iSwitshed to OSX. Should it happen?

[TheWall]

 

 

 

[Citation 

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.

 

because it clearly doesen't work very well, os x is unix based which makes it much more stable

[LAwLz]

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.

We are reaching some grade A bullshit right here. It doesn't feel as "natural"? I don't even know what that's suppose to mean.

You can write scripts to do pretty much whatever you want in Windows as well. If you don't like PowerShell then you could always get Cygwin and bash, or win-bash.

 

 

 

because it clearly doesen't work very well, os x is unix based which makes it much more stable

[Citation needed]

There isn't anything in the Unix cert which inherently makes an OS more stable.

It's as if I were to say "Windows is MS-DOS based which makes it much more stable".

[Darktron]

i've used iOS 6, it sucks horribly and Android 4.3 is far better. as far as OS X goes, it's not terrible (10.7) but Windows is a million times better

Mac OS is ok but not the best but Window 8 is bad as Window vista. Window 8 so horrible and shit

[Admiaczking]

Mac OS is ok but not the best but Window 8 is bad as Window vista. Window 8 so horrible and shit

i agree, Windows 8 is a bigger failure than Vista. I still use Windows 7.

[Darktron]

i agree, Windows 8 is a bigger failure than Vista. I still use Windows 7.

yup Window 7 and XP is the King

[Akolyte]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

First one:

If you take a look at Apple's website you will see they only have a certain amount of mac computers for sale each year.  If you've ever used a Mac you will know there are no third party driver software, and Apple releases free system updates through their app store that has effects on the hardware like improvements in Open GL, In Gaming and in other tasks.  So, Apple since they only have a limited types of models of computers sold every year, with very simillar if not identical hardware configurations as the previous year.   Apple designs its OSX software specifically for the hardware.  I'm not sure why you want any evidence for this, because I would assume you would already know.  But yeah, Apple designs their software specifically for their chosen hardware.  This is a reason why you can only use a very limited ammount of hardware configurations for a hackintosh.  

 

Second One:

How To Geek Post On Why You Dont Need To Defrag ext, ext2, ext3 and ext4 formats http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-explains-why-linux-doesnt-need-defragmenting/

 

About Disk Optimizations in OSX: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1375

 

You probably won't need to optimize at all if you use Mac OS X. Here's why:

• Hard disk capacity is generally much greater now than a few years ago. With more free space available, the file system doesn't need to fill up every "nook and cranny." Mac OS Extended formatting (HFS Plus) avoids reusing space from deleted files as much as possible, to avoid prematurely filling small areas of recently-freed space.
• Mac OS X 10.2 and later includes delayed allocation for Mac OS X Extended-formatted volumes. This allows a number of small allocations to be combined into a single large allocation in one area of the disk.
• Fragmentation was often caused by continually appending data to existing files, especially with resource forks. With faster hard drives and better caching, as well as the new application packaging format, many applications simply rewrite the entire file each time. Mac OS X 10.3 Panther can also automatically defragment such slow-growing files. This process is sometimes known as "Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering."
• Aggressive read-ahead and write-behind caching means that minor fragmentation has less effect on perceived system performance.

 

I think everything fought really well.  I guess the registry isn't too bad, I mean. I guess its more the fact there are really horrible registry cleaners that make the registry seem like the horror its made out to be.  

And about the customization and closed-ness.  

 

I guess you could say that, but at the same time, it can be customized well and stuff I guess, but I would assume it would be hard to open up OSX since Apple brings out regular patches to fix exploits and ways of opening up OSX to major operating system changes.  But at the same time OSX does use pretty much the same terminal as in Linux so you can do allot of cool stuff with that.  

 

I accept your points  

[Akolyte]

[Citation Needed]

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

I guess, but at the same time.  Take into consideration.  Even if Apple doesn't make the drivers, the people who do have a long time to program 1 driver for one peice of hardware with limited combinations.  So, for example.  Intel's Chipset drivers, you could be using so many different hardware combinations.  Millions of different combinations.  On a mac, there is only about 10 different combinations.  All unchangeable because Apple likes to solder ram onto the motherboard and glue the batteries in place.  This means the people who make the drivers have time to make it EXTREMERLY stable, and even if a bug is found with the driver, there is only 10 hardware combinations or so with a line of Macs every year so they can fix the bug, and making the update 100% compatible with the other hardware, and send the update out to all that model of mac.  Meaning pretty much right off the bat as soon as you setup your mac, there are very limited bugs.

