OT: Apple Mac computers

[Rod]

Also says minimum ram of 64 (with 128 recommended). Who would be silly enough to try to run it in 40?

[Andy Hall]

You know you want one ;-)

That's even without mentioning the sex factors of the Mac.

[Man at B&Q]

Pedantically, what you say may be true, but it doesn't alter the fact that a Windows machine will give reliable and continued service in heavy and daily use. I'm using one now that exhibits that very property.

MBQ

[Andy Hall]

You're very fortunate. At some point, it will break and require a total rebuild.

[Man at B&Q]

age

Except when it doesn't, and you're left up shit creek without a beardy unix guru to help.

Even the Ubuntu installer (let alone the OS) needs more memory than I had on my laptop, which would run XP quite happily.

Try telling a computer novice to get wireless networking going.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

Actually, it's clearly stated on the Ubuntu homepage, or a page not too far away, that the installer requires 256Meg, as does trying to boot from the LiveCD.

MBQ

[Pete C ukdiy]

My PC is just the opposite, 55 days since last reboot.

What makes the difference IME is:

Don't use anything by Microsoft (except XP itself), uninstall if possible.

Don't use any bundled software, uninstall if possible.

Do have decent backup software.

I can't really be bothered with Apple Macs, nice though they are.

cheers, Pete.

[Andy Hall]

One can buy paid for support services just as one can for Microsoft.

A laptop with 256MB is marginal for anything.

Pretty easy with the current tools.

Installing wireless networking on Windows can be a real game. Depending on the card used, it may be better to use the Windows wireless control thing or whatever is supplied by the manufacturer.

Coming back to the Mac..... wireless networking just works. Enter the WPA key for a home network and up it all comes and remains solid.

[Al Reynolds]

Agreed. Ubuntu can be a right pig if any of your hardware is even remotely non-standard. I wouldn't recommend it for novices.

A lot of people forget that Mac OS X is a Linux-based distribution, just not a free one.

I run a streaming media server at home and have run it on several platforms: - Win XP on an Intel laptop - Debian Linux on the same laptop - Damn Small Linux on the same laptop - Debian Linux on an Intel desktop - Darwin (Mac OS X) on an Intel Mac Mini

The Windows install needed restarting every other day. The Debian distros were pretty good until I tried to alter something like sharing a new printer - it always seemed to screw up the SAMBA file sharing somehow - on average I needed to restart because of wireless networking issues about once a week. The DSL installation was alright but not very easy to customise. As for the Mac, I can't remember the last time I had to reboot it for anything other than software updates. I checked the last time I did updates and it had been running without a hitch for more than two months. I've *never* had a Windows PC run that long without needing a reboot.

Al Reynolds

[The Medway Handyman]

Good point.

[The Medway Handyman]

I didn't break it, it came away in me hand...

[The Medway Handyman]

Thanks for the advice. I'd take notice of it, except that you are a complete gobshite.

[Bob Eager]

WRONG!

It's based on FreeBSD, which has real UNIX history. Linux is merely a wananbe UNIX.

Seriously....Linux and FreeBSD are completely different systems. BSD started back in the mid/late 1970s, and has evolved since then. Linux was the early 90s.

[Huge]

I bought one. I'm not that impressed. Particularly when iMovie didn't work "out of the box" and I had to find and download a third party tool to reinstall just iMovie rather than the whole of the O/S, and even then it didn't work until Apple released a *huge* patch for {insert silly name of O/S version here}. I shan't be stopping using my Sun any time soon.

Although the Mac was (other than "let's see what all the fuss is about") mainly for my good lady, so I don't have to support any more Windows garbage at home. But experience so far is that MacOS isn't sufficiently better that it justfies the effort to learn it and put up with its rather odd UI.

[conkersack]

Well, as you can see from the comments generated, this can be a risky thing to dive into. I have experience with Windows (2K, XP and Vista), Mac OS (from 7 to the latest) and Ubuntu and Fedora linux.

You will hear people saying that Macs / Windows / Linux is better for a variety of reasons. These may include:

Easier to use. More flexible. 'Coolness'. Cost.

