MAC vs. PC! LET'S GET IT ON!
 

I am CONSTINTULY moving between a PC and A Mac all day. I am a HUGE Mac fan, I guess you could call me one of those "Switchers" I bought my first Mac back in 2000!


Well anyways, I figured I could poll some of the most intelligent youth on this earth here (or maybe not) but anyways Post what you think and why!


- Imatt

Go mac Go!

OS X is BSD... and I think there was a thread like this before. Oh yeah, I picked *nix, because Windows is the nazi. Macs are swell too though, but they aint open source are they?

I am cool with Mac hardware... it's the software that makes me mad... I hate the operating systems...

I too picked *nix, even though im running 2k right now... I am a self-proclaimed hipocrite, please stone me to death.

ps... what a great troll thread...

Mac OS 9 with a windows emulator and compatability software will beat the crap out of the equivalent windows pc

The first computer I ever used was an apple and the first one my family ever owned was an apple too. Currently in my house there are 4 PCs and a Linux router. All the new apple products look really cool (except for the new iMac). An apple you just plug it in, turn it on, it works. With windows there is a lot to configure and set up and it gets messed up kind of easily like in my Windows 98 SE sound works in everything except Media Player 7.1 Wierd huh? However, with windows 2000, you have a system that almost never gets stuck or crashes. If you bump up to XP, it is virtually goof proof. Another thing to keep in mind is that you can buy 2 PCs for the same price as 1 comparable Mac. I actually have frozen a Mac Power PC before but that was only once ever and those are kind of old. With Macs you can have the security of knowing that whatever you do it will keep working. However, I do feel that a window's environment is eaisier to navigate and work in. Also notice that it is most always the PCs that are on the cutting edge of new technology. Someday, Macs and PCs will be very alike. Until then you just really have to own both because I really can't pick one that's better.

Mac OS X is one of the best OS's you will find out there.

Its simple, its powerful, and it rarely crashes.

I have always like Macs because I always have bad experiences with Windows. At work on Friday, I had to fix 2 W2k machines all day, they drive me insane.

Mac OS 10.2 coming out in the month, has so many features in it, that just makes the best experiences of computing you can have.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/

The Imac is a good consumer solution, it provides all of the solutions and software you can ever need.

Its pro line has much to desired though. There pro line still has SDRAM, which is OK for consumer, but it is not so great for professional users. And they way overpriced for what they are really worth. However, Motorola just announced the G5, and there were leaked sources that Apple's next generation of their pro line will also include DDR RAM.

Macs have most of the software you will ever need. Macs also have the iapps, that are really good for music, movies, burning dvds, photos, syncing, and makes a really good organizer.

Macs does have a lot of games, but it is not a gaming platform. Personally I think I have outgrown games, and really own play them when I have my friends over.

Windows is OK, but I have always felt that its features were a knock-off of other products.

I prefer PC myself, but Macs do have many good points. Most of them I know of have already been said, so I won't get into that. I will say, however, that for ease of use, you can't beat a Mac. You don't have as much power, software, or games, but they sure are simple and easy. I enjoy using Macs, but for my needs, I can't say I'd ever buy one. It's just not for me.

Imagine a solar powered car. It has superb efficency, never get's into accidents, costs half as much as a normal car and looks great too! But, imagine this, it only runs on 3% (official percentage of macs vs. any other os) of all the roads...

'nuff said. I voted for xp. go, xp, go!

if macs were as good for games and things like that, i would rush to buy one. unfortunately, most games are made for PCs, so i use PCs. also the fact that my dad used to work at IBM, so he's been using PCs since they came out :D. windows still does leave much to be desired, but since it's the majority, i have to go with the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" idea.

Anybody else out there hear about or use IBM's Os/2. I'm using it right now. Its stable fast runs on x86 and does all the things I want to do without the hassles of Windows.

What applications do you run on it?

is OS/2 related in any way to unix?

Here's a screenshot of my PC. You can see it has a similar appearance to that of Nifty Doorways.
I tried to shove several of the apps that I use into one picture so you can see what's available.

I use Lotus Smartsuite for my typing and Office equivalent. Its so nice not to have that paperclip. You can see it in the upper corner. In the lower left is a media player. On the right you can see AIM and in the middle is Mozilla or Netscape 6.
In the lower left one of the coolest features is the command prompt. Those of you who use NT should know what this is but for those who don't it allows you to type commands instead of clicking. Much faster if you know what your doing.

To answer your other question Os/2 is not related to Unix. Os/2 was a joint project started around 88 by Microsoft and IBM to produce the successor to DOS. Microsoft screwed IBM halfway through the project and took there code and made NT. IBM took there code and made Os/2. I think Os/2 is a far superior product.

if you are referring to windows xp i dont like it that much just because when you are used to a set format like windows 95 or 98 it is different and you have to reajust everything so that is even remotelly simmilar and i guess the only good thing about it is that everyone in my family can have there own settings but other than that i dont like it at all

OS/2 was renowned for running windows applications better then windows did. However, Microsoft had the right marketing and got windows installed on all new computers and OS/2 could not compete after that.

I run linux on my laptop, been in windows once in the last 3 weeks. If I was buying another laptop, it would probably be a new ibook.

PC!
 

I've never had much experience with MACs, so I'm voting for PC. I'm a gamer, and alot of games are only on PC. You have to specially order and seek out the Mac version of the game, and that's a hassle. Windows does mess up quite often, unless you have XP, that's cool, but I don't like the way Macs run. But, can Jeff Goldbloom be wrong?? I mean, he did escape Jurrasic Park twice.

Ha ha, I totaly forgot about those old commercials. He also Survived ID4!

Ever thought why PC became more popular even though in some of the aspects Macs where far superior? It is the fact that everything on PC is standardized which allowed people to develop software and hardware for it easily while Apple decided to use proprietary standards to shelter its creation. So in order to compare a Mac to a PC you need to define both, with Macs it is not like you have too many choices, but with hundreds innovations introduced each day on the PC it is not as easy. An “average” (which is vague term) PC which consists of parts primarily chosen on the basis of pricing is inferior to the Mac’s tightly controlled hardware. So if you are buying your grandma a computer, get her a Mac. But if you “really” know what you are doing and have a deep pocket you can create a machine that will blow any Mac away in every aspect, including design. I have seen quite a few awesome PC cases with glass windows and the interiors lit by backlights, and LCD displays mounted in the front, which will make any Mac look like a cardboard box. Combined with top of the crop hardware innovations you can have a machine that will outperform any Mac ever built. On the software end of the spectrum I do not think I even have to argue, don’t like Windows? There are dozens of operations systems running on x86 platform. On Macs it is not like you have got a choice.

