Mac vs. Windows

[IR1234]

Windows has always driven me up the wall, so that's not an option here.

The question of Mac versus Ubuntu MATE has been much on my mind recently, though. I feel like the Mac user interface has been in decline for a while now, and the OS has been getting gradually more cranky and counter-intuitive and unhelpful. At the same time the Linux world has continued to improve, and it's at the point now where I find that I prefer Ubuntu MATE in many respects. Also, Apple's hardware lineup has left me befuddled and frustrated for a while now. (Which is why I'm still running a Mac Pro from 2009.)

Aperture was one program that kept me tied to Mac OS, since it didn't run on any other system. Then Apple abandoned Aperture, and I moved to Adobe Lightroom. And it was good, but it doesn't run on Linux. Now Adobe are going subscription-only with Lightroom, so that's the end of that (for me at least). Now I have to start looking once again for photo management-and-editing software.

This time it's going to be something that runs on both Mac and Linux. And I'm quickly running out of programs that "hold" me on Mac OS, so the possibility that my next system may be Ubuntu-based looks more and more plausible.

No idea about Ubuntu, but I installed Centos+GNOME over the summer, and frankly I didn't think Linux desktop had moved on much from 7 years ago when I last tried it. I have to say that I was expecting something better, and I was disappointed - because I really wanted it to be better than what it was.

So after all these years, I could not use GNOME outside it's server function that it was bought for. Although applications like Firefox and Thunderbird are great, they are still this strange Linux mess that's the same as it ever was. Extremely functional, but lacking the polish that you see in OSX.

 

[JDC1958]

I am pretty familiar with Bash and use to run some basic Linux commands years ago. Apt-Get is one I will never forget as long as live.

What made Linux nice is you could have customized desktops and I cannot count on one hand how may I have tried. A very cool feature as far as I am concerned.

Your word guest for the command line in Windows is a good bit misleading though. Running a executable from the command line has the same power ( results ) as opening it via a icon on the desktop. It is a part of the OS, not a guest.

The correct comparison is the Linux Desktop is a guest of the Linux OS, since it can be removed. I can with admin rights lock down the Windows command line from a user. But I cannot remove it or the desktop from a Windows machine. Neither is a guest.

 

[Michael Fryd]

....

I really think you are splitting hairs. You use the words "better for a task" but then say not which is better. The backup is the task so which is better is exactly what you want to find out.

My issue is that it is pointless to discuss which is the better of two things without context of what the goal is. If you're not going to define the goal, then there is no useful metric.

In the real world different people have different goals. Consider backups. For some the goal will be speed, others will want ease of configuration, and some will want reliability.

Thus product A may be clearly "better" for some people, while product B may be "better" for others.

Unless we are having some sort of competition (and I hope to avoid that), we should avoid contextless assessments as to which is "better" and stick to how the functionality of each affects various tasks.

That is all subjective unless you want to measure speed to determine which is better. Speed of running the backup and then speed to do a restore. Of course the type of restore, folders, size, and types of files would have to be equal. Only then could you really have a true measurement of better for the task of doing a backup and restore.

But I see "backup and restore" as too general of a task. We all have different needs. There is no single backup strategy/system that is "better" for everyone.

When it comes to using a computer, I don't care so much what's "better" for someone else. I don't even care so much as to what's "better" for most people. What I care about is what's the best match for the particular needs of the situation at hand.

The word easy is also subjective. I am a right mouse click windows explorer kind of guy; so nothing about a Mac would be intuitive and easy for me.

I suspect if you plugged your existing mouse into a Mac, you would find a lot of similarities between right click on Windows and right click on the Mac.

 

[JDC1958]

Then you need to obviously define the particular task. Your words quoted and in bold below.

"That's why I don't want to discuss whether or not Apple's functionality in a particular area is "better" or "worse" than Window's backup. I want to discuss the differences in functionality so I can see which is better suited to the needs of a particular task."

We need the specific task before we can look at its functionality. Otherwise everything is an assumed and/or generalized mess. Which is where this thread is going.

 

[bobn2]

Windows has always driven me up the wall, so that's not an option here.

