I've two laptops, one with Mac OS X and one with Linux. I use both for development but as a client I prefer Mac OS X that Just Works. It was fun years ago to hack on config files and even to write my own device drivers when it was needed, it was a game with the benefit of learning a lot of stuff, but seriously, I expected Linux to be mature enough after a few years... instead it's the same problems again and again. All my wishes for Linux are instead incarnated by Mac OS X, so after more than 10 years of only linux one year ago I switched to mac os x, and I'm very happy so far.
I didn't see any value in making biased, preference-based complaints about how Leopard does things vs. what I like to do (i.e., The Right Way. :) ). But I know that most discussions about UIs tend to be full of such subjective assertions, so my little aside was my meta-comment. Or something like that.
For me (as others have pointed out as well), the ease of apt-get, and the wealth of OSS tools that seem to play better on Linux than on OSX, is the real win.
(Perhaps my biggest complaint about the OSX UI is how much I have to use the mouse to manipulate GUI items. Maybe that's just lack of experience on OSX, but Kubuntu Just Works for me. )
What rubbish, a Mac doesnt 'just work'. Dont't get me wrong - Macs are good but this high ground is BS.
@antirez what device driver did you have to write for linux, can you point me to your source code? And seriously, linux has matured significantly, what distribution have you tried? And how about quoting specific stuff instead of the some general gyaan.
Fact of the matter is OSX 'just works' better than anything else _I_ have personally used. Less hassles, less issues, less crashes than linux or windows. And when you have lots of people saying the same thing, its not 'high ground' its a result of having a unix based OS that you don't have to waste your time to have it work.
I switched to OSX after using linux as my primary OS for about 5 or 6 years, and the big difference for me was that I didn't have to spend valuable time actually getting osx to work. Linux is amazingly customizable which can be great, but when it comes to getting work done all I care about is having a terminal, vim, and being able to run a local server to test my work. Anything else that I have to configure is just getting in my way.
Edit: As much as I like OSX, there is only only app that I actually require that is OSX specific, and that is quicksilver, which for me completely changes my workflow and allows me to productively use a 13" laptop as my primary development machine without the need for an external monitor. I think also goes to show my point, that OSX doesn't necessarily have any spectacular features or applications that draw me too it, but really its the fact that it is a unix based OS that I can use without hassle.
Speaking particularly about hacking on my OS of choice, I've got to hand it to the MacPorts crew for making that kind of thing possible without serious headaches. I've got a custom build of Apache, PHP (yes, I know...) and MySQL alongside my desktop OS tools that I love to use. It's a best of both worlds. Mac OS X from the developer's perspective is basically Linux done right.
Mac OS X from the developer's perspective is basically Linux done right.
That's an often-cited overgeneralization.
I'm a developer and OSX is not Linux done right for me. In my book the OSX window management is ridiculously clumsy and gives me nowhere near the speed/control that I have under ion3. For example: The latter gives me tabs on every frame, that means I can rapidly tab through any windows I have attached there, without moving my eyes. It also lets me setup multiple parallel mini-IDEs without thinking, because everything stays in place and never overlaps - unless I explicitly move it or make it so. People often get dizzy watching me because my workflow involves a lot of muscle memory; I know which sequence of keystrokes gets me where, hence my edit/compile/test roundtrips are quite a bit faster than what I've seen on eclipse or OSX jockeys - who commonly have to fall back to the cable-rat for any sequence that deviates from what their IDE anticipates (e.g. to juggle a few config files along the line).
For bragging rights, my sequence to setup a new "mini-IDE" with a 50/50 horizontal split (browser window full width on top) and a 50/50 vertical split in the bottom frame (two terminal windows each in left/right):
* F9, Enter (new desktop)
* Alt+s (split horizontal)
* Alt+Down (move to bottom frame)
* Alt+d (split vertical)
* F1, F1 (launch two xterms, left)
* Alt+right (move to right frame)
* F1, F1 (launch two xterms, right)
* Alt+up (move to top frame)
* F5 (launch browser)
That sequence takes me under 5 seconds, zero thinking and ofcourse I have the freedom to create any layout appropiate for the task at hand, with just a few keystrokes.
These sequences are my bread & butter (have 7 virtual desktops open for various tasks right now). I can not imagine going back to an old-fashioned mouse-driven window manager ever again.
