Operating System Debate

Ricardo Irving · 06-30-2009, 09:51 AM

OS Debate
Feel free to debate

The contenders:

Apple (the computers are commonly known as a "Mac", or is Apple just the company name)
Windows (computers commonly known as "PCs")
Linux (commonly known as...um, dunno)

First up: Microsoft
- Vista is very buggy...
- Decent interface, but dull. Screenshots of WE in tutorials made by PC owners have terrible borders in stuff such as trigger editor.
- The abomination, called Vista. Windows XP is still alright.
- WTF? MS is making Windows games require yearly payment for online play? Haha :D.
- Worse updates, slower. Such as Vista and Leopard - Vista took longer to release, and had thousands of bugs, yet Leopard was released earlier with no or almost none.
- Its slowly losing the war.
- Bill Gates is gone, who was charming and also ripped off many companies, and such, so they have taken a blow.
- Java does not come automatically with Windows, anymore. This makes flash-games impossible to play (usually) without downloading it.
- The disgusting monster known as "MS Paint".
+ Get more games and WE tools.

Second up: Apple

- Yawn, less WE tools and games.
- Harder for Trojans, Viruses, etc to get in.
+ Better interface. Bright, tidy and such.
+ More stable.
+ Slowly winning.
+ Includes Java by default.
+ Nice features, such as Universal Access. You can invert the computer colors, make it black and white, zoom in, and such.
+ Better updates, faster (Vista - took longer then Leopard to make: Buggy as hell -- Leopard: No bugs).

Third up: Linux

+ Open source.
- Open source can have its problems.
- Can't play shit. Not even WarCraft III.

xp3r009 · 06-30-2009, 01:27 PM

Hmm... I do agree some of your points. Windows is rather popular as it already with the products already there, and it is rather buggy with their correspondence to unknown reasons. However, Windows 7 is releasing with their updates upcoming. The interface doesn't really bother me, as it doesn't look like DOS (and it seems rather informative by me). The games I don't really play for them because they are relatively expensive and that I'm not really interested in them. My family-friend has a Mac, but it doesn't seem fun because not much programs of games which seems entertaining can be found on the Internet, so we switch to Windows on the other hard drive.

Apple seems to be more boring with their products not being as amusing and with less of their products, and I'm not really used to Windows; they should add more programs by their default (otherwise its Windows for me), and it is true that Windows doesn't come with.It does seem possible that Mac can overrule Windows over time, but usually I'm more experienced with Windows and I program with Windows so at the moment its my specialty, and Bill Gates retired? Microsoft Paint is only for the fun, don't bother using it for the public. Rather Paint.NET might be a convenience as a pre-packed program on Windows 7 than MS Paint?

Midnighters · 06-30-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricardo Irving

OS Debate
Feel free to debate

The contenders:

Apple (the computers are commonly known as a "Mac", or is Apple just the company name)
Windows (computers commonly known as "PCs")
Linux (commonly known as...um, dunno)

First up: Microsoft
- Buggy.
- Made by Micro$oft (founded in 06/06/06), a money-grabbing corporation.
- Bad interface, and dull. Screenshots of WE in tutorials made by PC owners have terrible borders in stuff such as trigger editor.
- The abomination, called Vista.
- WTF? MS is making Windows games require yearly payment for online play? Haha :D.
- Worse updates, slower.
- Its slowly losing the war.
- Bill Gates is gone, so the devils have lost the leader. [Bill sounds and looks alright, actually, but thats called Propaganda]
- Java does not come automatically with Windows, anymore.
- The disgusting monster known as "MS Paint".
+ Get more games and WE tools, in exchange for your soul.

Second up: Apple

- Yawn, less WE tools and games.
+ Better interface.
+ More stable.
+ Slowly winning.
+ Includes Java by default.
+ Lots more pros.

Third up: Linux

Dunno much, but a pro would be its open-source.

You realize that everything you just posted was opinions, because I use Microsoft and I have used Apple, and I prefer MC over Apple, because MC *IS* faster then apple if you have a decent computer. every apple computer I have used sux, I bought one that crashed the first day I had it.

