Banner
Views: 934,366,790
Time:
18 users online:  Alex_X8,  Atari2.0,  Ayami, bd90492, Hwailaluta,  icrawfish,  JamesD28,  MarioFanGamer, nasson bauvais, NGB, Orange_Crow2, RAFAEL_M_C_, random_box, S.U, Samuel Zuccati, Segment1Zone2, shaoshao, SuperKitty96 - Guests: 94 - Bots: 126 Users: 52,123 (2,120 active)
Latest: Tommy89
Tip: Ask the author for permission before extracting any resources, such as graphics, music, or ASM from a hack or other non-public source (such as SPC files).
Not logged in.
Mac, Windows, or Linux?
Forum Index - Donut Plains - Computers & Technology - Mac, Windows, or Linux?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 » Link
Quote

Why would I give a damn if I already BOUGHT this computer. The final price was $400. That's for the computer AND monitor. The montior was about $150, so the computer was only $250.


I think you missed the point entirely. Try rereading and maybe you will eventually understand, not sure if I will get that lucky though.

Quote
So I should replace what my whole family likes and knows how to use for something that no one I know has ever heard of or used? Ok.


You seems to have this idea that Linux is total different from Windows any nothing works the same, this is wrong. You realize that much of it is the same but with more stability and speed? Heck even many common programs that you use run on Linux(such as Firefox and Chrome.).

Quote
The final price was $300. Nothing was added but the mandatory $0.08 per dollar set in place by the government.


...no.
Let me explain, when you buy a computer you have to PAY for the Windows license. I would much rather spend that 100+$ on a hardware upgrade than on a piece of junk OS that they will try to charge me another 100$ for in a years time when they decide to upgrade.


Quote
Yeah. I meant any program that I want to use. In all my years using a Windows computer, I have never come across a program I wanted to run but couldn't because I was on a Windows.

I can think of a few.
1) A package manager.
2) EXT4 file systems.(EXT4 file systems do not fragment, meaning no defragmenting in Linux.)
3) Valgrind debugger.
Those are just a few I came up with right away, there are plenty more believe me.

Quote
Well, prepare for people to bitch about it when you release a program that doesn't work on Windows. The computer that MOST PEOPLE have.

Damn sucks for them. Maybe I will make a payed windows version then like most other windows software.

Quote

Why?


Why not?
Originally posted by p4plus2
Quote
Yeah. I meant any program that I want to use. In all my years using a Windows computer, I have never come across a program I wanted to run but couldn't because I was on a Windows.

I can think of a few.
1) A package manager.
2) EXT4 file systems.(EXT4 file systems do not fragment, meaning no defragmenting in Linux.)
3) Valgrind debugger.
Those are just a few I came up with right away, there are plenty more believe me.

I can think of a couple more:
1) An SSH client that doesn't blow (PuTTY does).
2) Compiz.

The only reason you haven't found them is because you haven't been looking for them. For instance, package manager. Great thing, you don't know it exists, so you don't want it. In reality, most people do want it, they just never thought about it ("You never even knew you wanted it"). Really, package management alone makes Linux worth it to me... (Want to download snes9x? "sudo pacman -S snes9x". Now you have snes9x. No searching)
Originally posted by HuFlungDu
2) Compiz.

This alone makes Ubuntu way better then any windows build. (Yeah, I know it's generally gnome, but Ubuntu is the build most people get and know about)

Originally posted by HuFlungDu
For instance, package manager. Great thing, you don't know it exists, so you don't want it. In reality, most people do want it, they just never thought about it ("You never even knew you wanted it"). Really, package management alone makes Linux worth it to me...

Even better, no viruses. You can easily download the programs you need, without getting any viruses. I have no idea how many times I've been looking for something in Windows that should be standard (which it is in Linux).
* Linux is incompatible directly with most programs.
- Costs nothing, but you need around $300 - 500 to build a system for it.

* Windows is the most flexible/compatible.
- Be a man and build a rig with $800, buying at the store usually means you pay $1000 more than you acutally should. Windows isn't expensive
- Susceptible to errors, but most of the time can easily be solved with a quick google search.
- Buying parts is quick and easy.
- When you do it properly, it's cheap, fast, and virus/bug free.

