Which OS is more usefull?

[Adrian Cobon]

Linux or Windows?
Which is better for a home user?
A programmer?
A Scientist?
A High School Student

[pgrmdave]

For the most part, unless you are willing to put a bit more time and thought into your computer, Windows is more useful for two reasons - there's more software for it (you can just go to any computer store and they will have software that is compatable with Windows, there's no such guarentee with Linux) and Windows is simpler with hardware (plug and play devices and more drivers written for it). However, if you are willing to invest a little time (and it's not very much), Linux is user friendly, for the most part, more stable, and safer.

[GAHD]

linux also has more "free" programs than windows. Awesome for the student with a tight budjet, who is weary of the law.
lixux has more Open source software, awesome for the programmer.
Scientists shouldn't use computers too much, they're best put to use in physical research. If they douse computers in research they better be a programmer or know a good one, because scientific software is rather specific in it's functions and not always available regardless of platforms.
Four your average home user, windows is bette for all the resons pgrmdave listed.

I use windows, I spend too much effort elsewhere to spare it on my computer when not absolutely necissary.

[Tormod]

I spend the entire workday in front of an Apple Mac where I do web editor work like writing, photoshop slave tasks, pubilshing etc.

For web design at home I still use a Windows PC because I use Dreamweaver and have some plugins that I bought for it, plus I use a lot of commercial music software that is not currently equalled on Linux (although it's coming!).

But I spend more and more time on my Linux lappy, which runs Kubuntu, and has just about everything I and my wife need to use the web - surfing, paying bills, checking e-mail, chatting etc. We also run open office 2 and connect our digital camera to it (there are some excellent programs for free).

Like Gahd says, Linux takes more time for some of the basic tasks, so Windows is still the OS of choice for most people, but Linux is catching up as a mainstream OS and it's not a bad idea to try it out.

[satcure]

But if you were using MacOSX its built-in spellchecker would tell you that usefull is not the correct spelling of "useful" and that "compatable", "guarentee", "budjet", "necissary", "pubilshing" and "lixux" in this thread are also incorrect.

As for "more software for Windows" I'd agree that there's about 30,000 more viruses and 200,000 more "crapware" programs than for Mac. Sometimes I wonder how I manage to be so productive on my Macs. Could it be that my selection of the 60,000+ available programs just work and I don't have to waste time installing anti-virus, anti-spyware and reinstalling Windows every month?

Sorry, just winding you up.

[Tormod]

Winding who up? I love my Mac...but I hate that it's the most expensive OS you can own.

[satcure]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Winding who up? I love my Mac...but I hate that it's the most expensive OS you can own.

I'm not sure what you mean. I paid about 80 GBP for MacOS 10.4 "Tiger" from Amazon. Is that significantly dearer than the equivalent Windows OS? (I could, of course, have used ripped-off copy had I felt so inclined).

Apart from that, the new Mac Mini that I just bought for my Mum came complete with Tiger as well as iMovie, etc. Most of the other software that I use is freeware or real cheap shareware and works great.

Taking into account the basic reliability of the hardware and software (an average Mac lasts me from 5 to 10 years - I just gave away my ancient still-perfect beige G3/233) I think the cost of ownership is very reasonable. I own 5 Macs at present and I got them all (used) from eBay. So far the biggest expense has been a replacement battery for my iBook but most other maintenance items (hard drives etc.) and peripherals (monitors, printers) are used with PCs so the cost is the same.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by satcure

I'm not sure what you mean. I paid about 80 GBP for MacOS 10.4 "Tiger" from Amazon. Is that significantly dearer than the equivalent Windows OS? (I could, of course, have used ripped-off copy had I felt so inclined).

To run Mac OSX with any juice you need a horribly expensive computer, and it's all Apple products inside out (or at best Apple-certified third part stuff...I had my PowerBook G4 1Ghz upgraded from 768MB to 1GB RAM and it cost over $200 (the price of a PowerBook is about 2-3 times that of an equivalent PC).

Buy any Mac and lo and behold - it comes without a monitor, keyboard, and mouse unless you buy an iMac or a laptop, and they are both a pain in the ass to upgrade - and the components are extraordinarily expensie. The iLife package is great, yes, but I've owned iLife 1, 2 and 2005 and frankly haven't used it much at all.