 

 

Once again, I'm not an Apple fanboy, neither a Windows fanboy.   I own a Mac and a PC and am just defending the facts.  

 

Unless you've owned a mac and have used one recently.  I dont think its fair for you to be calling me and other people who've used macs wrong or demanding proof when you haven't experienced it for yourself. 

[Akolyte]

i agree, Windows 8 is a bigger failure than Vista. I still use Windows 7.

I've actually had less blue screens and driver issues with windows 8 than windows 7.  Not saying windows 8 is more stable than 7.  Because I dont think it is, but I dont think windows 8 is as bad as vista.  I think if you were back in the times of vista you would think completely differently.  In my opinion Vista is still far below windows 8. 

[Admiaczking]

I've actually had less blue screens and driver issues with windows 8 than windows 7.  Not saying windows 8 is more stable than 7.  Because I dont think it is, but I dont think windows 8 is as bad as vista.  I think if you were back in the times of vista you would think completely differently.  In my opinion Vista is still far below windows 8. 

honestly i think Windows 8 is better than Vista, but Vista doesn't have metro. i hate metro to death.

[Akolyte]

honestly i think Windows 8 is better than Vista, but Vista doesn't have metro. i hate metro to death.

Yeah, its really a personal thing there.  Out of all honesty, I boot to the desktop and just use metro to search for applications.  I never use any of the bundled windows crap. 

[Admiaczking]

Yeah, its really a personal thing there.  Out of all honesty, I boot to the desktop and just use metro to search for applications.  I never use any of the bundled windows crap. 

if there were a normal start button and menu like Windows 7 that i DIDN'T have to buy, i would switch to 8 immediately since it looks better and has a bit more functionality. but i really can't stand metro.

[TheKDub]

No. Just no.

[Akolyte]

if there were a normal start button and menu like Windows 7 that i DIDN'T have to buy, i would switch to 8 immediately since it looks better and has a bit more functionality. but i really can't stand metro.

there is one...  Its called classic shell, its got the same icon as the windows 8 start button but is pretty much identical to the windows 7 one.  

[Admiaczking]

there is one...  Its called classic shell, its got the same icon as the windows 8 start button but is pretty much identical to the windows 7 one.  

i might check it out if i ever feel like taking Windows 8 for a spin

[LAwLz]

First one:

If you take a look at Apple's website you will see they only have a certain amount of mac computers for sale each year.  If you've ever used a Mac you will know there are no third party driver software, and Apple releases free system updates through their app store that has effects on the hardware like improvements in Open GL, In Gaming and in other tasks.  So, Apple since they only have a limited types of models of computers sold every year, with very simillar if not identical hardware configurations as the previous year.   Apple designs its OSX software specifically for the hardware.  I'm not sure why you want any evidence for this, because I would assume you would already know.  But yeah, Apple designs their software specifically for their chosen hardware.  This is a reason why you can only use a very limited ammount of hardware configurations for a hackintosh. 

Apple doesn't make all the drivers for OS X. For example AMD and Nvidia are responsible for the GPU drivers.

Microsoft has released free OS upgrades in the past as well (for example service packs and Windows 8.1).

I never said that Apple didn't release a very limited number of models each year. What I asked for was proof that releasing a small number of models has any effect on the stability of the system. Something that is able to run on 10 different systems can be more stable than something specifically designed for a single one.

iOS is a good example of this. It crashes all the time and it can only run on a very limited number of devices.

 

 

Second One:

How To Geek Post On Why You Dont Need To Defrag ext, ext2, ext3 and ext4 formats http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-explains-why-linux-doesnt-need-defragmenting/

 

About Disk Optimizations in OSX: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1375

You missed my point again. Yes there are file systems out there that are better than NTFS. Yes Ext won't become fragmented as quickly as NTFS. Fragmentation is unavoidable on hard drives though. No file system in the world can avoid it, only delay it.

The bigger files you save, and the fuller your Ext disk is, the more fragmented it will become. Even your own links says that. The only way to beat fragmentation is to move away from hard drives.