Macs are excellent machines for those who have no time for tweaking. PC can be a great bargain, but then do not try to compare a $500 PC to $3000 G4. But for those who really know what they are doing (NOT NERD WANNA BEs), with enough money and time you can have the Ultimate Machine, doing stuff Steve Jobs is only dreaming of.

Eugene

P.S. My knowledge in this area is quite outdated, and I would appreciate any corrections.

P.P.S. Just my 2 cents.

A few qustions about OS/2:

So, can OS/2 run most Windows programs without difficulty? (That's what I gathered, at least)

Also, how long have you been running OS/2? How do you get it? Does IBM still give tech support?

i'm guessing that OS/2 does not run current windows programs (something developed for say XP) as well as it does the older stuff. but, then again, XP is based on NT, and NT is based on the same exact code as OS/2 (or that's what my dad told me).

i was just thinking of something else rather interesting. my dad used to work for IBM, so he has many friends that work(ed) for IBM. about 8 or 9 years ago, i moved to LI, and everyone else moved (from the Kingston, NY area, where IBM shut down a building). so, when we have old friends over, they all talk about how they were quite literally outside the door when the executives at IBM decided not to buy out Gates, cause it would be bad business practices. it's quite interesting to think what would have happened if someone who was smart ran through the door yelling "BUY OUT GATES!!" :p. i'd love to know how things would have turned out without microsoft coming and super marketing his horribly unstable version of OS/2 :D.

Well Sortof, Os/2 can run windows 3.1 programs better than NT or XP can and a lot of simple windows 32 bits like AIM will run if you try them under Odin (which converts them, its a partner project to WINE for you linux guys)
I've been using it for about 4 to 5 years mostly because my dad had been using it since it came out. But you can still order it from IBM or better yet the new company that is taking the base product and adding new features to it kind of like a Linux distro at www.ecomstation.com. ecomstation=Os/2 with more features

As for technical support IBM is commited to providing bug fixes until the year 2007. Which is better than any Microsoft product. How long did it take them to drop ME?

So anyway I think Os/2 is better and thats what i use and enjoy. It doesn't run all the latest games so I do need to boot windows occasionally, but when its one o'clock in the morning and I need to type a report i know when i boot up my PC it won't crash half way through and make me lose everything.

Mac, PC (without Windows)
 

As a professional programmer and system administrator for the past 20 years, I've always been a Unix fan.

I've been using Linux for over 5 years now and I wouldn't change, though I am tempted by the new Macs running OS X (FreeBSD variant).

I used to have one of the original Macs and a Mac II. Those were good machines back then, but Apple failed to stay ahead of Windows with the OS. Now they've caught up and surpassed Windows with OS X.

I will eventually be retiring my wife's PII Windows PC and replacing it with a Mac. My son will get a new Windows PC just because of the games we have.

The wife's old PII PC will be relegated to the basement lab as a robotics development machine.

Windows, I've found, just was never reliable enough without having to be reloaded now and then. Of all the Windows versions, I find Windows 2000 to be the most stable of them all.

As far as number crunching power goes, I like the 64 bit Alphas, but the PowerPCs are pretty fast too. I'm waiting on the 64 bit AMD Hammer chip.

Macs found to be 36% cheaper to operate than PC's
 

Apple last year hired a market research group to conduct a survey at Melbourne University - which operates a mixed network with thousands of computers- to see how the costs of operating Mac's versus PC's worked out.

The Macs were found to be 36 percent less costly to operate.

Here is one link I found that gives the whole story:

http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...e15309,00.html

So if Macs are cheaper to operate, why are there more Windows machines in use.

Years ago (in the beginning...), Apple had the majority of the PC market with the Apple II, but then IBM stepped into the market with the original IBM PC, and took over the market. (The Apple III was a big failure. Besides, people knew that "no one ever got fired for buying IBM".)
Bill Gates made a deal with Apple to support the Mac (with Microsoft Word and Excel) in exchange for the rights to use aspects of the Mac OS, and he created Windows. (I recall reading somewhere, that Bill Gates originally wanted to help Apple to spread it's Mac OS to other platforms, but Apple didn't go for it. Too greedy I guess.)

So while Apple was still being very proprietory, new companies were starting up and whipping out PC clones left, right and center. IBM lost control of their own market. They tried to come out with a more proprietory version (with a patented Micro Channel Bus for plugging in perpherals) but it was too late. The PC world didn't need IBM any more. So here we are with a gazillion PC clones and only one Mac (although Apple did allow cloning agreements for a while.)

However now that all the new Macs use a version of Unix, it seems that Microsoft may become the odd man out. Of course only time will tell, but it appears that the Linux/Solaris crowd has much more in common with Mac OS X now than with Windows, and I suspect that we will see a lot of software being ported from the Unix world to the Mac. It's going to be interesting.

but once again, to the casual teenage computer user, windows will be the OS of choice. why? simple, something close to all the games that most people want run only in windows. the ones that do run on mac are only converted way after the original came out for windows. so, as long as we're playing games, and games are created for windows, windows will be the OS of choice.

After the painful times of Windows 3.1, I finally upgraded to my first PC with Windows 95. With my Pentium 1 and 8 mb of memory I was flying in the world of computers.:p Well, then the computer evolution came blowing everything out of porportion into large numbers, and I had to get a new computer. Well this new state of the art machine I got had 128 mb, 10Gb, Celeron 500, and Windows 98. This was perfect for me in the computer world. Well, I decided to get new memory in June, and after wanting to get my computer in top shape, I found out my hard drive had died. So after many $$$$ later, I now have an almost new machine with 256 mb, 60 Gb ATA 133 7200 RPM Hard Drive, and Windows XP!

I can't say anything bad against XP yet except for one thing: it may be something as simple as security settings, but I am unable to access many pages on the internet. Including both the FIRST page, my team page, and the Pennsylvania website. Any suggestions?

If I had the patience to try it out, and my mom would feel like learning about a new OS, I would really like to give Linux a fair chance. However, I have always shunned away from Macs, and will never own one.

Gates bought (read: stole) QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) way back in the day.

I need to research this more, and I'm working from seeing Pirates of Silicon Valley, but I know for a fact that Bill Gates did not write DOS...

Ahh, but that's the advantage of dual-booting. The less things you install under windows the less of a chance you have of blowing up the system. That's why I boot windows to play games and then use Os/2 for everything else. That way when windows(Fillin which ever version Microsoft is currently shoving down our throats) blows up I don't lose anything important.