So I prefer MC

Gilles · 06-30-2009, 01:34 PM

Windows has games.
Mac is stable, easy to use, and excellent for media usage.
Linux is stable, open-source, free, and great for programming. At least from what I hear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnighters

You realize that everything you just posted was opinions, because I use Microsoft and I have used Apple, and I prefer MC over Apple, because MC *IS* faster then apple if you have a decent computer. every apple computer I have used sux, I bought one that crashed the first day I had it.

So I prefer MC

What Mac was that? Also remember that this is operating systems, not parts; so you have to compare the operating systems on similar computers. Generally in my experience, and the reviews and tests I've seen, OSX is faster than Vista and XP. Although one review I read, said that Vista running on a Mac is the fastest. :P

I'd be using OSX if I could, but I'd rather build my PC for less and game on it. Windows it is for me.

xp3r009 · 06-30-2009, 01:41 PM

There would be more operating systems then this, but these are rather popular. From what Ricardo has wrote, it seems preconceived to his own point of view. Plus, Windows 7 is coming so probably that will fix the rest.

Many operating systems are under development to their providing the best, so you cannot really see what is the best and what is not unless the scientific proof is there to conceive what has been said. The opinions as such don't make such a debate, rather put as said a argument intentionally by our thoughts. They are always changing, and you can't see what is happening but it depends on people's taste.

But overall, Windows has my taste (Windows XP is fine by me anyway).

Midnighters · 06-30-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pha0001

There would be more operating systems then this, but these are rather popular. From what Ricardo has wrote, it seems preconceived to his own point of view. Plus, Windows 7 is coming so probably that will fix the rest.

Many operating systems are under development to their providing the best, so you cannot really see what is the best and what is not unless the scientific proof is there to conceive what has been said. The opinions as such don't make such a debate, rather put as said a argument intentionally by our thoughts. They are always changing, and you can't see what is happening but it depends on people's taste.

But overall, Windows has my taste (Windows XP is fine by me anyway).

Same, I use windows XP also.

Gilles · 06-30-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pha0001

There would be more operating systems then this, but these are rather popular. From what Ricardo has wrote, it seems preconceived to his own point of view. Plus, Windows 7 is coming so probably that will fix the rest.

Many operating systems are under development to their providing the best, so you cannot really see what is the best and what is not unless the scientific proof is there to conceive what has been said. The opinions as such don't make such a debate, rather put as said a argument intentionally by our thoughts. They are always changing, and you can't see what is happening but it depends on people's taste.

But overall, Windows has my taste (Windows XP is fine by me anyway).

... what? You need to work on sentence structure, and general communication. I find it hard to understand you.

I don't include Windows 7, since it's still not out. From what I hear it's pretty good, but I really don't think it'll fix everything. Windows will still be the most unstable operating system.

Eleandor · 06-30-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Buggy

Vista got some bugs, XP not so much. About 90% of the XP bugs I see are driver related, i.e. it's not really windows' fault.

Quote:

- Made by Micro$oft (founded in 06/06/06), a money-grabbing corporation.

so? How is that a pro or a con? I mean, in the end even Blizzard's main purpose is making money. Does that make them a bad company? As if steve jobs doesn't do it for the money.

Quote:

- Bad interface, and dull. Screenshots of WE in tutorials made by PC owners have terrible borders in stuff such as trigger editor.

pff... I still use '98 windows look and I think the Mac interface is just "bling bling" for noobs.

Quote:

- The abomination, called Vista.

Windows is more than vista alone. There's still XP and from what I've heard windows 7 is pretty stable. Bottom line is: there's tons of unix based systems too, and I'm sure some of them are just as buggy as vista.
The thing is: vista still is based on NT technologies for a really large part. It's only the new interface that slows down the operating system a lot. I reverted back to '98 look (like always) and it runs just as smooth as xp. I still like XP more, but I think saying vista sucks balls is a bit exagerated.