Apart from that, the new Mac Mini that I just bought for my Mum came complete with Tiger as well as iMovie, etc. Most of the other software that I use is freeware or real cheap shareware and works great.

That's good for you. Comparing software doesn't really matter, though. I can get the same software for both: Adobe Creative Suite 2, for example, or equivalents: Logic 7 for Mac/Cubase SX3 for PC.

The fact is that you pay extremely much for Mac hardware. The Mini plus monitor plus keyboard plus mouse will set you back more than the price of a great PC desktop.

I have an old G3/400 Mhz under my desktop. It runs Tiger if I don't use it for anything. But it's a great doorstop.

[satcure]

Originally Posted by Tormod

To run Mac OSX with any juice you need a horribly expensive computer, and it's all Apple products inside out (or at best Apple-certified third part stuff...I had my PowerBook G4 1Ghz upgraded from 768MB to 1GB RAM and it cost over $200 (the price of a PowerBook is about 2-3 times that of an equivalent PC).

Yes, new Macs aren't for those on a low income. I guess it keeps the plebs out!
But I buy most of mine second hand and they still last 5 years plus, by which time the technology is obsolete. I only bought a new Mac Mini for my Mum because there weren't any decent used ones available before Christmas.

Buy any Mac and lo and behold - it comes without a monitor, keyboard, and mouse

My son bought a PC and had to pay for the keyboard, mouse and monitor. They weren't free - and the darn (cheap) PC to date has had two replacement mother boards, two replacement power supplies, a replacement hard drive, a replacement CDROM/DVD drive (which has just failed again) and a replacement monitor. He's also replaced the keyboard and mouse (twice) because they were unreliable. Most of this was under warranty so it was still "cheap" but look at the inconvenience (and the number of times it lost all of his files and the number of times he had to reinstall Windows). And it's barely 2 years old.

In contrast, at the same time I bought a used G4 tower to which I fitted a new Hard drive and memory battery (those are the bits that fail) and I haven't had a single problem. Tell a lie, I had a corrupted printer driver and had to download a piece of freeware to fix it. But you see the difference.

unless you buy an iMac or a laptop, and they are both a pain in the ass to upgrade - and the components are extraordinarily expensive

But surely the same applies to any computer? If you buy a laptop or a PC with integral flat-screen monitor (is there one?) to run Windows, it'll be a pain to upgrade - and not cheap - simply because of the way they have to use smaller (expensive) parts which are harder to access because of the way the things have to be bolted together.

Mind you, I have two Apple iBooks (G3) and replacing the battery, memory, airport card or keyboard is a (less than) two minute job. (Anything else goes wrong, just trash it and buy a replacement off eBay for $350.)

Hmm, anyway, we're drifting off-topic (sorry). I find OSX is the most useful but my Macs can also run Linux (ugh) or Windows under "Virtual PC" (ugh). The "ugh" is simply my impression of the unfriendly user interface and yukky graphics. And have you seen the previews of Vista?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by satcure

My son bought a PC and had to pay for the keyboard, mouse and monitor. They weren't free - and the darn (cheap) PC to date has had two replacement mother boards, two replacement power supplies, a replacement hard drive, a replacement CDROM/DVD drive (which has just failed again) and a replacement monitor. He's also replaced the keyboard and mouse (twice) because they were unreliable. Most of this was under warranty so it was still "cheap" but look at the inconvenience (and the number of times it lost all of his files and the number of times he had to reinstall Windows). And it's barely 2 years old.

A sample of one is hardly useful. I built my PC about 5 years back and have upgraded it piece by piece (replacing motherboard, graphics card, audio card etc as money allows and need arises).

But I could buy a brand new PC with twice the specs for about $1,200, including a 19" flatscreen, keyboard and mouse - and a gig of RAM. Show me the equivalent Mac product...

Don't get me wrong. We probably agree on the usability of Macs in general. They don't last forever for me because the software I have to use dictates better machines.

BTW my daughter (5 years) uses a Pentium 133 laptop with 64MB RAM and a passive LCD screen...excellent for children's games. It's a wonder it still works but it does.

To bring the thread back on topic: If you want to run Mac OSX, you need an Apple computer and they are more expensive than PCs.

If you want to run Windows, the choice is much wider and you can get brand new stuff quite cheap.

If you want to run Linux, you can make do with old computers.