Re: Macs found to be 36% cheaper to operate than PC's
 

Windows became the dominant OS in a very interesting way. It was half because of bad decisions of Apple executives, and half because of Microsoft winning the famous court case, saying the GUI didn't belong to anyone. Apple thought the they were the only GUI that could ever exist. So they made all of their hardware and software so different that Windows. They also didn't license their OS to other computer companies. They also charged developers for "the privilege to write Macintosh Software." Which were all really bad decisions. After Windows 3.1 came out and Steve Jobs was fired, the Mac was left to rot by 3 really bad CEO's that did nothing to stabilize the Mac. In mid-1997 with Apple almost facing certain bankruptcy, Steve Jobs returned as CEO and completely re-amped the company. He joined the partnership with Microsoft, introduced the iMac, and completely new computers, and whole lot of new software that brought the company back to profitability. Over the past 5 years Apple completely redid its entire company plan, by using PC standards like USB, PCI, and so on, that stabilized the company. Mac OS X introduced almost 2 years ago was an OS that was based on standards, in response to Microsoft moving away from open standards, and inventing their own standards. Anyways, its a really intrusting OS battle out their. With the 2 OS's being Windows XP, Unix(Mac OS X)/Linux. Since Microsoft had their anti-trust law suit, they actually trying to loose market share, and make software for Mac, so Microsoft can remain a whole company. Microsoft and Apple will be around for a long time, how long, who knows, depends on what happens to market. In conclusion, both companies are completely different now, than what they were 10 years ago.

Just a side note on game side. At the recent E3 conference a month ago, a company has a product in the works that using its own graphical type programming language specially deigned for 3d games, and can be converted to PC, Mac OS X, PS2, X-box, and the Cube very easily. Which will considerably cut cost and make their product more widely available.

At one time, all the computer games ran on the Apple II. In other words, markets can shift over time. Sure, the PC will be the most popular gaming computer for a while. However did you happen to notice that Warcraft III, the biggest game release in history, was released on the Mac and PC simultaneously. In fact the same disk works on both operating systems. If the Mac gains market share (which I believe is occurring), more people will make games for it, and then more people will buy it, etc. In other words, there will be a rolling snow ball effect.

Basically the Mac has to crack the business market. If that happens in a big way, the Mac will take off.

With Mac OS X, Unix programmers finally have a way to create a program that your grandmother can use. And there are a lot of unix programmers who are very good at what they do.

Five years from now, I expect to see that the Mac/Unix world has gained a lot of market share from Windows, and we will have kick-%%% games coming out of our ears. Why? Because a lot of those unix programmers hate Microsoft (because of it's destruction of Netscape- the company, and it's tight licensing activities, to name just a couple of reasons) but those programmers need an outlet for their creativity. In fact, one of the reasons that unix programmers work on Linux for free is so that they don't have to use Microsofts products. (Linux is free.) Maybe Apple will be able to maintain a better relationship with those programmers, in which case the sky is the limit.

It could be a whole new ball game which makes me happy.

I remember a Windows 95 computer that crashed at our school. I went to reiinstall Windows 95 but the computer told me that it was the wrong Windows 95 disk. I tried every Windows 95 disk we had--about 5 of them, and I got the same message. So I erased the hard disk. But of course then the CD drive wouldn't work. So I had to find a CD driver to put on the floppy boot disk. When I finally got Windows installing, the computer asked for my OEM (original equipment manufacturer) number, which I didn't have because it was a donated computer. That was just the beginning of the saga. It took about 8 weeks to get that computer going again.

On a Mac, you hold down the "C" key and the computer boots off the CD. And I have never needed a OEM number to install the Mac OS.

Now with OS X, I expect that we won't have to worry about reinstalling the OS. OS X is unix with a pretty face, and unix was around before Windows was in diapers. The result is that OS X has all the bells and whistles of a modern operating system, with the bugs gotten out.

Like I said, it's going to be a whole new ball game.

Re: Re: Macs found to be 36% cheaper to operate than PC's
 

Have you ever taken a look at the Microsoft developer kit. The tools you need to produce commercial products is in the thousands.

I am also 95% sure that the new language your talking about is a set of new java instructions specifically designed for games.

Re: Re: Re: Macs found to be 36% cheaper to operate than PC's
 

I believe he's talking about Nvidia's newest thing, Cg, or C for Graphics...

You can read more about it at a few different places:
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=IO_20020612_6724
http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...nested&tid=152

Too lazy to look up more stuff right now...

I was thinking it might have been this http://java.sun.com/products/java-media/3D/

Translating Games
 

I actually mean this

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...ingdetails.php

hmm, where to start...

dual boots, well, linux and windows dual boots dont' work all that well, unless you have a huge partitioned HD. so, in that case, i rebuilt an old PC to run linux, so i could learn it. i managed to get samba to work, but then forgot every command cause i'm a mornon. so, now i have a nice stable file server. the computer has been running for several weeks now, without a reboot. quite amazing, cause i usually had to reboot my windows PC at least once a day.

about the OS/2 / windows dual boot, that's an interesting idea, i may try to get a copy of OS/2, although my dad will probably laugh at me (he thinks that OS/2 is outdated, which, it sort of is)... :D

as to all the games, i wasn't aware that warcraft III came out for both mac and pc (i haven't gotten it). if macs start getting the larger share of computer games, i would gladly switch over to macs, and relearn the OS. that's another problem. many people have been 'brought up' on windows. i struggled with linux, even in the GUI, to learn where everything is. i still struggle with linux, because it's still completely new. the fact that each GUI is different doesn't help.

all in all, i'd love to see microsoft shot down, and for IBM and Apple to come back as the top players. their OS's are much better, and they have much longer lives. also, with the rumors i've heard about windows pallidan, well, i'm not too thrilled with microsoft.

another interesting disney tidbit....

this year during nats, me and my friends went to MGM. so, we go on tower of terror. of course, we all make crazy faces and such for the pic (i think that time we were all in the 'Rock On" pose :p). so, we get out, and rush to the moniters. instead of a picture, we see the windows 2000 server logo. we went to rocking roller coaster, same thing happened. we had a huge laugh about windows and it's instability. i wonder if they ever fixed the problem...

I sure hope 2K isnt running the actual ride! :confused:

haha
no way, they use PBASIC for all their rides...

check out www.ecomstation.com
ecomstation and Os/2 are the same for all intensive purposes and the newest version is scheduled to come out in the next month.

As to that ATM I'm sure people in Sweden don't like to see http://www.tricknology.org/fun/jpg/sparbanken1.jpg when they try and withdraw their money.

Since I would be a PC Tech. I know what would be the better choice.