So, show me functionality like that on OSX, then we can start talking about the other areas where OSX falls short for me.
+1 on using virtual desktops to position things in 'space'. That is how i work and it is mighty helpful, especially when you have many different simultaneous servers/environments open. also, for what it is worth, i love being able to run the same os and basic configuration on my laptop as on my servers.
I use Linux exclusively. I did try OS X before (I have an iBook), but I just couldn't get into it. Linux users trying OS X have already commented on problems with window managers etc, so I won't repeat what they've said.
The real thing is that I just can't stand about OS X though isn't about practical like not being able to get a certain application or type of application working or anything like that (I do generally prefer the applications I use on Linux to their OS X counterparts though). It's simply that it's non-free, and the whole ecosystem of software for it is generally non-free. I know lots of Mac users and this doesn't seem to bug them or occur to them at all.
When I first turned on my iBook, I have to tell it more than once "no, I don't want a .Mac account". When I start iTunes, and possibly other applications (I just remember iTunes specifically), I have to click "I agree" to a license agreement. There are lots of really trivial bits of software which you'd get with `sudo apt-get install x` in Linux but the OS X equivalent is some sort of shareware crap... I found this to be particularly bad for tools that convert between file formats.
Am I just crazy or does this not bother anybody else that uses OS X?
It's simply that it's non-free, and the whole ecosystem of software for it is generally non-free. I know lots of Mac users and this doesn't seem to bug them or occur to them at all.
That's because the exchange for a lot of OS X stuff is: You pay a small sum of money in exchange for developers that work their asses off on making your user experience perfect. Delicious Monster, Cultured Code, RealMac, Blacktree, Panic Inc. - especially Panic Inc. Then there are the developers who don't make commercial Mac apps but who are part of the same developer scene: Coudal, 37signals, Neubix, on and on.
They're actually why I bought OS X: Once upon a time, I used Virb - designed by Neubix - read their blog, and slowly came across these other developers and their blogs, and fell in love with all these small development teams whose lives focus on developing their applications and making a profit. When I got my Mac, I started with a few of those teams' applications. Specifically, I bought Panic's Coda and demoed CC's Things. The experiences I get with those applications are stupendous.
Coda's the only thing I use that makes me love coding; without it, I get bored easily with the processes. I'd say it's absolutely been worth my $100 purchase. A hundred dollars for a code editor, FTP transmitter, CSS styler, a set of well-formatted reference books, and in-app browser testing? That's a damned good deal. And yes: I can do that for free, I could open emacs next to Safari, download free guides online. But it's worth my money not to ever have to bother with that stuff at all.
The license agreement... I don't find the license agreement at all frustrating. You click "Accept" once, then never see it again. MobileMe I got almost immediately: It syncs up everything I've got, gives me a nice email system, and it's worth the money I pay for it. I've seen the free alternatives, and they're not worth paying money for.
As for the "trivial bits of software", I've found I need very few applications to complete my Mac experience. I used the free OnyX to tweak my settings, I got Dropbox, and outside of Coda and iWork I find I rarely need anything else. I used to use Fluid.app to run web applications I liked, and that was free. Max converts every file format I need converted, excepting WMVs which I can convert using iTunes in a virtual simulator, and I need to convert WMVs very rarely.
Some people need free. Some people think that everything should be free. They're absolutely allowed to go that route. But most Mac users don't find it outrageous to pay developers for their time. A hundred dollars for a product is nothing, when that hundred dollars ensures never once having to look in a help manual to get something done or dealing with a crash or a slowdown or anything, really. It's similar to the thousands of dollars spent on the Mac itself. You don't pay that money for the RAM, or the screen. You pay that money because Apple tries to guarantee that things don't fuck up for you, and the impressive thing about Apple is that things really don't fuck up. I've been on my current set-up for a year and I've had five total crashes, each from weeks of multitasking processes without ever putting my computer to sleep. I have no problems that I can't find an app for. A lot of things on the Mac are so simple that I now have problems using Windows and Linux because they can't handle the functions that I use now. So no, that doesn't bother me, because for my money I get trust. Working with Ubuntu bothers me, because things don't feel like part of a logical whole. It's a matter of personal preference.
