Why a Mac costs more than a PC...

[Raje]

Since you are so concerned with finding a laptop that matches the MBP 17 in terms of resolution and processor, I present to you the Alienware M17x.
Alienware M17x
Core i7 620m
1GB ATI 5870m GPU
8GB RAM
7200 RPM 500GB HDD
1920x1200 RGB LED
Price-$2,574

An MBP with the same options costs $2,949. So, the M17x is almost $400 cheaper plus it includes a much more powerful graphics card.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Have you even read the whole original post?

It's better than a $400 Toshiba. That's exactly why the hardware is better. What you can do by paying 1100 bucks for a Mac and NO MORE for software, you can do (and I'm being VERY generous here) by purchasing that $400 Toshiba and paying a sh*itload of cash for software. The Mac comes cheaper with better hardware.

Oh, by the way, iTunes, as a media player, is free, so your observation has no place here.

I said "It's just better than a $400 Toshiba". That is why the hardware is better. Because it's not a $400 Toshiba.

But we're not comparing a Macbook Pro to a $400 Toshiba, we're comparing the Macbook lines with other higher end laptops, such as Dell's business class vostro. And when you compare an Apple laptop to a Dell Vostro laptop, or any higher end laptop (meaning NOT a $400 Toshiba) the Apple computer is more expensive, leading me to deduce that the Apple premium is due to software or brand identity.

Raja's post right above mine illustrated exactly what I'm talking about. Spec for spec, the Alienware is more powerful and less expensive. So if not the hardware, what causes a mac to be so expensive? It's the software, and brand.

Last, which is where I might loose a lot of mac users, because Windows 7 is arguably better than OS X, the only reason that someone would pay so much for OS X is the iLife suite, which is ridiculous because you can get more professional programs for less than the Apple premium, or because Apple has a monopoly on OS X.

 

[Horus]

..Last, which is where I might loose a lot of mac users, because Windows 7 is arguably better at crashing and freezing than OS X.

Fix'd for you, my friend.

 

[ramzhh]

Windows 7 is arguably better than OS X

WHAT? Arguably better? Where the hell did you get that?

I want you to give me 3 ways in which Windows 7 is "arguably better" than OS X, as an operating system. 3 solid arguments.

Oh my god. There are preferences and opinions but to claim, as a fact, that Windows 7 is better than OS X is absolutely absurd.


Also, I don't give a crap about hardware specs, I care about the whole package. I bought a 1200 dollar Mac with a C2D and I don't regret a single bit of it.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

This debate has popped up over and over. First, Windows 7 is not better than OS X. And OS X is not better than Windows 7. That is just opinion. But OS X has been proven time and time again that it requires less maintenance and costs less to do so than Windows. Two, the quality of Mac computers is on average better than PC. I don't see many PCs with quality LCDs, FireWire ports, optical audio out, etc. I don't see many PCs with metal enclosures but rather plastic. Three, OS X does not have any viruses (by the technical definition) whereas Windows has millions of them. Macs are generally more stable than Windows. It does not require defragmentation to perform well. HFS+ is superior to NTFS because it is more efficient. Those are the facts. But if someone prefers Windows, then that's their preference which is opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and preferences so to say one is better than the other based on said opinion or preference is meaningless.

 

[ramzhh]

This debate has popped up over and over. First, Windows 7 is not better than OS X. And OS X is not better than Windows 7. That is just opinion. But OS X has been proven time and time again that it requires less maintenance and costs less to do so than Windows. Two, the quality of Mac computers is on average better than PC. I don't see many PCs with quality LCDs, FireWire ports, optical audio out, etc. I don't see many PCs with metal enclosures but rather plastic. Three, OS X does not have any viruses (by the technical definition) whereas Windows has millions of them. Macs are generally more stable than Windows. It does not require defragmentation to perform well. HFS+ is superior to NTFS because it is more efficient. Those are the facts. But if someone prefers Windows, then that's their preference which is opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and preferences so to say one is better than the other based on said opinion or preference is meaningless.

Absolutely. And I'm sick of hearing people just saying "this is better than this", just because they like it more. Opinions and preferences are not facts.

It's kids like "thejadedmonkey" that keep trolling. Stop it.

 

[THX1139]

I want to set the record straight...

The OP does a decent job of making an argument, but it's easily debatable. He is basically saying that if A=>B, then C must be true. But it's not. There are just too many variables to making a purchasing decision, so his blanket statement of why a Mac costs more than a PC is NOT always true. If he would have been comparing laptops to laptops with the average business or prosumer, then he has a better argument. But when he lumped all Macs together, his argument falls apart quickly. For example, he says that having iLife increases the value. Well... what if you don't need/want iLife? Well, then it has no value unless you can deduct if from the purchase price. Not to mention, there are free alternatives on the internet. What if you use your laptop in your living room and never take it out of the house. Do you need to pay premium for construction and materials? What if you only use it to surf the internet and maybe pay bills? Wouldn't it make better sense to have a cheap PC laptop that has better access to websites? Does a magnetic catch really matter if your computer is just sitting on a side table next to your sofa? Why pay for something that has no value to you? I could go on and on... but I'm sure you get the point.

