I'd say that the GUI is one of the major advantages of OS X over other *nix platforms. There are so many competing desktops for Linux and no one of them seems to have 'caught on'. And not surprising since it really is a very very hard thing to get right. With OS X, I think Apple has hit it square on (not that I don't have my list of gripes). And it certainly beats the pants off Windows, both with its GUI and the fact that it's a *nix variant. My 2-pence, bear
Originally posted by Bear Bibeault: I'd say that the GUI is one of the major advantages of OS X over other *nix platforms. There are so many competing desktops for Linux and no one of them seems to have 'caught on'. And not surprising since it really is a very very hard thing to get right. With OS X, I think Apple has hit it square on (not that I don't have my list of gripes). And it certainly beats the pants off Windows, both with its GUI and the fact that it's a *nix variant. My 2-pence, bear
In what way is it better than Windows Desktop? Speed/Performance, Visually, ?? What about the software availability for OS X? Has it caught up yet?
i've been using debian and gnome for quite an while before i switched to mac os x. before that i've actually used mac os already, but barely for any java programming. while i really love linux, especially debian, i still find mac os great. when you compare it to linux the main advantages are: 1) it simply works. that doesnt mean that thinks dont work under linux. but personally for me, everything which is important for me works under mac os. printer, scanner, tv-out, ipod, bluetooth, etc.. 2) its gui done well.. after all i guess its a question of taste and what you are used though. but when you see it as neutral as possible the mac os userface simply rules. i dont mean from the eye-candy kinda view.. rather from the usability one..
3) powerbooks work well with mac os before i switched to mac os again, i seeked for good pc laptops, which i would have used linux on. but i couldnt find any. they were all extremly bulky, had bad specs or were barely supported via linux.. linux also works great on powerbooks though. i've used it for a couple of months. but still mac os works better with them. plus there is no java 1.4 for linux ppc..
In what way is it better than Windows Desktop? Speed/Performance, Visually, ??
For me. Usability. I've used Windows since 3.1 and I still find the OS X gui more intituitive and more pleasant to use. Completely subjective, but no contest in my book. Everyone's mileage varies though...
What about the software availability for OS X? Has it caught up yet?
There are obviously many more titles available for Windows, but I have yet to run into a situation where I couldn't find a program I needed. The shareware pool is vastly larger since OS X. I guess Cocoa is fun to program with! Also, *nix apps just run (Tomcat et al) without problem, and I've had little difficulty with Java apps -- even those that are heavily Swing oriented. Hope this gives you some more info. bear
I have to confess that after trying to use Linux I just got fed up with following instructions on recompiling kernels just to get half of my hardware working. Granted, Mandrake 9 is much, much better in this respect but I just want something that works. In this respect I think that Mac OS X provides a great combination of user friendliness vs. the power of UNIX. Most of the software is there, although there will always (atleast for the moment) be a lag behind Windows. I'm not sure how performance measures to be honest as I've only compared my 12" powerbook to my P4 2Ghz desktop at work and this probably isn't a fair comparison! Overall I'm very impressed by the Mac platform, especially since I hadn't used it before a month ago.
I was an old-time Mac user from way back, but I had to use Windows for work for the last 5 years. I'm glad to see Apple coming out with compelling products again. (Off topic - the iPod is the greatest invention of the last 2 years). Anyway, the cool thing about Unix on a Mac is you get a single hardware & software vendor to support you, which really can make a difference in quality of service. Also, Apple is king of the make-it-easy-to-use hill. It's really a good mesh of usability and operating system power. I just hope they come out with an implementation of Java3D soon
Some good points from everyone. 2 questions. 1. How does the OS perform compared to Windows. What I mean is while XP runs "OK" on a 500 MGHz PC, will I need a 1 GIG to run OS X with the same performance? 2. Has there been any mention of OS X being ported to x86?
sharp shooter, and author
Joined: May 10, 2000
Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger: Some good points from everyone. 2 questions. 2. Has there been any mention of OS X being ported to x86?
Not that I've heard of, but Apple have ported Darwin (the underlying UNIX OS) to x86.
Joined: Jan 07, 2002
They probably could port the OS to x86 but I think it's a marketing decision on their part not to do that. They consider themselves a systems company...in the way early computer makers thought of themselves in the 80s. There's really only a few companies left now that do that...Sun being one of them, IBM,etc. Now you either sell commodity hardware (ie, Dell, HP) or you make software (MS.) It would probably be hard to maintain the same level of quality in the OS if they had to support a billion hardware drivers, but it could be done if they really wanted it. For your other point, I am doing my current Mac development on a 2 year old iBook...it's a 500Mhz G3. And it's not quite up to the task. I will be upgrading shortly, I'm just waiting to see what announcements are made at Apple's WWDC next week. I would strongly suggest a G4 with at least a 1GH processor to do real development.
sharp shooter, and author
Joined: May 10, 2000
Originally posted by Rob Ross: I would strongly suggest a G4 with at least a 1GH processor to do real development.
I have a 12" powerbook running at 867Mhz and while this is fast enough for running IntelliJ, Tomcat, etc, some more juice would be nice. Still, I did opt for portability of the 12" over the power of the 17".
Generally, how do like it? I'm seriously thinking about buying one. For example, in terms of processing speed and display, what should I get that's at least comparable with my HP pavilion 1500Mz 15in? Also, does the higher resolution of the 12in compare with the larger laptop screens (say, 15in?). Thanks, M