Windows 95 and up
Windows NT and 2000 server


Macs are not the way to go Since if they break down you can't find spare parts in a Staples or Circuit City. You would have to order them straight from the manufacturer. Whereas PC's if you break it you can go to almost any electronics store and buy the part you need. The same thing with software. You can't buy much MAC software in a electronic / computer store. where as IBM/Compatible PC's you can go to even a toy store and pick up software for you PC. Basically you want a PC thats reliable has upgradable options and something where you can walk in any store and be able to pick up both hardware or software with no problem what so ever.


Mike

P.S.

DELL
COMPAQ
IBM
GATEWAY
HEWLETT PACKARD
EMACHINES
NEC
ETC. . .

are all very good pc's

pentium 4 / amd athlon xp version

I just want to clarify a few things on Macs.

First off, Macs now use standards both in hardware and software. Now in an extremely rare case that Macintosh Hardware breaks down, everything could be picked up at a standard hardware place, except for the motherboard I believe. Macs use SD RAM, DDR RAM, ATA, USB, etc. Well I can't say all the parts will be out in the open, you may have to do a little digging, but you will find out that you probably won't have to buy anything. And even if the system requirements says its for PC only, it will most likely work on a Mac. In the 5 years I have owned my Beige G3 233mhz, the only hardware failure I have had was my original hard drive, buts that’s because I forgot to defrag it. I also had to replace my system battery (at Radio Shack), but that was regular maintenance.

Plus their are several places in retail that you can buy parts and software like Apple own retail shows , Comp USA, and several other small stores.

Also Circuit City and Staples were once places where you could buy Macintosh Software and Hardware, but Apple didn't renew their contract because they wanted to sell their own stuff in their retail stores. Apple ended their relationship with Staples about a year ago, and they just ended their relationship with Circuit City a few months ago.

Maintenance should not be a considering issue when you are buying a computer. If you expect you expect a computer to break down, than you should consider getting a different computer. However reliability should be a considering factor. For example an E-machine is less reliable than say an IBM or a Dell. There was a whole thing on reliability in PCWORLD.com (I think)

I am not a salesman, but I don't want you to off with the wrong information.

I was agreeing with you until there. the only reputable companies there are dell (tech support, solid setups), and nec (only for their monitors).

I would highly suggest to anyone looking for a new computer to build it themselves. You save a lot of money, and learn a lot of troubleshooting along the way - so you dont ever need tech support. It is really not at all hard, and you get a lot of gratification out of it - knowing that you built it.

~my workstation is done now, honest

I do agree with gniticxe you want a good monitor go with NEC you want a good PC go with dell. E-Machines however are bad computers but they are way better then the infamous Packard Bell.

If you want a computer that has less of a chance to break then Build your own. Its cheaper. And you know indefinitely what is in it. I know people who build their own machines and have lasted them 10 years.

IBM is great for Businesses
Gateway is great for Businesses and Home
NEC is great for businesses
Dell is great for businesses and home
E-Machines is great for home
Hewlett Packard is great for Home
Compaq is great for Business and Home

When you build your own PC you learn about all sorts of new things Troubleshooting and such. You save alot of money both by buying parts and Tech support since you can repair what you built.


I have an emachine it has not broken down on me it has frozen up 2 but that was only b/c it has not been fragged over a long time period. Emachine does have its bad parts but since i've purchased it there have not been any major failures. Where as my Packard Bell which i have had for 6 years has had both hardware / software problems. Packard Bell / Emchines both have bad streaks but work great when the streaks are found and are properly delt with.

Dell - PII - 266mhz - Win 98 SE - 64 RAM
Emachines - AMD Athlon XP - 1600Mhz - Win XP - 256 RAM
Packard Bell - Celeron - 366mhz - WIN 98 SE - 192 RAM

these are all machines that have been owned by me and the only machine i had problems with is Packard Bell. - Thank God they went out of business. Dell no poblems and Emachine freezups when not properly maintained.

*sigh* too many posts, I cant read em all...
Alright, unlike some of the chicks on my team *evil eyes Sarah* I HATE MACS! I think they're s evil.. I mean.. the imac.. what a horrible invention... all it is is an internet terminal. I find macs terribly confusing.. who has abutton on the keyboard that turns the thing on? Who does that?! What a pain, they've tormented me since I first saw them.. so pointless! ugh.. anywayz, i could go on like this for hours.. but I had a fun day and the craziness is wearing off, thus I'm falling asleep and my fingers are getting sore.
*hugz to all as alwayz*
Ann-Marie -team 783
PS. MACS ARE EVIL.. if you didn't notice... ok I'm done... promise!

People often tend to blur the lines between operating systems, architectures, and processors. All this talk about Macintosh VS "PC"...

Just because you own an Apple Macintosh computer doesn't mean you run MacOS on it. Guess what? Linux, BSD, and various other operating systems run on that architecture. AmigaOS (Hey! Amiga wasn't in that poll...) runs on the 68k, which all macs up until the PowerPC were based on. Of course, the Amiga is a *TOTALLY* different architecture than any home computer we have avalible today. Oh guess what? See that PalmOS device in your pocket? That runs on a DragonBall processor... a "modern" version of the 68k line.

"PC" is a very vauge term! What most people mean when they say "PC" is "IBM-Compatible". This is the predominant architecture for the x86 processor developed by Intel. This architecture runs all kinds of opeating systems... DOS, OS/2, Linux, BSD, Windows, BeOS, not to mention tons of small OSes. Did you know that there are lots of implementations of DOS? It's not just a Microsoft product... FreeDOS, OpenDOS, DrDOS, .... Speaking of BeOS... that was an operating system origanally indended to run on the BeBox, an architecture cerated by Be, Inc. that quiclky died.

No one has mentioned Sun, Next, DEC, or a million other companies.

SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, ARM, ... the list goes on and on and on.

There is really a heck of a lot more to the world of computing than the things that sit on the desks of most people.

Check out the TUNES OS Review to get somewhat of an idea of how many operating systems are out there.

Of course... there's always the systems like Squeak (SmallTalk-80) that blur the lines between operating system, programming langauge, and applications...

</rant>

Varity is the spice of life.
 

Nicely put Jon. :D

As for me, Win2k.

When used properly, it is plenty stable. 20+ day uptime regularly.
When using Kazaa and other junky software, uptime drops dramaticly. Only other times I get instabiliy was overclocking to far and running specific software. Benchmarking software, Kazaa, WMP are amoung the few that I have had problems with


I also prefer PC's because of the many more options. While macs are begining to use standard parts, the expansion slots are not there. Mac's are desinged to be easy to use, you never have to open it up or understand how it works.
Me, I've been building my own systems since I was 8...
ahh....the good old days with the 386...it still works, BTW. Running DOS 6.2, with Linux going on it when I go find another NIC(network interface card) to stick in it.
My current system is about 4 months old. By getting a pc, I was able to configure it how I wanted.

