Slashdot Mirror
OS Comparisons From the BBC
igb writes "As part of their coverage of the launch of Vista, the BBC last week asked people to submit descriptions of the benefits and drawbacks of their chosen system, and today they've posted responses from two Vista users, a Linux user, and an OS X user. There's nothing earth-shattering here, but it's interesting to see the operating systems compared on a level playing field, and good that the BBC has given equal time to the major alternatives."
Nice report, though the Linux guy should have pointed out the DRM on Vista. They did a good job with the security portion too.
cymonroot AT gmail DOT com
Not to mention slow as molassis.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I've heard lots of hooplah about beryl being unstable... and it drove me away for a long time. Stability is a major issue for me... but in my time spent with it... its perfectly acceptable.
Another significant advantage with Linux is that, unlike in Windows, there is no need to worry about security since viruses are very rare, no virus has yet spread successfully on the platform.
And that statement makes me cry.
1. Security is not limited to viruses, and saying there is no need for security just... ya makes me cry.
2. Depending on your exact defination of virus... say if you include worms, saying that no virus has never spread on Linux is simply not true.
I see purpose for all 3 OSs - well maybe not Vista directly, but Windows in general yes. But I really think they should have chosen people that clearly have alot of experience in all 3 OSs - which these people clearly do not.
The first thing I noticed after switching from Windows to Mac OS X almost six years ago is its complete lack of distractions. It is clean, uncluttered and lets me get on with my tasks.
If you look at the adjacent screenshot, you'll see a completely cluttered desktop filled with distractions. I find it amusing that out of all the images, this one has the most clutter.
I got some food into me and up went my blood sugar and I was being too harsh. The person who invented the thing probably knows ablot about computers.
Something very important about computers is that people often buy them for bullet-point features. "ReadyBoost" makes a great bullet-point, while "Decreased OS memory footprint," no matter how you phrase it, doesn't. This is very vexing.
ReadyBoost is the computer equivalent of a chrome dashboard. It looks great, is a super feature for the gee-whiz effect alone, but certain exceptional conditions (involving deceleration and your face) might make it sub-optimal.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I second that. I owned a PPC powerbook for about a year, and both Panther and Tiger crashed on me pretty badly about once a month (just hang or not wake up). I cannot really say that my Ubuntu Gateway is all that better, since I never got it to sleep without loosing modules, and ndiswrapper used to misbehave (until they fixed it). The rest of the OS, though, is absolutely rock-solid. Not a single crash since Edgy came out.
...but didn't the BBC have it's own Operating System at one time?
Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro
Too bad they never continued that project...
Thanks,
Mike
Advantages for the Mac: There is a robust shareware/freeware market, and much of Windows' small apps are capabilities built directly into what a shipping Mac can handle. It also runs X11, so with Fink or your package manager of choice, you have access to thousands of X applications. Managing your home network is a breeze (you configure your router via a webpage anyway, right?), and unless you're trying to play AVI files from Windows Media 10+, you should be able to find plugins. I can watch most WMVs and all DivX files from my Macs, no problem. No idea about your Sony cam. Linux: There really is no replacement for Excel. There are good spreadsheet programs, but I've always wound up frustrated with alternatives to Excel--it seems to be one thing Microsoft got right. Your mileage may vary, of course. There's also no Linux support for lots of not-uncommon activities, and getting the fonts set up so that text looks acceptable is far more trouble than it should be. I have always been bothered by the way all Linux desktops look--it always just seems flat and rough around the edges. There are tens of thousands of applications available, which can be a good thing, but it also means you might have to try 3 or 4 different apps before finding one you actually like and which can do what you want it to do without being frustrating. I know I'll probably get knocked for this, but while there is a wide selection of quality software for Linux, only a small portion of it has the refinement and efficacy of solid titles available for Windows or OS X. Even finding a good media player was a bit of a challenge (I liked Amarok, but it had some serious limitations). I'm saying this as someone who has administered Linux machines in the past and who had, until about two years ago, a Linux server. I'm now Mac-only and have seen nothing compelling me to pick up Linux again, but I have no bad feelings toward it. Linux is something you can benefit from if you put effort and energy into it, but it's not really something you can just fall into comfortably.