Quote:

- WTF? MS is making Windows games require yearly payment for online play? Haha :D.

And? This is totally unrelated to the operating systems, and thus not an argument for your debate.

Quote:

- Worse updates, slower.

no clue what you mean

Quote:

- Its slowly losing the war.

And? If windows was so bad, it would have never achieved the near-monopoly they have now, wouldn't they? It's not about winning or losing, is it?

Quote:

- Bill Gates is gone, so the devils have lost the leader. [Bill sounds and looks alright, actually, but thats called Propaganda]

How is this related to the OS debate?

Quote:

- Java does not come automatically with Windows, anymore.

How is this related to the OS debate?

Quote:

- The disgusting monster known as "MS Paint".

How is this related to the OS debate? It's not the main priority for an operating system to provide totally irrelevant image editing software. IMO software like windows media player, paint or msn shouldn't even be part of the operating system and be downloaded or bought separately, simply because they're programs, not operating systems. Buy photoshop if you care so much.

Quote:

+ Better interface.

>> I totally disagree. I Couldn't work in an abonimation like that in my entire life.

Quote:

+ More stable.

That's only because mac OS only works on a real mac computer, which has been assembled for you. You buy a package, you can't choose your own components.

Quote:

+ Slowly winning.

irrelevant argument

Quote:

+ Includes Java by default.

So? Java is software, and does not belong with an operating system package. I'd rather choose my own vm than just pick the one my operating system has on default. Same like software as windows media player: you get rid of it anyway so you use your own and better media player. I mean, really, is there *anyone* who uses windows media player or apple quick time?

Quote:

+ Lots more pros.

Yeah, this argument obviously beats everything.

Quote:

Dunno much, but a pro would be its open-source.

How can you open an OS debate if you don't know any unix based system other than the mac os...

Quote:

Linux is stable, open-source, free, and great for programming. At least from what I hear.

Bah, I still have to see the first reason why that would be. Maybe because most unix systems come with the GNU g++ compiler on default, but really, it's not that much trouble to get yourself a good IDE in windows such as bloodshed dev++ or visual studio, which also comes with a compiler. Maybe it's because most unix systems come with kate and gedit and other syntax highlight programs, but again: there are plenty of free windows IDE's.

Another con for os X is that it only works on macs (unless you go mess a lot and end up with an unstable os x running on a pc). At least pc's can run any operating system. The fact that you have to get a mac if you want to use OSX makes apple more of a money grabbling company than microsoft...

The main part of an operating system is the kernel, with resource management as its main goal. Any blabla about applications that come with an OS on default or blabla about the interface is nothing more than blabla.

IMO windows NT is not such a bad kernel in the end. If your system suddenly becomes unstable, chances are you did something stupid, and you screwed things up, not the OS. I mean, don't worry, it's not hard at all to screw up a mac either.
I prefer windows right now. None of the OS'es stand above any other OS with head and shoulders. Unless a new OS with significant advantages is made, windows is still the best for me, because most programs have been developed with windows in mind.

I'll be the first to switch to a better OS. That is, when a truly better OS is ever made.

Gilles · 06-30-2009, 06:48 PM

If you know what you are doing, Windows is usually fine. However a lot of people don't know how to do jack all, and wind up with a bogged down computer.

Looking from a general consumer, I'd say that Mac is far "better", being that it is practically virus free and generally easier to use. "Easier to use" is obviously opinion, but I'd say a large majority prefer the UI of Macs. I'm actually not sure I can think of one person IRL who didn't like Mac when they tried it (speaking only of your average email/word user).

Personally I don't really have a preference in the interface. I don't like either Windows' Start or OSX's Dock.

Midnighters · 06-30-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles

If you know what you are doing, Windows is usually fine. However a lot of people don't know how to do jack all, and wind up with a bogged down computer.

Looking from a general consumer, I'd say that Mac is far "better", being that it is practically virus free and generally easier to use. "Easier to use" is obviously opinion, but I'd say a large majority prefer the UI of Macs. I'm actually not sure I can think of one person IRL who didn't like Mac when they tried it (speaking only of your average email/word user).