I will try to save you a whole load of ball ache and tell you what I have learnt the hard way:

All computer systems are as equally awkward to use as each other. All of them.

It is just a case of "getting used to" (wot da clever 1s will no as lernin, innit!) whatever system you have. This takes care of the 'easier to use' claim of each camp. For the vast majority of people, it's just a case of stting down and putting the effort in, no matter what the system.

More flexible: Well, for the small minority of people who need a machine to do something very specific, then they obviously use what is best for them. This has no bearing on what you use. Horses for courses.

Coolness: The only people who find computers 'cool' have big beards, or acne and a computer-game costume. Computers are not cool. No matter what the preachers of the 3 GUI religions say. Apple use the 'cool' factor a lot in advertising. Ingest that sentence and reach enlightenment about the concept of 'cool' computers. Apple, and all other computer makers, do not make 'cool' computers. (iPods, are a completely different matter. They are quite effective at removing knickers from pretty women. I have first hand experience of this.)

Cost: I used to be a real Mac zealot. The last mac I bought was in the late 1990's - a Perfoma 6200. It, and it's accessories, cost me the best part of =A32000. I saved up for a long time. =A32000 to a 17 year old is a hell of a lot of money. I have never bought another mac simply because of the cost. They do have a pretty interface though, but this does not justify the cost differential for me. Windows computers generally cost less for an everyday system. Linux computers generally cost the least of all three. Unfortunately, Linux is a bit of a pain in the arse for everyday use, in my experience. As the computer you bought most likely came with windows, just use that. You say you have only just learnt how to wrangle a computer, so just stick with what you have for the time being. If you change system, you'll still have to learn how to use that, too. Maybe not as much as you'll have already picked up a fair amount of 'cross-use' knowledge. I am not saying that Windows is the best, please understand this. If you were complaining about a Mac/Linux/HAL 9000 you bought, I would say the same.

The best course of action is to tell us what machine you have, and bring up specific problems for discussion/ridicule/warfare.

As I said earlier: Horses for Courses. But don't think that spending money and/or time on a new computer system will make you more efficient/cooler/sexy/capable at your job. It wont. What it will do is rob you of time and money so you can effectively wonder at what all the fuss is about, especially when you realise that it's not quite as exciting as you may have been lead to believe.

Here endeth today's sermon.

[conkersack]

I would second this.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Well, it isn't based on Linux at all. It's based on a strange mixture of different BSD's and earlier Apple unixs. That's pretty irrelevant to most users though.

[Andy Hall]

It originates from BSD and uses the Mach kernel, not Mr. Torvalds stuff.

That's pretty much par for the course.

>

[Jonathan Campbell]

Although I'm a Linux person, I've cannot remember hearing a complaint about Macs, and I do know a few people who have transferred from Windows and Unix in the past few years.

I think Linux has been mentioned, specifically Ubuntu. I have been Redhat (Fedora) based for ten odd years. Recently, I switched to Ubuntu (8.04) and I found the installation to be at least an order of magnitude simpler. Moreover, according to pals who have been Ubuntu advocates, updates are reliable and trouble free; after two months, I agree.

Finding an installing software beyond the base installation is so easy as to not qualify as DIY.

OpenOffice handles anything Excel or Word that comes my way. Cannot speak of Frontpage, but Google (or uk.comp.os.linux) will undoubtedly know of a Linux alternative. I do web development, but using a text editor.

I should add that I use Linux mainly because of the raft of free (mainly scientific) software that I use. I teach in an institution that uses only Windows, so I must have a Windows box to hand; also handy for the one (stockbroking) website that I use that cannot fully understand the Firefox browser. I don't play games --- which would be another reason for Windows. OTOH, apart from internet browsing, I find Windows a hair-greying and teeth-grinding experience --- most especially developing software using Visual Studio and using the Outlook email client (at work).

I suppose a final reason for Linux is the current low price of Wintel machines, including laptops with exceedingly large discs.

Good luck,

Jon C.

[Man at B&Q]

Proof by assertion.