apples are better computers

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Jimmy Jockstrap, Jan 13, 2007.

  1. Ive heard microsoft is actually crap and apple is better but has a smaller share of the market. Im a computer noob and I understand this is a very general statement. Also how does linux fit in with all this?
     
  2. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Download Ubuntu for free at ubuntu.com, or get a CD shipped out to you, again for free, and then decide where GNU/Linux fits in with it all. It'll work on all PCs, including Macs - whereas Apple's Mac OS X is restricted to running on Apple PCs, so you'd need to buy a new computer for it.

    "microsoft is actually crap" I wouldn't disagree. Indeed, one of the main reasons people have trouble with Windows is the insane amount of malware developed for it, which makes it's way into millions of PCs, but this still just does not happen on GNU/Linux or OS X. Whoever's fault it is, I'm more surprised when non-Windows OSes give more bother than Windows than the other way around. If you don't rely on Windows-only software or hardware (in which case, you could complain to the relevant manufacturers), you probably won't look back. It also helps when you can handle the fact that GNU/Linux and OS X ARE NOT WINDOWS, and don't complain about the simple differences between them. (Most people who complain about GNU/Linux expect it to do everything the same as Windows, I find)

    Ubuntu can very easily be installed such that you will still be able to use Windows if you desire - you'll be asked which you'd like to boot when you turn the computer on. Just pay attention at install time.

    If you boot up the Ubuntu CD too, you can try it out before you install it (it will naturally be slower than if it was installed to the harddrive though).

    There are other great GNU/Linux distributions, but Ubuntu is what I recommend to noobs. Others recommend Fedora and SUSE, none of which I've used for an extensive amount of time. I think you'll like Ubuntu (there really is no harm in trying it, especially running from CD).
     
  3. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    FWIW, Microsoft spends more than a billion dollars every year to fight malware.

    That's why Vista has been reworked to take advantage of virtual machines.

    Only time will tell how easily a virtual machine can be hacked, but for now
    they're pretty secure.

    Although I did read about a proof of concept rootkit that would
    run on a virtual machine.
     
  4. DaveyD

    DaveyD Fuck Ohio State, son

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    18,781
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere in Minnesota
    Stupid 06 thread starter
     
  5. keith911

    keith911 Sirc is my favorite OTer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    i heard av are good too you should try it
     
  6. o2

    o2 Witty Title Here OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    16,099
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Toronto
    Dont bother with Linux on a desktop. Its a non-stop problem. Windows Vista fucking rocks.
     
  7. EvanD

    EvanD Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    6,727
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    It's a problem for someone who has little to no patience to learn something new.
     
  8. lowfat

    lowfat 24/Mac/SciFi/PC Crew OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    63,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Grande Prairie, AB, Can

    :ugh: Vista is slow as fuck..

    Mac OS 10.4 is where is at :coolugh:
     
  9. o2

    o2 Witty Title Here OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    16,099
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Toronto
    Slow? Thats a negative. Everything works so much faster than XP. I even get better framerates in games.
     
  10. mdaniel

    mdaniel S is for Shiksa

    Joined:
    May 6, 2000
    Messages:
    52,497
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Northwest Mejicooooooo
    Vista is plenty fast unless your computer is old and slow.

    And the only Mac I've ever seen with a UI that was even remotely responsive was a decked out G5.
     
  11. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    Where's the harm in trying it, heh? I've heard plenty complaints about Vista, and there's a lot more harm in trying it (licences, blah).

    Desktop GNU/Linux is getting hundreds of millions or billions of dollars every year, getting bigger. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people use it all the time on their desktops, and NOT that many of them are geeks.
     
  12. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apple is polished. Windows works well enough for pretty much anybody. Linux...well, let's just say I tried to install it again yesterday, and it couldn't detect the CD-ROM drive. The very drive that the install disc was sitting in, in fact. That should tell you something about Linux's readiness for the general public.

    Which is to say, it's not ready for the general public, and it never will be, until I can stick the install disc into my computer, install it with a click of a button, and have everything in my computer work fine either immediately or following a quick post-install driver download. Until it can do that, it will continue to be unsuitable for Joe User.
     
  13. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    You are obviously using the wrong distro (for a new user). Most installers are pretty slick these days.

    I agree that its not an os for anybody though. You need to be interested, and willing to learn a little more than the gui for your experience to be favourable.
     
