I think Vista and Ubuntu would take similar amounts of configuration if third-parties (I'm looking at you, AMD!) made their drivers open-source.

If you buy fully-supported hardware their's no issue, like Dell's Ubuntu-preinstalled machines.

stof said: redspear said: rendo said: Your friend either was already looking for a new system, or has extra cash to spend. :P I don't like Macs because they have a premium cost, and they're quite frankly not worth it. Gaming on a Mac and on Linux is basically the same, so Linux ftw. :) A lot of people I know who have gone to mac usually are comparing a newer mac to their older PC and they are wowed by how fast they are. Others get macs because of school AI uses them quite a bit. It is easier to game on a Mac than linux but at least it with Linux you can get drivers for an 8800GTX and many of the big big games come out on a mac with the benefit of Itunes built in. I honestly still can't understand he easier to use bit about macs though. It is easier to use than Linux I do not find OS X intuitive or easy to use and I have been using the macs for years. To each their own.  Rendo - yes, my friend was looking for a new computer, and was open to the idea of macs, but wasn't really leaning towards it. But seeing how intuitive the OS was and all the things it could do clinched the deal As for gaming... I have an Xbox and a DS... I really don't see the need to PC game. Although to be fair, Mac is starting to see an increase in game development as they increase their marketshare, not that it would affect me, as I got one without a graphics card. @ Redspear. I just find that it's much easier and more intuitive to use. and judging by the "improvements" in Vista, Microsoft seems to agree.

What improvements though? if you are talking about spotlight that was search feature was in my 2002 Whistler beta. If you are talking about sidebar and gadgets? That was also in the beta and the first thing I turned off in Vista and disabled in Mac OSX as I find it useless and annoying.

This isn't to say I don't use OSX my gateway notebook dual boots OS 10.4.8(can't get 10.4.9 to work yet but will be getting the 10.4.10 patch to soon for it). I also have a G5 Imac and of course at work we do have a Mac Pro. I just prefer a system that actually runs faster than OS X on the same machine. One thing I have noticed with Mac OS is that there is an insane amount of kernels as well as translation stuff in there for Power PC stuff. My 1.5 ghz pentium M gateway notebook(running OSX)runs faster than the 24 inch Imac that is currently available because those unneccesary componenets are removed and .kext files modified to run on HW OSX was not designed for.

 As for graphics cards I was not talking about gaming but graphics in general you simply can not get the best graphics cards for any type of application(modeling, CAD what not) the top end card is the nvidia Quadro 4500 on the Mac Pro which is one gen behind what PCs have.Of course if I was doing any serious 3D modeling work it would all be on Linux. But the point is that Macs are still lagging behind in HW. Want the fastest CPU or graphics card Macs are not even option(well Hackintoshes are or would be can't get the Titan drivers to recognize my 8800 GTS yet)or not pay out the #$% for SAS, OSX is not the way to go.

 Again in my opinion there is no advantage to owning either Mac or PC for everyday use(net browsing, IM, what not). I am also not a fan of Vista and would prefer running server 2003 for a windows platform if it was not for limited SW compatability.

As for ease fo use sit a newb in front of either and they still won't get it without someone telling them how to do it.

Not even Nvidia has open source drivers - just the binary blob. On that note though, AMD ney ATI drivers have always sucked, platform be damned.

Game_boy said: I think Vista and Ubuntu would take similar amounts of configuration if third-parties (I'm looking at you, AMD!) made their drivers open-source. If you buy fully-supported hardware their's no issue, like Dell's Ubuntu-preinstalled machines.

 

Ubuntu is the most freindly version of linux I have ever seen. I am impressed by its low resource use flexibility and HW compatability(I do have an issue with it getting to recognize my RAID) but outside of that it recognizes more HW immediately after install than XP or Vista. It is important to remember that the image you install from is updated more often than XP, Vista or OSX though. This is an OS that I hope gets some real attention and one I wouldn't mind paying for.

wangfoo said: NJ5 said: I use Windows because it allows me to use my computers without fiddling a lot with drivers, configuration issues, and etc. Besides, I can find applications for doing anything with it, and whenever I feel like using unix style shells and utilities, cygwin to the rescue! PS: Different versions of Windows I currently use include 2000, 2003, Vista...    You've been able to avoid driver problems with 2003 and Vista?! What is your secret?