The simple reality is that things are the way they are, and that means Windows has an advantage in available software and hardware compatability, but Linux has the lead in security. Were the relative popularity reversed the advantages would likely be reversed.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I don't know why I am arguing with you, may because I am bored. Don't take it too seriously: it's ultimately a moot.
But anyway, I disagree with your pessimistic view. Gnome is just as easy to use as OSX. I've actually had to laugh when I saw a very analog-minded, Windows-nourished user bump into one of my Ubuntu desktops. He didn't even ask me any questions, just located a Firefox icon and started using the computer to the maximum of his ability. After about 10 minutes of being productive he turned around and said: "What is this, some kind of Mac?".
As for the cost issue, you are just wrong. Sure, Windows never see themselves paying for Windows, but manufacturers do! Do you think that Gateway gives a flying bird about what to install? Besides, that is, the price of the components. As long as there is a decent market--as much as 0.1, I suppose--they'll jump on it, because the marginal cost of delivering another OS is zero. The amount of hardware testing only increases by a small constant, and then a market of any size whatsoever can be saturated at no additional cost. The savings, on the other hand, increase linearly. 50 bucks is a hellova deal when entry-level systems are priced below 600.
We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
Does it use the thumbdrive as core or swap?
Neither. It's essentially a DIY hybrid hard disk.
This is one thing that I hate about OS X in comparison to Linux. Take even their Mail app for example. It didn't have threading. I cried out loud for threading. They added it, but to the next OS release, which you wait for then pay for. Using Ubuntu, I get something stable and recent, and every 6 months I get a nice feature refresh in the everyday programs that I actually use. Windows hasn't had its "feature refresh" in so long, it doesn't even score a point from this consideration.
I'd happily pay a small subscription amount for an operating system, for which I'd expect it to continually evolve in a stable manner. There doesn't seem to be this option though, at least at the OS level.
As a relatively recent switcher, I can completely attest to the lack of obtrusive notifications in OSX when compared to Windows. One of the things I absolutely could not stand about Windows are the little taskbar popups. I don't need to know when you've successfully connected to a wireless network, that little wireless icon in OSX tells me that without popping up a bubble. I also don't need to know when updates are ready to install, and when I dismiss that damned bubble you better not well come back in 15 minutes to haunt me again! Those taskbar bubbles are the most abused and most annoying UI feature ever invented for any version of Windows, and I sincerely hope Vista had the smarts to get rid of them entirely.
If it's important enough to demand my immediate attention, pop up a modal dialog. If it's not important enough for that, then don't bother me with it! Figure it out yourself, and give a gentle reminder that doesn't block valuable UI space! The bottom right corner of many Windows apps are quite important with tools and readouts placed there regularly, those bubbles can't possibly come in at a worse place.
Slightly off topic, but I found Microsoft's current advertisement on http://news.com.au/ (a major Aussie news site, go figure) quite interesting. They've integrated what looks like the Vista desktop into the actual template of the site. Quite novel, it must have taken quite a bit of work to make that happen.
ISO certified == THX certified
The Mac user writes: "I find it hard to find things to criticise, except perhaps to say that new versions of iWork and iLife are produced each year and it is hard to resist buying each new version, modestly priced as they are." Does anybody else smell a shill?
I can only really think of two _major_ issues I have with OS X - performance/UI responsiveness and the Finder (especially regarding network resources).
Well, I've pressed it by accident!
On XEmacs (possibly Emacs too) you can reformat code by highlighting a section and pressing CTRL-ALT-backspace. I think it's the best code formatter I have (better than indent). Anyway, on a US-layout keyboard, the backslash key is directly underneath the backspace, and if your aim is a little off...
I learnt very quickly (ie: after the second time) to always look at the keyboard for that key combination!
-- Steve
I'd find the whole thing more credible if they had gotten someone very inexperienced with computers to test each OS for a week or two. Any experienced user will tout their preferred OS over the others. Someone without much experience in any of them would be better able to discuss the pros and cons of the three.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.