Web Browsers. Have they really conquored the world?

Have web browsers and the plethora of stuff you can do with them killed the Mac vs PC vs Other debat

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • No

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • I have no idea/neutral

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Total voters
    14
Status
Not open for further replies.

Embrace

Est. Contributor
Messages
272
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
(The last of the question got chopped off, but I believe you can guess what it is.)

I'll start by giving you this to see:

mac_pc.png

It's a comic from XKCD asserting the antiquation of the Mac vs (Windows) PC vs INSERT_OS_HERE debate. Browsers, according to the illustration and accompanying text, are what matter, what we use most, and what we can use to do most, if not all, of our work on.

I happen to agree with this assertion to an extent: most tasks involving word processing and other "office" activities can be done on a browser. It's like the old saying "There's an app for that," only it's web apps we speak of. Unfortunately, the validity of this "old saying" is questionable: not many good raster graphics or vector graphics (or solid CAD) apps are available online. The best game I've ever seen on a browser is Bastion (or Pong), but web technologies don't offer enough performance to support many of the mainstream games we play today. As well as the aforementioned, you are currently unable to do this.. unable to do that... etc. etc.

Nevertheless, I still live most of my life on the web (typing this up on notepad.cc), and no matter which OS you use, your web browser is probably also your most versatile tool and most valuable source of information (lest you turn to books for that; don't worry, I still prefer reading print books to LCD tablets).

Furthermore, with the maturation of both of the main proprietary platforms and great big steps in the world of Linux, it's much harder to go wrong when you have to choose an operating system, assuming you are a casual user who wants features, apps, and few headaches. (You can install an easy Linux distro by inserting a disk or pendrive and clicking a few times here and there.) With the exception of certain special software applications (for doing very specialized stuff, duh) that are only available for one OS, mainstream software is usually cross-platform (Adobe CS, many, many games, Flash (player), GTK stuff, stuff written in Java, C++, etc., even MS Office). These pieces of software are also very likely to be the apps you use that aren't web apps.

So what I am asking is: what is your opinion on the operating system debate today? Are hardware and price good arguments for or against using a certain OS? Does (in)experience or app ecosystem play a part in reluctance to switching?

And ultimately: has the OS debate essentially been crippled because of the proliferation of powerful web technologies packaged in neat, zippy web browsers?

Answer one, answer all of my questions. It doesn't matter how many. There are also some GOOD questions not presented here. Go and ask them to yourself and respond with those, too!
 
P

PaddedPuppy

Guest
I think your point is proven by the fact that Chromebook sales are now doing really well, and everyone has stopped complaining about them. The Chromebook is all online and everything happens inside a Chrome browser window.

At the same time, the choice of OS is still quite important to me. It does affect your choice of browser you can run, influences how well the browser will run, and the fact that not everything can be done through the web browser. In my eyes, the average computer needs a Windows PC and then a modern browser to get the most compatibility for software, and to get the best online experience.

Is hardware and price a good argument for the choice of OS? To answer that one, I don't think the price itself has anything to do with it for most. I think it needs to be affordable, and represent good value for money. Buying a computer with Windows on is going to cost a bit more than one with Linux for example, but the majority still opt to buy something running that.
 

Eulogy

ADISC Moderator
Staff
Messages
1,496
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
Mac still falls behind in the standalone gaming applications. Windows still falls behind in looking good at twice the price. Linux is still for the truly geeky. (And is better than the big two at running Adobe apps)

It's all about what you're looking for in a computer. Want good looks and good-enough speeds to run most applications? Mac has you covered. Don't care what it looks like, so long as it has insane power with room to become a frankencomp? PC is still the easier option. Want to be that weird guy who makes everyone else stop discussing techy stuff (Or randomly run computers like the Raspberry Pi)? Linux has what you seek.
 
Last edited:

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
I am an avid mac user -have been for a long time.

And although I have voted for "YES" - and do a LOT of things through a web-browser (including most of my wordprocessing, office stuff, etc). I still prefer how the mac's OS-X handles stuff.

it's simple things like the file handling (finder vs. explorer), working across networks, terminal stuff, hardware integration,...
then it's more complex matters such as that in all the years I've used macs I never had to deal with a single bit of a virus, malware, spyware, etc... where on my windows machine (have to have one for a specific & expensive (10k$, so not easily replaced) program at work, unfortunately) I basically have to bother with all that once in a while, and make sure my virus scanner works overtime, etc.
Same goes for speed after some month of use: the mac still runs as fluent and fast as on the day I installed the os on it for the first time... where windows needs a lot of maintance to do the same.

