Windows, because it runs more of what I need to run.Which one is better for you and why?
Windows, because it runs more of what I need to run.Which one is better for you and why?
Obviously saying Linux is on the way out is way wrong, but with this little context maybe it was an apt thing to say for their business. I know nothing about networkable printers/copiers, but I would expect majority of offices use Windows or Mac computers, with maybe that one IT-admin guy using some Linux setup. If the company dealing in printers/copiers only deals with offices like this, they aren't going to care much about Linux.Early last year before the pandemic had fully settled in and was in full swing, I had a job interview with a local employer which deals in networkable printers and copiers and related systems and services. I already had started getting kind of a "I'm not so sure about these folks" vibe and then someone there said that Linux was really on its way out, nobody cared about it or was interested in dealing with supporting it, and that (by implication) it's all a macOS and Windows world.
Suffice it to say, I didn't take the job. Particularly when you're dealing with a small, mom-n-pop type company which means the ownership/leadership of the company sits right above everyone's head, it's critical to know they actually know what the heck is going on out there. I really just didn't get that sense from them, even if it might be true that within their specific limited field of view what was said was true.
The graphic design world hasn't been a only-Mac or even mostly-Mac shop situation in decades now, thanks to improvements in Windows as well as the x86 hardware it's always run on. However, "most" of what's out there is actually Linux-driven. And the graphic design world? Well, it's not the same industry it used to be. Mostly, people these days don't give a s*** about print. Everything's online. Period.
I currently use Windows 10 on my desktop PC for personal use and a 16" Intel Macbook Pro for work. I'm a web developer so for my work it's just more convenient to get everything working with MacOS without having to deal with the little quirks of "Unix on Windows" type setups.
Every time I've tried to go with Linux it has quickly become more of a maintenance chore. Something doesn't install because some dependency was missing or did not install correctly on this particular distro, there's no GUI for some common setting I want to change etc.
To me it's really about the path of least resistance. I use a desktop PC for my own stuff like gaming because Apple is a total no go for that and Linux with Proton is going to be an inconvenience with no benefits to me.
Purely as a desktop system you can do the same things on Windows and MacOS. I prefer MacOS (except for external display handling) but don't mind Win10.
Linux has always done me right... usually. Okay, maybe I've had the occasional rough patch but point to me a perfect OS with no bugs and I'll tell you that nobody uses seL4 on their desktop. Whether it be Mandriva 2009 as a little kid, Slackware as an angsty teen, or Fedora now on my wee MacBook2,1, I've always had a good experience with the penguin. And I'm not a programmer or anyone like that, I'm a writer. I just like its philosophy and how I can use it the way I want to, not the way a corporation a thousand miles away wants me to.
Linux has always done me right... usually. Okay, maybe I've had the occasional rough patch but point to me a perfect OS with no bugs and I'll tell you that nobody uses seL4 on their desktop. Whether it be Mandriva 2009 as a little kid, Slackware as an angsty teen, or Fedora now on my wee MacBook2,1, I've always had a good experience with the penguin. And I'm not a programmer or anyone like that, I'm a writer. I just like its philosophy and how I can use it the way I want to, not the way a corporation a thousand miles away wants me to.
Not sure I would call it quite as lightweight as others have, but I can't say it isn't, either, it does get a zippy, responsive 60fps KDE desktop with dying RAM on my 2007 Core 2 Duo MacBook.
I absolutely detest Windows and the company it's made by, it's a garbage pile that's succeeded in destroying the diversity that is necessary in computing so that a single misplaced line of code doesn't wipe the world's hard drives or give people unrestricted access to webcams or anything of the sort. The only way I'd ever use Windows again is if it's either a VM, a Pentium II or Athlon build, or ReactOS. ReactOS will do in time to Windows what Linux and the BSDs did to commercial Unices that aren't
macOS is... something I've never used. I've used Mac OS X plenty, but not 11 or 12. Stopped at Snow Leopard, even if I had the hardware for Big Sur onward, I really don't like the UI changes that have gone on since 10.6, which had the perfect Mac GUI. Other than that, I think Jaguar and Leopard are my favorites.
