EPIC Pc vs Mac Battle: FOR ALL TIME

[Praxis]

So what did Apple do? Leave one button on there, and if the user wants to "right-click", he holds two fingers on the trackpad and clicks. And it works brilliantly. Your thumb only needs to be accurate enough to hit a very large button, and the modifier action is basically relaxing your hand.

So how do you pull this off? I've got my mom's black macbook here, two fingers on the touchpad, and clicking the button does not appear to cause ctrl+click.

System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Trackpad -> Check Place Two Fingers on Trackpad and Click Button for Secondary Click.

[Stark]

Usually I'm happy with ctrl-click. I'm right handed, and my left hand is on the keyboard anyway. It's no less inconvienient to reaching under my palm with my thumb to press a right-click button under the touchpad, I think.

[RThurmont]

And two-fingered scrolling? I'm amazed that no one has ripped it off yet, because it's the absolute best way to scroll on a laptop.

I'll respond to your rather subjective opinion by argueing that the ThinkPad ScrollPoint solution is by far superior. It takes some getting used to, but makes perfect sense in that it replicates a three button mouse perfectly on a trackpoint equipped keyboard.

I personally can't stand Apple's approach to mice. I use a non-Apple mouse with my Mac due to the poor ergonomics of the Mighty Mouse and the fact that I need easy right click access. My favorite mouse is the Lenovo/IBM ThinkPlus mouse with UltraNav, but unfortunately, UltraNav does not work with some Windows games. Where it does work, though (MS Office, and other productivity apps and web browsers), it is worth its weight in gold). The ergonomics of the mouse are also fantastic, as are the aesthetics.

The combination of a ThinkPad-style USB keyboard and an UltraNav mouse + a new office chair and other ergonomic accessories saved me from carpal tunnel syndrome last year.

Why would I install Linux over OS X? There's even LESS games available (for those that care about it, I don't really, that's what Windows is there for), none of the software I use regularly is available, the GUI is unfriendly, it's frustrating to config, and virtually anything I would want to run on Linux is available for OS X. Plus Linux won't support my iPod or iTunes purchases (Heroes Season 1).

Because Linux is freer, faster, and generally, better. Also, your FUD regarding iPod support is inaccurate; Linux can support iPods (and some distros come with the neccessary codecs preinstalled), just not Apple's proprietary DRM. This is Apple's fault, and the legal workaround is to burn your iTunes library to CDs (which Apple lets you do) and then rip those CDs into Linux, or run Windows or, bwahaha, OS X, in a virtual machine, and use iTunes in it (not sure how well that'd work but I see no reason why it wouldn't...). Also, some versions of iTunes are supported by WINE.

Also, the Linux GUI is not unfriendly, nor is it 'frustrating" to config, for the simple reason that there is no single Linux GUI. KDE is the most heavily configurable GUI I've ever seen, and is also ridiculously easier to use. GNOME sucks, but is somewhat fast and n00b-friendly. The other desktop environments vary enormously, but all of them seem to be markedly faster and more intuitive than Aqua. I find the default configuration and system tools in OS X to be very counter-intuitive and unusual (coming from the standpoint of a hardened Windows power user).

I do agree with Stark that the "Retina burning blue" criticism was pure unabashed FUD, by the way. Vision is passive.

[Ace Pace]

Because Linux is freer, faster, and generally, better.

And, supports hardware like shit, is far harder to setup, and generally lacks quite a few good programs.

OS X, in a virtual machine, and use iTunes in it (not sure how well that'd work but I see no reason why it wouldn't.

Right.... I want your bong pipe.

Can you stop fellating Linux as if it's your new shiny god?

[Bounty]

And, supports hardware like shit, is far harder to setup, and generally lacks quite a few good programs.

Not that I want to start another OS flamewar, but none of the issues you raise are really that relevant today. A modern Linux distro can cope with most hardware out there, setup is in most cases automatic and almost every computing task has a Linux-compatible program for it.

Yes, you can run into a snag now and then - heaven knows I did - but I have yet to run into a Linux problem that couldn't be fixed.

