bless you, sir.
(Although Linux is still best because… open-source! yay!
wtf
Been using Windows for about 3 years now on my current PC, plus another Windows box before that for 6 years. Never had a virus. Never found something I couldn’t do, and have only recently started having issues with my current box slowing down (it’s a hardware issue actually, I knocked the thing around when moving it to my dorm last year, the memory got knocked loose and bounced around the case during transport.)
Funny thing is though, you can probably say the same about any OS, provided you know what you are doing. The most important component of an OS is the user.
I like all three.
Inaccurate. The middle bit should be labelled “All three” not “You wish.”
Hmm…perhaps the only surefire way to win is to use a typewriter?
This graph make no sense to me. Linux and Windows are OS family. Windows vista is different from Windows XP or Windows ME. Linux represent thousand os different OS (Gentoo, Ubuntu, RedHat etc etc) each of this are different for userfriendly and stability.
its not meant for 100% accuracy but funny generalization.. you know, just like any other graphs in GraphJam
They are all O/S. Mac is based on Unix as is Linux. if you want stable, Unix is the way to go. You can’t get more user-friendly than Windows, to the point of sacrificing just about anything else. If you haven’t tried Ubuntu Linux recently, give it a go, it’s not bad.
What people don’t get is computer systems are actually very fragile by their very nature. We won’t see anything close to the perfection this graph alludes to in our lifetimes.
All you people suck for bringing up this yet again.
Come on, Linux fanboys.. Linux IS user friendly for YOU or anyone who dedicate a little bit of time, but 90% of users can’t be bothered to learn. In this category majority counts, hence, Linux isn’t user friendly for the general population.
I’ve always found Windows to be more stable than Linux. I have used XP for a long time with very few problems, even though it’s supposed to crash every five seconds, and it is also quite fast. As for Linux, I’ve had many problems with it freezing, programs crashing, and the OS refusing to start up, I got very used to seeing many error messages on that system, and it was also very slow, as well as taking 6 billion years to start up. It’s pretty much the opposite of what everyone else says about the two systems. So I think any problems might be related to the computer you have, and it’s stupid to blame the OS itself. I’ve never used a Mac before, and my mom says she did try but she just couldn’t work with the interface. My dad, the Linux fanboy, said the same thing about Windows, and I also think the same about Linux, so in my opinion, the user-friendliness is just about the same in all three systems– it just depends on whichever one you primarily use. I have also used two Vista laptops (the first one my mom bought to send to her technophobic mother in Ukraine, and the second one my mom bought for herself), the first one was quite slow, but the second one was actually a bit faster than my desktop computer that has XP on it, which contradicts the stereotype that Vista is slower than XP. So, yeah, I think the problem is really the computer rather than the OS.
Debating OS’s is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
As a mac user i must agree with the diagram, as for those guys telling linux is way better, yeah, it is a lot better than macos, but the usable distros are not ser friendly at all, thing that apple knows perfectly
I somewhat disagree with this…. if it were my way, Linux would be stable and customizable, like it shows, and the you wish would definitely be there lol…. but Windows would only be user friendly, and MacOS would have a separate bubble, seeing how it’s neither Stable, Customizable, or User Friendly.
All hateful comments go below
You have a giant penis growing out of your forehead.
You’re right, it is fun to say things without being able to back them up.
Cute. lol
Linux is actually far more user friendly than windows.
Windows is neither user-friendly nor stable (althought the stability is much
better than in the past). That the author claims the opposite demonstrates his
ignorance.
(It could further be added that for power-users, Linux is the most user-friendly of
the three.)
Hey, want to hear a joke?
Mac Server.
Seriously right?
I lol’d.
Everyone has their own personal experience. The reason why Windows has so much of a market share is because Apple pretty much ’slacked off’ during the 1990s and early 2000s, giving Microsoft pretty much an open field to make all the offers, deals, promotions, whatever to gain market share. Even now, if Apple is only getting 10% or so, even with their bombardment of ‘Get a Mac’ ads, then there’s something that’s not making it worth the doubled price.
(One personal favorite parody of those ads is when the replacement Mac representative starts going on how Macs rarely crash and never get viruses, only for the replacement Windows representative to interrupt her with something that translates to ‘[and it's completely] useless’ before beating up the Mac representative in Dio Brando fashion, complete with a time freeze (and a fake BSoD with an Over 9000 joke), knives and a steamroller.)
As for Linux…They’d probably do well with more advertising. Between ‘Congratulations, it’s a [Windows] PC’ and ‘Get a Mac’, we don’t hear ANYTHING from Linux.
Windows is stable in the hands of a non-idiot.
Amen!
But Mac/Linux are guaranteed stable in the hands of idiots and non-idiots alike.
I’ve had stability issues with my Linux box, and I’m not an idiot, and Macs are just as susceptible to hardware failure as any other machine.
I’ve known novice users screw linux boxes before, I installed Xubuntu on my mother’s computer because she didn’t have a legit copy of windows. I have no idea what she did, but every time it started up we got Kernel Panic.
I use Ubuntu and Windows 7, and at the moment Windows 7 is my preferred OS. I didn’t have any problems with Vista either.
I can understand why people use Linux, and i can even understand why Macs are popular, but it sort of pisses me off that the Mac/Linux users tend to have an air of self-importance and smugness about their computing choices. I know it’s not all of them, but there’s a significant number out there fouling up forums with their banal comments. It makes me sort of ashamed to be a Linux user.
This is a ridiculous debate, the graph was meant as humour, and now you guys have killed it, massively.
……
AHHHHHHHHHHAHahaahahahahaha, this is hilarious, this argument.