Aluminum case
cdRw
40gb 7200rpm HD
256mb DDR ram
Ge2 64mb
Soyo Dragon Plus motherboard
Athlon XP 1700+

Got exatly what I wanted, and for $1200, including the 19" flat screen monitor.

Macs may look nicer then some pc's, but when I buff my case, it is nice and shinny...:D


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you ever tried to overclock a mac?
Any incoheance I blame on Jim.

Re: Varity is the spice of life.
 

I'm flattered!
:)

Dual boot! You've got enough room on that 60gb now :) I could help you get Mandrake Linux running in less than an hour!

As for me...go linux! Debian Woody (Unstable/testing...haven't upgraded to stable Woody...working on it, though) running 2.4.19 with WindowMaker.

My computer history:

Had 2 Commodore 64's back when I was a young'n. Nice computers...I was sad when companies stopped developing for them.
In 1994, we replaced the outdated C64s with a 486. We paid quite a bit for this computer. It ran Windows 3.1 then we *borrowed* Windows 95 from a friend and upgraded :) I think we then got the internet in that year. How does it feel to be the only kid in your school with the internet? Uhh...bad. (I was the only kid with broadband until last year) In the greater range of $4000. After a lightening storm in 1998, we had to replace the 486 since it got fried. It was replaced by a p2-400 with Windows 98. When trying to copy data from my old hard drive onto the computer, I fried the hard drive :D (The old one, that is) I learned then that the computer must be OFF when plugging in a molex connector :D Then, in 2000, the P2 got fried. My parents just ditched the computer! AHH! 2 13gb hard drives, 1 40gb hd, a promise ata 100 card, and I ALMOST lost my dvd-rom! (I did save the DVD-rom drive, luckily) That P2 was the first computer I put linux on. I started with Redhat 5.2 I believe. I installed Redhat 6.2 on it over 5.2 later on. The computer I am on now is a P3-1ghz. I haven't done much with it due to the lack of money. It came with a semi-decent videocard (Nvidia geforce2 mx200 32mb) It also lacks hard drive space. 20 gb is not nearly enough. (I had my old 40gb filled with mp3s) I've upgraded my memory in this from 128 to 384mb. I also put in my DVD-Rom drive. Dvd's in linux are nice. I'd like to get surround sound, a new hard drive, and a good NVidia card with TV-in/out and all that other fun stuff.

I've had more computers than girlfriends. I guess that's okay though since computers are much easier to understand :) (Heh...I have more heads than girlfriends.)

another windows failure...

at BNL today, we were touring the tandem Van de Graaffs. big thigns that create heavy ions for the collider we have. walking through the control room, i noticed a computer moniter with the windows ME task manager thing. it had a big '[NOT RESPONDING]' thing next to internet explorer. i'm hoping that wasn't used to control the van de graaffs. be kinda bad if it crashed while they were running.

First, if I wasn't lazy, and didn't care about making my mom mad, I would do it. Maybe I could load it on that old one that sits at the bottom of the stairs!

Second, hehehe, stop the insanity you are hurting my spleen! Sorry, that was mean. You could always marry your computer! Maybe you'll be lucky and a female geek will join the team next year!


I can't say anything bad about my Packard Bell. That thing was awesome, no matter what I bought hardware or software, I could always get it to load. Even years after it was outdated, after messing with it for a while it would load anything. As for Dell, have you ever cracked one of those cases? Blah, they are horrible creations with wasted plastic. Hewlett Packard does not make me happy with support, you have to pay aroun $40 a minute to talk to a technician, and every call is long distance.

That goes for me, too... :D

i won't even comment on the girlfriend to computer ratio...

Well, just a couple small things...

First off, don't compare anything to Win 9x... it's not used anymore, and of course it has problems. That's why it's not run anymore :D So comparing OSX to 9x, OSX will obviously win. Try comparing 9x to 9.x. I'm willing to say that 9.x has more problems then Windows 98. And the biggest problem is, you don't have the control in a Mac enviroment that you do in a Windows enviroment. (Yes, I do work on macs. We have 4 G4's and 1 G3 and about 150 pc's where I work, and we have more problems per mac then we do per pc. They're horrible machines, and when something goes wrong, we usually have to call a specialist because we're unable to recover it ourselves.)

Anyhow, as for current OS's, the only reason you should have to use a mac is graphical projects. Even then, the newer PC processors are so fast at crunching numbers, they're just as fast, if not faster, then the macs at graphical applications.

To say that an operating system is not used anymore is not really the most openminded thing a person can say. I have more than one computer in this house running Windows 9x, so that makes your first real point untrue, and invalid.

I'm not going to talk about OS X vs. Win9x.

Second, the statement that "the only reason you should have to use a mac is graphical projects" is insane.
How many of those Apple.com/switch commercials do you see with people talking about "The only reason I got a Mac was to produce professional quality computer animations"? None.

Gargargar. I could have elaborated a lot more, and been more concise, but I have this tendency not to be able to do that when I'm pissed off...

Yikes!

I think (correct me if I am way wrong) Dave would like people to compare equal versions in their arguments. It is 'unfair' to say that Mac OSX is so much more trouble free and full of features than Windows 3.1 or that Windows 98 crashes so much more than the latest Mac's. Your argument holds a little more water when you say XP might not be as stable as OSX (which I can't comment on but I will tell you my 2k machines are rock solid)

Mac's look nice, I am sure they have quality hardware in them but they are not me, and why do people who use Mac's always run Windows emulators anyway????;)

No one can correct you but Dave, himself.

My first comment was supposed to state that one shouldn't just disregard an operating system from conversation because they think "it's not used anymore, and it has problems." All operating systems have problems. Some are more compatible than others. Some are more stable than others.

We have some 2k machines at NASA, and the one I am on STINKS!!! It crashes maybe once every 2.5 days, and above that I get programs not responding at maybe 1 per half hour!!! I can barely get work done w/o having something fail.

That beeing said, I didn't set up/install those machines, and I don't know who has done what with them. Maybe if I got a fresh win2k install, with no outside programs, then everything would work fine. But the problem I have with windows is that strange bugs seem to just show up. Now, I do have win98 here at home, but the next time we get a new computer, that will change to linux. (I have a 4gb hard drive now, so dual boot's not a good option for me.)

