[PCWorld]

Post your comments for OS Smackdown: Linux vs. Mac OS X vs. Vista vs. XP here

[sevan]

I have to say that I side with the minority, I believe Vista is the best. I have a PowerBook G4 running OS X and a relatively new Sony VAIO AR650U laptop running Vista Ultimate. I have had no issues with the Vista OS, and find its performance and features vastly superior to XP. I actually purchased the PowerBook because I disliked XP's basic functionality and lack of features. However, I have over time disliked the lack of software in comparison to Windows that OS X has, and the great time difference in release dates for software brought from Windows to OS X. The main reason I "made the switch" back to Windows is that I dislike the Apple social-religious feel, the high cost of the computers considering features, and the ease-of-use of Vista Ultimate, lacking in XP.
This is not to say that I am not a computer geek, I enjoy building my own computers (impossible with OS X), and using the command prompt in both OS X and Vista to run my Java programs. Vista is just better.

[cb3431]

I've been using Vista for a little over a year and I am very pleased. The first thing that impressed me besides the new look was how quickly Vista opened Photoshop.
I have to use XP at work and it feels very dated compared to Vista and the same applications load faster on Vista.
I leave my laptop on all the time and sleep it several times a day and Vista doesn't falter.
We have Linux and Windows web servers at work and the Linux server is far more problematic than Server 2003.
I had a part-time job at an Apple store and it was really hard for me to ask people to buy a Mac because it's just not a good deal. I also witnessed how busy the "Genius Bar" is with broken Macs.

[themanwhoknowsitall]

whoever wrote this article is a freaking idiot! all windows products suck balls. you'd have to be an idiot to think that vista is good. it sucks way bad. doesn't work worth a crap. i am so dissapointed with windows. it is so crappy. i will never use one again if i can avoid it. Mac is the best. only an imbecilic simpleton would disagree! so suck it!!

[themanwhoknowsitall]

Mac is the best. the guy who wrote the mac article has a brain, at least, which is more than i can say for the people who wrote the other articles. Or the other commenting people

[JohnDoeSmith]

OSX86 project maybe the answer

[Pooch]

For me, Vista is rock solid. I've got Home Premium in one machine and Ultimate in the other. There are no lock ups, freezes, crashes, etc. Everything I need runs perfectly. Both of my machines are home assembled from the finest components. I have no problems with OSX or Linux, I just don't care for them. I also don't care to have neophytes telling me that Vista or Windows for that matter sucks when they know nothing of what they speak.

[pfletcher]

Vista has suffered in the main from 2 things - (1)the internet and (2)stupid (and I do mean that) journalists.

1) the internet has allowed some peoples bad experiences to be blown out of all proportion - came across this yesterday - some guy complaining his 15 year old printer didn't have vista drivers (where the heck is he still buying supplies for it?)most mainstream printers are HP-PCL, Epson esc or PS compatible so should work.

2) Stupid journos who don't cr@p about anything and believe thinness and shinyness (is that a word?) are actually relevant to tech ability. These spotty faced 'kids' who have no knowledge of tech history, no clue about cpu families or system design - couldn't even write a decent apology let alone a tech insight

[syzygy]

I think some of the readers need to understand what Vista is exactly. Vista is a project that Microsoft has been working on for years, but still has countless problems. All of the things listed in the good interface section of the Vista article are simply poor versions of Mac designs. things such as: spotlight, expose, widgets, sync, wireless, etc. All of these have been around since Tiger released years ago. MS simply copied them and threw a new name on them. Now, I use Vista, XP, and Mac all almost daily, and by far the easiest and most fun is Mac. I don't play games so i don't need to worry about that. But Mac software makes up for numbers in quality. Programs like Final Cut, Aperture, even the Mac CS3, as well as iLife and iWork are among the best applications ever made based on ease of use and power. Granted Macs are more expensive, but they hold their value and last far longer without problems. So, choose wisely when picking your next computer.

[classicvie]

This is a fantastic article as I currently use XP and OS X. OS X is by far a fantastic operating system and I'm scared to use Vista from all the comments I've read.

Kris J

[drrexx]

Fun article! It's always entertaining to see OS advocates go head-to-head. As usual, Windows supporters miss the point...
Preston Gralla's and David Ramel's main arguments boil down to: (1) on Windows you can run a lot apps duh! they are designed specifically for Windows]; and (2) I want to use my computer like an appliance ---i.e., it must get the job done without having to learn anything about it [http://try a typewriter...they work pretty well. That's exactly the kind of attitude that allows Microsoft to monopolize the market and prevents serious competition and good OSes from developing.

[bobob]

so long as apple keeps mac OSX (and are their hardware, for that matter) proprietary, I WILL NEVER buy any computer from apple.