FreeBSD is interesting. On the one hand, I like what I've experienced of it, and on the other packages don't work for me, probably because I installed it on my PowerBook G4 and none of the servers are expecting FreeBSD13.1-ppc. So what I have experienced is completely CLI.
Haiku is probably tied for favorite with Linux. Maybe it'd be even higher if it had better driver support, but I also understand that R1 is in beta and it's meant as a drop-in, binary compatible replacement for BeOS, and R2 is where it comes into its own.
Interesting... But what is the replacement? Chrome OS (I don't want Big tech owning my data) iPad OS too hard to organize files.Im gonna go a bit extreme here and say neither. They are all old relics based upon outdated foundations both backend and frontend. File, folder and windows based UI is really outdated concept.
When I first read your comment, my initial thought was to defend the classic "office" paradigm of operating systems ("office" as in place of business, not the productivity suite). But that argument would've been centered around how I use my computers.Im gonna go a bit extreme here and say neither. They are all old relics based upon outdated foundations both backend and frontend. File, folder and windows based UI is really outdated concept.
For entertainment and just for being different than Windows, that's what I use at home, but the M3 really isn't fundamentally different than the first M1, so the M3 didn't change things. For work, I'm almost all Windows, and no macs.M3 makes MacOS a better choice now for non gamer non AI?
Maybe for you and a select few. This reminds me of people who can hear tonal differences in records over CD's or digital music files. Not saying it is not true, but for the vast majority of the population they cannot tell a difference. I am not dying because of this supposed difference of how a Mac handles a mouse, and I don't notice anything better when on a Lenovo laptop or my gaming PC I built at home.Windows is superior for anyone who uses a mouse, trackpad, pointing stick, or other non-1:1 pointing input. The reason for this is that Windows's mouse acceleration curve is based on science/research and is superior to all others. This is why mousing around Linux and OSX is inherently more difficult, even on identical hardware and equivalent mouse sensitivity settings.
On OSX, SmoothMouse can trim out about 95% of this, but that application does not work with operating systems newer than 10.11, and also does not help with the infamously-bad scrolling acceleration problem that is also inherent with OSX.
The sheer ineptitude in the area of mouse acceleration is alone enough to completely disqualify OSX from any kind of serious consideration for daily use.
There is no difference between CD audio and records because they're both produced (now) from the same digital master. Even if they weren't, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. If you want a fairer test, someone came up with a blind side-by-side test of a 128kbps MP3 file and lossless audio. Even most sound pros couldn't tell the difference.Maybe for you and a select few. This reminds me of people who can hear tonal differences in records over CD's or digital music files. Not saying it is not true, but for the vast majority of the population they cannot tell a difference. I am not dying because of this supposed difference of how a Mac handles a mouse, and I don't notice anything better when on a Lenovo laptop or my gaming PC I built at home.
There's a reason why Linux and OSX users swear by keyboard shortcuts so much, and it's because the mouse acceleration outside of Windows is hot garbage.
Maybe if you do the test it will be obvious, there is no uproar from the masses of computer users about how bad it is on a Mac with a mouse, I would also guess that if you asked 100 Mac users 99 of them would have no clue what you are talking about because they don't have issues with how a mouse tracks on a Mac.There is no difference between CD audio and records because they're both produced (now) from the same digital master. Even if they weren't, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. If you want a fairer test, someone came up with a blind side-by-side test of a 128kbps MP3 file and lossless audio. Even most sound pros couldn't tell the difference.