The question of Mac versus Ubuntu MATE has been much on my mind recently, though. I feel like the Mac user interface has been in decline for a while now, and the OS has been getting gradually more cranky and counter-intuitive and unhelpful. At the same time the Linux world has continued to improve, and it's at the point now where I find that I prefer Ubuntu MATE in many respects. Also, Apple's hardware lineup has left me befuddled and frustrated for a while now. (Which is why I'm still running a Mac Pro from 2009.)

Aperture was one program that kept me tied to Mac OS, since it didn't run on any other system. Then Apple abandoned Aperture, and I moved to Adobe Lightroom. And it was good, but it doesn't run on Linux. Now Adobe are going subscription-only with Lightroom, so that's the end of that (for me at least). Now I have to start looking once again for photo management-and-editing software.

This time it's going to be something that runs on both Mac and Linux. And I'm quickly running out of programs that "hold" me on Mac OS, so the possibility that my next system may be Ubuntu-based looks more and more plausible.

No idea about Ubuntu, but I installed Centos+GNOME over the summer, and frankly I didn't think Linux desktop had moved on much from 7 years ago when I last tried it. I have to say that I was expecting something better, and I was disappointed - because I really wanted it to be better than what it was.

As was said in another post, you have your choice of desktops, some more polished than others. Sometimes as they get polished, they get worse. (Same is true of Windows and MacOS).

So after all these years, I could not use GNOME outside it's server function that it was bought for. Although applications like Firefox and Thunderbird are great, they are still this strange Linux mess that's the same as it ever was. Extremely functional, but lacking the polish that you see in OSX.

'Mess' is great. I means it's not trapped in a morass of one corporations idea of brand and conformity.

 

[Michael Fryd]

I am pretty familiar with Bash and use to run some basic Linux commands years ago. Apt-Get is one I will never forget as long as live.

What made Linux nice is you could have customized desktops and I cannot count on one hand how may I have tried. A very cool feature as far as I am concerned.

Years ago I ran the unix X-Windows desktop on my Mac. I wonder if any of those Linux desktops can be compiled to run on the Mac?

Your word guest for the command line in Windows is a good bit misleading though. Running a executable from the command line has the same power ( results ) as opening it via a icon on the desktop. It is a part of the OS, not a guest.

I think an important difference is that with Windows you are using the command line to start up Windows-based GUI applications.

With Linux/Unix/OS-X you can do that, but you also have the option of running a very rich set of powerful command line tools. These include a number of different scripting options, some built into the command line interpreter, and some as stand alone programs.

I think calling the Windowing system a "guest" of Linux/Unix/OS-X is a bit misleading. The OS is separated into various layers that communicate with each other. For instance, there are low level layers that handle scheduling the CPU and managing virtual memory. On Linux/Unix/Os-X, these layers are separate from the layers that handle the user interface.

There's a part of the OS that handles general window management. That's needs to manage all running programs that have a GUI.

There's also a part of the OS that allows the user to interact with the file system, and run programs. That part can just be a another program. In fact there are some security advantages to having that part of the GUI run as an unprivileged program.

The correct comparison is the Linux Desktop is a guest of the Linux OS, since it can be removed. I can with admin rights lock down the Windows command line from a user. But I cannot remove it or the desktop from a Windows machine. Neither is a guest.

I think a better description is that the organization of Linux/Unix/OS-X separates the user interface from the core functionality. Back when I used to teach Computer Science, this was considered a good thing. By isolating knowledge to a single module you get a system that is more reliable and easier to maintain.

If you are suggesting that Windows has mixed together the windowing code with the file GUI and the low level code, then that does not sound like an ideal organization for a large software system.

 

[Michael Fryd]

Then you need to obviously define the particular task. Your words quoted and in bold below.

"That's why I don't want to discuss whether or not Apple's functionality in a particular area is "better" or "worse" than Window's backup. I want to discuss the differences in functionality so I can see which is better suited to the needs of a particular task."

We need the specific task before we can look at its functionality. Otherwise everything is an assumed and/or generalized mess. Which is where this thread is going.

We differ here.

I think we can talk about things like generic backup functionality. We all know the sorts of functionality related to backups and the various issues. What I don't know is which of these are important for your circumstances.

Fortunately, since we are not trying to determine which is "better", I don't need to know your needs. All we need to do is to discuss what each OS has to offer, and then people can compare that to their own personal needs.

 

[bobn2]

If you are suggesting that Windows has mixed together the windowing code with the file GUI and the low level code, then that does not sound like an ideal organization for a large software system.