* Mac is for those who prefer a simple (and I mean simple) OS, anybody can use it.
- Overpriced to no extent.
- You can custom build a Mac at the site, which reveals just how overpriced and unneeded some components are. (who the hell needs 32gigabytes of RAM? Or who needs 4 Quad Core processors?
- You'll end up paying thousands more than it is worth.
- Low compatibility with games.
- On the bright side, there aren't the many viruses. (IIRC)
Haha, I can run Puppy and Debian but I don't need to build a computer. And also, Wine.
Originally posted by HuFlungDu
Really, package management alone makes Linux worth it to me... (Want to download snes9x? "sudo pacman -S snes9x". Now you have snes9x. No searching)

Wait...how does that even work? It sounds amazing, but how do you know if, for example, you have the right version of whatever program you name, or if the actual .exe goes by a different name?

Originally posted by p4plus2
Let me explain, when you buy a computer you have to PAY for the Windows license.

Unfortunately, you can't remove Windows and get a refund....
Originally posted by imamelia
Originally posted by HuFlungDu
Really, package management alone makes Linux worth it to me... (Want to download snes9x? "sudo pacman -S snes9x". Now you have snes9x. No searching)

Wait...how does that even work? It sounds amazing, but how do you know if, for example, you have the right version of whatever program you name, or if the actual .exe goes by a different name?

The latest versions are kept in the repos (Stands for "repositories") (Which is another advantage, "sudo pacman -Syu" and you just updated every single program on your computer, though that's specific to arch linux). If you want to make sure it exists, or you aren't sure exactly what it is called, just use "sudo pacman -Ss snes9x" and it will search through the repos for anything with snes9x in the name. So it will give you snes9x (The command line version) and snes9x-gtk+ (the GUI version). Then you just run the command I said first on the name it shows for that program, and there you go. It will also directly "install" it to your computer (Linux doesn't have a registry, but it will stick it in your "games" menu, or wherever it is set to be, which reminds me of another great thing about linux, if I want to run snes9x, all I have to do is open terminal and type "snes9x-gtk" and it will pop right up, don't have to go look for the executable). Occasionally they will host older versions in the repos (For instance, they still have python2 in the repos) for compatibilities sake, but they will still have the newest version. If, for some inexplicable reason, you want an older version and it's not provided, you would have to find and compile that yourself (But know that compilation is a heck of a lot easier on linux than on windows, generally you just have to say "make, sudo make install")

Oh, I should mention that debian systems (debian linux, fedora, ubuntu) use "apt-get" instead of pacman, and have GUI versions that you can use (synaptic, Ubuntu software center) that use syntax more like "sudo apt-get install snes9x", but it's fundamentally the same.

Originally posted by DaxterSpeed
Even better, no viruses. You can easily download the programs you need, without getting any viruses. I have no idea how many times I've been looking for something in Windows that should be standard (which it is in Linux).

Yeah, since it's all kept in one place and essentially moderated the same way as say our sprite section here is (Except more strict), you aren't going to get any viruses. Another great advantage with package management is that you don't have to worry about middleman attacks, since the servers have a special key unique to them that has to be identified before it will download anything, if it doesn't find the key, it will warn you and give you the option to quit or continue.

As I said, Package management is my best friend. Windows needs to jump on the bandwagon.

Originally posted by Desert-Fox
- Costs nothing, but you need around $300 - 500 to build a system for it.

If you wanted to build your own. Most people already own a PC, and linux can install seamlessly into any PC.

Originally posted by AmosDeFamos
To be fair, I've never really had any problems with PuTTY. What exactly is wrong with it?

Mainly I dislike that you have to totally exit out of it, meaning the window, not the program itself, to start a new session, which has just always bugged me. It's not such a big deal when you are using it from command line, but when using the GUI version it's quite annoying.
Originally posted by Desert-Fox
* Linux is incompatible directly with most programs.
- Costs nothing, but you need around $300 - 500 to build a system for it.


As I have stated multiple times in this thread, Linux generally has a direct alternative to almost any program you need. In a worst case scenario, if there is a reason that you absolutely must use a windows application WINE will allow you to run many windows applications.

I have Linux running on my ipod(5Gen video). That is less than 100$ for a system for it. Many distros can survive on computers with as little as 256MB of RAM quite easily(Some can use as little as 30MB!), hard driver space however will depend more on the user. Linux doesn't need a special computer to run is my point though, any existing computer for the most part can run Linux.