So in most basic application needs (office stuff / communications) it doesn't really matter anymore, especially with cross platform browsers such as chrome, firefox, etc...
But in terms of general handling, to me there's still a vast difference between macs and pcs.

(addendum: yes I know that there's stuff like Virtual Computing, where I could run Windows on either a Mac or Linux System through a VM layer)... but that comes with some serious performance issues on 65 bit software that's mostly happy if it can use most of my 16GB of Ram and most of the 2GB OpenGL CAD graphics card)....

On the other hand, wouldn't it be for some very specific applications on both PC and Mac - if I would not need any of them, then I'd have long since switched over to linux.... personally I believe it's one of the best operating systems out there... unfortunately the big software players are still focused mostly on windows and secondary on mac.
 

Embrace

Est. Contributor
Messages
272
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
I think your point is proven by the fact that Chromebook sales are now doing really well, and everyone has stopped complaining about them. The Chromebook is all online and everything happens inside a Chrome browser window.

One example I can give in favor of not letting go of a full OS (ANY full OS) is SVG-edit. It's an app programmed in JavaScript and can be used to create and edit vector graphics. Unfortunately, I still prefer Inkscape because SVG-edit lacks FEATURES and it's not a full release, yet. While that is also true about Google Drive+Google Docs vs MS Word or LibreOffice, I don't find much use in beautifying my documents unless it's for personal use. Professors/teachers can't care less about looks, but features are important to some (or many) people.

Oh, and what are your thoughts on the ChromeBox?


It's all about what you're looking for a computer.

A few years ago I had to choose between a 15" MBP and a 17" G74SX. All I can say is that I was very satisfied with what I had, but my G74 did lack some things such as battery life and portability. However, I had more screen real estate and much better graphics performance. And 2 hard disk slots for an extra OS. (or two)

It's true that the computer world is full of compromises, but these gaps are quickly closing. I do still agree that if you want to go gaming, it's Windows you want.

- - - Updated - - -

I am an avid mac user -have been for a long time.

And although I have voted for "YES" - and do a LOT of things through a web-browser (including most of my wordprocessing, office stuff, etc). I still prefer how the mac's OS-X handles stuff.

it's simple things like the file handling (finder vs. explorer), working across networks, terminal stuff, hardware integration,...
[...]
where on my windows machine (have to have one for a specific & expensive (10k$, so not easily replaced) program at work, unfortunately) I basically have to bother with all that once in a while, and make sure my virus scanner works overtime, etc.
[...]
Same goes for speed after some month of use: the mac still runs as fluent and fast as on the day I installed the os on it for the first time... where windows needs a lot of maintance to do the same.

I guess people vary widely in their experience with and use of computer systems. (No implications attempted.)

Preference: that would be the best argument for ANY user loyal to their OS. There aren't many who are totally impartial, but there really needs to be more of those people. As for terminal stuff, I prefer (and know better) BASH commands as opposed to CMD commands, but when I do the Windows command line, I tend to open PowerShell instead.

I honestly haven't had to deal with ANY viruses, adware, and other "noticeable" malware on any of my Windows systems that I caused by myself. XP, Vista, 7, 8: none of that stuff. I haven't had security software except for my Firewall and Windows Defender since Win7. Why? I take care to verify what I download. Viruses and software like that usually don't latch onto a system randomly through some random port in your computer. Sure, you may have heard of Stuxnet and stuff akin to that, but none of those have caused any noticeable problems (let's hope that these problems are nonexistent). Now my mom once installed (Chinese) adware on my laptop, and that was a nightmare to remove!

The maintenance issue is something different: NTFS, the file system for MS Windows fragments itslef and does not defrag automatically. HFS for Mac OS, on the other hand, defrages it in the background, saving the user and the OS all of the work. Brilliant, if you ask me: make it easier for the user.
---

Apple emphasizes user experience along with performance and design, and that's what Microsoft needs to be doing, rather than BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS MS OFFICE IS BETTER I AM BALLMER AND IM SLEEPING ON THE JOB BLAH BLAH...