While I voted you up for interesting insights into another mindset, just one inaccuracy: 'You click "Accept" once, then never see it again.' - actually, it happens with every iTunes update. Even if you read the license the first time (and I don't), how many more times are you going to read it? So Apple can put in the license whatver they want?
Also I don't like your tone when you say "But most Mac users don't find it outrageous to pay developers for their time. "
It really isn't about that. I just don't want to tie myself to proprietary software. And something like apt is fundamentally impossible with proprietary software, unless you go the App store route (let Apple control everything).
Whenever I install a proprietary application that I have downloaded from some website I googled for, I feel as if my Computer has become unclean and untrustworthy.
Basically, the second half of your post is just nonsense ("Apple never fucks up etc."), but as I said, the first part was OK.
Even if you read the license the first time (and I don't), how many more times are you going to read it? So Apple can put in the license whatver they want?
It really isn't about that. I just don't want to tie myself to proprietary software. And something like apt is fundamentally impossible with proprietary software, unless you go the App store route (let Apple control everything).
Both of these are issues of trust. I don't think Apple will fuck me over with their iTunes user agreement. I do think the proprietary developers I purchase from won't stop making their stuff better any time soon. So far, I've never once felt that trust broken. I don't think it ever will break, because for Apple or especially a third-party developer to try and fuck its users over would be suicide. A two-man team can't afford to use their applications capriciously if their lifestyle is funded by app development.
Basically, the second half of your post is just nonsense ("Apple never fucks up etc."), but as I said, the first part was OK.
This is an argument that happens here once a week, and not just with my involvement, so I'll give my typical answer: Some people are the type that notices Apple's design expertise, and they're people who don't need explanations; other people don't care enough about design to ever notice, and that's completely fine too. Fact is, I think that my Macbook Pro with OS X is the best thing I've ever used in my life, and I love everything about it ferociously, but the things that make me fall in love likely aren't things that would interest you at all. Similarly, I don't feel your love for free software whatsoever. It's a difference of mindset that's completely cool.
That's essentially what I said, but you're nitpicking my use of the word "design". I hold that by how I define "design", Apple's design is the best out there, by several orders of magnitude. There is no user experience more painstakingly crafted. Apple makes it into an art form.
They certainly look the fanciest, and I admit to the quality of their recent hardware (but really only the recent one). But I'd argue that they also sacrificed some usability to the fanciness. I must even hand it to Microsoft that in some cases they added features that make it easier for power users, even if they don't look as pretty.
" When I start iTunes, and possibly other applications (I just remember iTunes specifically), I have to click "I agree" to a license agreement"
Side question: Is it possible to get and use iTunes without agreeing to let Apple spy on you? The EULA says I have to grant Apple the right collect assorted information, but with no definite restrictions or limits on what I'm allowing them to collect. This is nuts. I pay several hundred dollars for a Mini, and to use the software I have agree to annoying bullshit like that?
I assume this type of poll is self-selecting and that Windows is greatly underrepresented. In a 2005 article, PG states that the ycombinator visitor OS breakdown is as follows: Windows 66.4%, Macintosh 18.8%, Linux 11.4%, and FreeBSD 1.5%
I would love to see the current OS breakdown from ycombinator logs to compare. Anyone?
Here's a breakdown based on referrals from YC to a short essay I wrote about a month ago comparing Bing Travel and Kayak. There were 2382 uniques from YC over two days to that page:
45.5% Windows
37.6% Mac
15.1% Linux
Comparing that with an e-commerce site I work with which has a less geek-centric audience, during the same two days:
Thanks for the information. These numbers seem more plausible given my own anecdotal evidence. Now compare this to the poll percentages:
21.37% Windows (199)
40.28% Mac (375)
35.12% Linux (327)
My conclusion is that a Linux user is far more motivated than a Mac or Windows user to respond to this poll, making the results interesting, but not accurate.
Interesting to see those and grandparents numbers and compare them with the poll.
Seems like there's a discrepancy somewhere, and I would say that it's users voting for the OS they would like to use as their main OS and not the one they actually use.
It wouldn't help much: I imagine people are mostly on HN when they aren't working, and so are possibly on a secondary computer that doesn't necessarily run their preferred/default OS.