Quote

* Windows is the most flexible/compatible.
- Be a man and build a rig with $800, buying at the store usually means you pay $1000 more than you acutally should. Windows isn't expensive
- Susceptible to errors, but most of the time can easily be solved with a quick google search.
- Buying parts is quick and easy.
- When you do it properly, it's cheap, fast, and virus/bug free.


How is windows "flexible"? Unless you have used Linux you truly have no idea how little flexibility it has.

Windows is still expensive, whether you build the computer yourself or buy it in the shop. Drop windows and you can put that 100$ into upgrading your hardware.

A quick google search can fix a problem with Windows, Mac or Linux. If you are talking about BSD or solaris, then you may have more of a point.

The only time buying parts is not easy is with a mac, which can be finicky at times

Sorry, but no matter how much you try you as a user can not make windows bug free. Only the programs can do that. In addition, I stripped windows XP down to its absolute bare bones and a fully featured Linux OS with all of its "eyecandy" still out preformed it.(The XP was only ~220MB in size programs and all!). "Cheap"? Maybe if you try torrenting every program you want, but that is a horrible solution.

Quote

* Mac is for those who prefer a simple (and I mean simple) OS, anybody can use it.
- Overpriced to no extent.
- You can custom build a Mac at the site, which reveals just how overpriced and unneeded some components are. (who the hell needs 32gigabytes of RAM? Or who needs 4 Quad Core processors?
- You'll end up paying thousands more than it is worth.
- Low compatibility with games.
- On the bright side, there aren't the many viruses. (IIRC)

Macs are not really what I would consider simple. I would call Linux and windows simpler than Mac. Mac's generally do NOT "just work", I am on the phone every other day it seems like fixing my aunts mac. That is my only real complaint here.
I myself prefer Windows, as I'm just more familiar with it. I'm sure, and I actually know, that Linux is a great system and all; however, I know it's not for everyone. I had many troubles getting Ubuntu and all the programs to run correctly. I found myself using Terminal quite a lot. This all may be due to the fact that Ubuntu may not have supported my computer (a netbook), as many things did not work. Also, Wine is not perfect, as I couldn't use many programs correctly, such as YY-CHR.

Again, as I said, it may have been just my low computer specs, but I wouldn't really recommend Ubuntu, or any other Linux distro, if you are already used to Windows. Sure, the whole open-source atmosphere is great, but it just doesn't work for some people.

I have no positive comments for Macs.
Mac haters... here? I'd expect better from this community.

Here's the truth:
Macs are overpriced but run nicely. The software library is limited, but you can install WINE or dual-boot Windows. They are simpler to use, but very different. Having entire applications as .app files instead of having to install every application is certainly nice. It also make for easy program removal--just drag an application to the trash. There are always fewer background processes running on Macs than on Windows. A Mac with the same amount of RAM as a Windows PC runs more smoothly. I know from personal experience.

I used a Windows computer until December of 2009. Never touched a Mac in my life. Bought one. I'll never go back. However, I still dual-boot Windows for the simple reason that Windows is more compatible. Sure, I used WINE for a bit, but it's slow on the Mac.

Finally, I love Linux. I used it for a while. It's great! But I have no use for it. I prefer my Mac and it runs Windows. I just wouldn't really use Linux too much.
On the other hand, I have a friend who runs Linux only. It's definitely different, but once you figure out how it all works, it's super easy to use. In fact, Apple took a leaf out of Linux's book with the Mac App Store. Only time will tell if it was a good idea, Apple being the control freak company it is.

As for Windows, it has one purpose: running Windows programs and running them quickly. I have nothing against it, but I think both other OSes are better.

Let the flame wars begin!
As a good colleague of mine put it, Mac computers are for people who just close dialog boxes without reading them when they pop up.

Anyway, my primary operating system right now is Windows 7. I also run Ubuntu on a virtualbox as my web server, but it doesn't have a desktop installed and I'm not as familiar with the command prompt as I could be, so that doesn't count.

I used to use Windows XP, and honestly, that was the best operating system around for a good five years after its release. Then things started crapping up for no good reason, and one day I came home from school to find a shiny new computer for me to use.

I have windows 7 running with my prefrences set to 'maximize preformance, meaning no window translucency, square edges, grey windows classic theme, and I honestly don't mind. The new 'features' just make it harder for me to do stuff, and I like this simplistic layout anyway.