Recently, though, I've started using a friend's server (I connect w/ ssh), which runs debian on it. I do some simple hacking (perl/C) on it, and play around with some simple commands to get used to linux, mainly. After a week on it, grep and man are my new favorite friends now :)

Stephen, who will be windows free definitely by the time he goes to college

I believe it is all a personal decision. Depending on what you have 'inside' will affect your OS stability. Either way, windows is never completely stabble, but is other OS's any better? If you re-load windows when your system shows unstability, you should be fine. If your system is that unstable, you probably need more memory.

heres what i see as pros and cons of diff operating systems with macs and pcs

win9x: 95=bad, however win98 is quite stable and also reasonably prices. probably best version of win for the home user.

win NT/2k/XP: all very good operating systems with many more features than previous versions of windows. all are much more stable than win9x. XP is not as stable as 2k as of yet and is more "user friendly" (this all depends on the user and what the user wants to do).

Linux/BSD/Unix: Very good operating systems for the more advanced type users. These operating systems can do almost anything you want them to do. The draw back to these is that they are much more complicated to use.

Mac: Macs in general are made to be super user friendly. With Apple making and/or supporting every piece of the Macintosh computers, it is very easy to get Tech. support or hardware/software replacement. Made to be very affordable computers. The main drawback is that the majority of programs that people like to use are not useable by Macs. Macs in general are used mainly for graphic design and for video editting (i say they do this the best).

Mac OSX: I being a PC user myself was very impressed with OSX. Very graphical and very user friendly. Being able to see it from its beta stages I did see quite a few flaws that were patched up as soon as they released it on the market. One major drawback to this OS as with any OS with a highly graphical user interface was that it required a lot of RAM to run smoothly.

There's not many people who like both. Everyone has their own preference. I just don't like to see people saying bad things about the opposite. Such as Macs suck or PC are horrible. Nothing is bad. Some things are just better in that particular area.

Win2k is completely stable.
I've found the root of most instabillty is other poorly written programs that don't play nice with Windows/other programs.
Win 9x, being 16bit code upgraded to run 32bit applications, has an inherant instability. Win 9x is still DOS, just with a pretty interface. Win2K and XP are versions of NT(NewTechnology), which was 32bit from the begining.

Other programs.
They can be poorly written, or leave extra junk around when uninstalled. By extra junk, I mean leaving lines in the registry pointing to things that are no longer there.
Or just poorly written so it uses more system resources then it needs. Dosn't release memory when you close it..all sorts of crap is possible when you don't write good code.
Or you get Kazaa that installs other programs that run in the backgroud that it dosn't tell you about. Or our friend Gator...

This is what I see as the problem with most computers that cause them to crash.


That and Macs are just dirty.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/me is listening to E:\Nirvana\Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit.mp3 at 95dB.

The reason I say Win9x is no longer used is because you can no longer buy a machine with Windows 98 or ME on it. It's not used in the sense that 9.x is no longer used. Sure, people still use it because they don't want to upgrade due to money/hardware issues, but for the most part the OS of choice for PC's is Windows 2000 and XP.

And Matt, you were correct. I just think it's silly to go on about the failures of 9x and ME, then go to say how much better OSX is.

And the reason I say the only reason you should get a mac for graphics is because that's what they do... they can't handle complex computations like PC's can. The only thing they do better then a PC is graphic manipulation, and PC's are very quickly catching up.

As for the switch commericals... I think Penny Arcade summed it up nicely... http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07-12 (Sorry if it offends anyone, I though it was funny :D I know Tycho can be little harsh on some issues, but sometimes I agree with him)

There's not that much choice in the matter.

lol, how true. Wal-Mart has now started to sell cheap computers w/ lindows on them off their website, and that's a good start, but as long as windows is defualt installed on 99% of the computers average joe smith buys, then the OS by choice^H^H^H^H^H^Hslimy buisness tactics will always be Windows.

Stephen

PS. yeah yeah, i know, lindows isn't exactly top notch as far as linux distros goes, but at least it's a start

Does no one pay any attention to Jon Lawton, besides myself, himself, and Wetzel?


Please DEFINE "PC graphics."

If you're talking about Windows/x86 graphics, there's a little company called Autodesk who dabbles in such a thing... or even another small company (who recently switched to Windows/x86 for their stations) called Silicon Graphics... perhaps you've heard of them...

As for other archs... please dont get me started...

A common misconception. Macs are way more for graphics, they can do almost anything that a PC can, and it can do more.

As for number crunching, do you have any evidence to back that up? I don't know what you use as an application but the G4 and the P4 are almost identical, in the type of heavy-duty calculations I saw.

However for serious number crunching, like a climate simulator, you would want multiple industrial strength processors like the G5, Itanium, nFORCE, not a personal computer processor.

The first point is incorrect, you can still buy ME, just not for much longer. Also, in the busniss world, there are still a very large number of machines running NT versions from before 2000. I would also not call Win2k and XP "the OS of choice". Microsoft would like nothing better for there to be no choice of OS's besides Windows. Calling Win2k and XP the OS of no-choice would be more accurate.

Quote:

And the reason I say the only reason you should get a mac for graphics is because that's what they do... they can't handle complex computations like PC's can. The only thing they do better then a PC is graphic manipulation, and PC's are very quickly catching up.

This is also incorrect. The reason macs excell at graphical applications is because they do the complex computations better then a pc can. The major reason that Mac's are not a good choice for other things is lack of software support, not the hardware. It is similar to the reason I don't run Linux on my main computer, there is not the software support for it.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All you misconceptions are belong to us.

as a student of a motorola sponsored team i must say that it is quite appalling to hear someone speak this way about Macs. Seeing as Motorola is one of the companies that helps make the processors for Macs id have to say that theyre anything but weak.

the deal with macs is that they are limited software wise as to what they can do. to say that they cant do complex computations is just wrong. heres a fyi for ya. graphics are not just what is shown on your monitor. for example movie compression is all complex computations. and Macs are better at that than PCs so therefore Macs can handle it better than PCs in that respect.

It's all a matter of time...

Mac processors are risc processors. They take large complex equations and break them down into simpler problems. PC processors are becoming more and more risc, that's why Intel and AMD processors have been able to reach such high speeds so fast.

The reason Mac's have been the choice for graphics applications is because they could break down the large instructions and process them faster. And since graphics applications usually have really large instructions, it benefited even more from this.

With the newer Intel and AMD chips, they are now breaking down really complex instructions into smaller instructions in a similar fashion. They are not pure risc chips, but they are a hybrid.

So yes, Mac's are better for graphics, and maybe a few other things. But when it cuts down to it, the hybrid chips of Intel and AMD are starting to outperform the Mac's.

