Why Are Macs the Superior Choice for Computing?

[Zach_C]

Anttech:
UNIX geeks have ranted about their OS for years, rightfully so too. Happy users are a sign of a good OS.

An old UNIX joke:
UNIX is like sex. Without knowing it you could care less. However after one time you are addicted.

 

[The_Professional]

If you're a medium-hardcore gamer and have used PC's for years don't even consider buying a Mac.

If you're planning on making home music videos of your family and doing a lot of digital art then I would consider buying one. The interface looks simple and intuitive enough.

 

[franznietzsche]

To Franz:
What model of processor do you have? You probably will not be downgrading. Clockspeed is not the only factor. For some reason it is the only factor people look at though. A MacMini would probably not be the best idea for numbercrunching though. For that a cheap Linux cluster would be more cost effective. However, I do various programs and the RISC based PPC chips serve me better than the CISC based x86. Depending on the algorithms being performed one is better than the other. I do a lot of graphics and vector based programming and my dual 1.25 mac serves me better than the 3.x GHz machine I have access to. It all depends on what you have access to. Kind of curious can you delve into your program? What language are you using? I am not trying to sell you. I could care less about the OS as optimization will have more of an influence in my opinion. I'm assuming C but have you dabbled with assembly?

Currently I'm working on an AMD 2800+, but this will not be my machine for number crunching. I've been looking into G4 and G5 clusters (mainly because that's what is available) for actually running the simulations, though i still do all my programming work on my personal system.

I'm using F90. C or C++ would be a horrible mistake for running simulations of complex physical systems. F90 is specifically built for that kind of application, is capable of object oriented programming, is easier to optimize for parallel processing, and will almost alway run faster than an equivalent C or C++ code(again, for numerical simulations, not necessarily true of application programming, which i have very little experience with).

I have not worked with assembly.

For the curious, on my system the simulation I'm running takes about 16 minutes of real time for 1 second of simulation time.

Easier development
I'm not a very good programmer, but I can manage most things with the applications that follow with the computer, such as an elaborate IDE (Xcode) and every other tool you need (They should port ResEdit, even though it's somewhat obsolete, but I liked the hex editor). On Windows I have to do with Notepad without spending extra money.

Again, i see linux as being superior here. Everything you need for non-industrial projects come standard on most linux distros. And personally, i think IDEs are overrated. Useful to an extent, but i don't use them that often. (of course, i don't use C++ very often anymore, if i did i might feel differently, C++ on a command line text editor seems less friendly than F90).

Unix core
Many scientific applications are written for Unix. This makes them work on Mac.
Unix is basically flawless. No security leaks, practically no crashes, exellent server capabilities (I run a http/MySQL server from my home computer without any problems). All this with the easy-to-use interface of Macinosh

FreeBSD has one too. Linux is essentially a rewrite of UNIX (a clone). UNIX is not basically flawless by any means, though it is superior to windows, without a doubt. Mind you, i like UNIX. But its not perfect. And again, nothing that linux doesn't offer, and didn't offer long before OS X (and let's face it earlier Macs were...well...no where near as good. OS X is certainly not bad, but again, i'd argue that linux is preferable).

Included apps
Mail vs. Outlook: Mail has everything I need when I need it, and it handles spam flawlessly. Outlook is slow, and often my real mail is put in the spam and spam in the inbox.

Safari vs. Explorer: Safari hasen't the toolbar cluttered with things I hardly ever use, which belongs in the menu. Safari has built-in Google search, Explorer has built-in msn search. Safari shrinks printouts to fit the paper, Explorer leaves out mutch. Safari displays everything according to standards, Explorer is non-standard. Safari is faster when it comes to Applets.

iChat vs. MSN: When I use IM I want to talk to people. Not play stupid games, mess with avatars, be signed out all the time. I want to have all my buddies in a very readable list, with no confusion of changing nicknames (however you can have an 'available message' that replaces msn's ever-changing screennames). iChat fulfills all these needs. Too bad so many other ppl uses msn here in Norway...At least you can have both AIM and ICQ buddies.