Personally I don't really have a preference in the interface. I don't like either Windows' Start or OSX's Dock.

Easier to use = NOOB FRIENDLY. lol

Pyritie · 06-30-2009, 10:46 PM

The first post is incredibly biased.

PurplePoot · 06-30-2009, 10:55 PM

OS X all the way. I'd be willing to bet most of the people voting Windows have not used either of the other options for any significant amount of time (I have used Linux a tad although not too much, and it felt like a hybrid Windows/OS X in terms of its GUI).

The OP's statements mostly suck, but that's a different story.

Eleandor: Marketing, marketing, marketing. You can sell a worse OS for more money and more popularly if you have a good marketing team and a good support base. Bill Gates is a marketing genius, which is the reason that Windows took off. Apple originally had a much better market share until Gates was able to convince people that having one good spreadsheet plus three shitty spreadsheet clones was superior to only having one good spreadsheet (and the same for other programs).

I don't consider software diversity a big factor, for a number of reasons:

Most stuff has equivalents on either OS these days. Games are an exception, but there are a significant amount of games (like Blizzard ones, for example) which run on OS X, and do you really need to buy a new game every other year?
Many of the OS X equivalents are superior in design and execution, such as Microsoft's own Office (ironically) as well as iWork.
For the rare cases where you desperately need to use a windows-only program, you can easily run it through a VM or even just bootcamp into windows.

Furthermore, Apple has far superior industrial design to any other company I've seen in terms of both desktops and laptops (and choice is really overrated), which plays a huge factor into what brand you buy into in the first place. In the case of laptops, their touchpads are amazing and integrate beautifully with the OS.

Next, Macs are far more secure, partially due to the lower user base and partially due to Apple actually attempting to fix problems with it.

Next, I find the GUI much more comfortable and customizable, both prettier (XP can often look very bare bones) and more convenient at the same time. For example, as seen in the screenshot below, Exposé allows you to open folders directly from the Dock without need of another window:

Exposé 1

Exposé additionally allows for a much more comfortable alt-tab style system, as demonstrated below, but the standard alt-tab feel (improved to also support mouse interaction) is still available. It also supports a version which only separates windows of a single program.

Exposé 2

Next, files in known formats are loaded automatically into their programs to provide a preview which is relevant to their content, allowing you to quickly identify what items on your desktop (and in other folders) are:

Next, the dock is a very convenient way to sort programs, and is quite customizable to include things such as magnification (so you can have a small dock by default with the area you are mousing over being still visible) and hiding (so you can free up the edge of your screen if you want).

Next, files are significantly customizable for even easier recognition, such as coloured names in a very distinct way:

Customization

Finally, the OS supports a lot more utilities off the bat (like a full development package for C, C++, Objective C, Java, and many other languages which is called XCode), multiple desktops for easier usability (the "GUI" selection screen between them—there are also hotkeys or a menu—is pictured below):

Spaces

Print Screen for not only the full screen but also for sections (The application window edges on the edges of the screen are because I used a command which knocks all windows away until you open a new one or call them back):

Print Screen Section-Based

The list goes on.

Anyhow, this sounded like an Apple sales pitch, but either way, Macs are awesome.

xp3r009 · 07-01-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnighters

Same, I use windows XP also.

Go Windows XP man! Though Vista is the latest, I do consider I can hear there are problems about it, that's why I still use Windows XP.

The interface and the security additions don't bother me, I just have to add them myself. Until 2014 or 2015, Microsoft will stop sending updates or support to Windows XP, and it seems that it is recommended that you upgrade. Older operating system versions seem to have ended as well from Microsoft.

Quote:

... what? You need to work on sentence structure, and general communication. I find it hard to understand you.

I don't include Windows 7, since it's still not out. From what I hear it's pretty good, but I really don't think it'll fix everything. Windows will still be the most unstable operating system.