Hopefully MS's reorganization will help them make more appealing products.


===
((I need to get a life. Off of this thread tonight. Back on a few days from now!))
 
Messages
656
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
I'm a gamer so I dont spend a whole lot of time in a browser. However consuming media like videos, music and photos I largely do in a browser (I haven't even installed a media player on my new gaming pc).
 
P

PaddedPuppy

Guest
One example I can give in favor of not letting go of a full OS (ANY full OS) is SVG-edit. It's an app programmed in JavaScript and can be used to create and edit vector graphics. Unfortunately, I still prefer Inkscape because SVG-edit lacks FEATURES and it's not a full release, yet. While that is also true about Google Drive+Google Docs vs MS Word or LibreOffice, I don't find much use in beautifying my documents unless it's for personal use. Professors/teachers can't care less about looks, but features are important to some (or many) people.

Oh, and what are your thoughts on the ChromeBox?
I wouldn't drop a full OS to restrict myself to web browser only. I need Microsoft Windows for some things I do. It would work for a small amount of people, but mainly works as a second computer, a nice small simple laptop that you can take out and just use for getting online with the benefits of that type of machine.

As for the Chromebox, I see it as pointless. Its basically a chromebook turned into a desktop computer. Desktops are more than often used as primary machines, and this simply cannot be used as that by many people, especially when you can get an equivalent net-top which is a full PC for less than the Chromebox.

If they made them sell for around the £100 mark, I could see affordability making them more popular. Right now, at this price and with these restrictions, I would struggle to justify it.
 

daLira

Est. Contributor
Messages
763
Role
  1. Little
  2. Incontinent
Mac still falls behind in the standalone gaming applications. Windows still falls behind in looking good at twice the price. Linux is still for the truly geeky. (And is better than the big two at running Adobe apps)

It's all about what you're looking for in a computer. Want good looks and good-enough speeds to run most applications? Mac has you covered. Don't care what it looks like, so long as it has insane power with room to become a frankencomp? PC is still the easier option. Want to be that weird guy who makes everyone else stop discussing techy stuff (Or randomly run computers like the Raspberry Pi)? Linux has what you seek.

You can basically also add: "Showing off how much money I can spend/have" ;).
No, honestly, it's stereotypical, but it's true to a big degree, especially while studying business related stuff.

In the first semester around 90% had a mac, which basically have been a lot of people like: Look at mah money, I'm driving a BMW or Audi that my parents paid for me and I'm using a 2k$ MBP.
The look on their faces has been kinda funny in information science classes ^_-. Most are gone though, besides that I switched to engineer~ business, so mostly linux user's.

In the end I agree, it depends on what you want, in every aspect and need to some degree.
I'd say for a lot of people, browsers may make the OS kind of trivial, but ultimately it's a question of faith.

p.s. doesn't matter anyway, someday we're all google's slaves. :p
 

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
You can basically also add: "Showing off how much money I can spend/have" ;).
No, honestly, it's stereotypical, but it's true to a big degree, especially while studying business related stuff.

In the first semester around 90% had a mac, which basically have been a lot of people like: Look at mah money, I'm driving a BMW or Audi that my parents paid for me and I'm using a 2k$ MBP.
The look on their faces has been kinda funny in information science classes ^_-. Most are gone though, besides that I switched to engineer~ business, so mostly linux user's.

In the end I agree, it depends on what you want, in every aspect and need to some degree.
I'd say for a lot of people, browsers may make the OS kind of trivial, but ultimately it's a question of faith.

p.s. doesn't matter anyway, someday we're all google's slaves. :p

Aehm? please?
why should I be more of a snob only because I use a mac than anyone with a more high end pc?

sure it's not a 300$ piece of plastic... god forbid.

My 11" macbook air has been my main computer ever since I bought it about 1 1/4 years ago. it's been a blessing, easy to carry, fantastic build quality, virtually silent (unless you use graphics a lot), rather powerful (8GB ram, i7)... Battery lasts long enough (could be better though).
No issues at any rate... and it's so slim and nicely built.
And prices are absolutely competitive IF compared to Windows based Ultrabooks with similar specs (256GB SSD, 8GB Ram, i7...)...


and on being a google slave:
it's your choice ;)
There are plenty of alternatives - at least in terms of email, social networking, etc... even search engines.
I use googles search engine, and that's as much of a google product I use.
 

daLira

Est. Contributor
Messages
763
Role
  1. Little
  2. Incontinent
Aehm? please?