As for iPods, I use mine with GTKPod and it works flawlessly - though I don't use iTunes-DRM'ed content.

[Mobius]

Not that I want to start another OS flamewar, but none of the issues you raise are really that relevant today. A modern Linux distro can cope with most hardware out there, setup is in most cases automatic and almost every computing task has a Linux-compatible program for it.

yeah Linux is not hardcore enough anymore; that's why i switched to Solaris X! (which doesn't want to recognize my network chipset)

[RThurmont]

And, supports hardware like shit, is far harder to setup, and generally lacks quite a few good program

Incorrect. Linux probably has the best hardware support of any OS in existence, running on more architectures and devices than even NetBSD. In terms of device compatibility, that's improving dramatically as well, with even the most proprietary devices like Broadcom wifi cards increasingly being supported via third party hacks et cetera. Installing Linux on a given computer is merely a question of finding a distro that supports your particular hardware well (easy to ascertain given the proliferation of Live CDs).

Most Linux distros also ridiculously easy to install and set up. The installation process generally consists of inserting the CD and running the installation wizard.

I'm rather sorry you had a bad experience with Linux a few years ago, and I know a lot of people who tried Linux two or three years ago, had a bad time, and got burned. However, my experiences with Linux since first installing it in October of last year have been nothing short of wonderful. I've found Linux ridiculously easy to install, and unbelievably enjoyable to use. As we speak I'm backing up the data on a Windows Tablet PC installation, so I can install Linux onto that computer in a partition. After that is complete, I'll have only two Windows XP only systems left, and I see myself installing Linux on both of them within the next week.

[Bounty]

with even the most proprietary devices like Broadcom wifi cards increasingly being supported via third party hacks et cetera.

That is at the same time the blessing and the curse of Linux: if you're lucky, and most people these days are, your Linux distro will work out of the box; if it doesn't, chances are someone has had the same problem and juryrigged a fix. Trouble is, you need to have the time, patience and skill to find that fix.

In my purely subjective view, Linux tends to be broken more often, but what's broken is easily fixed - whereas on Microsoft and Apple, if something's broken, chances are you're screwed.

[RThurmont]

Agreed. I also find that Linux is usually at its buggiest when first installed...after you get things up and running the experience improves dramatically. This is in marked contrast to Windows, which gets worse the more you use it (due to the tendency of software installation and removal to cause rot, and filesystem fragmentation). Linux, like vintage wine, ages well.

[Praxis]

with even the most proprietary devices like Broadcom wifi cards increasingly being supported via third party hacks et cetera.

That is at the same time the blessing and the curse of Linux: if you're lucky, and most people these days are, your Linux distro will work out of the box; if it doesn't, chances are someone has had the same problem and juryrigged a fix. Trouble is, you need to have the time, patience and skill to find that fix.

In my purely subjective view, Linux tends to be broken more often, but what's broken is easily fixed - whereas on Microsoft and Apple, if something's broken, chances are you're screwed.

Actually, that's one of the Apple things I like; things generally are easier to fix than Windows. Linux, of course, is even easier.

[Praxis]

Because Linux is freer, faster, and generally, better. Also, your FUD regarding iPod support is inaccurate; Linux can support iPods (and some distros come with the neccessary codecs preinstalled), just not Apple's proprietary DRM. This is Apple's fault, and the legal workaround is to burn your iTunes library to CDs (which Apple lets you do) and then rip those CDs into Linux, or run Windows or, bwahaha, OS X, in a virtual machine, and use iTunes in it (not sure how well that'd work but I see no reason why it wouldn't...). Also, some versions of iTunes are supported by WINE.

Also, the Linux GUI is not unfriendly, nor is it 'frustrating" to config, for the simple reason that there is no single Linux GUI. KDE is the most heavily configurable GUI I've ever seen, and is also ridiculously easier to use. GNOME sucks, but is somewhat fast and n00b-friendly. The other desktop environments vary enormously, but all of them seem to be markedly faster and more intuitive than Aqua. I find the default configuration and system tools in OS X to be very counter-intuitive and unusual (coming from the standpoint of a hardened Windows power user).