Take this situation (Disclaimer: Bill and Bob are imaginary. Any relationship to any real people is unintentional.) Bill would like to have Bob's pop. Bob refuses to share with Bill, yet Bill only wanted the pop in return for the cookie he let Bob have.

Now would you not say that Bob was being quite rude and disrepsectful. This is exactly what Apple is being. If Apple truly cared about people instead of just making money, then they would release OSX for use on all computers, instead of being selfish.

[rgreen4]

Bobob - you miss the whole Apple point. They fully realize that if they were to open up sales of their OS to other platforms, especially the Intel class processors, now that they are using them in Apples, they would make more money. However, they would then have to provide support for the thousands and thousands of devices that will not connect to the Mac. It would also have more of an exposure to malware, since it's current market share limits the rewards to the purveyors of malware.
If you walk into a small Best Buy or Circuit City, you see a wider array of different computers than Apple has in their entire line. Let's also not forget that you can upgrade almost any Wintel machine's video graphics by simply purchasing and installing a new card. Newegg currently only has 635 video cards for various AGP, PCI and PCIx16 interfaces. With Mac, it's make do or buy a new one. You might be able to change the one in a Mac, but you really have to leap through hoops to do it.
Drrexx - funny you deride those that just want to use the computer as a simple tool. But then that is the whole Mac selling tag line - that the Windows machines are too difficult, and all you have to do with a Mac is plug it in, turn it on, and start right in.
Classicvie - I am running Vista on three machines, one an upgrade from XP Media Center Edition, one a custom build (self) and one an HP laptop. The only problem I have had with any of them is when I stupidly installed a video driver for XP on Vista on the upgrade shortly after installing the upgrade. That was my fault. I have found Vista far easier to use than XP. When trying to respond to a member's question, sometimes it's easier to attach a small image demonstrating a menu or item. On XP that is a time consuming multi-step pricess to capture the screen, bring it into a graphics program, and then cut it down to a small image. In Vista with the snipping tool, you simply activate the tool, outline the area you want and save it. On XP you have to have a third party partitioning program to partition the system drive, Vista does it in drive management. (XP has drive management, but will only partition and format a non-system disc).
Vista did not have support for some older legacy devices, because their manufacturers chose not to write them. On day one those printers that used a family of drivers, such as HP, had support going back decades. The PCL drivers for the mainline Laserjets were ready on day one and even supported the Laserjet II going back to 1984! Their low priced budget 1xxx series of personal lasers weren't support for a few months, but are now. The older TWAIN driven scanners of most manufacturers were not supported (I had one that I replaced with an AIO inkjet for less than I paid for the six year old scanner). If you have an older PC, you are probably better off with XP, but if you buy or build a new machine, there is nothing to fear from Vista.

[Corpbob]

I'd like to thank Microsoft for creating Vista! If it wasn't for Vista, I'd still be using XP and would have never tried Ubuntu. I've never been happier now that I've discovered how much faster my PC's run under Linux. I boot Vista on my main PC once in awhile and usually waste all my time fixing something broken or crashed out. Ubuntu just works!

[smax013]

bobob said:

Now would you not say that Bob was being quite rude and disrepsectful. This is exactly what Apple is being. If Apple truly cared about people instead of just making money, then they would release OSX for use on all computers, instead of being selfish.

How scandalous! The utter gall of Apple...wanting to make money! Shhesh!



Oh, wait, they are a for profit, publically traded company. Don't such entities usually want to do things like make money?!?



;)



I suppose Apple should follow Microsoft lead in being altrustic and care more about people than making money. Opps...doesn't the fact that Microsoft has no interest in listening to all the customers and users clamoring for Microsoft to keep offering Windows XP instead of only offering Vista suggest that maybe Microsoft also (like most companies) cares more about making money than caring for people?



</sarcasm off>



!http://forums.pcworld.com/legacyimages/
1!

[brucel]

I've tried them all. Linux, OS X, Vista. I've been using computers for 26 years. I've also read the "my OS is bigger...er...better than yours" written by people who don't really understand eachothers OS. Frankly, it's all gotten very tiresome.
OS X - It's hard to find mainstream apps for this. Rock solid.
Linux - In particular, Ubuntu "just works" but it's too hard to manually configure drivers (vid cap/printer/scanner/HD video and sound/etc. Rock solid and fast.
Vista - FAR too bloated with Digital Rights Management; my biggest turn off. Rock solid since SP1 but slow. The best OS from MS so far.
Wish list:
OS X: More support for more mainstream devices and software.
Ubuntu: device drivers that "just work" or that can easily be installed.
Vista: Remove the DRM nonsense. Surely your long EUA states that you are not responsible for what the user does on their computer.
In my eyes, they're all just OS's. They all have good things. The bad things need improvement to win everyone over.

[smax013]

brucel said:

OS X - It's hard to find mainstream apps for this. Rock solid.