I don't think I could ever live with a mac solely because all the software I use is made exclusively for windows, and there's no good way to get them for a mac. No, a windows emulator is NOT a good way.

--------------------
Now with extra girl and extra hacker
I've used windows 98 up to windows 7 ultimate my whole life, and now I use a dual-booted Windows 7 Ultimate and PC LinuxOS
Originally posted by imjake9
Macs are overpriced but run nicely. The software library is limited, but you can install WINE or dual-boot Windows.

I'd also like to point out that there is the option of using Parallels on a Mac as well. I'd personally rather have that then having to constantly switch OSes every time. Then again that alone runs around $200 if I remember correctly. I myself cannot stand WINE either considering the fact that it runs X11 on the Mac (works nicely for Linux Distros but not on a Mac). It's slow, as for mentioned, and not exactly user friendly (manageable but not the best). That's my take on that.

Originally posted by imjake9
They are simpler to use, but very different. Having entire applications as .app files instead of having to install every application is certainly nice. It also make for easy program removal--just drag an application to the trash.

This is very handy to have considering that the majority of the application is removed. I mean there are the odd bits and pieces, but that's about it. There isn't really much else left once the .app is removed.

Originally posted by imjake9
There are always fewer background processes running on Macs than on Windows. A Mac with the same amount of RAM as a Windows PC runs more smoothly. I know from personal experience.

I can confirm this as well. A buddy of mine is running a 3-4 GB DDR3 memory on his Dell (windows 7) laptop, while I myself am running 2 GB of DDR3 memory on my Macbook. My Macbook was able to perform a lot faster then his from a side by side comparison. Everything was able to work very nicely and with reasonably fast speed.

Originally posted by imjake9
In fact, Apple took a leaf out of Linux's book with the Mac App Store. Only time will tell if it was a good idea, Apple being the control freak company it is.

The only thing that I don't like out of this is the fact that most of the applications have to be paid for in some way. I've looked through a vast majority of the applications and I have found only a small handfull of applications that were free. Sure you can pirate the ones that aren't, but I'd rather get the full version straight from the App Store. Although I am truly glad everything has been collected in one place similar to the Software Center, it certainly does make things a lot easier to find.

Yeah, really more extra comments then anything. Yes, I am a Mac user myself; however as I mentioned I really do like using Linux Distros considering I have a computer that now solely runs Ubuntu. I've been running that for a little over a week and I absolutely love it. A lot faster then the old Windows XP and a lot easier to use; although I've been having problems with CPU usage on Ubuntu. But either way, I digress considering that isn't the topic at hand.

--------------------
AnimeList | MangaList
I WOULD use Ubuntu, but my dad made me move back to Windows XP to burn his CDs and stuff... D:<
AND I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO BACK UP MY STUFF. #w{>=(}

I plan to get a new hard drive and install Linux on that... :DDD

--------------------
Revelation 20-21: He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus! The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Originally posted by Livin4Jesus
I WOULD use Ubuntu, but my dad made me move back to Windows XP to burn his CDs and stuff... D:<
AND I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO BACK UP MY STUFF. #w{>=(}

I plan to get a new hard drive and install Linux on that... :DDD



A word of warning, windows does not like being on a secondary hard drive, so you will need to make sure the MBR(master boot record) and the windows install are on the first hard drive. Alternatively you can "map" the hard drives via grub providing another solution. The reason this happens is because windows does not follow the multi OS standards, making multiple OSes sometimes a bit more tricky. (One can only suspect this is intentional, with the purpose to try and lock you into using only windows....)

Here would be an example of Grub2 configuration for such a set up(I assume the windows partition would be on sdb1, in this would be any drive really).

Code
menuentry "Windows XP"{
     drivemap (hd0) (hd1)
     drivemap (hd1) (hd0)
     set root=(hd0)
     chainloader  (hd1,1)+1
}


Just figured I should give you the heads up to look into this before you hit the problem.
Originally posted by E-Man
I'd also like to point out that there is the option of using Parallels on a Mac as well. I'd personally rather have that then having to constantly switch OSes every time. Then again that alone runs around $200 if I remember correctly.

On Linux (Or even Mac) you can get Sun VirtualBox, which is like Parallels, except completely free (GNU).
Originally posted by HuFlungDu
Originally posted by E-Man
I'd also like to point out that there is the option of using Parallels on a Mac as well. I'd personally rather have that then having to constantly switch OSes every time. Then again that alone runs around $200 if I remember correctly.