 

 

I think everything fought really well.  I guess the registry isn't too bad, I mean. I guess its more the fact there are really horrible registry cleaners that make the registry seem like the horror its made out to be.  

The problem is registry cleaners... They usually do more harm than good. Again, if you don't know what the hell you're doing then don't touch the registry and it will be fine. And yes, running a registry cleaner counts as touching it.

 

 

I guess you could say that, but at the same time, it can be customized well and stuff I guess, but I would assume it would be hard to open up OSX since Apple brings out regular patches to fix exploits and ways of opening up OSX to major operating system changes.  But at the same time OSX does use pretty much the same terminal as in Linux so you can do allot of cool stuff with that. 

I am not a fan of OS X but as far as I know you don't need to hack it open like you have on iOS. You can just install for example X on it and change out the DE if you want. No workarounds needed.

There is nothing stopping you from doing things as root either.

[LAwLz]

I guess, but at the same time.  Take into consideration.  Even if Apple doesn't make the drivers, the people who do have a long time to program 1 driver for one peice of hardware with limited combinations.  So, for example.  Intel's Chipset drivers, you could be using so many different hardware combinations.  Millions of different combinations.  On a mac, there is only about 10 different combinations.  All unchangeable because Apple likes to solder ram onto the motherboard and glue the batteries in place.  This means the people who make the drivers have time to make it EXTREMERLY stable, and even if a bug is found with the driver, there is only 10 hardware combinations or so with a line of Macs every year so they can fix the bug, and making the update 100% compatible with the other hardware, and send the update out to all that model of mac.  Meaning pretty much right off the bat as soon as you setup your mac, there are very limited bugs.

 

 

Once again, I'm not an Apple fanboy, neither a Windows fanboy.   I own a Mac and a PC and am just defending the facts.  

 

Unless you've owned a mac and have used one recently.  I dont think its fair for you to be calling me and other people who've used macs wrong or demanding proof when you haven't experienced it for yourself. 

It seems like your understanding of software and hardware development is pretty flawed. You think of a computer has a single piece when it's more module based.

Think of it as Lego. Each piece is responsible for fitting into the other pieces. Lego doesn't have to test every single combination of Lego bricks to make sure each individual piece works. It just has to check if it follows the standards. If it does then it fits.

Very rarely does something not work on a very particular setup. That's why it is possible for OSes like Windows and GNU/Linux to be installed on so many different configurations.

 

 

About the last part of your post, I don't have to own a Mac to question your claims. Don't you realize how silly that sounds? It's like me saying "yeah my computer can literally cure cancer", but you're not allowed to question it because you don't own an identical computer.

You're the one making claims and the burden of proof is therefore on you.

[Akolyte]

It seems like your understanding of software and hardware development is pretty flawed. You think of a computer has a single piece when it's more module based.

Think of it as Lego. Each piece is responsible for fitting into the other pieces. Lego doesn't have to test every single combination of Lego bricks to make sure each individual piece works. It just has to check if it follows the standards. If it does then it fits.

Very rarely does something not work on a very particular setup. That's why it is possible for OSes like Windows and GNU/Linux to be installed on so many different configurations.

 

 

About the last part of your post, I don't have to own a Mac to question your claims. Don't you realize how silly that sounds? It's like me saying "yeah my computer can literally cure cancer", but you're not allowed to question it because you don't own an identical computer.

You're the one making claims and the burden of proof is therefore on you.

yeah, I'm not the most knowledgeable

 

But its not like that, because you are making a claiming that me saying OSX is more stable than windows is wrong yet you have never experienced OSX for yourself?  How do you know its unstable?  

Its not like me saying my computer can cure cancer.  Its like someone claiming Battlefield 4 is buggy and the worst game ever when they have never played it before.  That is what its like. 

[ZacDaMan72]

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.

Yes. @LinusTech if you're not comfortable with switching to OSX for desktop, why not replace the XPS 12 with a MacBook Pro with retina display?

[ygohome]

If Linus switched to OS X, I wonder if it would be better to use a genuine Mac or a hackentosh.

 

I think a genuine mac would be best, to avoid headaches with configuring a hackentosh system.  On the other hand, Linus might get more pleasure from using OS X on a hackentosh system he built... even if it means more tweaking were required.

