|
| quote: | Originally posted by k.k.d.
Brkk.. This thread is dumbest ever, but ill just post my 2 cents and neve return to it again (call me names if you want)..
As a B. Sc. in omputer sciences, I activelly use or have used many operating systems, and am fairly familiar with all of them.
Macs are being (now) hardware-inferior to the PC counterparts, and it is one hundred percent true. G4 is an aging processor (almost as old as Athlon architecture), and simply does not quite have the juice compaired to today's Intel/AMD processors. Moreover, the 266 Mhz bus, the slow memory, and all other little quirks make modern Macs NOT performance powerhorses.
However, that may change with the advent of the new IBM processor, which (on paper) looks VERY impressive... Maybe apple will decide to use better components as well.. 
However, on the operating system end, there is no OS that even approaches OS X in terms of versatility.. You scream about penguins and linuxes (which you obviously don't use), yet ignore simple fact that OS X is BSD core (means 99% of *nix programs are compilable and runnable on it), with CONSUMER SOFTWARE SUPPORT!!
What is consumer software support? Let's see, Office? Photoshop? Maya? Basically, most of the professional programs that are available on Windows.. So you have the POWER and FLEXIBILITY of *nix system, PLUS application support!!! Sure, you don't have some random bastard game on Mac, but if you're a gamer, there's no secret here, go buy yourself a PC box.. On the other side, a power user like me will enjoy writing scripts in either AppleScript or Perl, use many of the developpement tools to build applications (where are those with Windows? .NET? But hell, that's 500 bucks more!), etc.
On the other hand, NT technology progressed a lot, and Windows 2k/XP are actually usable, which makes me content.. However, the console (or cmd.exe or ommand.exe, as you call it) is basically the crapiest thing since Simmon's Beauty Rest adds. Back in DOS days it was fine, but by today's standard, it's totaly awful. Hence, installation of Cygwin (Bash shell layer over windows) is obligatory for any power user, but it's 1 GB of space wasted, and runs painfully slow. Conclusion? NT is a good OS, but LACKS a good console, and thus becomes worthless for some tasks. That, and windows protecting accesses to some files annoys the fuck out of me ;(
Third, the *nix systems (Linux, FreeBSD, SunOS, etc): very good systems, I adore them (hence why I adore OS X), but are still not quite up to the status of consumer OS. If something goes wrong, you better be an exeprt to solve the problem. Driver support gets better and better, but it's still a long cry from NT. Excellent to code (I kinda like QT libraries, they are sexy), passable to use for basic tasks, but it does not have support fo some of the essential software (to me), like Photoshop. And no, GIMP doesn't quite cuts it (though it's okay). Thus, saying unix is better than Mac OS X is just being narrowminded, considering that the later has all what *nixes are good for, plus consumer software support base.
The point of my little (and perhaps senseless) babble? Judging from your posts, you are not quite qualified to say what sucks and what doesn't in terms of OSes, as for hardware's point of view, all is relative, for rare are general-purposes usages that are noticeably slower in real life on a Mac than they are on Windows machine.. Moreover, I'd say that if there ever was in a magical world a MacOS X for windows, I would be the first to buy it and install on my comp..
So yeah.. Those are my 2 cents  |
well guys I'm afraid we have been shot down
well looks like he knows what hes talking about
and yes I find that what hes saying makes sence.
not to convince me to like macs, but sure they have good sides.
___________________
| quote: | You yanks dont give a fuck about innocent people.. its all about your stupid alquaeda excuses and paranoid delusions of imminent threats....
-Cyrus King |
|