I will disagree with this. Mainstream apps are not the problem. The problem is more specialized or customized or apps that are NOT mainstream. I guess it can depend on what you define as "mainstream", however. To me, mainstream are the likes of Office, Photoshop, email clients, web browsers, etc...i.e. things that are commonly done and used. Those are not the problem on the Mac OS. The problem is more specialized applications and customized applications. This is a big reason why the enterprise market never went Mac (that and the fact that Macs are single source supplier hardware). There are a lot of customized or "niche" market applications that won't run on the Mac OS.

[bobob]

I never said that Microsoft listens to customers better than Apple (in fact Apple listens better ). I never said that Microsoft did not want to make money like most companies do. I fully agree with you: all companies want to make money, and I regret saying all they want is money but here is further reasoning. The fact remains (at least in my opinion) that Microsoft allows their operating system to run on Mac, which convinced many, I am sure you will agree, to switch over to OS X, increasing Apple's share of the market. It is the least Apple can do to allow other pc companies the same privilege that Apple has with the Windows OS. I not saying give up their hardware, I mean make it legal in their warranty and in their EULA to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. RGREEN4, what you are saying about malware, you mean that because of all the different companies with access to the Windows OS, it is now extremely easy to get hands on, to find faults and make the respective exploit, right?

[smax013]

bobob said:

I never said that Microsoft listens to customers better than Apple (in fact Apple listens better ). I never said that Microsoft did not want to make money like most companies do. I fully agree with you: all companies want to make money, and I regret saying all they want is money but here is further reasoning. The fact remains (at least in my opinion) that Microsoft allows their operating system to run on Mac, which convinced many, I am sure you will agree, to switch over to OS X, increasing Apple's share of the market. It is the least Apple can do to allow other pc companies the same privilege that Apple has with the Windows OS. I not saying give up their hardware, I mean make it legal in their warranty and in their EULA to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. RGREEN4, what you are saying about malware, you mean that because of all the different companies with access to the Windows OS, it is now extremely easy to get hands on, to find faults and make the respective exploit, right?

There is just one little flaw with that thought. Apple is HARDWARE company (OK, so they also make and sell software...they are first and foremost a hardware company). Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company (OK, so they also make and sell hardware...they are first and foremost a software company). The point is Apple's primary goal is to sell hardware (aka Macs) while Microsoft's primary goal is to sell software (aka Windows). By that reasons, Apple's unwilliness makes a lot of sense...their OS is a means to sell more of their hardware. In otherwords, they want you to buy a Mac so they set it up such IF you want the benefits of the Mac OS, you have to buy their hardware. Microsoft does not mind Windows running on a Mac because they don't sell the hardware...they sell the OS. So, why should Microsoft care if you are running Windows on a Apple Mac, a Dell, a HP, or whatever...as long as YOU paid THEM for the OS, they are happy.



Now, I am not denying that if Apple let people run the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware it would be a good thing for users. It would (assuming that it ran OK and one did not have a ton of problems). At a minimum, it would allow users to being running hardware that does not quite fit into Apple's model's market appeal. In otherwords, all those people in the Mac world clamoring for a mid-level tower (or even a low level tower) that is modifiable and in the same price range as an iMac rather than the Mac Pro would be happy...they could get a mid-level tower that they could customize to their heart's content.



But, there is frankly no upside to Apple. Sure, they would sell more copies of the Mac OS. But, for the boost in sales in the Mac OS to make of for the likely lost sales in their hardware, they would have to charge more for the Mac OS. They would have to charge more on the level of what Microsoft charges for Windows (keep in mind that the Mac OS has basically always been $130 or lower...while retail versions of Windows are generally over $200...close to $300 for Vista Ultimate). And then there is the fact that they would now have to support the use of the Mac OS with a LOT more hardware options. Like it or not, Macs tend to work a lot better and smoother than Windows largely due to the VERY limited set of hardware that can realistically be used with a Mac....of course, this means you have less options with Macs...trade offs. So, basically, what you are asking Apple to do is drastically change their business model and practices for something that will make them less money (most likely a LOT less money). They would have to stop caring about selling hardware to turn into a software company more than a hardware company. Just ain't gonna happen. And I don't blame them...as much as I might like the ability to run the Mac OS on a tower that I build myself from components that I selected (much like my Windows tower).

[servant]

As long as you like the way Microsoft operating systems work, you are likely to say they are the best. I've used xp and vista(I've never used osx)but find that linux works best for me. It may take a little more time to set it up just the way you like, but it is a virtually no maintenance operating system. I found it much easier to move from xp to linux than moving from xp to vista.
As James Turner said, "Linux is free, fast, small, powerful, stable and flexible." Vist and xp are not. I don't hate vista. I even use it from time to time on a friend's laptop. It can most certainly do some things linux cannot--at a price. It's not bad. It is simply not free, fast, small, powerful, stable, and flexible enough for me.