On Linux (Or even Mac) you can get Sun VirtualBox, which is like Parallels, except completely free (GNU).


Correction, sun was bought out. It is now Oracle Virtual Box, still free though.
Windows, if only for the familiarity. I have used Mac last term for my computer art courses (and probably will again this term), and I like how it handles graphical applications way more than on my home computer, though being the person that I am, I can't afford even a new standard PC and then installing a Mac on that.

I've also dabbled in Debian and Ubuntu. I think I prefer Ubuntu better because there's an ease of use compared to Debian, but I don't really know what I can specifically use for that, other than toying around and getting a feel for Linux.

I've heard of Solarus, FreeBSD, DragonFly, and several other OSes other than the big three, but I haven't really gotten around to playing with any of them.

--------------------
Windows. I've used that since Win98 came out.
But I have used Linux as well (eg. Linux Mint) and it's awesome. I would start using it more often since it has everything that I need to start working.

Mac: I have never used any of the Apple products and I don't know how stable is OS X...


Though I love my macbook, I would say that it takes a back seat to windows, though I act like a mac extremest, I really love windows,being raised with 95,as well as the fact that, mac is a little screwy with the rare conveniences you can download for free, for example I try to compress my files on my flashdrive so I start with 50MB free, I move all of my files that are open and then compress them, I delete all doubles and accidental shortcuts(wasn't very organized), and take of all major files (I had one that took up 1GB) and when I checked I only had 15MB,so it's a pain to organize and unclutter on mac. And they are horribly incompatible with the world, their word processor is horrible, and terminal is a joke compared to cmd.exe,or even DOS. What I do like is that if there is new technology out there Mac has it first, I mean the power supply is magnetically attached to the computer, as well as the screen uses magnets to close. The are VERY nice short cuts, and the touch pad makes windows laptop touchpads look like a joke. And the apps the mac has are look way more professional and when used right can be amazing.But being raised on PC I can clearly see how much of a pain in the ass working with mac is. Everything is incompatible,and all the programs that came with it are horribly basic,like iMovie, I tried to make an AMV, but the damn is even worse then the new version of movie maker on 7, I mean it's bloody awefull, and every tutorial on how to use it is an hour long, or doesn't tell you how to do anything because it's just marketing for mac. As for linux, though I haven't used it I imagine it to be worse considering that it is not only based off unix, but is even less mainstream then mac, so compatibility must be a nightmarish hell.For the price of my mac, if my parents didn't care so much(birthday present) I would sell it, and all the soft ware in a heartbeat for an Alienware laptop, the cheapest alien ware at the time I got my mac was on sale for $800, and I repeatedly told my parents mac sucked, but my dad thought I said that because I kept saying it sucked must mean that I was hinting that I wanted one, and of coarse the guy at the Apple store said"he had no idea what alien ware was, I think your son is confusing it with the macbook air".So when I told them how flustered I was they got extremely offended and said that if I wanted an alien ware so badly, then I should give them the mac(for free since they bought it) and that I should buy my own computer,I practicly had my parents in tears, I felt like shit, and I hated my computer.All I wanted was to get their money back, and then save them $200 in buying an alien ware. I want to find the mac sales man that caused this shit on me shove the computer up his ass, take double my money back, and beat the fucking shit out of him for thinking that an electronics technician was confusing mac and Alienware, just because his mac eleitest self can't look past his own nose to see that not everyone's son is a ignorant five year old. And that is why I like PC! Plus my friend and I tested it, an area 51 alien ware, with max components, and the most expensive case, not only has doubled the amount of hardware and software capabilities than the best Mac, but believe it or not is $5,000 cheaper.
Yay I finally got a layout! I feel like I am officially a member now, so this being the case, I don't know to much about chocolate hacks, but feel free to let me beta test any vanilla hacks.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 » Link
Forum Index - Donut Plains - Computers & Technology - Mac, Windows, or Linux?

The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.

Copyright © 2005 - 2021 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Privacy Policy - Link To Us


Menu

Follow Us On

  • YouTube
  • Twitch
  • Twitter

Affiliates

  • Super Mario Bros. X Community
  • ROMhacking.net
  • Mario Fan Games Galaxy
  • sm64romhacks