Yes please.... the old debate again. But only since you asked so nicely.

If you're comparing a cheap 300$ notebook with your MBP it's no miracle that a price from 1100-2000$ seems to be somewhere competitive (even though that would be a question on itself :p)

Let's take Lenovo as an example, pretty sturdy all in all, well made.

Classic MBP 15" - i7, 8gb DDR3, 500gb HDD, 1680x1050 display, geforce gt650m - 2.348,99 €
Lenovo W530 15" - i7, 8gb DDR3, 500gb HDD, 1900x1200 display, quadro k2000 - 1.789,99 €

But let me guess... the OS is worth 550€? .... right, I rather like to be the admin of my system with linux.
And that the Ram is soldered, so that you cannot upgrade, is surely a feature. Besides that you always need to pay more for an antiglare display. The new retina is nice, no question, but glossy always?
And at last... since both are no gaming computers and far too overpowered for being an office system - a gt650m seriously? That's a mid field gaming card (mind you, for a system that doesn't handle games all too well.). Eitherway you stick to the HD4000 or if you need to use CAD or Maya you'll want a quadro, where's the option?

You asked, you got your answer, be happy. As I said, it's a matter of faith, especially regarding macintoshs. But the choice for paying more and showing that (oh my gollygosh) you got a mac, is always there if you're going for this. No way to deny that. :p
 

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
Yes please.... the old debate again. But only since you asked so nicely.

If you're comparing a cheap 300$ notebook with your MBP it's no miracle that a price from 1100-2000$ seems to be somewhere competitive (even though that would be a question on itself :p)

Let's take Lenovo as an example, pretty sturdy all in all, well made.

Classic MBP 15" - i7, 8gb DDR3, 500gb HDD, 1680x1050 display, geforce gt650m - 2.348,99 €
Lenovo W530 15" - i7, 8gb DDR3, 500gb HDD, 1900x1200 display, quadro k2000 - 1.789,99 €

But let me guess... the OS is worth 550€? .... right, I rather like to be the admin of my system with linux.
And that the Ram is soldered, so that you cannot upgrade, is surely a feature. Besides that you always need to pay more for an antiglare display. The new retina is nice, no question, but glossy always?
And at last... since both are no gaming computers and far too overpowered for being an office system - a gt650m seriously? That's a mid field gaming card (mind you, for a system that doesn't handle games all too well.). Eitherway you stick to the HD4000 or if you need to use CAD or Maya you'll want a quadro, where's the option?

You asked, you got your answer, be happy. As I said, it's a matter of faith, especially regarding macintoshs. But the choice for paying more and showing that (oh my gollygosh) you got a mac, is always there if you're going for this. No way to deny that. :p

That's 15" systems you were comparing whilst I was talking about an 11" ultra portable computer.

Besides the actual price for the mentioned 15" Mac book is 1999$ at the moment which is 1510€! So it's actually cheaper than the Lenovo :)

And don't forget that excellent aluminum unibody case... Something the mentioned Lenovo quite lacks (nice case).

At a current price of roughly 1150$ for the 11", with i7, 8gb of ram, 256gb ssd. It certainly is a competitive offer if compared to similar systems (that includes high end case that)


Last but not least, I prefer to spend a bit more for an excellent design.

The os is like 16$ which is reasonable in my book.

Besides OS X is actually based on a unix system. So you are indeed the admin of your os if you want to.
I like Linux... Have used it a lot, and think it is indeed one if the best os out there if you know what you are doing...
However unfortunately not many of the major software players yet have Linux versions of their products available.
Thus in most of the work related environments, as soon as your software needs go. Beyond office stuff, Linux at times does not offer what one does need.
There are many things - but some of the more professional higher end products aren't there yet.

So with apple you get the basic unix, excellent ui and the os is really affordable (16) vs, the 100+ for any windows update/upgrade
 

daLira

Est. Contributor
Messages
763
Role
  1. Little
  2. Incontinent
That's 15" systems you were comparing whilst I was talking about an 11" ultra portable computer.