 

I haven't had any driver issues with any system unless you mean you have to install them or they are not available.

No system ever? You're sure you have used Linux or Windows? Half the time its not even an issue with installation, its a problem with the fact that the drivers are a PoS. So many drivers are written with literally zero thought, and only function well if you stand on one foot and juggle three balls.

Lets go through my headaches with Vista x64 so far.

Nvidia graphics driver causes artifacting. Old driver does not have this problem.

UPS driver literally killed the UPS.

Wireless driver takes a dump and crashes whole system.

Thats in the last week. Maybe I'm cursed and run into these issues with practically every system I've run, but I suspect that you are just incredibly lucky. 

wangfoo said: No system ever? You're sure you have used Linux or Windows? Half the time its not even an issue with installation, its a problem with the fact that the drivers are a PoS. So many drivers are written with literally zero thought, and only function well if you stand on one foot and juggle three balls. Lets go through my headaches with Vista x64 so far. Nvidia graphics driver causes artifacting. Old driver does not have this problem. UPS driver literally killed the UPS. Wireless driver takes a dump and crashes whole system. Thats in the last week. Maybe I'm cursed and run into these issues with practically every system I've run, but I suspect that you are just incredibly lucky.

 

I haven't had those issues but I rarely download Betas(the exception is Betas, I will be running leopard soon but I discount beta OSs as a work in progress or my hackintosh's one of which has a speeedstep issue). I used to use ATI's but they took to long on releasing the X2900 so I skipped them this gen because the 8800 is out now. I haven't had an issue but I know it is a common complaint with ATIs. I think I may be lucky.

wangfoo said: No system ever? You're sure you have used Linux or Windows? Half the time its not even an issue with installation, its a problem with the fact that the drivers are a PoS. So many drivers are written with literally zero thought, and only function well if you stand on one foot and juggle three balls. Lets go through my headaches with Vista x64 so far. Nvidia graphics driver causes artifacting. Old driver does not have this problem. UPS driver literally killed the UPS. Wireless driver takes a dump and crashes whole system. Thats in the last week. Maybe I'm cursed and run into these issues with practically every system I've run, but I suspect that you are just incredibly lucky.

 

Also I haven't messed with the x64 versions of Windows yet so that may be another thing.

Issues I have had with Vista:

- Adobe Director fails to use DX or OGL at all and software rendering is obviously very slow.But it works under WINE on Linux fine even though it's not meant to)
- A game intended for Vista has flashing graphical artefacts with AMD drivers (But it works under WINE on Linux fine even though it's not meant to)
- Is horribly slow (10 secs. for Firefox to launch) even though I have a good computer (6000+/X1950PRO)

Issues I have had with Ubuntu:

- Software MIDI Synthesis fails and I didn't buy a sound card
- AIGLX doesn't work with AMD drivers so eye candy is gone
- Refuses to boot on older computers with HP/Dell BIOSes that hate new operating systems

...so about even then

In the past I often switched Operating Systems (my OS-history so far: DOS -> OS/2 -> Windows98 -> Suse Linux -> Windows 2000 -> Sourcemage Linux) and in the future I will possibly will switch again. I boot Windows 2000 sometimes to play Starcraft or Unreal Tournament, other than that I use Linux as my main system. The main reasons to switch to Linux: 1. I was pissed, because Win2000 get reduced support. For instance IE7 needs XP at least, with no real OS-function it needs. But XP has no advantage about 2000, so I saw no reason to pay for OS again (I didn't got Windows as OEM - selfmade PC - so I payed to get 2000). With Linux (and other free Unix) I get updates and support for free. 2. I use now the Windowmanager Fluxbox, that uses only few space on the screen and can be controlled by keys. That is much faster. Even more, as menus in Windows are often animated - that takes some time. So I'm more effective with Fluxbox. 3. Windows lacks a decent commandline, that allows effective work. So I used with windows cygwin, a Unix-environment for Windows. Under Linux the powerful commandline is part of the OS. Why I choose Linux and not another free Unix (Free-/Open-/Net-BSD or OpenSolaris). Simply because Linux has the best driver-support for PC's in the moment.