As for if Mac's are better, why don't you see more of them in the buisness field? The only time I've ever seen a buisness use macs is in a graphics department. And trust me, if we wanted to run the software that we run on a PC on a mac, we could. Most everything we run is in Java, and can be run on anything from our AS/400's to our macs. But mac's are too expensive and too difficult to customize the way you can Linux or Windows to be practical in a buisness enviroment. For the same, if not faster, speed, you can pay 1/4 to a 1/2 for a pc of what you would pay for a mac.

Ok, so I know this thread was supposed to be about software, not hardware....

There are plenty of choices besides Windows 2000 and XP. There are countless dist. of Linux, Unix, BEos, bsd's.... and most of them arn't very hard to learn, espically the newer releases of Linux. Out of all of them, I perfer Win2k. It's fast, stable, and highly configurable. I also run Xp and Redhat occassionally. They all have their own uses.

And as for knocking Motorola for making "weak" processors, oh well. I'm not here to be politically correct, and it's no different from saying Ford is better then GM

Those are fight'n words!!!


Just Kidding;)

Matt from GM

I haven't read any more of the post than that, and I'm not going to, unless specifically told to.

You do not make sense.

You mention "PC processors"... again, you're being too general; and no, they are NOT becoming more "risc".

Clock speeds are increasing, but that does not change the x86 instruction set...

Please know the terms you're using before proceeding to make asinine comments.

Asnine comments.... I think all the posts are pretty asnine myself. People can use whatever sucky OS they want. If they want to use an OS that costs way too much, and has taxes, and breaks the law, and takes months to fix security holes, and that gives users lack of choice, and that buys out the government, then by all means let them do it.

I'm all for the open source OS's. They're run by the people, so you have choices. Sure they may be a bit more difficult to use at first, but if you're too stupid to figure out a few simple commands, you deserve to be under the wrath of them nazis.

Sure you may not agree with me, and sure I may not have made any sense, but I don't really care. Stop fighting and use whatever you like best, and don't knock something you've never tried. Don't lie to yourself, that one time you 'tried' Linux, you didn't really try did you? And yes, I'm a Linux advocate.

P.S. - Any flames will be ignored and/or responded to with bigger and better flames.

Jon

Damned open source zelot....
-1 Flamebait

Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A short history on RISC vs CISC is forthcomming.

/me awaits impatiently...

:D

I take that as a complement.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. The new Intel and AMD processors are a hybrid of risc and cisc. They take a larger instruction set and break it down into smaller sets of instructions. Not as far as a risc chip, but they do. That's why pc processors have become so fast lately.

And by pc processors, I mean IBM compatabile. Macs are with Motorola processors, PC's are made with Intel and AMD processors.

I have never heard RISC ever in my life. I am not saying your wrong, but I never seen it.

Anyways, Pro Users turn to Macintosh not really for its hardware, but its software. Apple uses Color Sync, which displays a better color than a Microsoft Windows pallete. Macs also use Quartz, Open GL, PDF, etc. that make creative pro users flock to the mac than to the PC. There are a bunch of other reasons that creative users choose Macintosh, but I won't get into that.

How fast a computer goes depends on several factors, both in software and in hardware.
Mhz, or the yield, is really kind of a stupid way to measure power in a computer. Because Mhz is really like the RPM meter in your car, it doesn't tell you how fast your going, it just tells you how fast the pistons are revolving. There are so many ways you can measure speed for a processor (MHz, Gigaflops, and some company invent their own way of measuring speed, like AMD). But the most accurate test is a fair benchmark test.
In hardware you can't say "What is the fastest thing in my computer," but you have to ask yourself "What is the slowest thing in my computer" because that limiting factor really determines what your actual speed is going to be. For example say you have the latest and greatest P4 2.5 Ghz, but you have 133 mhz SD-RAM, the end result will be that you can only harvest about 1.33 Ghz of that power. There are so many other things that can hinder performance too.

The top 7 reasons that I have noticed that Macs are not common in the business field are:

1. LAN administrators will criticize you if you try to put a Mac on a Windows Network.

2. Companies try to cut cost by only offering service and support to Wintel Machines.

3. Business don't want to buy 2 licensees for the same product.

4. Companies want everything standardized computers so they can get tech support from one company.

5. The high initial cost of Macs, sometimes deters them from buying it.

6. There is a specific piece of software that everyone has to run, and its not Mac

7. Most business usually use computers for applications like Office, databases, the internet, e-mail, and other simple tasks that PCs can do as well as Macs

RISC is Reduced Instruction Set Computer
CISC is Complete Instruction Set Computer

It has to do with how many instructions the processor has, how specific/abstract they are, etc.

Stephen

Ok, before Weztel can get to it, RISC is reduced instruction set computing, or something along those lines, and CISC is complex instruction set computing.

The difference is that a risc processor can only do simple calculations. Like addition, subtraction.... stuff like that. When the computer code is compiled, the compiler translates the code the programmer wrote into code that's very simple. This allows the processor to be smaller and less complex, and it also doesn't take as long because it doesn't have to choose from as many instructions as a CISC processor. The downside, you have to put the processor through more clock cycles to do a problem. But because it takes less time to run through one clock cycle, it makes up for it.

CISC processors take a problem and crunch the entire thing. Because of this, a CISC processor has a large number of instruction sets to choose from, and takes more time per clock cycle. But, when it decides what to do with it, it can crunch the entire thing at once, instead of little pieces.

So who uses what processors? Mac's use RISC, and PC's use CISC. Sun Systems also use RISC processors, and run Sun's version of Unix. (I also add that they are faster then both Mac's and PC's)

In the end, RISC is faster. But as I've said already, Intel and AMD processors are no longer pure CISC chips.

Actually you don't...

Quote:

The new Intel and AMD processors are a hybrid of risc and cisc. They take a larger instruction set and break it down into smaller sets of instructions. Not as far as a risc chip, but they do. That's why pc processors have become so fast lately.

Processors do not break down instructions. They fetch instructions from memory and operate on them. That's all they do. It's up to the compiler to break down code into instructions the processor understands. The speed limitation of the chip isn't directly related to its instruction set, it's more of a physical boundry. The problem with older CISC processors was that some of the operations took a long time & stalled the pipeline (clock ticks but no instructions get processed). It doesn't slow down the chip, it slows down the execution of the code. Processor designers have found ways around stalling that I'm not really familiar with.

If you want more info about processor design, go to U of IL and take ECE312 :)

I know I posted on here a while back about processor speed, instruction set, etc, but I can't find it :(

Small inaccuracy. Many (most?) CISC instructions take more than one clock cycle to complete. So you're right to say that it takes more time, but not more time per cycle, just more cycles.

Mike

This is somewhat correct.

RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computer. RISC architecture is desinged around the idea that large numbers of smaller instructions are faster to execute than a single large instruction.
The first PC CPU's were CISC(Complex Instruction Set Computer) chips, because all the instructions the processor could execute were built into the chip. This saved memory back in the days when memory was really expensive. To improve CISC chips, new commands were added. With each new command, the programming changed. RISC chips were designed as an alternative to the growing complexity of the CISC chips. RISC turned out to work better.

Quote:

With the newer Intel and AMD chips, they are now breaking down really complex instructions into smaller instructions in a similar fashion. They are not pure risc chips, but they are a hybrid.

AMD and Intel have had RISC cores since the K5 and Pentium Pro, but with a CISC interepreter.
Windows, both NT and 9x, were built for CISC chips. This has prevented true RISC chips for the pc, because Windows will not run on a RISC chip.

However, "PC processors are becoming more and more risc, that's why Intel and AMD processors have been able to reach such high speeds so fast. " is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of current CPU developments. The reason that the processors are increasingin speed is because AMD and Intel are adding more and more transistors to their chips. Higher clock speeds mean more calculations per second and more brute power. Here is where Intel and AMD diverge on chip design. Intel is spending their effort seeing how much raw power they can get, while AMD is spending most of their effort refining thier power and making their chips more efficent.

Quote:

And trust me, if we wanted to run the software that we run on a PC on a mac, we could. Most everything we run is in Java, and can be run on anything from our AS/400's to our macs.

What you say? Most everything I run is not Java, nor are most business apps(office) are not Java.

Quote:

But mac's are too expensive and too difficult to customize the way you can Linux or Windows to be practical in a buisness enviroment. For the same, if not faster, speed, you can pay 1/4 to a 1/2 for a pc of what you would pay for a mac.

For most buisness applications, a K6-500 is plenty of speed. Most buisness applications are email, spreadsheets, databases, the internet - things that don't need high power. Nor do things need to be highly configured.

Quote:

There are plenty of choices besides Windows 2000 and XP. There are countless dist. of Linux, Unix, BEos, bsd's.... and most of them arn't very hard to learn, espically the newer releases of Linux. Out of all of them, I perfer Win2k. It's fast, stable, and highly configurable. I also run Xp and Redhat occassionally. They all have their own uses.

I also prefer Win2k. Asto other OS's, you have the fact that Microsoft is already entrenched in the workplace. People know how to use it. They don't like change, especially now with all the uncertanty with major corporations droping left and right now.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wanna chat further Weffs11 on AIM or goto tigerbolt.
/me is listening to E:\Tom Jones\Tom Jones - She's A Lady (bt Remix).mp3

MACs
 

At my job, MACs are used all over the place. Because I work in a design studio, one of the major things we produce are sketches for our customers and/or designers. The majority of these are done on Macs because they do have the better graphics...as far as the second dimension. I don't even know of any 3d modeling programs for Macs, but of course there are a multitude of these for PCs(Rhino, MAYA, Alias, I could go on and on) and Unix(CATIA, Unigraphics, IDEAS).

I don't really know if macs are entirely necessary for the design world, as most of the things done on them can also be done on PCs(probably less pretty, though), but there is no way our studio could survive without PCs.

Ok, well most of the buisness apps we use at my job are Java based. We access our AS/400's throgh telnet sessions, we use JD Edwards, which runs as java both on the AS/400 and on the workstation, we use another application that tracks some shipping stuff, all in java. Pretty much the only applications we use that isn't java is office.

As for processors breaking down instructions, AMD and Intil processors do break them down. They are fed CISC instructions, and the processors break them down.

Re: MACs
 

Maya is avaiable for the mac, plus a way aray of other 3d moldeling software. Just check on any site like Creation Engine for mac os x products.

Also, thanks for explaining RICS and CICS.

Not that I tried to stop it or anything, but I knew this was just going to break down into a few people flaming eachother...

Just FYI...

This thread is really getting old......

oops
 

forgot about MAYA being on Mac

I still feel, however, that the most developed and famous programs(not necessarily best, i'm trying not to be biased) are for PCs.

One Standard
 

I would like to see a nice data Standard developed by a coalition of corperations cooperating to make the computing world a better place. Not one operating system, but many that can run the same competing office suite programs, the same version of StarCraft and the same version of Doom 3 *look for it this holiday season in a store near you* and read a diskette formatted one way. In a world where some of us jump from a Mac at school to a DOS POS machine at work to a Wintel box at home to the Sony PS2 running linux in the den, there is no certainty that the disk in your pocket will be read by any of the machines during the day. Anyone else like to see that change in the future?

3DO
 

BTW: I have 2 XP machines networked and intend to get a PS2 with HD and Linux this week and I have a 4Mb/50Mhz Win-95 PC running, along with a *Mac-sourced chip and graphics processor* Panasonic 3DO R*E*A*L Interactive Multiplayer model FZ-1. And an old Mac Portable *20 pounds, not so portable* and a Commodore 64 and Atari computer, all running and bootable.

I stand corrected. I fully admit that I'm not aware of the latest designs, only the basics.

Mike

I'd have to vote for the Mac OS. I admit that the most recent Mac OS i ran was 7.5.3, but it is by far the best that i have run. I had an old Performa running at 33mhz and 36 mgs of ram. I had to reformat it a few times, but each of them coincided with me using resedit on the system files...
Anyway, my dad got a p3 500 128 with 98se on it, and i spent 36 hours trying to fix a hard drive that didn't love me. Then he got a laptop with XP, and I had to reinstall a preinstalled modem. One of my PCs ran ME for a while, and then 2k. I gave up and installed my beloved 7.5.3 on my p3 1000 364 with the aid of basilisk 2. Lo and behold -- windows emulating a Mac is more stable than windows itself.

I haven't tried Linux or Unix or anything else, but i do have one last comment: My friend runs a server in his basement with Linux with 10s of mhz and ram i can count on my fingers. He only has to reboot it when the power fails. My team webpage is run on some behemoth of a wintel server with gigs of ram, tons of processing power, and it takes 20minutes to sign in. I prefer the dinky Linux box that takes seconds to sign into.

Thats my two cents

Basilisk makes wintel suck less

How many times have we all debated MAC vs. PC? It's kind of sad that this thread got larger than the FIRST Robotics Wish List thread. This one's been up for like a week and that one has been up for a couple months.

Agreed

/me keels over and dies, just like this thread should...

Brandon? Brandon? Bueler?

Its probably been said, but all this really boils down to is a matter of preference. No system is better than another b/c they are used for different things. They are too specialized to compare.

yeah. what he said ---^

every operating system has its good points.
every operating system has its bad points.

insert 'mine is better than yours because...' statement here.