Besides the actual price for the mentioned 15" Mac book is 1999$ at the moment which is 1510€! So it's actually cheaper than the Lenovo :)

And don't forget that excellent aluminum unibody case... Something the mentioned Lenovo quite lacks (nice case).

At a current price of roughly 1150$ for the 11", with i7, 8gb of ram, 256gb ssd. It certainly is a competitive offer if compared to similar systems (that includes high end case that)

Apples and Oranges, my friend ;)

The basic 15" Macbook has an 2,3ghz i7 and a glossy display, so it's 550€ more, besides that it lacks a quadro (or the AMD equivalent) and that I used officially prices for both (via the configurator). And if you're referring to something, I'd look exactly. Lenovo uses an inner alu case. That's why, besides other enhancements, the T series is known to be sturdy as hell, i.e. military standards.

11" Macbook Air is btw at 1199 officially, with an i5 and 4gb, so since you cannot upgrade the ram yourself, 100 more + 150 for the i7 = 1.448,99 €

Last but not least, I prefer to spend a bit more for an excellent design.
That's that spirit! Exactly what I've been referring to and you confirmed it... so why did you actually quote me in the first place :p?
You want it, you're paying the price because you want to have an apple on the back and an OS, where you don't need to look for a design that fits your taste, in contrast to linux, where it's up to you, without limitations in contrast to OS X.

If you're talking about unix, you mean the license, that way it's official Unix (TM).
On the other hand, OSX doesn't feel at all like a Unix system. OSX goes out of its way to hide away quite a lot of the Unix-y file system from you. Compare the output of ls / with opening the main hard disk drive in the GUI. It also doesn't have a compiler installed. There are many other examples of things that are just more or less off or different in OSX. Not good or bad, necessarily, but different and restricted.
And... um, what exactly shouldn't run from major software companies? Besides that, to put it simply, even for software that runs eitherway only on a Mac or on Windows, there are tons of VM's and modules.
 

nosuwhide

Est. Contributor
Messages
57
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
Simple answer? No.

Why? Because Apple products are still for users who have simple demands for their computer. They are incredibly limited in functionality, but if one is limited themselves in what they need or can do and are willing to spend a lot of money for what is basically a good-looking but otherwise not sturdy product. A massively overpriced product where 50% of the price roughly is just for that annoying brand-name.

Windows and Linux cater for the more sophisticated users, offering huge flexibility and basically the capacity to perform any needed task more or less. Those are systems that if needed, have huge potential to be customized in just about any way you need it.

I'll leave out other OS as they are mainly used by a geek-minority...

Thing is - while browsing can be quite alike from one perspective and browsers can perform a lot of tasks these days, many tasks are yet better carried out normally for plenty of reasons. And apart from browsing, I believe there are still huge differences between those big three. Linux and Windows are growing closer by the hour (with many Games now available on Linux through Steam for example, quite nice actually...a trend that I enjoy watching unfold over time), offering simple or complex depending on what you want and/or need - while OSX is, as always, blinding with prettyness, but being otherwise restricted and only catering to light users.

(And frankly, just like that good old hen-egg-discussion this is a discussion that is stupid as fans on each side alike will continue to bash and flame the other side in a never-ending circle...)
 

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
Simple answer? No.

Why? Because Apple products are still for users who have simple demands for their computer. They are incredibly limited in functionality, but if one is limited themselves in what they need or can do and are willing to spend a lot of money for what is basically a good-looking but otherwise not sturdy product. A massively overpriced product where 50% of the price roughly is just for that annoying brand-name.

Windows and Linux cater for the more sophisticated users, offering huge flexibility and basically the capacity to perform any needed task more or less. Those are systems that if needed, have huge potential to be customized in just about any way you need it.

I'll leave out other OS as they are mainly used by a geek-minority...

Thing is - while browsing can be quite alike from one perspective and browsers can perform a lot of tasks these days, many tasks are yet better carried out normally for plenty of reasons. And apart from browsing, I believe there are still huge differences between those big three. Linux and Windows are growing closer by the hour (with many Games now available on Linux through Steam for example, quite nice actually...a trend that I enjoy watching unfold over time), offering simple or complex depending on what you want and/or need - while OSX is, as always, blinding with prettyness, but being otherwise restricted and only catering to light users.

