Just to add to the chorus, I use Linux for most of my processing, though I do have a legal copy of Windows 2000 running under VMware's vmplayer and I also have a version of Crossover Office (a supported version of Wine) to run random Windows apps. I mostly use GIMP for the interactive processing, and I use hand written perl scripts to manage everything, and the perl scripts use the Perl ImageMagick plugin and the Exiftool software.
Actually, it isn’t. It follows the POSIX standard (or it is near enough for most purposes), and application development is based on OpenStep. One can port applications from GNU/Linux, BSD and GNUStep with much less effort and better integration than from MS Windows, which does have a POSIX personality but which is considered a bad joke in this regard.
Had one once.
It doesn’t matter, actually, as the only real differential of a Mac nowadays is Mac OS and the quality.
Yes, from YellowDog. At least you could a few months ago.
No, it isn’t. Intel, just like MS, actively disregards open standards to create their own. Witness OpenFirmware versus the BIOS and USB2 vs. FireWire. In both cases, Apple stood by the open standard but ended up caving in to Intel.
Not true, as MS’s effective monopoly encourages device manufacturers to keep interfaces closed as trade secrets under NDAs.
Apple hasn’t anymore, it is just a box shifter now just as HP or Dell — only a high-quality one.
Not true at all — MS couldn’t produce timely and good quality documentation to its interfaces even under pressure from the EU, and now it charges US$10K for it plus royalties.
Granted, but this is only part of the market. Even so, it is not so easy to find all components well supported by GNU/Linux. Cases in point are wireless, 3D and TV interfaces.
Useless comparison, since a Mac nowadays is just a (quality) PC with Mac OS loaded.
On the contrary — MS Windows is only compatible with itself, plus or less a couple of versions. On the other hand, because of POSIX and even OpenStep, GNU/Linux and Unix are historically and future-proof mutually compatible — and Unix does include Mac OS X.
--
Actually XP suceeds 2000, and both are built on the NT kernel.
Well, I used to use a computer called the Amiga which could not only run it own OS, but there were also emulators for Mac, DOS, and Commodore 64 (this was the late 80's).
OK, I totally won't argue about anything with you anymore. ; ) Nice to see a fellow ex-Amiga user. I don't know how fanatical you were, but I'd guess you're aware that it was a VERY special platform.
Sure, but emulated versions are never really good for anything else that for fun or as a debug environment. Of course, today you can emulate older hardware and software, because today's PC are so much better than the one they are emulating, but emulating real time is never possible, except really slow real time applications. I have actually written a 6502 emulator which worked on 6802 platform back in 1981, but it was slow. Actually, even today, to emulate a fairly slow, but modern Microchip PIC in a fast Core 2 Duo PC results in loss of execution speed compared to the real thing, but yes, emulation is possible in almost any hardware, even if it is a bad solution as on a day to day use.
Define "fully featured".