That is the case. It is one of the things that really gets me about Microsoft. Not that all their systems are kludged up to the eyeballs, ever since Bill gates bought the first MS-DOS from a bloke in a garage who had knocked it up in six weeks, but that they have this culture of self-justification that kludging it is the right way to do things.

Still, as we've agreed, it doesn't actually affect much in terms of application level performance, just that you need to keep your system full of obtrusive and toxic virus checkers because hackers have learned how to exploit all of those kludges.

 

[JDC1958]

They have been for years. I ran Debian Sarge on a Clamshell well over a decade ago.

 

[JDC1958]

The correct comparison is the Linux Desktop is a guest of the Linux OS, since it can be removed. I can with admin rights lock down the Windows command line from a user. But I cannot remove it or the desktop from a Windows machine. Neither is a guest.

I think a better description is that the organization of Linux/Unix/OS-X separates the user interface from the core functionality. Back when I used to teach Computer Science, this was considered a good thing. By isolating knowledge to a single module you get a system that is more reliable and easier to maintain.

If you are suggesting that Windows has mixed together the windowing code with the file GUI and the low level code, then that does not sound like an ideal organization for a large software system.

The desktop was more of a after thought for Unix/Linux. The user interface by design was the command line.

 

[Michael Fryd]

The correct comparison is the Linux Desktop is a guest of the Linux OS, since it can be removed. I can with admin rights lock down the Windows command line from a user. But I cannot remove it or the desktop from a Windows machine. Neither is a guest.

I think a better description is that the organization of Linux/Unix/OS-X separates the user interface from the core functionality. Back when I used to teach Computer Science, this was considered a good thing. By isolating knowledge to a single module you get a system that is more reliable and easier to maintain.

If you are suggesting that Windows has mixed together the windowing code with the file GUI and the low level code, then that does not sound like an ideal organization for a large software system.

The desktop was more of a after thought for Unix/Linux. The user interface by design was the command line.

Yes, the original OS user interface was the command line.

That history should probably take some of the credit for the separation between the underlying system functions and the user facing GUI functions. A happy accident of history that laid the groundwork for a good organizational framework.

Of course, it didn't take long for the command line to give way to some more visual. When video terminals started replacing hard copy terminals, many programs adapted a full screen video mode.

Even today, I still fall back into the habit of editing text files with the Emacs editor (The GNU version is bundled with the Mac, and I would assume most Linux systems). While the command line version of Emacs doesn't use the mouse, 35+ years of practice means I don't have to think to move the cursor with keyboard commands.

 

[JDC1958]

The correct comparison is the Linux Desktop is a guest of the Linux OS, since it can be removed. I can with admin rights lock down the Windows command line from a user. But I cannot remove it or the desktop from a Windows machine. Neither is a guest.

I think a better description is that the organization of Linux/Unix/OS-X separates the user interface from the core functionality. Back when I used to teach Computer Science, this was considered a good thing. By isolating knowledge to a single module you get a system that is more reliable and easier to maintain.

If you are suggesting that Windows has mixed together the windowing code with the file GUI and the low level code, then that does not sound like an ideal organization for a large software system.

The desktop was more of a after thought for Unix/Linux. The user interface by design was the command line.

Yes, the original OS user interface was the command line.

That history should probably take some of the credit for the separation between the underlying system functions and the user facing GUI functions. A happy accident of history that laid the groundwork for a good organizational framework.

Of course, it didn't take long for the command line to give way to some more visual. When video terminals started replacing hard copy terminals, many programs adapted a full screen video mode.

Even today, I still fall back into the habit of editing text files with the Emacs editor (The GNU version is bundled with the Mac, and I would assume most Linux systems). While the command line version of Emacs doesn't use the mouse, 35+ years of practice means I don't have to think to move the cursor with keyboard commands.

The underlying OS for Mac is Free BSD. I do not see a reason why anything that runs in Linux could not be made to run in the Mac OS. I tried Free BSD once but fell back on Debian. I knew how to load and run Debian on a minimalist system like for the Clamshell or a big bulky Gnome or KDE desktop for a dual processor system.

 

[pwilly]

What are the actual functional differences (if any) between OS-X and Windows? Let's try to stay away from value judgements of "better" and "worse", and stick to comparing and contrasting functionality.