(And frankly, just like that good old hen-egg-discussion this is a discussion that is stupid as fans on each side alike will continue to bash and flame the other side in a never-ending circle...)

1) in what way are apple computers limited in functionality compared to a windows or Linux based pc?
Why is it than that there actually a lot of professionals who use macs in video, photo, design, architecture, dtp, etc?


2) windows and Linux for "sophisticated" users and macs for iditios?!
Have you had to dig deep for this one?
Besides being rude towards a rather massive user base... It's simply wrong.
At work I have both a Mac and a windows systems... And I've played around with Linux on some servers for the past 15+years.
On the user side of things - not in the server area (that is where Linux truly excels) - Linux is seriously more limited than either windows or Mac.
It starts with missing pro-grade applications. And don't bother to tell a professional dtp guy, that scribus has actually all they need, compared to either quark xpress or in design.
Same goes for photo editing, whilst gimp is rather amazing it lacks quite behind in several areas compared to the industry standard of photoshop.
Video editing. Yes there are some promising products on Linux, but you can search in vain if you want a full replacement for after effects or for any of the Mac/pc based pro grade video editing software systems.
And it gets by far worse when you get into cad. As neither for mechanical stuff (a proper parametric 3d cad capable of assemblies and simulation, such as pro/e, solid works, etc... ) can be found on Linux.
The list goes on.... Added to this, that certain hardware isn't properly supporter (no driver by the manufacturer and just some unstable community build)... And you have a very capable system, as long as your software needs are not within professional levels in some of the most widely spread areas.
Neither such problem exists on either windows or Mac.

3) OS X: in what way is it blinding in prettiness and lacking in functionality ?
System architecture and feature set are usually. A step ahead of what windows offers...


What macs are not - or not really, are gaming platforms. There windows has a strong foothold, and a long standing tradition... Linux is catching up.

But honestly, the world is not spinning around games and gamers...


A lot of the anti Mac comments I have read here boast "claims" of how overpriced and geeky they are. Design is debatable... Quality of hardware isn't.
Pricing isn't cheap... But it's on par with any other high grade manufacturer out there.
What they lack is cheap systems. Or gaming optimized hardware.
But mostly most of comments about lack of functionality comes obviously from people who have never worked with OS X...
 

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
That's that spirit! Exactly what I've been referring to and you confirmed it... so why did you actually quote me in the first place :p?
You want it, you're paying the price because you want to have an apple on the back and an OS, where you don't need to look for a design that fits your taste, in contrast to linux, where it's up to you, without limitations in contrast to OS X.
Are we back in kindergarten ?
Why is it that you feel that anyone who does actually care about design an ergonomics just is a geek with too much Cash.
Also sure, Linux can be customised a lot,,, but that's it... A system that was designed primarily for server use - sure it can do all fancy window manager tricks under x11 - but honestly, that says nothing about its usability in a non-gamer sense.


different in OSX. Not good or bad, necessarily, but different and restricted.
And... um, what exactly shouldn't run from major software companies? Besides that, to put it simply, even for software that runs eitherway only on a Mac or on Windows, there are tons of VM's and modules.
Restricted? In what fashion? Actually it's less restricted than windows in some areas... If you want it to be,

virtual machines? You are joking, right?
Try it, try to run a high end cam system (you know what that is? ) on a vm... Have fun, when the thing starts to simulate toolpath collisions 3d,... Yeah, that is where you really want a vm...
Or video rendering... Just to name a few.
 

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
10,934
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
When I can play all my PC games via web browser and no real OS then no.

Also video editing and picture editing don't work in a web browser or not well at all. Same with music creating software.
 

DeftLeppard

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,185
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Babyfur
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Carer
ditto!
I primarily use my Toshiba Satellite running windows 8 for music creation, artwork, Minecraft, and creating the occasional Atari 2600 game with BatariBASIC.
 

daLira

Est. Contributor
Messages
763
Role
  1. Little
  2. Incontinent
Are we back in kindergarten ?
Why is it that you feel that anyone who does actually care about design an ergonomics just is a geek with too much Cash.
Also sure, Linux can be customised a lot,,, but that's it... A system that was designed primarily for server use - sure it can do all fancy window manager tricks under x11 - but honestly, that says nothing about its usability in a non-gamer sense.