I'm not quite good with that yet, but I'm still learning a couple of things, same with the communication. I'll try to make it easier to understand, thanks for that comment. My other forum had difficulty understanding the way I wrote my posts too, thanks :D .

Eleandor · 07-01-2009, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Eleandor: Marketing, marketing, marketing. You can sell a worse OS for more money and more popularly if you have a good marketing team and a good support base. Bill Gates is a marketing genius, which is the reason that Windows took off. Apple originally had a much better market share until Gates was able to convince people that having one good spreadsheet plus three shitty spreadsheet clones was superior to only having one good spreadsheet (and the same for other programs).

Marketting alone is not the only reason. It wouldn't be fair to windows. Ipods are succesful too, but nobody is talking about them being bad and them selling so good because of the marketting. Itunes sucks too. When it comes to marketting, be fair and don't just point fingers to MS alone.

Quote:

I don't consider software diversity a big factor, for a number of reasons:

That was more or less what I was saying

Quote:

Next, Macs are far more secure, partially due to the lower user base and partially due to Apple actually attempting to fix problems with it.

So you better don't advertise if you want to feel save on your mac...

Quote:

Exposé

You don't need to tell me, I've been there and left as soon as possible. It's useless and ugly.

Quote:

Next, files in known formats are loaded automatically into their programs to provide a preview which is relevant to their content, allowing you to quickly identify what items on your desktop (and in other folders) are:

It's useless and ugly. I'd gladly say the opposite because this looks like a bunch of different shortcuts, as opposed to all images having the same "image-specific" icon in windows that gives you a clean overview. Besides, if you dump all your images on your desktop, just open a damn explorer window so you can sort all images on your desktop.
Clean interface > chaotic interface. Hell, I'd rather use the commandline than the mac interface.

Quote:

Next, files are significantly customizable for even easier recognition, such as coloured names in a very distinct way:

Ugly, useless and distracting. Maybe good for unorganised people that got too much time on their hands.
By the way, have I mentioned how the filesystem on unix-based systems is seriously fucked up?

Quote:

Finally, the OS supports a lot more utilities off the bat (like a full development package for C, C++, Objective C, Java, and many other languages which is called XCode)

It's not the task for an OS to provide utilities, that's your software vendor's task. And seriously: it takes about 1 hour to install a new computer with all your favourite software. And at least you got the software you prefer, rather than a development package you probably replace by your own anyway. I mean, what's the point of having IE installed if you're going to switch to firefox anyway? What's the point of safari, just the same? What's the point of a development package when the biggest fanboys like the OP have never touched C or C++? I'd curse microsoft if visual studio would come with it on default because I don't like using that IDE. Similarly, I curse macs for their abundance of irrelevant or simply not your prefered software.

Quote:

multiple desktops for easier usability (the "GUI" selection screen between them—there are also hotkeys or a menu—is pictured below):

Really bad picture you chose, cause what's the point of having 4 empty desktops? I think that feature is way overrated, and it would be one of those things I'd turn off anyway if they would add it to windows.

Quote:

Print Screen for not only the full screen but also for sections (The application window edges on the edges of the screen are because I used a command which knocks all windows away until you open a new one or call them back):

Yeah, I got to buy a mac so I no longer lose 5 seconds on cutting the SS in a more precise way the way I want it. Another item on the "useless features" list for me.

To conclude, let's look at the main points:

1) The kernel. Needless to say, none of the OS'es have a kernel that is visibly better than the others. Bottom line being that the kernel is what makes the OS, not the interface.
2) The interface. To me, as soon as the interface starts getting fancy and "cool", it just slows me down and gets in my way. That's why I switch to '98 look anyway. It's the main reason why I use chrome and not FF or IE. And then I haven't even mentioned how incredibly they slow down older computers. No, not everybody buys a new computer every year.
3) The software package. My opinion: who cares? You're going to download or buy your own software anyway.

I'm definitely not a windows fanboy because they got a whole way ahead of them, but macs simply are no better alternative.

PurplePoot · 07-01-2009, 04:57 AM

Quote: