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."
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.
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.
Does it use the thumbdrive as core or swap?
Neither. It's essentially a DIY hybrid hard disk.