I'll give you the iPod point, I wasn't aware of that, but I should have assumed someone somewhere had done it (still doesn't fix the DRM problem though, but oh well).

Freer? If I already bought a Mac, how is it freer? I'll already own a copy of OS X. Unless you mean free as in speech, but I'm not going to let that sentiment that has no effect on my work decide my OS.

I question your knowledge of UI designs. Generally, Linux GUI's tend to be remarkably inconsistent because there is no unified UI guidelines; application writers just throw whatever UI on their apps they feel like. Apple on the other hand has specific human interface guidelines that application developers have to follow for their applications to fit in, and most do.

Linux GUIs are inconsistent and unrefined, and not particularly noob-friendly. You still have to install most packages through the Terminal. Getting WINE working on my Linux box was an extremely frustrating experience.

I haven't benchmarked, but I'll just assume you're right about Linux being faster. It probably is.

Better? What defines better? Difficulty of use, inconsistent GUI, etc are superficial, but they matter. How about ease of use? It tends to be much more difficult to accomplish tasks in Linux or Windows compared to OS X and require a much higher level of technical expertise. How about stability? My Linux and OS X boxes have been pretty dang close. Available software? Windows takes the cake due to the piles of freeware crap out there; Linux has a lot of great open source projects, but OS X tends to have very high quality shareware, lots of open source, AND has the commercial apps that I have to use.

I like Linux. But I disagree that the smart thing to do with a new Mac is to remove OS X and put Linux on it.

This is Apple's fault, and the legal workaround is to burn your iTunes library to CDs (which Apple lets you do) and then rip those CDs into Linux,

I don't have a problem with music files, I use this workaround all the time, and I rarely buy anything off of iTunes Music Store anyway (just a few Weird Al CD's ).

My problem is with the video files. I bought Season 1 of Heroes and one or two movies. No way to strip the DRM. It's not really that important; worst case I can turn off syncronization on my iPod and toss it over there manually. I just won't be able to play them under Linux.

[RThurmont]

I question your knowledge of UI designs. Generally, Linux GUI's tend to be remarkably inconsistent because there is no unified UI guidelines; application writers just throw whatever UI on their apps they feel like. Apple on the other hand has specific human interface guidelines that application developers have to follow for their applications to fit in, and most do.

Total, absolute, mindless, FUD-spewing BS. In reality, the exact opposite of what you described is true.

Linux GUIs have strict human interface guidelines that are followed, and indeed, policed, to some extent (if you want your package to even be considered to be a default part of GNOME or KDE, it had better follow them).

GNOME Human Interface Guidelines
KDE Human Interface Guidelines

Apple, on the other hand, has obsolete HIGs that haven't been updated in some time, and that Apple itself routinely ignores. There are now about five seperate styles of Windeco and UI design floating around OS X, and that's only counting Apple applications! You have the original look, the brushed metal look, the dark brushed metal look, the pseudo-gray post brushed metal iTunes look, and a light gray look, among others. Additionally, my experience with OS X UIs is that they are politely described as highly divergent.

The Apple HIGs are so dated and inadequete, and the OS X user interface so inconsistent, that a third party project has in fact been started to address the problem:

Indie HIG for OS X

To my certain knowledge, in spite of the heavy criticism of the user interfaces of Windows, KDE and GNOME (and in particular, the GNOME HIG), there are no equivalent projects for those environments. The obvious neccessity for third party HIGs for OS X is absolutely unprecedented, and is the result of astonishing carelessness on Apple's part.

[Bounty]

Generally, Linux GUI's tend to be remarkably inconsistent because there is no unified UI guidelines; application writers just throw whatever UI on their apps they feel like. Apple on the other hand has specific human interface guidelines that application developers have to follow for their applications to fit in, and most do.

There actually are guidelines for GNOME and KDE, so as long as you stick with one suite's software, there is consistency. The problems start when you mix and match suites, or when you use applications that fall outside the guidelines. Starting Gnomebaker, KTorrent, the GIMP and Thunar side-by-side is not a pretty sight.