[2] ycombinator visitor OS breakdown of people who actively contribute by voting/comments. (note intentionally avoiding the ones who post)
Given what user ratsbane reports (above) - windows 46% & mac 38% the gap is not big. So it could be like among visitors the breakdown win-(mac+linux) is like 60-30, then among ones who check out articles 45-50 and among ones who contribute it is 30-60.
Additionally it might be the case looking at comments people vote on both mac & linux as they use both and at same capacities.
Question for Mac/Windows users: I develop on Linux, but occasionally on Mac or Windows. To be honest I'm pretty happy with a text editor and a few terminals on any platform, but one thing I miss is fast window management. Specifically:
* Focus follows mouse
* Alt+LMB drag to move whole window
* Alt+MMB drag to move nearest corner (ie resize)
The default Mac interface in particular I find difficult, as there's just one tiny resize tab in one corner. Is there anything that can help me here? Or do you do things differently?
Related question for Mac users: Don't you ever view windows in fullscreen? It seems there's no easy way to get windows to fullscreen, except for laboriously resizing and dragging to make it fit with the screen. This is one of the things that threw me off Mac (I bought one that I used as my main OS for about half a year, but I just never really liked it)
So do Mac users simply not like fullscreen windows, do they all have some utility that does this, or am I just missing something? To me it seems like an extreme shortcoming, but I'm sure there's a reason for the limitation.
The reason: Apple designed OS X to focus on using multiple windows at once, and they didn't want developers making single-window apps that ate at the screen. It's why, of their own applications, the only ones that allow full-screen are their video players, the iWork suite, and the pro apps. Those are the only applications Apple thinks ought to be maximized.
There's an application called Mega Zoomer that gives all Cocoa apps a sexy fullscreen view. But mostly, the answer's that Mac users don't like fullscreen.
But they do have a choice, thanks to the aforementioned app. I have it, yet I'm still using only half my screen for Safari, despite no other apps being open. I like not being forced into this maxed-or-not mentality; on Windows, it was too easy to make every app take up the whole screen, and tab over. On the Mac, I've never gotten into that mindset, which I love.
Actually this kind of reasoning was the primary reason I turned away from Mac.
It's pretty obvious that you don't have a choice and that Apple, right or wrong, has mandated that you don't need to have your windows in fullscreen mode. Instead of openly discussing the shortcomings of the OS you come up with this sort of reasoning: I really don't like being forced into maxing my windows, much better not to have the choice. You don't need it. Besides if you really want it it's easy - you just go to site xyz and download the app that makes it possible. To me that just a semi-circular argument, and not a very good solution to a problem that I'm sure a lot of people have.
There are many examples like this, and the reasoning is always the same: You don't need that, it's much better to do it the Mac way. We know much better than you what you want....
Sorry to be harsh, and it's not picking at you Zimbabwe, it's picking at the Mac cult.
Don't apologize for harshness: Your view's completely valid. I prefer a system that's that locked in, because it means I can figure out the computer's philosophy once and then everything gets easier. (The Mac's incredible dragging and spring-loading systems are the best instance of lack of choice making things supereasy.) But that's a personal choice, and one that definitely turns some people away.
If I may say so, you fail to see the forest for the trees. Windows and Mac are both in the same boat. They decide what is good for the user, they are closed source, and then you have to write software to do trivial stuff.
I prefer GNU/Linux, it allows me to change what I need to.
You have to write software to do anything, anywhere. Strictly speaking, with Linux you need to write software just to have a GUI. All of the "trivial things" you can do with your computer are things people wrote software to allow you to do.
OS X is completely Unix-based. All the things you can tweak are things I can tweak, too. I can also treat OS X like Linux if I want to: Getting Gnome or KDE to run on a Mac is really easy. I tried it out by downloading Amarok, which was a huge mistake because the lack of polish in KDE shines through when it's next to Mac stuff.
(I can make an argument about why closed source is a bad thing, but it would be rather lengthy. I'm assuming you'd rather me not derail this thread by providing it?)
Although it does me little good at the moment since HN's text area is a mere 6 lines, I'm posting this from Opera's fullscreen mode which I use quite frequently.
While few applications on any platform seem to support this kind of true fullscreen mode, I use "almost fullscreen" windows all the time: on OSX the green orb in the upper left corner of every window acts as a toggle which maximizes the window or returns it to its original size. I say "almost fullscreen" because the omnipresent menu bar and window decorations remain visible when you work this way.