In coarse terms, they offer much the same functionality - since most of the function of an application depends on what the hardware will do, and not what the OS can do, in the end, the apps are going to run the same, if you can get them.

Truer words were never spoken.

The real problem is that Windows has become an appallingly inefficient OS. Because it's badly structured right at its heart, and because MS has never been willing to deal with those core issues, as they've become part of the culture, it has layer after layer of workarounds, patches and complexity, a great deal of duplication and elaboration of function which is frankly unnecessary. The Unix family of OS, of which MacOS (as we are now supposed to call it) is a member, are not really state of the art, but have at least evolved from something that was in its day the best thought out OS and the evolution has been done almost by a process of open competition, where many developers have put forward changes and the fittest have survived. We could have much better OS than either, but the world is as it is.

I would agree if you were describing XP.

The NT6's got a nearly complete rewrite of the kernel and its IO plumbing.

You do know Russinovich and Cogswell had a major effect on NT6, right?

So, the big issue with Windows is how much of the available performance are you throwing away due to the inefficiency of the OS.

Less than you used to.

 

[IR1234]

I

As was said in another post, you have your choice of desktops, some more polished than others. Sometimes as they get polished, they get worse. (Same is true of Windows and MacOS).

Trouble is that I've never had an OSX upgrade that I felt was bad. Certainly between Snow Leopard and Lion there was a performance hit, I still think SL was a great OS, but I've never had an upgrade that I took an dislike to. We all dislike new things because many people hate change, but the change from say XP to Vista was a bad change. Likewise 98 to ME. And frankly, 95 was a piece of garbage when it came out but it largely survived because it was so "Mac like". Apparently.

I will state for the record that I was not around to see MacOS9. Now that was a pile of poo.

So after all these years, I could not use GNOME outside it's server function that it was bought for. Although applications like Firefox and Thunderbird are great, they are still this strange Linux mess that's the same as it ever was. Extremely functional, but lacking the polish that you see in OSX.

'Mess' is great. I means it's not trapped in a morass of one corporations idea of brand and conformity.

I don't like mess because fundamentally I'm not "into" computers anymore. It's just a device that I want to work, like I want my washing machine to work. I don't care about the hose sizes, or where I bought the on/off switch, and I don't care who designed the drum, I just want it to wash my clothes. I'm not a Whirlpool fanboy, I'm just a guy who likes clean clothes.

 

[Michael Fryd]

I

As was said in another post, you have your choice of desktops, some more polished than others. Sometimes as they get polished, they get worse. (Same is true of Windows and MacOS).

Trouble is that I've never had an OSX upgrade that I felt was bad. Certainly between Snow Leopard and Lion there was a performance hit, I still think SL was a great OS, but I've never had an upgrade that I took an dislike to. We all dislike new things because many people hate change, but the change from say XP to Vista was a bad change. Likewise 98 to ME. And frankly, 95 was a piece of garbage when it came out but it largely survived because it was so "Mac like". Apparently.

The problem with OS-X upgrades is that Apple has been known to drop compatibility with old software.

Snow Leopard (AKA OS-X version 10.6) was the last version to include support for PowerPC software on Intel hardware. Without getting into why they dropped it, the fact is that they did drop it. This meant that software that was perfectly functional under OS-X 10.6 would not run at all under OS-X 10.7

Apple is known for pushing people towards running the latest and greatest. Apple frequently drops support for the old, and embraces support for the new.

This has advantages and disadvantages.

When Apple ceases to support older operating systems, it encourages people to run new and "better" versions. Unfortunately, without the security updates to older versions, you don't get much choice. However, the new versions don't run on some of the older hardware. If your Mac is too old, you can't get a reasonably secure version of OS-X to run in it. You either upgrade to newer hardware, or dump OS-X and load Windows or Linux.

OS-X is a free purchase in Apple's Mac App store. However, once a new version of OS-X comes out, older versions are no longer offered "for sale". If you have already purchased the old version, you can download it. If you didn't "purchase" the old version, you no longer have the ability to do so once the newer version comes out.

If your iPhone malfunctions, you can have it swapped out for a refurbished unit. However that refurbished unit may have a newer version of iOS (the iPhone OS). Generally, you can't downgrade to an older version. Erase and restore your iPhone, and your only option is the current version of iOS. By the way, the current version of iOS dropped support for 32 bit iOS applications. Apps that were working beautifully before the upgrade, may no longer be functional after the upgrade. Downgrading to restore functionality is generally not an option.