QuickTime and iTunes vs. Windows Media Player: Quicktime plays back the content without any fuzz, Windows Media is slow and unresponsive, and the Windows version is cluttered with features other than playing back the movie I just double-clicked on or opened from the internet. iTunes is logically arranged with artist/album/genre columns, in WMP you got to be patient. In iTunes you import and burn CDs in a matter of mouse clicks, in WMP in a matter mouse clicks, uncertainty and wait.

On this part i think Linux is vastly superior. I get my choice of multiple open source office suites, an IDE, compilers for more than ten programming languages, Gaim AIM client (also an ICQ client), software for running a web or mail server, all right off of the install CDs. Firefox web browser ( or at the very least, Mozilla). Thunderbird mail client. All in the base install.

Anttech:
UNIX geeks have ranted about their OS for years, rightfully so too. Happy users are a sign of a good OS.

An old UNIX joke:
UNIX is like sex. Without knowing it you could care less. However after one time you are addicted.

This is true.

I never used linux before i used UNIX. I had considered switching, mainly due to being fed up with the crap that is windows. I was tired of calling microsoft everytime i made a hardware change and dealing with them(a fairly frequent occurence for me at one point when i was assembling and swapping hard drives between 3 different PCs.)

I first used UNIX a few months ago in a comp sci class here at the uni. It was like a dream come true for me. Simplicity. Everything i needed, and nothing i didn't. Within two weeks i had added linux to my machine. I'm currently running two linux distros and FreeBSD, and windows XP (i still like to play some games now and then) on multiple hard drives.

Contrary to whatever garbage graphic feels like spewing, i have seen plenty of use(and misuse) of both linux and windows. Windows is simply an inferior product, driven by an absolutely superb marketing department. Windows XP isn't too bad really, not compared to some other versions of windows. But its still inferior to linux, UNIX, and OS X. My last reason for using windows has been for games, but with Cedega, that reason is completely gone.

Wizards:
I'm not dumb, I know what settings I want to make. Why can't XP respect that?

Then use slackware. We'll see how long you stick to that statement.

Granted XP certainly does more than i would like it to, but for the average user who wants his computer to be a black box, where he points and clicks and it obeys, wizards are a good thing.

I don't like them either, but serve a perfectly fine purpose. Of course, i use Slackware as one of my linux distros, so i don't ahve to deal with them if i don't want to.

 

[graphic7]

FreeBSD has one too. Linux is essentially a rewrite of UNIX (a clone). UNIX is not basically flawless by any means, though it is superior to windows, without a doubt. Mind you, i like UNIX. But its not perfect. And again, nothing that linux doesn't offer, and didn't offer long before OS X (and let's face it earlier Macs were...well...no where near as good. OS X is certainly not bad, but again, i'd argue that linux is preferable).

If you're finished giving your `UNIX history lecture,' I'll offer some criticism. Do you know why FreeBSD has a web server? Mac OS X is FreeBSD, essentially. Apache runs on both of them fine, however, through your inexperience you neglected to mention that.

UNIX not perfect? Because of your inexperience, I'll have to assume that you are referring to commerical-grade Unices. Can Linux create a logical volume, replicate an important filesystem, say /usr, move that important filesystem to the new logical volume, unmount the old one, and mount the new one, while making this whole process invisible to a user currently on the system? To clarrify, I mean not booting the system into single user mode, or not stopping any daemons (that may have locks on files in the /usr filesystem), or kicking the user off. If you're unaware of the answer, I'll spoil it - no, Linux cannot do this, and it takes all of using smit for 5 minutes to complete the procedure (minus the actual time it takes to move the volume). AIX, being a commerical-grade UNIX, can.