Mouse acceleration is not the same at all because any person with a mouse can blindly test it himself and reliably produce the same results. In fact, it's blatantly obvious to pretty much anyone. If you don't believe me, go to classic.mouseaccuracy.com, run the test with default settings, and then try it again with the same mouse on Mac OSX (with the sensitivity set the same, and without SmoothMouse enabled; no cheating!). The objective results might just surprise you. There's a reason why Linux and OSX users swear by keyboard shortcuts so much, and it's because the mouse acceleration outside of Windows is hot garbage.
Maybe if they made them listen on $5 headphones. If you said 320kbps, I would have believed, but 128kbps MP3? There is undeniable difference if you know what to listen for, compression artifacts are impossible to ignoreIf you want a fairer test, someone came up with a blind side-by-side test of a 128kbps MP3 file and lossless audio. Even most sound pros couldn't tell the difference.
This just proves my point, what is impossible for you to ignore is completely listenable to someone else.Maybe if they made them listen on $5 headphones. If you said 320kbps, I would have believed, but 128kbps MP3? There is undeniable difference if you know what to listen for, compression artifacts are impossible to ignore
While we have group them together, they are entirely different operating systems.Which one is better for you and why?
By the same token, there is little-to-no uproar from third-world people for lacking access to modern amenities, (fast Internet, clean water, not burning dung for fuel, proper plumbing, cars, modern computers, etc.) but mainly just because they haven't experienced them before. If you'd never used an automobile before, you might just think that the bicycle is the greatest mode of transportation ever. You may not have ever considered how comparatively slow and inefficient it is and how it doesn't do a very good job of keeping the rain out (plus, the sound system usually sucks).Maybe if you do the test it will be obvious, there is no uproar from the masses of computer users about how bad it is on a Mac with a mouse, I would also guess that if you asked 100 Mac users 99 of them would have no clue what you are talking about because they don't have issues with how a mouse tracks on a Mac.
The sound difference was an old comparison when people would make those comments regarding records and digital music. Can't say if it was true or not, but people would swear by what they said was better audio quality. Again for the masses they were completely fine with what they had. I do not doubt there is a difference, I would say that it is nowhere near as important as you make it out to be "The sheer ineptitude in the area of mouse acceleration is alone enough to completely disqualify OSX from any kind of serious consideration for daily use." Plenty of people are using Mac OS with zero complaints or knowledge about mouse acceleration.
Interestingly enough, I've always found the exact opposite to be true. Windows usually "just works" about 80% of the time, and can be made to work with low or intermediate levels of knowledge the next 19%. There's generally less than 1% where the challenge is well and truly insurmountable.2. Windows is used by 99% of the corporate world, sadly if you want to participate in that world, you will need windows. Its also the most unreliable and most needy software ever.. I've gotten to the point where I disable my network adapter so it cannot do anything without me knowing while im not using it. Its 100% the best gaming OS, tho this is starting to shift. Id rather by a Switch then game on my Windows pc today tho.
3. Mac OS just works, its features are great and its reliable. I have not needed to run a antivirus in 10 years. But I am bias.
...
Wish you could write to NTFS volumes or even just read a BitLocker-encrypted one? Keep dreaming.
Modern amenities do not necessarily mean a better life. Some things for sure like clean water and sanitation, the rest we wrongly assume equals happiness. From my experience with people in villages in Kenya as well as other parts of the world that are not modernized like the west, they are extremely happy and content and are free and clear of tech anxiety, including is mouse tracking good enough. They don't care because in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. I have used Mac OS for years at work, last year they switched us to PC, I moved back to Mac OS a few weeks ago and I am not craving or even close to missing the mouse tracking because it is imperceptible to me as I am assuming it is for 99% of users. Yes there might be a measurable difference, but it does not make the lesser performing anything horrible to use. When I want to click on something I move my mouse to it and click on it. It works, it goes where it is supposed to at the speed I set to to, that is enough for me and I am more then content. I also have a gaming PC I built at home with some fancy Logitech gaming mouse and the software to adjust and calibrate to the surface it is being used on among other things. Other then wanting some specific settings for gaming there is no noticeable difference to me, leaving me content and happy with what I have on both sides, which I would rather be then so concerned about these nitty gritty details that ultimately do not matter or change how I interact with my computer.By the same token, there is little-to-no uproar from third-world people for lacking access to modern amenities, (fast Internet, clean water, not burning dung for fuel, proper plumbing, cars, modern computers, etc.) but mainly just because they haven't experienced them before. If you'd never used an automobile before, you might just think that the bicycle is the greatest mode of transportation ever. You may not have ever considered how comparatively slow and inefficient it is and how it doesn't do a very good job of keeping the rain out (plus, the sound system usually sucks).