 

Either way, I would love to see what he thinks after using OS X solely for a good couple months.  *I think using for 1 month might not be long enough... consider that when a user moves to a new OS (win 8 for example) often requires ALOT of use before becoming comfortable.

 

Slick would probably adapt much faster to OS X than Linus would.  I say that because Slick is familiar with Putty/ssh etc, which implies he is familiar with linux command line use.  OS X Terminal (linux command line) is a big part of OS X.  I don't think Linus has the same experience with linux.  But on the other hand I think slick is already kindof biased against OS X based on comments he's made on the WAN.   

[LAwLz]

But its not like that, because you are making a claiming that me saying OSX is more stable than windows is wrong yet you have never experienced OSX for yourself?  How do you know its unstable?  

Its not like me saying my computer can cure cancer.  Its like someone claiming Battlefield 4 is buggy and the worst game ever when they have never played it before.  That is what its like. 

No no no no. That's not anything like the situation at all. Me asking for proof that OS X is more stable than Windows is not the same as me saying Windows is more stable than OS X.

I am not making any claims at all. I am only asking you to back your claims up. Just because I ask for proof does not mean I believe the opposite of your claim. I find this quite often with fanboys. They make a statement that they can't back up with facts (usually because they are just parroting what someone else have said) and then they assume the one asking for proof must be a fanboy for the competitor.

 

If you want a Battlefield analogy, this conversation is as if you said Battlefield 4 is one of the most stable games in the world, then when I ask for proof and you go "you haven't played it so you can't say I am wrong!".

If what you are saying is true then it does not matter what experience the one you are debating against has. Whom you are debating against is completely irrelevant as long as you stick to fact based arguments.

[darkspeedy26]

-snip-

Slick would probably adapt much faster to OS X than Linus would.  I say that because Slick is familiar with Putty/ssh etc, which implies he is familiar with linux command line use.  OS X Terminal (linux command line) is a big part of OS X.  I don't think Linus has the same experience with linux.  But on the other hand I think slick is already kindof biased against OS X based on comments he's made on the WAN.   

 

you don't really need their terminal to use their OS... maybe on some occasions, but still negligible IMO

[ygohome]

you don't really need their terminal to use their OS... maybe on some occasions, but still negligible IMO

Yeah, that is true.  

 

I use Terminal pretty regular though and that is probably why I thought of it.  I manage all of my headless linux servers using Terminal.  I ssh to my work's servers using Terminal.   I use Xquartz in OS X quite a bit for X11 windows. 

 

I rarely use terminal for managing my own OS X.  I do sometimes, but mostly I use it for just ssh to various other servers.

[LAwLz]

Yeah, that is true.  

 

I use Terminal pretty regular though and that is probably why I thought of it.  I manage all of my headless linux servers using Terminal.  I ssh to my work's servers using Terminal.   I use Xquartz in OS X quite a bit for X11 windows. 

 

I rarely use terminal for managing my own OS X.  I do sometimes, but mostly I use it for just ssh to various other servers.

You can do exactly the same thing on Windows and pretty much any other OS as well.

[ygohome]

You can do exactly the same thing on Windows and pretty much any other OS as well.

yes, that is very true.  ANd I do.  I use cygwin (openssh package), securecrt securefx, etc..    SSH service is not built into windows natively.  But yes, in windows I do all the same stuff and had been LONG before I even tried OS X.  I should be clear that I'm not making any arguments for or against windows vs osx or other OS.

 

I was mentioning terminal originally because it seems linus may want to use it as part of his OS X review, if he does a review.  That was all the reason why I mentioned it.   But darkspeedy reminded me that, even though I use terminal alot, it is not necessary as part of an OS X review, since it is not necessary for day to day OS X stuff.    

[LAwLz]

yes, that is very true.  ANd I do.  I use cygwin (openssh package), securecrt securefx, etc..    SSH service is not built into windows natively.  But yes, in windows I do all the same stuff and had been LONG before I even tried OS X.  I should be clear that I'm not making any arguments for or against windows vs osx or other OS.

 

I was mentioning terminal originally because it seems linus may want to use it as part of his OS X review, if he does a review.  That was all the reason why I mentioned it.   But darkspeedy reminded me that, even though I use terminal alot, it is not necessary as part of an OS X review, since it is not necessary for day to day OS X stuff.

I sure hope you're using Cygwin for more than SSH because if not it's kind of a waste.