Restricted? In what fashion? Actually it's less restricted than windows in some areas... If you want it to be,

virtual machines? You are joking, right?
Try it, try to run a high end cam system (you know what that is? ) on a vm... Have fun, when the thing starts to simulate toolpath collisions 3d,... Yeah, that is where you really want a vm...
Or video rendering... Just to name a few.

If you would read exactly what I've written, you'd recognize that I actually mentioned only the logo and the somewhat fancy gui. Design and ergonomics depend simply on your choice on what you wanna buy in the first place, i.e. hardware + control elements or your choice of a notebook, except apple where you only got a handful of choices.

Nice try by the way, twice... why in the world should someone use a VM for video editing if all major software is anyway compatible to begin with ;)
And secondly... "in a non gamer sense", huh? Linux is actually becoming somewhat capable of running some games.

Honestly, stop trolling - you're running into more fallacies than anything else. At your first post you mentioned: "I never had to deal with a single bit of a virus, malware, spyware", that's the typical Mac user fallacy. Besides that it's simply getting ignored, because the majority uses windows, it's the fact that most fail to realize this and the reason that a lot of systems are full of malware and trojans, of which most are not aware.
Although you're right that linux the best system to run servers, but what's OS X? A trimmed version of linux's kernel with a fancy gui.

So stick to your OS, I never said that you should change it, OS X is a valid reason to consider. However, bragging about how much better it is, is a big fallacy. And extremely stereotypical for a part of users (not all, but well... read what you've written so far and think about what this may state.)
Anyway, the great thing about mac is that you have everything already packed and ready to use. You don't need to understand how it works. If you design, just design.
If you want something ready to use, that does its job, but is a gilded cage, needs better hardware and is high priced -> Buy a mac
If you want something that expects you to invest time to configure/tune it and understand how it works, but is more versatile, powerful and cheaper. -> Buy a pc with eitherway installing windows for gaming and a fairly easy to use system or linux for simply being in and wanting to understand the substance of a true unix system.

'nuff said.
 

EPO1

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,522
Role
  1. Incontinent
  2. Other
Nice try by the way, twice... why in the world should someone use a VM for video editing if all major software is anyway compatible to begin with ;)
And secondly... "in a non gamer sense", huh? Linux is actually becoming somewhat capable of running some games.
???
Yeah, try that on a VM and you will see WHY it is a BAD IDEA. (sorry, I was beeing ironic with the "try, try...")...
A VM isn't up to handle complex computing tasks with serious applications (CAM, CAD, Video...) - So why would anyone choose to do that on a Linux System, when he can get more speed, stability on any native system - be this OS X or Windows.
But LINUX:
Ok, give me pro grade alternatives (or preferably, due to business like file support, the real mccoy) for:
- Parametric 3D CAD with at least the same feature set and capabilities as SolidWorks or Pro/E
- Professional Grade 4 (or 5) Axis CAM Software with high speed tool paths, solidworks, pro/e, etc. import, support, and a broad range of Postprocessors
- Videoediting on the Same level as either FinalCut, Premiere or Sony Vegas
- Something with the capabilities of After Effects (and I mean SAME LEVEL or more).
- Photoshop CS6+(gimp's close, I admit - but still worlds apart in so many aspects).
- DTP Software that's on par with the latest QuarkXpres or InDesign.
- Database Software such as either Filemaker or Access (I know neither is a perfect system, but there's a ton of companies out there who have such solutions in place and depend on them).
- etc.
For all of that, there is as far as I know, NO - none at all - option on Linux... thus for those who swear by linux on the Desktop... what will you do when you need such software for WORK? (I mean not the home hobbyist photoshop user... but someone who earns his income with the stuff and depends also on interchangeability of files)?
Yeah... VM? Shitty solution, sorry. It degrades speed, performance, requires yet another software license (namely windows)... and comes with it's own set of issues.
Sure for the occasional quick use... it's a great solution, but for daily work? hell no.

At Work, my CAM/CAD Station is a windows machine, as the software I had bought (and am not keen on replacing, for both learning curve and price) exclusively works on Windows (there's neither mac nor linux versions).
For the graphical part of the work, and for general office, internet, etc. use - I rely on my Mac...
btw. luckily these days both play well enough together not be a pain.

And the server? (yeah, we host our own Web, Database, Mail, etc. Server?? that's a CentOS Linux system, without a GUI).


