iSwitshed to OSX. Should it happen?

[ruairi]

Would perhaps it be feasible to replace his Dell Ultrabook with say a 13" Retina Macbook Pro for a month? I imagine most of the work he does on that is, browser/word/office based? I know he said he wouldn't use a laptop without a touchscreen, but the track pad and gestures of the MBP and OSX is really pretty good productivity wise. Really I found that after a week I was using OSX faster than Windows when I had a loan of a Macbook Pro. 

[darkspeedy26]

well, if you want to play small games, if you go the virtual machine route with "parallels desktop 9" (= run windows virtually in a program), i have to note: parallels allows directx10 games, but i don't know about performance loss. many people consider it the best program of its kind, and i was quite pleased by it as well. (i couldn't play farming simulator 2011 in it in one of the previous versions tho.)

[LAwLz]

OSX is much more stable than windows

Please back that statement up.

[KemoKa]

OSX is much more stable than windows

If OSX Mountain/Lion were anything to go by, NO. The last time Apple came out with a stable operating system was almost five years ago with Snow leopard.

[Akolyte]

Please back that statement up.

Firstly:

OSX is designed for specific mac hardware, this allows OSX to have seamless support with its hardware and helps prevent system crashes.

Secondly:

OSX uses more advanced disk formats ext2, ext3 and journal.  These formats are more secure, more stable and dont require defraggmenting.

Thirdly:

There is no registry, everything is placed in its proper directory, no buts and no ifs.  Its very straightforward.  This prevents errors like when there are leftover registry keys in Windows and overall stability issues.  It also prevents noobs from defraggmenting their SSD.

Fourthly:

OSX is very closed which for people like you and me is bad, but for newbies and people who want just a very basic experience it is good, because this means better stability, security and speed/

Fifthly:

OSX has memory compression, this compresses programs in memory when not being used in order to maximize unused memory and I'm not sure if this necessarily effects stability or not, but its something to factor in anyways.

 

Of course Linux has most of these  

 

I do not want to argue or fight, I just want to make it clear.  I am just stating these facts as you asked and do not mean to strike any compition or anything.  I am a windows user, and am not an Apple fanboy, just to make that clear.  

[Akolyte]

If OSX Mountain/Lion were anything to go by, NO. The last time Apple came out with a stable operating system was almost five years ago with Snow leopard.

Firstly:

OSX is designed for specific mac hardware, this allows OSX to have seamless support with its hardware and helps prevent system crashes.

Secondly:

OSX uses more advanced disk formats ext2, ext3 and journal.  These formats are more secure, more stable and dont require defraggmenting.

Thirdly:

There is no registry, everything is placed in its proper directory, no buts and no ifs.  Its very straightforward.  This prevents errors like when there are leftover registry keys in Windows and overall stability issues.  It also prevents noobs from defraggmenting their SSD.

Fourthly:

OSX is very closed which for people like you and me is bad, but for newbies and people who want just a very basic experience it is good, because this means better stability, security and speed/

Fifthly:

OSX has memory compression, this compresses programs in memory when not being used in order to maximize unused memory and I'm not sure if this necessarily effects stability or not, but its something to factor in anyways.

 

Of course Linux has most of these  

 

I do not want to argue or fight, I just want to make it clear.  I am just stating these facts as you asked and do not mean to strike any compition or anything.  I am a windows user, and am not an Apple fanboy, just to make that clear.  

[LAwLz]

Firstly:

OSX is designed for specific mac hardware, this allows OSX to have seamless support with its hardware and helps prevent system crashes.

I'd like to see a source on that. What you have to remember is that a lot of hardware is certified for Windows. That means it has been tested and meets certain specifications Microsoft has put out.

I don't see any reason to believe that designing the software for the hardware is superior to designing the hardware for the software. Also, it is also based on the assumption that if X is designing for Y, it will be better than A and B that weren't designed with each other in mind. There is no evidence to support that either. A generic thing can be better than a specially designed thing.

 

 

Secondly:

OSX uses more advanced disk formats ext2, ext3 and journal.  These formats are more secure, more stable and dont require defraggmenting.

Please explain how they are better and back it up with proof. Also, they get fragmented as well. They have some techniques for reducing it, but fragmentation is always a possibility on hard drives.

Fragmentation is not even that much of an issue anymore since Windows does it automatically in the background.

I don't see how it would make the system more secure and stable.

 

 

Thirdly:

There is no registry, everything is placed in its proper directory, no buts and no ifs.  Its very straightforward.  This prevents errors like when there are leftover registry keys in Windows and overall stability issues.  It also prevents noobs from defraggmenting their SSD.

Please explain how the registry is bad because I think it's pretty good (although often misused). I think having a registry is more straightforward than spreading out a bunch of option files all over the system.

The registry shouldn't cause any stability issues unless the user messes around in there without knowing what the hell they are doing (but the same can be said for any config files). The registry has nothing to do with people defragging their SSDs either and Windows disables automatic defragmentation on SSDs.

 

 

Fourthly:

OSX is very closed which for people like you and me is bad, but for newbies and people who want just a very basic experience it is good, because this means better stability, security and speed/

But OS X isn't closed like that. It has a lot of similarities with FreeBSD and in some aspects it's even more "open" than Windows. For example you can change desktop environment if you want with ease.

It's closed in the sense that there are artificial limitations on what hardware you can install it on. That does not give better stability, security or speed. You can make something very fast, secure and stable yet still have it very "open". GNU/Linux distros are great examples of this.

 

 

Fifthly:

OSX has memory compression, this compresses programs in memory when not being used in order to maximize unused memory and I'm not sure if this necessarily effects stability or not, but its something to factor in anyways.

No effect on stability. If anything it could reduce stability and performance since it requires more processing to be done (compressing and decompressing things requires processing power) and the more steps you add in a chain the higher the risk of introducing errors.

[nicholaswillems]

Yes by far. Mac hate is OK. They are overpriced and underpowered. The OS X hate is undeserved. It truly is a robust operating system. 

 

Overpricedness is way less now. They are expensive, but not that much overpriced anymore. When I bought a mac in 2009, it was still very overprices, it could not handle minecraft on minimum settings at 25fps and had cost me 1500 dollars.

 

I do agree on it being robust. From my experience, it 'just works', whatever I did.

[Aho]

I'd like to see a source on that. What you have to remember is that a lot of hardware is certified for Windows. That means it has been tested and meets certain specifications Microsoft has put out.

I don't see any reason to believe that designing the software for the hardware is superior to designing the hardware for the software. Also, it is also based on the assumption that if X is designing for Y, it will be better than A and B that weren't designed with each other in mind. There is no evidence to support that either. A generic thing can be better than a specially designed thing.

 

Mike_The_B0ss is correct in that OS X (and just about all of Apple's products) is generally stabler than most other operating systems because Apple controls both the hardware and software. This allows them to better optimize the software side of things to prevent instability.

 

Windows, not developed to be used with any specific set of hardware, means you have to rely on third-party drivers for hardware that Microsoft does not support themselves.

 

This is not to say that Windows isn't stable, because that's false. Windows run fine and just as fast unless you have bad drivers, which usually means a bad product and company...

 

With all of that said, an 'iSwitched' to OS X would be interesting. By far, the greatest feature in OS X comes from the hardware side of things. Apple's trackpads (both the external and laptop) are amazingly accurate and smooth. Until you've tried one while using OS X, you haven't lived. The other reason I use OS X is mainly because Windows is absolutely horrible when it comes to developing in a language like Ruby (I develop Rails, Sinatra apps).

 

For Linus, I'm not sure there'd be many benefits to OS X, though. Well, it would still be interesting...

[SSOB]

Firstly:

OSX is designed for specific mac hardware, this allows OSX to have seamless support with its hardware and helps prevent system crashes.

Secondly:

OSX uses more advanced disk formats ext2, ext3 and journal.  These formats are more secure, more stable and dont require defraggmenting.

Thirdly:

There is no registry, everything is placed in its proper directory, no buts and no ifs.  Its very straightforward.  This prevents errors like when there are leftover registry keys in Windows and overall stability issues.  It also prevents noobs from defraggmenting their SSD.

Fourthly:

OSX is very closed which for people like you and me is bad, but for newbies and people who want just a very basic experience it is good, because this means better stability, security and speed/

Fifthly:

OSX has memory compression, this compresses programs in memory when not being used in order to maximize unused memory and I'm not sure if this necessarily effects stability or not, but its something to factor in anyways.

 

Of course Linux has most of these

 

I do not want to argue or fight, I just want to make it clear.  I am just stating these facts as you asked and do not mean to strike any compition or anything.  I am a windows user, and am not an Apple fanboy, just to make that clear.  

BS, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

OSX is basically a super heavely modiefied versin of UNIX. 

[TheWall]

0% game support, i need muh games

Well OS X works. My main pc is on windows and it bluescreens constantly for a million different rent reasons, you know how many times my macbook pro has crashed? once. Windows could have been good if they didn't have to build their own kernel from scrach

[Admiaczking]

Well OS X works. My main pc is on windows and it bluescreens constantly for a million different rent reasons, you know how many times my macbook pro has crashed? once. Windows could have been good if they didn't have to build their own kernel from scrach

Windows has never crashed once on this PC, your Windows PC is probably just bad

[SSOB]

Well OS X works. My main pc is on windows and it bluescreens constantly for a million different rent reasons, you know how many times my macbook pro has crashed? once. Windows could have been good if they didn't have to build their own kernel from scrach

You're going to get alot of hate for this. I never bluescreened in 5 years. Windows is for techsavvy people, you're even on the folding team lol, how are you not techsvvy?

[sterreprop]

I never bluescreened in 5 years. 

Teach me master. 

[SSOB]

Teach me master. 

Don't do stupid shit.

[TheWall]

You're going to get alot of hate for this. I never bluescreened in 5 years. Windows is for techsavvy people, you're even on the folding team lol, how are you not techsvvy?

What do you mean? Linus constantly bluescreens, he always says that's why he is late for the WAN show, is he also not techsavy?

[sterreprop]

Don't do stupid shit.

So enabling turbo mode on your motherboard is "stupid shit"?!

[SSOB]

What do you mean? Linus constantly bluescreens, he always says that's why he is late for the WAN show, is he also not techsavy?

Yeah but that's because his hardware is f*cked up.

[SSOB]

So enabling turbo mode on your motherboard is "stupid shit"?!

Definetly

[sterreprop]

Definetly

Damn didn't know that ASUS would include such a stupid option... It's probably designed for BSOD lovers.

[TheWall]

Yeah but that's because his hardware is f*cked up.

Yes and so is mine, but with my mac i used fucked up hardware too but it has only made me crash once

[SSOB]

Yes and so is mine, but with my mac i used fucked up hardware too but it has only made me crash once

What ''fucked up'' hardware did you use on a the mac lol

[TheWall]

What ''fucked up'' hardware did you use on a the mac lol

Just a couple things i had lying around, like wireless adapters, memory ect...

[LAwLz]

Mike_The_B0ss is correct in that OS X (and just about all of Apple's products) is generally stabler than most other operating systems because Apple controls both the hardware and software. This allows them to better optimize the software side of things to prevent instability.

[Citation Needed]

Please post sources to back your claim up with. Until then it's just an inane comment.

 

 

Windows, not developed to be used with any specific set of hardware, means you have to rely on third-party drivers for hardware that Microsoft does not support themselves.

There is a certification program for drivers on Windows. Also, who do you think makes the drivers for OS X? It's not Apple...

 

 

BS, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

OSX is basically a super heavely modiefied versin of UNIX. 

Ehh... But what he said was true, or at least it was based on facts (I don't agree that the things he brought up makes it more stable though). OS X being Unix certified does not really have anything to do with the discussion either.

I asked for reasons why he would say OS X is more stable than Windows and he listed some true facts (but came to the wrong conclusion if you ask me).

 

 

Well OS X works. My main pc is on windows and it bluescreens constantly for a million different rent reasons, you know how many times my macbook pro has crashed? once. Windows could have been good if they didn't have to build their own kernel from scrach

Ehh... It doesn't bluescreen without a reason. Me, like SSOB haven't had a BSOD in years. I got it when I was overclocking my CPU trying to find a stable overclock and since I found stable settings it hasn't bluescreened once.

Next time your machine bluescreens I recommend you type down the error message you get, google it and then fix the issue once and for all.

I don't see why using their own kernel would be bad either.

[NeoZeon]

OSX is a opperating system designed to work with beginners and power users: it might not make as much sense if you have some deeper knowledge but still needing a polished GUI to operate things. 

 

If you are someone who can write your own drivers, OSX is just as open as Linux. The difference is that Linux is easier to enable and there is a much bigger community developing drivers for Linux. 

 

If you are someone who plays videogames as the primary use of their computer, you are in the vast minority of users.

 

A lot of people in industry like that stability of OSX while still being able to ssh into a redhat cluster. You can do this on windows too, of course, but it doesn't feel as "natural".  As someone who has used linux for 20 years, OSX feels like a polished version. I love that default isn't full screen, but windowed mode on all programs. Thats how prefer to operate. I love that I can write scripts to do pretty much whatever I want.

 

But mostly, OSX makes a lot less assumptions and focuses on letting you do simple things, or at least it feels that way. I have never spent an hour trying to find the right driver for some peripheral on OSX: Either I knew the driver existed or I knew I had to write it myself. With windows, that choice isn't so clear. Some of that is a consequence of windows having a much larger user base, but it doesn't change the current user experience. and FWIW, I've only been a mac owner for 3 years. Using it at work (research lab) convinced me to buy it after my asus laptop crapped out. Not that asus laptops are bad: but I have never had a windows computer stay this robust this long! Perhaps its because i spent 2600 dollars on my macbook pro, and only 1500 dollars on my asus rog gaming notebook back in 2008. 

 

Xcode is great, and while there are similar programs for Windows/Linux, it doesn't change the fact that Xcode is great. And really, it suits a lot of people's workflow styles. 

 

Either way, user preference is likely to determined by the environment you are in: if you are surrounded by gamers the you should by all means be a windows person. If you are in academia, or a research lab, that choice becomes much more muddled.