You can definitely get some windows in full screen. There is a program called megazoomer which will allow you get fullscreen for a lot of OSX apps. I use it all the time to have a full screen terminal. I also use full screen in Mac Vim which I believe is a built in feature, not added in by megazoomer.
Put your windows where you want them at the size you want them and don't ever touch them again... that's what I do, anyway. Expose to get at things that are hidden. I also use hiding apps in general a lot, cmd+h to hide and then either click the dock, use opt+tab or use a launcher like quicksilver or launchbar to get those apps back.
Personally I don't use the mouse much at all so I don't need focus follows mouse, and I don't move windows and instead use the methods described above to move between them.
Also, note that you can use Spotlight to do fast app switching, just like Launchbar or Quicksilver: just type your Spotlight search shortcut (mine is control-space), type the first few letters of the app name, and hit return.
It's good enough I gave up on Quicksilver. I never used the fancier features.
In 1986, I used QNX with primitive window managers -- I still miss a scroll button with a large usable trackball to scroll through code, and the focus followed pointer. I started using Macs about 1987, and the interface felt awkward at first, but I liked it's overlapping windows as opposed to apps that filled the screen, or only ran at a specific resolutions.
I remember Microsoft Excel for DOS which was ported from Macintosh. Since it was DOS, they built an entire Window Manager for Excel. I think that this is why Windows inherited the application windows within windows (Multiple Document Interface) that some applications still have, and some people still love MDI in apps like Opera. I think that because of this Excel port, Windows inherited function names from the original Mac API. I don't like the gymnastics of using my pinky finger to hold down the Control key in Windows, I'd prefer using my thumb on the Command key in Mac OS, but thankfully Microsoft put out a little hack to reverse those keys.
To me, Linux inherits X Windows, features from older Unix window managers, and a bias from Windows because that's what a lot of people have used. But Linux brings lots of choices and possibilities, and lots of configuring if that's what your into.
Since the advent of USB mice, the Mac now has more than one mouse button. I remember seeing a mouse at a CAD/CAM show that probably had about nine buttons on the mouse.
I'm not so sure about Vista/Win7 but Windows XP's tweakui allows a primitive form of "focus follows mouse." It doesn't work exactly like I'm used to with other managers, but it also doesn't require loading additional software (well, beyond going to MS' site and downloading tweakui).
On the Mac, the trick is to figure out what size you want for your apps and keep them there. Safari's always big for me, iTunes I almost always keep shrunk down, Mail shows a few messages at a time and has a large window for message display. Then I control everything via keyboard so focus never really bothers me.
There's also a Mac application that lets you resize your window from any side, but I don't recall what it's called.
I'm the same. I use Windows for gaming, and I have a case of Mac envy for all the slick apps, but everytime I get more than a couple windows open, I really, really miss my tiling window manager (http://awesome.naquadah.org/). Not having anything I need within one or two keystrokes (or having to reach for the mouse) feels very cumbersome now.
Does it not make a bit more sense to indicate why you're conducting the poll? I don't mind polls, but usually they're only interesting if the poster sets it up and comments on his/her own choice and the reason for the poll in the first place. Polls like this seem to serve no more of a purpose than "What's your favorite color?".
Could you indicate the reason for the poll? That will get the conversation going in the direction you want it to and will give everybody some context when replying.
I am just curious about how HN readers are different from the general computer users when it comes to OS preference, this is interesting because HN community is a special group of people who are interested in technology startup, usually tech savvy and practical.
This poll is different from the favorite color poll because it's technology related, I guess it's not only me who is curious about this question, as people are actually upmodding the poll.
If you wanted to know our preferences, you should have asked what we wish we used. However, I think the question as you stated it is more interesting, since people are quite vocal about their preferences anyway.
My desktop and all servers run Linux (Ubuntu) the notebook is Mac OS/X and the home PC is Windows (the wife can't get her head around Ubuntu nor OS/X). All the applications I write run on all three platforms and I spend more time in a browser (FireFox/Chrome/Chromium/Safari) than any other program. Oh yes, I use both OpenOffice and iWorks. Write complex documents using Latex / Lyx which in turn run on all three OS.