[Bounty]

There are now about five seperate styles of Windeco and UI design floating around OS X

Colours and special effects hardly matter as long as the UI is consistent.

And the UI guidelines only work as long as you stay in *one* flavour of *one* distro. Even within Ubuntu, the UI's are all over the place, from Windows-clones (KDE, XFCE) to GNOME, from blinged-up multi-workspace monstrosities like Enlightenment to minimalistic stuff without even a start bar (OpenBox) and that even leaves out the really whacky shit like wmii.

Linux is only consistent when you carefully choose your distro, window manager and applications. Only then.

[Praxis]

Interesting, I'd never seen the guidelines; the problem is that as bounty said, there's different ones for each window manager. All the different apps I'd tried in Linux tended to be pretty inconsistent in terms of GUI, likely because each of the apps I was running followed UI guidelines for a different window manager.

[Resinence]

OS X, in a virtual machine, and use iTunes in it (not sure how well that'd work but I see no reason why it wouldn't.

Right.... I want your bong pipe.

Astoundingly, that actually works, I've done it before. The new VMWare has support for direct access USB/USB2.0.

But then really, why not just...I dunno... run OS X and compile you're linux apps to run on it, if someone knows enough to set up vmware on linux and get it working 100% they can use darwin's make tools to compile a program.

I do agree with Stark that the "Retina burning blue" criticism was pure unabashed FUD, by the way. Vision is passive.

I did not mean it in an FUD way, just that I *personally* hate how bright aqua is in general, if I wanted to stare at a fluorescent lightbulb I'd stare at one.

On the consistancy note, no.
Most people use both QT and GTK programs, and both use different human interface guidelines.nuff said. But hey, if you use gnome with all GTK apps, or KDE with all QT apps, or XFCE4 with all gtk apps, it will be pretty damn consistant (and use alot less ram than having both gtk and QT loaded at the same time). But most people don't watch what they install that carefully. I generally think of OS X as just another UNIX with a propietry interface though, the kernel isnt the same per-say, but the same programs run the same as they do on BSD or GNU/Linux.

Also Vista sucks ass.

[RThurmont]

All the different apps I'd tried in Linux tended to be pretty inconsistent in terms of GUI, likely because each of the apps I was running followed UI guidelines for a different window manager.

So what? Use apps written for one window manager only. There is absolutely no need to use KDE apps in GNOME or vice versa, unless you're doing something highly specialized. That's like complaining that Windows apps running in a Parallels VM on OS X don't look the same as OS X apps.

However, in my experience, GNOME and KDE apps do look very similiar, unless you have the font resolution for GNOME and KDE configured seperately. Additionally, KDE provides a facility for setting the appearance of GTK apps, which can be used to further optimize how they display. Again, your post is complete, retarded FUD, and you have not provided any meaningful arguments to counter my rebuttal, and instead have only displayed ignorance of the subject matter (you attack KDE and GNOME, and praise OS X, on the subject of human interface guidelines, without bothering to check if KDE and GNOME HIGs even exist!!!!).

[Ace Pace]

Again, your post is complete, retarded FUD, and you have not provided any meaningful arguments to counter my rebuttal, and instead have only displayed ignorance of the subject matter (you attack KDE and GNOME, and praise OS X, on the subject of human interface guidelines, without bothering to check if KDE and GNOME HIGs even exist!!!!).

Because, in practice, getting around the basically quite similar OSX user interfaces is quite easy, while Linux interfaces make sense only after getting used to them.

[Resinence]

Additionally, KDE provides a facility for setting the appearance of GTK apps, which can be used to further optimize how they display. Again, your post is complete, retarded FUD, and you have not provided any meaningful arguments to counter my rebuttal, and instead have only displayed ignorance of the subject matter (you attack KDE and GNOME, and praise OS X, on the subject of human interface guidelines, without bothering to check if KDE and GNOME HIGs even exist!!!!).