Honestly, stop trolling - you're running into more fallacies than anything else. At your first post you mentioned:
How old are you? Is it really necessary to retort to name calling on a technical debate?
Is this your best way to answer if you can't come up with reasonable replies?
It always amazes me to some degree ;)
It is obvious to me, that you have NO clue when it comes to professional (in terms of "I earn my living with...") applications and base your opinions mostly on games and hobbyist environments.

OS X may be "trimmed" (In what way I can't really see, as you actually bring it as far as to run just about every Linux / X11 application...) Linux Kernel with a well made gui.
And that should be bad in what way exactly, as we both have established and agreed, that linux is indeed something good?


And unless you shake that attitude of name calling and trying to wrongly paraphrase my input, I simply will not consider going in depth with this discussion, with you.
 

nosuwhide

Est. Contributor
Messages
57
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
1) in what way are apple computers limited in functionality compared to a windows or Linux based pc?
Why is it than that there actually a lot of professionals who use macs in video, photo, design, architecture, dtp, etc?
I'm not even gonna bother to go into details, I've said before why.
Some professionals use macs in some very specific applications (namely video/photo/web/journalism - more or less "media"), but just as you said that not everything evolves around gamers...the same goes for media.
I have used macs and macbooks before, especially around media. I think apart from me not liking the "feel" of the mac ui (and not being used to it) Photoshop (as an example) is quite the same on either system.
So yeah, that's one thing macs do well, ui aside. But Windows does it equally well.
Why many professionals use macs? I sure do wonder about that sometimes. My first guess is that it is easier to learn - a less steep learning curve compared to Windows (though that is no surprise given there is much less to be learnt about macs compared to Windows..). And perhaps because most firms don't want or need systems that can be tinkered with - stuff that just works, if it doesn't they'll just get replacements anyway.

2) windows and Linux for "sophisticated" users and macs for iditios?!
Have you had to dig deep for this one?
Besides being rude towards a rather massive user base... It's simply wrong.
[...]It starts with missing pro-grade applications. [...] Neither such problem exists on either windows or Mac.
I didn't say macs are for idiots. But macs simply don't offer anything beyond what you get. With Linux and Windows, you can tweak and customize a lot to tailor a system to your needs. With a mac you can't do that.
Think Android-iOS - streamlined vs. endless possibilities.

And who is talking about pro-grade applications? That is a topic for professionals and when it comes to that, my opinion is you simply get what serves the purpose best and offers the best (performance/)price.
We're here as private individuals though. I understand the question with regards to typical applications a private individual would need, that is games, text, media editing, browsing, watching media - things like that.
For that, Linux got really interesting in the recent years. Might be a bit tricky to talk about since there are so many distros, but did you ever care to give Mint a try for example?
Few years ago, I didn't know one student who had Linux on their notebook except for geeks or guys with just some general IT-knowledge. But in the last 2-3 years I've started seeing many students having Mint i.e. on their notebook. Mostly women, but also a lot of guys. It has come a long way.

3) OS X: in what way is it blinding in prettiness and lacking in functionality ?
System architecture and feature set are usually. A step ahead of what windows offers...

[...]Design is debatable... Quality of hardware isn't.
Pricing isn't cheap... But it's on par with any other high grade manufacturer out there.
What they lack is cheap systems. Or gaming optimized hardware.
But mostly most of comments about lack of functionality comes obviously from people who have never worked with OS X...
I don't see how macs are doing just about anything better than Windows - probably that same-old subjective argument of the better UI...
Macs look good, sure - that is in fact the one thing Apple has been good at.
About the hardware, iphones break SO easily and I've seen loads of broken mac displays and macbooks too. I think it comes down to how people treat their appliance, quality-wise I think there is no big difference - certainly is mac-hardware not any better. What it lacks though is the ability to be upgraded - hard-soldered components are just as irritating and lame as manufacturing methods with car manufacturers (just one example), limiting how you can use the product you bought.

Apple could never sell cheap systems. They rely on their brand to suggest a luxury product. Apple's success is not in their products, but in their marketing and brand.
And gaming optimized hardware is pointless, if the OS doesn't support games (and the games production industry as well).

And as I've said, I have worked with OSX. And not just some 10 hours. At least for Windows my opinion remains that it can do everything a mac can do and more, much more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top