  14. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    You installed Linux... God damn it.

    Wouldn't it make more sense to tell us the title of the distribution? It's obviously a distribution bug, I doubt Linux (as in the kernel, as in Linux) doesn't support your CD ROM drive, for some reason (maybe because it supports close to if not THE most hardware to any other OS, out of the box).

    Tens of thousands of "general public" people have installed and use Ubuntu, finely. I don't think any other desktop OS competes on installation simplicity. Well, with the power of a livecd too. Fedora, SUSE and Mandriva have also been increadibly simple to install for years.

    Installation is an old problem.
     
  15. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry.

    I tried all flavors of Ubuntu in my most recent juggernaut. Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu just for the hell of it. None of them worked. Ubuntu couldn't detect the CD drive, Kubuntu and Xubuntu had a kernel panic and shut down, and Edubuntu just sort of sat at the installer loading screen for about five hours before I gave up. Before that I've tried SuSE, RedHat, and Mandrake at various points in time going back to 1996, and there was always a problem with either the network connection, or the video card, or the mouse, or the or some other piece of hardware that made it impossible to work with.

    I dunno, maybe they expected me to download the drivers the installer would need onto the install CD, but frankly, I don't feel like wading through a manpage written by a code bitch at 3am before the distro was slated for pubic release to find out how. Considering that drivers are available for free online, considering that any and every company is willing to help Linux devs make their free alternative work right, considering that I have always tried to install a distro released at least a year after my newest piece of hardware was installed -- it's not my problem if the goddamn drivers don't work. That should be the FIRST thing they update. To hell with including the latest kernel tweaks, make the installer a one-button-click affair. I'm sure it's very hard to do it, I'm glad I don't have to, but Microsoft and Apple can make it work.
     
  16. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    That is extremely rare. What sorta computer is this?
    They do not expect you to download the drivers. They ship all the free drivers for as much hardware as they can, which is why it generally just works, and it does generally just work.

    Apple make it work... On their own computers only. Microsoft... Hah. The amount of times I've been told when Windows 95 through to XP has crashed on me "oh well it's not Microsoft's fault it's your unstable hardware or 3rd party drivers!"...
     
  17. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's all sorts of computers. I've tried installing Linux on a Cyrix 6x86, on a Gateway Solo laptop with a Pentium II and 224MB of RAM, on an eMachines with a Pentium 3, on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 laptop with half a gig of RAM, and most recently on my main machine, an AMD Athlon XP 3000 with 2 gigs of RAM, an IDE-emulating RAID controller that is driverless in the latest Linux kernel, and a Sony DVD burner. (I think Sony burners are actually Lite-On brand.)

    Rant all you want about Microsoft, I'll admit their OSes are very high-maintenance, but I have never had an XP machine refuse to install or go belly-up once it was up and running, except for one case very early on in XP's lifespan, before any Service Packs came out. I swear, I can't get that kind of predictability out of Linux (high-maintenance or otherwise) to save my life.
     
  18. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    I bet the manufacturers haven't released any specs.

    The only hardware I've had a slight bit of trouble with was my onboard Nvidia ethernet. Thankfully, since, a reverse engineered driver made it's way in (and it rocks), no thanks to Nvidia (who the fuck sells hardware without providing programming specifications.. Too fucking many.).

    The Ubuntu livecd would also not boot on my neighbour's 10 year old computer. I would still be able to get Slackware working on it, I'm sure.

    According to my experience and expectations from speaking with others and having them try Ubuntu, you've gotten increadibly unlucky, that is assuming it's Ubuntu you're trying, for the half-modern computers anyhow. For everything else I'd be trying Slackware, Debian, maybe some BSDs.

    And err the distribution title is significant I hope you realise. "Linux" (or "GNU/Linux") is increadibly general.
     
  19. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, I guess I'm not as aware of how significant the distribution title is as I should be. In any event, the reason I was so frustrated about it is because, as you've said and I've suspected, I've been incredibly unlucky. Of all the times I've tried to install any of the distributions I listed, I got it to boot and load Xwindows twice. Once I couldn't get a network connection and the second time I couldn't get a connection to my office printer, both of which put the kibosh on that experiment.