Gah, can't believe I forgot about that. Yes, if you use the QT GTK2 engine in KDE or the GTK2 QT engine in GNOME/XFCE4 99% of applications will look exactly the same. Should also be noted that alot of programs can be compiled with either GTK or QT support and even both, which has less overhead than the cross-toolkit theme engines. Though I find gnome/gtk to be worse off in that department because KDE is so damn customisable and can make anything look like anything, plus amarok and last.fm are QT only. Not pimping KDE though I use xfce4 and all gtk apps myself because its fast and not the "interface for stupid people" like gnome.

[Bounty]

So what? Use apps written for one window manager only.

That is not a practical solution. No desktop environment (and do try to remember the dictinction between a WM and an environment) has a full suite of office, network and multimedia programs. Running KDE? Then GIMP won't blend. Neither will OOo, unless you're happy with whatever K-office app is included. Running Xfce? Then you'll still need a proper burning app, since Xfburn is next to useless - and you break consistency.

Not to mention that "staying with one DE" goes against one of the big advantages of Linux that you yourself keep dragging up, the larger software choice compared to OSX.

in my experience, GNOME and KDE apps do look very similiar

Gnome - smooth, flat and stylized. KDE - busy, garish and cutesy. How you can say they blend with a straight face is beyond me.

And I don't just mean colours. For instance, where do you find the Preferences menu in Gnome apps? Under Edit. KDE? Under Settings. Maybe. Depends on the app. Non-DE applications? Lord knows where.

you attack KDE and GNOME, and praise OS X, on the subject of human interface guidelines, without bothering to check if KDE and GNOME HIGs even exist!!!!

Because they're largely irrelevant to the argument: the average Linux user will not have a consistent UI design unless he religiously stays with one DE and it's applications. The very fact that *two* (or more !) HIG's exist says enough about "consistency" in the Linux world, methinks.

while Linux interfaces make sense only after getting used to them.

Good Linux interfaces make sense at first sight. Bad Linux interfaces - the ones that hide half the options in impossible locations, don't act consistent or overcomplicate basic tasks - are a black hole of suck compared to even the worst Windows dialog.

[Ace Pace]

in my experience, GNOME and KDE apps do look very similiar

Gnome - smooth, flat and stylized. KDE - busy, garish and cutesy. How you can say they blend with a straight face is beyond me.

Same way he bashs OSXs 5 slightly differant user interfaces as being unworkable.

[Resinence]

while Linux interfaces make sense only after getting used to them.

Sort of, the latest stuff from the gnome guys is pretty damn easy to use, for example: the new optional application menu (instead of the default windows 98 like thing)

[RThurmont]

The Application Browser is pretty cool (and is the default way of launching applications in SLED 10). What I love about it is how it makes all your applications more discoverable, creating a really cool feeling of exploration as you try out different components.

[Durandal]

Incorrect. Linux probably has the best hardware support of any OS in existence, running on more architectures and devices than even NetBSD.

When we talk about "hardware support", we're talking about hardware people care about. No one gives a shit that Linux can run on a toaster.

[Pu-239]

So what? Use apps written for one window manager only.

That is not a practical solution. No desktop environment (and do try to remember the dictinction between a WM and an environment) has a full suite of office, network and multimedia programs. Running KDE? Then GIMP won't blend. Neither will OOo, unless you're happy with whatever K-office app is included. Running Xfce? Then you'll still need a proper burning app, since Xfburn is next to useless - and you break consistency.

Well, you could just, you know, use GNOME... that's my primary reason for using GNOME rather than KDE- all the important apps such as GIMP and Firefox use GTK+ . The only applications I use that don't use GTK are Opera (which isn't the primary browser) and all the CLI apps. Then again, I'm religious about consistency and will not hesitate to use a CLI app over a QT/KDE gui equivalent. That said, there does seem to be a lot more GTK/GNOME apps compared to QT/KDE availabe too. Nonstandard menus don't seem to really bother me though.

Destructionator:
I really don't see anything wrong w/ the GTK file dialog (as of newer version of GTK (I think after 2.6 I believe)). The breadcrubs feature is nice.


Hardware support... well, MacOSX won't run on a generic PC . I would hazard a guess that there is more hardware that is Windows/Linux only as opposed to Windows/MacOS