What I find funny, and yet ridiculous, is the fact that you are badmouthing OS X and holding FreeBSD (complimenting, also) right beside it. You're acting as if they're two completely different entities. To some extent they are, but why if I told you that OS X uses a FreeBSD kernel, uses FreeBSD userland utilities, uses the same version of GCC as does the equivalent FreeBSD release, and uses the same man pages. If you'd like to see for yourself, do a `man ipfw,' scroll to the bottom and open your mouth in awe because of the very, very visible, 'FreeBSD' at the bottom.

 

[franznietzsche]

If you're finished giving your `UNIX history lecture,' I'll offer some criticism. Do you know why FreeBSD has a web server? Mac OS X is FreeBSD, essentially. Apache runs on both of them fine, however, through your inexperience you neglected to mention that.

Are you capable of speaking without trying to insult people? I mean honestly, are you even capable of being civil, or are you just automatically a ****ing *******? **** off.

Further that was hardly a 'UNIX history lecture', nor was it an attempt at one, but we all know you're too much of a dick to make a post without trying to insult someone. So its ok, I forgive you.

UNIX not perfect? Because of your inexperience, I'll have to assume that you are referring to commerical-grade Unices.

My direct experience with UNIX (not FreeBSD or Linux, but UNIX) is the HP UNIX cluster on campus, and from what I've seen, and been shown of it, it is not perfect. Its certainly good, and i like using it, but its not perfect (unless you're definition of eprfection is less trenous than mine).

Can Linux create a logical volume, replicate an important filesystem, say /usr, move that important filesystem to the new logical volume, unmount the old one, and mount the new one, while making this whole process invisible to a user currently on the system? To clarrify, I mean not booting the system into single user mode, or not stopping any daemons (that may have locks on files in the /usr filesystem), or kicking the user off. If you're unaware of the answer, I'll spoil it - no, Linux cannot do this, and it takes all of using smit for 5 minutes to complete the procedure (minus the actual time it takes to move the volume). AIX, being a commerical-grade UNIX, can.

Ok. And this has what relevance? I never said linux was superior to UNIX, and i didn't mean to imply that.

What I find funny, and yet ridiculous, is the fact that you are badmouthing OS X and holding FreeBSD (complimenting, also) right beside it. You're acting as if they're two completely different entities.

I wasn't badmouthing OS X. At least, i did not mean to, though its not uncommon for me to miscommunicate what i actually mean.

What i was pointing out is that linux offers more. That all. I have nothing particular against OS X, though i don't care for Macs in general.

To some extent they are, but why if I told you that OS X uses a FreeBSD kernel, uses FreeBSD userland utilities, uses the same version of GCC as does the equivalent FreeBSD release, and uses the same man pages. If you'd like to see for yourself, do a `man ipfw,' scroll to the bottom and open your mouth in awe because of the very, very visible, 'FreeBSD' at the bottom.

I know it uses the FreeBSD kernel. In fact, if you were intelligent enough to not take the statement out of context, you might realize that's what i just said. I didn't know it had gcc with it, or the man pages.

 

[graphic7]

Are you capable of speaking without trying to insult people? I mean honestly, are you even capable of being civil, or are you just automatically a ****ing *******? **** off.

I am, but I feign at the sight of ignorance.

Further that was hardly a 'UNIX history lecture', nor was it an attempt at one, but we all know you're too much of a dick to make a post without trying to insult someone. So its ok, I forgive you.

If I wanted to be forgiven, I'd take up a religion, but thanks, anyways.

Ok. And this has what relevance? I never said linux was superior to UNIX, and i didn't mean to imply that.

To quote you exactly:

UNIX is not basically flawless by any means, though it is superior to windows, without a doubt. Mind you, i like UNIX. But its not perfect. And again, nothing that linux doesn't offer

What is that? You didn't say it was superior, however, you did say that there was something that a commerical UNIX could not do, that Linux could. This implies that Linux is superior in some regard. I cited an instance of something that a UNIX, AIX, can do, that Linux cannot, and you throw up your arms and whine about it.