    Anyway, I finally broke down and burned the ISOs at 1x speed, and it seems that (in regards to Ubuntu, anyway) that has made a difference. I burned a copy of Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu, and I installed Xubuntu on that old Gateway Solo laptop I mentioned before. I have to say, the install process alone has convinced me that I was right to be frustrated with my past experience, because the sheer convenience of installing an OS while that same OS is loaded and running from memory was fantastic. It was like shoveling the snow off my driveway from the comfort of my living room -- it seems like it should be impossible, but however it works, it's really nice. It also detected my Cisco wireless card, which Windows wasn't able to do without me getting a driver from another machine, so that's two brownie points right there. I hope it continues to be a pleasant experience.
     
  20. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    There are distributions where you're sorta expected to labour to get stuff working (they have their advantages). "Linux" is such a generalisation, and user-friendliness is one area which varies greatly from distro to distro. Hardware support is too, some distros expect the users to be able to take care of drivers for non-standard hardware themselves, and some distros are just buggy in the area (which would be inexcusable for distros like Ubuntu).

    I try to refrain from saying "GNU/Linux" where I can because it's such a generalisation.. The hundreds of OSes might share the same core software, but that core software is rarely what's being discussed - like, problems aren't usually with the core software, but how it's configured (blame the distro provider), or the environment that it's in, or whatever.

    Great to see you're liking Xubuntu so far.
     
  21. Logik

    Logik Livin la vida broka

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    20,667
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    The Steel City
     
  22. o2

    o2 Witty Title Here OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    16,099
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Toronto
    I dont have time to waste to learn a new OS, thats useless for 99.9% of the population. I have windows, it runs everything I need out of the box, and I can make it look hot. Not to mention games (that I play very rarely).

    What can you do on a Linux desktop system? Browse the web, check email, play quake 3.
     
  23. GunboatDiplomat

    GunboatDiplomat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish hibernation worked out of the box. For more than two years, Microsoft has known that their OS is incapable of hibernating with more than a GB of RAM and they still haven't been able to fix the issue, to the chagrin of many of their users...
     
  24. Logik

    Logik Livin la vida broka

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    20,667
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    The Steel City
    Dont install Linux if you dont want to or "dont have time to learn" :nono:
     
  25. piratepenguin

    piratepenguin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    I wouldn't fully agree, well, depending on what you mean by "learn". For any OS, the user needs to learn to accomplish anything. @o2: you've learned Windows. It's not like Windows just does exactly what you think you want.

    GNU/Linux distributions like Ubuntu which aim for the most user friendly experience possible, for newbies, they have to be "learned", but not in more than the same way that Windows has to be learned by users, I would say. People just think Windows is easier because they've forgotten the time when they had to scan 5 times through the start menu to find an old application, when in GNOME and KDE the menus are far better organised and making shortcut launchers on the desktop or the panel(s) is no job at all. Some people who've been using Windows for years would be expected to have grokked things, and it's just plain easy in the same way pretty much everything is just plain easy for me on GNU/Linux, and everything else is difficult.

    I think what puts GNU/Linux far ahead of the pack is that there are distributions, and I'm not talking about Ubuntu at all, which don't try to hide anything from the user (Slackware would be a good example). Understanding how things work in these distributions (and, usually, therefore in other GNU/Linux distributions) is nothing to an interested being, and the benefits of understanding the system can be priceless. It meant that I could set things up so that whenever I plug in my digital camera, all my MySQL databases are backed up onto it. There is, for sure, some way to do that in Windows too, the problem is nobody (at least nobody I've come across) knows how to do it (it mightn't be so simple either, especially since it doesn't need to be). Another example is just being able to write (powerful!) shell scripts in bash, and be able to do this and so much more.

    Anyhow. Back to the point. I don't buy that Ubuntu is any less user friendly than Windows. I don't think it's a very simple question, it is not a one way street. Things have to be learned to do anything in any environment, I would not quickly think that more learning is required to achieve in Ubuntu than in Windows. It depends on what you want to achieve (browse the web without fear of malware anyone? Setup a server?). And learning doesn't hurt either, btw.
    Interesting that you value your computer looking hot more than your time, and your time more than learning how to operate your computer, but, whatever floats your boat. I personally find desktop GNU/Linux quite fine, and I've gotten total n00bs on it (Ubuntu) too, who like it, and who don't need to splash out every so often to fight malware and fail without a reformat. You're very welcome to stay at the mercy of Microsoft as long as your heart's content.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2007

Share This Page