I'd like to lay out some ground rules that should be followed.

1.Linux\BSD\Nextstep\Unix users, I am proficient in Linux, like Beryl, and have it installed on all my older computers, however Linux is not a mass market OS and most likely never will be despite current growth rates. Please don't tell me that you have been freed or enlightened.

2.Keep it civil, no Microsoft users are slaves or Mac users are gay.

3.Facts only, please cite your sources.

4.Don't take things personally because remember http://dogtoe.com/weblog/wp-content/upl ... ternet.jpg .

I'd like to start by saying I prefer Windows to OS X. It is hardware independent, has never switched CPU platforms, contains semi-open APIs, has more apps and games then OS X, service packs are free, and there is a much higher level of forwards compatibility.

Let's say I buy a PowerBook G3 and install OS X 10.2.8. I then go to download Acquisition which connects to the GNUtella network, and is a really well written polished program that connects to the same network as Limewire. However I can't use it because Acquisition only works on OS X 10.4 or later, thanks to Apples XCode development platform. Now I can't upgrade OS X 10.4 on my PowerBook despite the fact I added a faster G4 CPU, and upgraded it to 512mb of memory because Apple has put bizarre arbitrary limits on the installer. (Must have firewire ports) No Windows computer would ever meet this situation, simply because there are no arbitrary limits besides Ram amount for windows PCs. And, Windows 2000 and 98SE are both far more binary compatible with Windows XP and Windows Vista, then OS X 10.1 is with OS X 10.5 despite a much larger gap in age difference which should favor OS X.

Maybe you missed what I said in the previous thread.

Go back and read it.

Few people if any who use Macs are going to participate in this thread. Let me explain why.

1) There's Steven, myself, Alastair, and one alpha tester that use Macs on our staff for this project

2) Onlink is not quite ready for Mac yet, so guests aren't likely to drop by and read this thread

3) Refer to number one and then read the prior thread again.

If you want to chat it up with the wall, feel free, but I'm not going to participate in this, and I doubt others will due to the rather one-sided nature this forum is (pre-dominantly Windows users, let's face it. It's not a fault, but it's not an appropriate place to expect evened discussion).

Also, Mac vs Windows? Come on. There's more Linux users visiting our forum than Mac users.

Why will Linux never be a market OS.

Lately it has improved dramatically. The interface is more intuitive. Installing is simpler than ever.

If it keeps improving at this rate it'll be ready for more people soon.

Linux is not difficult, per example, my grandparents, who never used windows, use Linux, without trouble.

The main advantage of Linux is oddly simplicity. Once it works, and only if, it is so easy to use, no viruses, no spyware, no fragmentation, and the list goes on. To clear this up for Tycho, this is not based on any theories, but how a user would experience Linux.

I especially like the package managers, no more using google, following links forever to finally get what you want. Just open the manager, look for what you want, and it is installed, without questions, without problems.

The thing you should remember is, Linux is not windows, so don't expect windows stuff to work. But I see more and more drivers, software and games coming available to Linux.

I know for sure I like Linux and never want to go back, because with my new computer I was forced to use windows for about 2 months, due driver problems on Linux (including the network card not working). But now it's solved and I have my good old OS back, and guess what, thing were much easier than the first time I installed it.

If it continues like this, I think, Linux might be ready for the public in about 2-3 years.

The problem with Linux is that you actually have to learn it. Most people would rather use something that just works without them having to bother with stuff (i.e., Windows and Mac). That, and many things done on Windows can't be done/used on Linux. The world standard is Windows/Mac.

As for why I personally prefer Windows to Mac/Linux? Meh. Everything I want to do, I can do on a Windows PC. Why bother switching? Sure, security. Against what? I don't store anything important on my computer. I use it for schoolwork (MS Word) and gaming. I don't get virii or spyware or any of that stuff because I check my computer for it once a week (Windows Defender + SpyBot SD, and I can use TrendMicro's HouseCall online virus scanner if I need to). I don't have any OS-related problems running on Windows. My problems are all hardware (my nVIDIA 7800GTX doesn't like me).

-- Griffinhart

My decision is mostly based on (a) what I started with and am used to, (b) I am a gamer, (c) I really see no point, I'm not a crazy artist, and the last time I got a virus was 5 years ago.

I have a plan on using Ubuntu, but I can get it to start Xserver (even with xorg reconfig....) so, when the day come when it works, that is the day I will try out Ubuntu.

Although I do see your point as to why it should be Windows vs Linux, it simply doesn't make sense, as Linux is not a mass market OS.

Also Tycho, although you may say you are not a Mac \ OS X fan, you both clearly are as you liked it enough to pay extra for the Apple hardware. I'm not saying your a fanboy, there is a difference, I have no doubt that if Apple released OS X 10.6 and it was poorly made you would use discretion in purchasing it, where as some would not, those that would not are fan boys.

Technically, it's not legal to use a Mac OS on something that's not a Mac. So no, that means nothing beyond the fact that we cross develop for all three.

A few things about Linux:

• I don't think it will ever be widely used by the general public, largely because of political disputes in various Linux communities.
• Filesystems still get fragmented on Linux. Same with Mac OS X. Even though the filesystems are programmed to avoid fragmentation when possible, there are cases where it either can't or doesn't do a good job. Tricks like extents allocation, delayed allocation, and others can help prevent fragmentation, but all file systems suffer from some form of fragmentation. The question is to what degree each filesystem gets fragmented and under what usage conditions.
• Viruses and spyware are typically only targeting the most popular systems. Currently, Windows is most popular because 99% of PC manufacturers distribute Windows on them. So this is a relatively poor argument. I'd bet that if Linux became even half as widely used as Windows is, there'd be spyware and viruses targeting it.

Mind, I like Linux a great deal, and I use it as a testing ground for various theories of mine and so forth, but I don't like misconceptions or lies being spread around about it.

To make things clear, no lies spreading here, what I meant was:

• The fragmentation is not serious enough to tamper with performance, and it'll take a much longer time on Linux than on windows. With windows I already noticed a huge performance difference (especially boot-time halving) after defragmenting. And that was only after 1 month. On Linux, after defragmenting, also one month, it was like nothing really happened.
• You must know Linux is a lot more difficult to target with viruses. Before a virus can do like, anything at all, it needs to obtain root access. Now this is possible, people are stupid, but still, this is a major problem. Because else, you would just reboot, and the virus would be stopped (until you start it again ).
• The spyware stuff was pretty much based on the current situation, my fault, I guess.

I used a somewhat more reallife point-of-view, whereas you use a more theoretical point-of-view.

Windows is bloated, Linux is elitist and brown, OS X assumes its users are morons.

Clearly BSD is the way forward!

Miah, point taken, however I still feel that anyone who dualboots on a Mac must have some attraction to OS X, especially if they buy another MacBook after the initial one.

Are Mac users lepers in your eyes or something?

No, not at all. As previously stated my primary laptop is an older Powerbook. However Miah said that buying a MacBook doesn't make someone a Mac fan. All I was trying to say in response was that someone who pays extra for the Apple platform is surely a fan of OS X.

Someone that spends more money on a Mac might require a Mac.

At least someone's getting this...