My point is that Apple upgrades are not without their issues. It is not unheard of for upgrades to break existing functionality and/or drop support for non-current hardware.

On the other had, my understanding is that Windows tends to have fewer compatibility issues with upgrades, and that Windows continues to issue security updates for many years to older versions of Windows.

 

[PhotoFactor]

Then you need to obviously define the particular task. Your words quoted and in bold below.

"That's why I don't want to discuss whether or not Apple's functionality in a particular area is "better" or "worse" than Window's backup. I want to discuss the differences in functionality so I can see which is better suited to the needs of a particular task."

We need the specific task before we can look at its functionality. Otherwise everything is an assumed and/or generalized mess. Which is where this thread is going.

There is a term known as "the tyranny of the default".

You want something to be built in. And if it is built in, people use it and it becomes a standard.

If not built in, it's not a common use and a standard might not develop. But then you also have the advantage of "best in breed" choices.

For MacOS and standard backup, that's a great thing.

But should the browser be standard? The anti-virus?

Microsoft tried to build in Internet Explorer as the "standard browser" years ago. And today we are all happy we can choose from Chrome or Firefox in addition to Safari or Edge.

For backup, Windows is more of a "pick an add-on product" and that's both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because you can pick best in breed, cloud or non-cloud. A curse because there is not a common standard.

It's a difference in philosophy and practicality. It's better to ask - do you WANT your OS to have a commonly used built-in backup program? If the answer is yes, then MacOS is better for YOUR needs. But not necessarily for everybody's.

Just like cameras - they all have strengths and weaknesses, almost all of them are good. But various cameras mix features, quality, size, cost, and ecosystem and my right camera might not be your right camera.

 

[JDC1958]

Windows supported XP from 2002 until 2012. To me that is pretty good. I usually do not upgrade to the latest and the greatest right away. I prefer to wait at least 3 to 5 years before moving to the next Windows. I was the same way with Linux.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

There is a term known as "the tyranny of the default".

You want something to be built in. And if it is built in, people use it and it becomes a standard.

If not built in, it's not a common use and a standard might not develop. But then you also have the advantage of "best in breed" choices.

For MacOS and standard backup, that's a great thing.

But should the browser be standard? The anti-virus?

Microsoft tried to build in Internet Explorer as the "standard browser" years ago. And today we are all happy we can choose from Chrome or Firefox in addition to Safari or Edge.

For backup, Windows is more of a "pick an add-on product" and that's both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because you can pick best in breed, cloud or non-cloud. A curse because there is not a common standard.

It's a difference in philosophy and practicality. It's better to ask - do you WANT your OS to have a commonly used built-in backup program? If the answer is yes, then MacOS is better for YOUR needs. But not necessarily for everybody's.

Just like cameras - they all have strengths and weaknesses, almost all of them are good. But various cameras mix features, quality, size, cost, and ecosystem and my right camera might not be your right camera.

I'm not talking about whether or not built-in back-up is a good thing or a bad thing. I just want to know what Windows offers as the default, and what sorts of add-ons are available.

I certainly have friends for whom a reasonable built-in backup system is a blessing, and those for which a reasonable built-in backup program is unlikely to be good enough.

It's hard to make a decision when you don't have information. I'm looking for information on what the functional differences between Mac and Windows really are. I'm trying to avoid a discussion on whether one is better than the other.

 

[JDC1958]

And as you said it is "the tyranny of the default" if we let one company set the standard. I never let Microsoft determine my browser. I was using every free browser I could try. Today it is Chrome and Firefox. IE for work at times.

They do not determine my OS or my office suite either. I use Windows by choice; same as I use Libre Office and Open Office by choice.

I have no doubt for some it is better to be mindless when it comes to making choices on backup programs, browsers, or office suites as it would only mess them up more. But for most of us that use computers daily in our work environment, having a choice for our home environment is a good thing.

 

[Nansen]

...Now I have to start looking once again for photo management-and-editing software.

Management of a large photo library and digital image processing ("editing") of a photograph are so vastly different tasks that I do not expect one program, from one vendor, to do both things successfully.