Does the OS really matter that much these days? I use OS/X on the notebook because everything works! Could only get 90% of stuff to work reliably on a HP notebook (C700) with Ubuntu. The Mac Book Pro cost three times the HP, but it's worth every dollar in saved time. Don't get me started on how much Vista kept getting in the way as originally shipped on the HP.
Our team develops on two MacBooks and a Linux box. We virtualize Windows via VirtualBox (which is just amazing). Our production server runs Ubuntu on EC2.
I use vmware fusion, and I keep hearing great things about virtualbox. But when I tested the new 3.0 version a couple of days ago I still got multi-second freezes, increased CPU usage and a lot of general slowness. And yes, I have the virtualbox tools installed.
My main laptop runs Windows 7 - nearly all development is done on this, compiles using Visual Studio 2008 and Cygwin.
My netbook runs Windows 7 - I do nearly all my social/recreational stuff on that machine. Also it has VGA out and I've come to rely on Win7s projector detection magic for presentations to just work. It's the only machine I travel with.
My top-of-the-range Alum Macbook runs just OSX, got it for xcode, which is gathering dust because most of my dev work is in VS.net and even after months I still can't get into the swing of using OSX.
Machines synced with the amazing DropBox of course.
In serverland, 1 dedicated server (France) and 1 slice (USA) running Ubuntu 9.04 server, the other vps running RHEL; Mono 2.4.2.
I just recently migrated from a late-2006 MacBook Pro with Leopard to a shiny new ThinkPad T500 with Ubuntu Jaunty. I'm actually impressed with how well Linux on the desktop has matured over the past few years (I experimented with Ubuntu in late 2005 and it was nowhere near as refined as it is today), moreover, how easy it was to get everything working as seamlessly as it did on the Mac.
Granted, in terms of user interface (among other things), OS X is far superior to Gnome; however, aside from the gorgeous design of Aqua, in terms of actual day-to-day usability, they are pretty much on par with each other (at least as far as I'm concerned).
I work with my Windows laptop and my Linux workstation side-by-side. I use my laptop for Outlook, company IM, Office documents, and web surfing. I use my workstation for everything else. That gives me a strict division between productivity sucks on the Windows laptop and productive work on the Linux box. When I want to focus, I can sit with the laptop outside my field of view, so I don't see new emails and IMs. If I need to consult html docs while I'm coding, I use Conkeror on my Linux box so I'm not tempted into random surfing. Using Conkeror and Awesome WM on my Linux box makes it very no-nonsense and very conducive to concentration.
Ummm, so, I already voted for Linux since that's where all the work gets done. Should I vote for Windows, too?
I was wondering if we were supposed to choose only one option. And I'm flattered by your assumption that I enjoy doing my job more than surfing the web -- it isn't always true, even though I try to work as if it were ;-)
Yup. I voted three times. My microscope & downstream processing tools use Windows Server 2003, XP Pro x64, XP Pro, Ubuntu, and OS X. MacGyver hacker, here.... and yes, I use them all every day.
When you do a cost-benefit analysis, do you find that it's worth your time to tinker with all that and switch between systems?
That's why companies standardize on a toolchain. By the way, we standardized on Ubuntu at my company. And while the the home computer is my girlfriends Macbook I hardly ever really use it, so I voted once.
In my context, we are building something new, that has never existed before, and we don't know the design we are going to converge on. Of course we have some reasonable ideas that we want to try out. But for us, slapping components together to achieve a desired behavior is way more productive than building that behavior cleanly de novo, because we don't know if the behavior we have in mind will work. The immediate goal is to try out a broad gamut of possibilities, quickly; find something that works; and then to push ahead to the next stage of the workflow. The medium term goal is to assemble a workflow that takes us from sample to analyzed data. The longer term goal is to iterate this workflow, so we go faster and faster from sample to analysis, on bigger and bigger data sets.
As we complete a single iteration, we get a chance to clean up our toolchain. But we only to clean it up enough that it will support the amount of scaling up we want to do in the next iteration, since the next level of scale will introduce new, unexpected problems.
Once we have a system that runs fast enough, and big enough to be worth deploying on an ongoing basis (say for a five year lifespan) it starts to pay to build a clean toolchain, reducing our ridiculous, MacGyver'ed, Rube Goldberg monstrosity into something clean, maintainable, and extensible. But if we tried to do this from the beginning, by now we would have gotten exactly.... nowhere.