I wasn't badmouthing OS X. At least, i did not mean to, though its not uncommon for me to miscommunicate what i actually mean.

Yes, it is common for you to miscommunicate what you mean. You might mean something else, however, the readers of whatever you write will read it and they will end up being misguided. I'm only straightening everything up.

I know it uses the FreeBSD kernel. In fact, if you were intelligent enough to not take the statement out of context, you might realize that's what i just said. I didn't know it had gcc with it, or the man pages.

No, I did not see that anywhere. If you'd like to cite an instance of where you gave the impression that OS X was actually FreeBSD, I'll stand corrected.

 

[franznietzsche]

What is that? You didn't say it was superior, however, you did say that there was something that a commerical UNIX could not do, that Linux could. This implies that Linux is superior in some regard. I cited an instance of something that a UNIX, AIX, can do, that Linux cannot, and you throw up your arms and whine about it.

Actually i was referring to the comparison of OS X to UNIX, meaning the similiarities between OS X and UNIX are nothinh linux does not have.

THe entire second half of that post was about OS X vrs Linux, UNIX was only brought up because gsch said:

Unix core
Many scientific applications are written for Unix. This makes them work on Mac.
Unix is basically flawless. No security leaks, practically no crashes, exellent server capabilities (I run a http/MySQL server from my home computer without any problems). All this with the easy-to-use interface of Macinosh

I was saying that those things are all on linux. And since i was saying this right after quoting that, i thought it was a sound assumption you would understand that. Guess not.

I did not 'throw up my arms and whine about it'. I pointed out it had no relevance to my statement. It still has no relevance.

Yes, it is common for you to miscommunicate what you mean. You might mean something else, however, the readers of whatever you write will read it and they will end up being misguided. I'm only straightening everything up.

While being as much of a dick as possible.

No, I did not see that anywhere. If you'd like to cite an instance of where you gave the impression that OS X was actually FreeBSD, I'll stand corrected.

Unix core
Many scientific applications are written for Unix. This makes them work on Mac.
Unix is basically flawless. No security leaks, practically no crashes, exellent server capabilities (I run a http/MySQL server from my home computer without any problems). All this with the easy-to-use interface of Macinosh

FreeBSD has one too

Are you entirely incapable of reading my posts in context?

When i quote a section of a post and respond to it, it might be important to read, to understand what i am saying, since i will assume you have read it when I'm writing my response to it.

Granted i could have been more specific, but i don't usually have to deal with little ****s that like to tell me what i do and do not know. I mentioned FreeBSD specifically because its so similar. That was the entire point in mentioning it right after the quote where he talks about OS X's UNIX core. Sorry, from now on, i'll assume you can't figure that out.

 

[aychamo]

Hey you geeks, stop derailing this topic!

 

[graphic7]

was saying that those things are all on linux. And since i was saying this right after quoting that, i thought it was a sound assumption you would understand that. Guess not.

I did not 'throw up my arms and whine about it'. I pointed out it had no relevance to my statement. It still has no relevance.

Are you blind? Are you comprehending anything that I stated in the previous post? In the future, I will not bother to correct you. You may go on spewing your inaccuracies and ignorance.

While being as much of a dick as possible.

All subjection.

Are you entirely incapable of reading my posts in context?

I am incapable I suppose. I don't know what you're assuming that people will understand when you make such outrageous posts. They're riddled with misconceptions, inaccuracies, and pure nonsense. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it.

Granted i could have been more specific, but i don't usually have to deal with little ****s that like to tell me what i do and do not know. I mentioned FreeBSD specifically because its so similar. That was the entire point in mentioning it right after the quote where he talks about OS X's UNIX core. Sorry, from now on, i'll assume you can't figure that out.

Come again? It sounds like you're trying to wiggle your way through my corrections to prove that you are correct in some form or fashion. In no way did you ever come close to inferring that OS X is essentially FreeBSD.

 

[aychamo]

Boring. Who cares? Yall both look stupid now.