I love my OS and there is nothing anyone can do to change my mind. Same should apply to everyone.
I would say everyone who has ever argued for their particular OS is a dumbass who is wasting their time.
Seriously, Who are you trying to convince?
(and look, I didn’t even have to mention what OS I’m Running
Haha , did you guys notice that someone put Windows with User Friendly ánd Customizable :”] ?
I believe Mac OS needs to be in the middle.
The very center should be Linux. It’s undoubtably stable and customizable and anyone that finds it less user friendly than Mac or Windows would also argue that a toaster is not user friendly.
The only thing I have run into in Linux that is not easy for the computer illiterate is tar files. Which don’t even need to be dealt with if one considers synaptic package manager.
This chat is out of date, effective Oct. 22nd 2009! Windows 7 is 99% stable, therefore, it should be the new center.
BTW Jim, you are wrong, linux, in any form is very user unfriendly, and I’ve used all three systems extensively.
Windows still easily gets viruses compared to Linux and Macs.
And as a Linux user I can safely say it is not user friendly at all to those arguing it is.
What linux are you using then? Cos Ubuntu 9.10 is simple enough that anyone with some basic computer experience should be able to find their way around it well enough to surf the web etc, and Linux Mint (Ubuntu derivative) is so simple that my 84 year old uses it more easily than she does Windows.
*84 year old grandma
Every OS is good for something different, my opinion is that all the Operating Systems are based on is which one you started learning on. Im willing to bet that most of the people who say Linux is hard to use, grew up on Mac or Windows, likewise for all the other people that say Windows or Mac is hard to use, started using Linux first. I say you swallow your pride, grow some balls, and admit that your OS may not be the best in the world. Thats just your opinion. I prefer windows because thats what i started learning on, that doesnt mean that Linux or Mac is worse, it just means thats what im more competent on.
Wrong way round. Macs aren’t as customisable, Windows isn’t user friendly and some Linuxes aren’t stable (oh god the kernel is really unstable)
Remember the definition of stable though – stays the same. Windows fits that. It stays the same for years and years.
Kids these days, y’all crack me up. You’re so defensive of your respective operating systems.
Why are you threatened by the other OS that you consider inferior? Why must you defend it? If you truly believe you’re using the best OS, just shut your mouth and let the idiots enjoy their poor choice… you guys need to get laid more often or something.
…. patiently waiting for Godwin’s law to kick in.
Oh be quiet, Nazi
Win!
Flame wars!!!
Windows 7.
Ubuntu 9.10 – Stable, virus-free, very small disk impact, customized to the point that even seasoned ubuntards don’t always recognise it instantly. Set up took 2 hours max from inserting CD to finishing customization Used for everything except gaming, never needed anti virus / firewall etc. Looks pretty even customized, and runs on very low-spec hardware. Admittedly, a year ago this wasn’t the case, but that just shows that it’s improving at a far greater rate than windows or OSX
Windows XP – Relatively stable, medium disk impact (ignoring games), left as vanilla install because the only thing changeable is the theme and the default one is fine. Set up took a couple of days from inserting CD to firing up half-life, still have problems with buggy drivers etc occasionally. Used only for gaming, have anti virus, firewall etc and they’re needed even though I rarely start any program except games on it. Windows Vista makes me want to kill myself, but first impressions of windows 7 are good.
Mac OSX – Avoided wherever possible, because like all apple products, once you start using it, it’s very difficult to transfer anything across to competitors products (My dad once spent several weeks trying to get an old G3 to act as a music streaming / file server for our predominantly windows home network) Seems stable, but locks you into Mr. Jobs’ fascist regimen. Doesn’t seem very customizable, but seems perfect for someone who wants a computer that ‘Just Works’. Very little software available that isn’t apple-made.
I look forward to the day when game developers start to take linux seriously
Nerd Alert!
Well, how many people do you know that use Linuxes as PC’s? I’ve never actually seen a Linux, probably because people don’t buy them for home use due to the fact that they are not the most user friendly. Don’t get me wrong, Linuxes are fine computers for businesses and all, but when you’re buying gaming software, they don’t even put on the specs for Linux.
I’m probably making a glaringly obvious mistake here that I don’t know about.
I know loads of people that use linux as desktop PCs – me, my dad, a couple of friends whose PCs i helped to set up, and a lot of people who I’ve met through various computer-related things. Linux has got a lot more user friendly recently, especially Ubuntu – the friends whose PCs I set up know next to nothing about computers and they use it just as easily as they would windows, and absolutely love the speed / simplicity of it. However, it is not good for games, as it does not natively run software designed for windows, and very few companies design commercial games for linux (there are ways to run windows software on linux, such as wine / cedega, but these very rarely work for running full 3d games)
Coming from one who has used all the systems indicated above, it is time to shed some light on the matter.
MS have used the tactic in sales to make the prospective buyer to believe they have to buy a system with Windows included. This is a fallacy! Whatever operating system you wish to have loaded is YOUR CHOICE!
I myself run Linux purely from the aspect that it is stable & secure, also that comparatively the cost of PC components is less expensive than that of Apple. Which is another point, OS-X is in fact a derivative of NetBSD. Yet another point of where open-source has made it’s way into the mainstream.
I surmise that most of the people who are making comments against Linux are gamers, am I correct? I have to inform you more & more of the software houses developing those games are in fact porting them to the Linux platform. Many of which that have to do less simply because they use many of the existing system libraries to run, and in many cases faster & more reliably than the MS platform.
Food for thought.
Mac sucks. Windows is suckish. Linux RULES
Im a gamer. I use a Pc. I don’t need anything more ^-^