Of course there's a balance. One perpetually runs the risk of creating an intractable hairball. That's another sign it's time to clean up the toolchain...
I have a Macbook that runs Leopard and my desktop runs WinXP Pro. I prefer the Mac OS to Windows, but the Windows PC has more powerful hardware for running the graphics apps and my little white Macbook just can't keep up.It also has a 24in display and a full-size keyboard, which makes it a little more practicle to use for long periods of time. Some day, when I can justify the expense of a 24in iMac, I'll switch entirely to Mac. In the mean time, I use them both about equally. The Mac is far superior as a dev environment.
I use Fedora Core on my laptop and desktop pcs, and use a windows box with terminals to Fedora Core servers at work.
I've been thinking of getting a macbook lately - I've never used OSX and have heard good things (I also love the look of them).
I'm torn between my tried and true Fedora/ Thinkpad (I'll upgrade my existing one) combo and a shiny new macbook.
Are there any converts here? Did you miss the package manager? Do you find the paid upgrades not worth it compared to the 6 monthly Linux distro revisions?
I have a bad feeling I'll miss the convenience of yum install [package].
Mac OS X is what I use at home on my iMac and MacBook. At work I use Linux on compute servers for development and data analysis, and connect to the machines via (cough) Windows.
Starcraft works almost perfectly in wine. Th only thing that doesn't work are the background on battle.net when you are in the lobby. Game play works 100%.
All of the above. I use a Windows Vista laptop for most work, A Mac Mini hooked up to the TV for Movies, Music, Photos and syncing my iPhone, a Windows XP VM with Adobe Lightroom for touching up photos, a Linux box upstairs for Music, file serving and number crunching, various Linux VMWare images for development in Django, Perl, Ruby etc., an OpenBSD PC as a Firewall and IDS and an Amiga 1200T for Email (YAM) and Usenet (NewsCoaster).
Mac was recommended by many of my friends, so I'll say it's good. However I tried linux (mandriva) one time and I'll never get BACK to any linux version (although I like the servers os), wonder how you work with them. Linux is fast, but not comfortable to work with
I find the comments in this thread really show the potential in virtual machines.
Personally, I develop on a macbook and virtualize Windows XP and Linux (Arch Linux). I tend to just use which ever is the native environment for what I'm working with (eg: C on linux, ruby on mac).
Windows/Windows/Windows/Windows/OSX side-by-side, shared keyboard through Synergy (w/ synergy server as a Vista+Vaio).
With 4 perpetual ssh connections to different flavors of Linuxy servers (CentOS/CentOS/Fedora/SuSE). With 2 perpetual RDP sessions open to 2 more Windows boxen.
All my contact management, todos, calendar, etc are on the web on a Linux platform, SO, you could technically say I'm on Linux all day, however, I access everything from Windows and code in Windows so...
hello dpcan. what software do you use on linux for the tasks you mention - contact mgt, cal, todos, etc. Do you sync with other devices like an ipod or cell phone? Thanks.
I've been using Mac OS on and off for the last six years, but in the last year it has replaced Linux as my dominant workstation OS. I still have a few Linux and Windows build machines around the office.
All of the above: at work I have a Windows desktop and several servers running Linux and Solaris, at home I use a Mac OSX laptop along with a colocated FreeBSD server.
I use Linux (major parts of the workhorses) open BSD (routers) Mac (for video conferences and development support). There is a freebsd there for good measure.
I have a few Mac's and I run VM's on them with Ubuntu and OpenSolaris, I also have Windows XP available on a VM, but I have less and less need to use it.
Gmail isn't exactly an OS in itself. If we were to answer the poll according to the OS that the web pages we visit use, we would see a poll dominated by FreeBSD and Linux. Somehow I don't think that is what the OP intended.
of course Gmail isn't an OS, that's not what I meant, but when we use Gmail we're really making more use of the server operating system than the clients, so my point is that it very hard to really say what operating system we're using.
It would be interesting to measure the usage of say posting this comment, how many machine instructions were used at the OSX end, and how many by the various routers (running their own operating systems), servers etc used in the full life cycle of what I am doing.
Gmail stays the same; the external set-up changes. I saw no advantage to using Outlook over Gmail, whereas Mail.app offers substantially more than the Gmail webapp does, even when used with Fluid.