Just because some people haven't used the superior product before (or has, but not yet put it together mentally) with "zero complaints or knowledge" doesn't mean that the massive and objectively measurable difference doesn't exist.
Actually, I think that there might be drivers for opening at least some of those filesystems in Windows (even if read-only).Now, that's a silly argument.
Same thing can be said in reverse. Want to read an encrypted APFS drive on a Windows? Or btrfs? Or ext4?
Every OS has it's strengths and weaknesses. It's purely subjective what someone prefers. For instance, I prefer linux distros. And I have my reasons. But if someone came to me and said do I recommend linux for running MS Office, or Adobe suite, I would say - no. Pick either windows or macos. Whichever you like more.
The thing of it is that it is lesser performing and horrible to use, comparatively speaking. And not just by a small amount. A 20-40% drop in performance is significant. As you put it, "it works," but does so badly because the method by which it accelerates is utter trash. It has precisely nothing to do with gaming. In fact, it's for basic productivity and desktop tasks where this flaw is most obvious and critical.Modern amenities do not necessarily mean a better life. Some things for sure like clean water and sanitation, the rest we wrongly assume equals happiness. From my experience with people in villages in Kenya as well as other parts of the world that are not modernized like the west, they are extremely happy and content and are free and clear of tech anxiety, including is mouse tracking good enough. They don't care because in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. I have used Mac OS for years at work, last year they switched us to PC, I moved back to Mac OS a few weeks ago and I am not craving or even close to missing the mouse tracking because it is imperceptible to me as I am assuming it is for 99% of users. Yes there might be a measurable difference, but it does not make the lesser performing anything horrible to use. When I want to click on something I move my mouse to it and click on it. It works, it goes where it is supposed to at the speed I set to to, that is enough for me and I am more then content. I also have a gaming PC I built at home with some fancy Logitech gaming mouse and the software to adjust and calibrate to the surface it is being used on among other things. Other then wanting some specific settings for gaming there is no noticeable difference to me, leaving me content and happy with what I have on both sides, which I would rather be then so concerned about these nitty gritty details that ultimately do not matter or change how I interact with my computer.
I think you said it yourself, for what you do you need something overly precise. I work in graphics, sit in front of Adobe CC all day long and zero issues with an Apple Magic Mouse and no difference from using some generic Logitech bluetooth mouse on a Lenovo laptop with Windows 11. I am not target practicing dots on a screen and doing that faster and more accurate would not change how I work or increase my speed.The thing of it is that it is lesser performing and horrible to use, comparatively speaking. And not just by a small amount. A 20-40% drop in performance is significant. As you put it, "it works," but does so badly because the method by which it accelerates is utter trash. It has precisely nothing to do with gaming. In fact, it's for basic productivity and desktop tasks where this flaw is most obvious and critical.
As for the ignorance-is-bliss argument, I suppose that's valid, but now that you know the problem is there and can see the difference for yourself, (again, test on classic.mouseaccuracy.com in both environments if you don't believe me) it can't be un-seen. Especially if your day job requires precise mouse use for hours on end like mine. If you're just leisurely goofing around on the web here and there, not doing anything mission-critical or time-sensitive, then I suppose it matters less, but even then, you should still have higher standards for technology. This was figured out decades ago, so it's not too much to ask of a modern operating system.