As for the professional line of desktops, Apple is way behind the rest of the industry. You pay premium for outdated hardware before you even turn it on. And what about expandability? You can change hardware easily/cheaply on a PC but on a Mac it's almost impossible or too expense. Okay, I know that you are thinking that most people wouldn't want or need to do that. Well, that's my point. Macs are not always the best choice for everyone. Especially if it's a desktop and you need to stay current on hardware. The argument for stability is not valid either. Most professional machines are extremely stable if they optimize it for the task. It's when you take that machine and use it for non-essential things that makes it flaky in a production environment. For example, a $1500 dollar custom built PC desktop (that is optimized for video/3d) will out perform any MacPro currently being sold. Especially if you lock it down and only use if for the task it's designed for.

And then there is the OS. Leopard is great... but so is Linux (if you need that) and Windows 7 for consumers. You can be a die-hard Mac fan and still appreciate Windows 7 for what it can do. The point is, there are alternatives that are pretty damn good. The days of saying one OS is superior over another are over. Maybe you have a preference, but for the general population I think it doesn't matter. Actually... I'll go the other way, and say that in some cases it really does matter! For example, some facilities run Linux instead of (any other OS) because they can customize it for their pipeline. OS X is not even an option in those situations!

Again, I think some good points were made, but the overall message is flawed. It also smacks of fan-boy-ism. Buy the machine you need for the money that is within your budget... but don't join the cult that makes it.

 

[yorkshire]

I do use mac, and prefer it, but I don't like the argument that you have to "factor in" the cost of iLife into a PC. In the past 2 years of having a macbook I use iTunes and iPhoto regularly, but thats it. Garageband and iMovie maybe a few times, and iWeb never. Most people don't need to be making their own music or making their own videos. For many it's just a novelty.

Also, when comparing prices, many choose a mac, then build up a PC to comparable specs. Buying a PC to custom specs, i.e BTO, is always going to cost more. Just pick a good PC for £1000, and a Macbook Pro, you will find that you get more for your money with a PC, in terms of hardware anyway.

We pay a lot for Apple products. I mean £500 for a phone? At the end of the day it's a phone. The iPod touch is much better value when it's basically 80% of an iPhone, for 1/3 of the cost. Apple knows that they're a cool brand and will charge high prices accordingly.


But, and this is a big but, Apple's products are brilliant. The software makes them brilliant. Paying more up front is very annoying, but they are so good to use. I guess it's the price we have to pay.

 

[Horus]

It's when you take that machine and use it for non-essential things that makes it flaky in a production environment. For example, a $1500 dollar custom built PC desktop (that is optimized for video/3d) will out perform any MacPro currently being sold. Especially if you lock it down and only use if for the task it's designed for.

You made some decent points but this, Where can I find that $1500 PC that outperforms even the best Mac Pro? I'm talking about the one with 2 Xeon CPUs, 32 GB of RAM and so on.
Where? please tell me.

 

[THX1139]

You made some decent points but this, Where can I find that $1500 PC that outperforms even the best Mac Pro? I'm talking about the one with 2 Xeon CPUs, 32 GB of RAM and so on.
Where? please tell me.

If you read and noticed, I said custom built PC. I should have added... comparable options. Don't be obtuse... you knew what I meant. Of course a top end MacPro that it maxed out on ram and options is going to outperform a $1500 custom built PC (unless it's loaded with the same amount of ram). You are comparing a $20,000+ machine to something that costs $1500. But here, let me be a more specific. With all things being equal, a custom built $1500 PC will outperform a MacPro with similar options for less money. Or, we could go the other way... go to the Apple store and custom configure a MacPro and max out the specs. How much is it? Take that money and you could build a PC render farm that would smoke that MacPro in data crunching. You would even have money left over to buy an iPad

But hey, not everyone needs a $20K MacPro... or a PC render farm. That was the point of my reply. Dollar for dollar, Macs are NOT always better. You figure out what you need and then look at the options for the price. Macs are NOT always going to come out on top, but according to the OP, they will.

 

[AwakenedLands]

This whole topic is the ultimate fanboy subject, destined to create a firestorm of people fighting over computer hardware and software of which they'll never be more than consumers of.

Apple makes nice computers, that's pretty much what you spent an hour typing up. I agree, macs are nice computers. But it's just a freaking computer.

OSX being the most advanced operating system out there? thats the biggest fanboy statement someone could say.

Have a look at gnome, KDE and Windows 7 then.

This is quite possibly the most ignorant response possible, Giuly. Windows 7 is an operating system. Mac OS, for simplicity, is a customized and proprietary UNIX derivative operating system. GNOME and KDE are not operating systems. They are desktop environments usually run on top of some UNIX derivative like Linux. In fact, you can run GNOME on OSX, and it doesn't change the operating system.

Before claiming OSX is the most advanced operating system out there, try to know what an operating system really is, and what OSX evolved from. OSX is very similar to any BSD or Linux distribution.

 

[Giuly]

Since you are so concerned with finding a laptop that matches the MBP 17 in terms of resolution and processor, I present to you the Alienware M17x.
Alienware M17x
Core i7 620m
1GB ATI 5870m GPU
8GB RAM
7200 RPM 500GB HDD
1920x1200 RGB LED
Price-$2,574

An MBP with the same options costs $2,949. So, the M17x is almost $400 cheaper plus it includes a much more powerful graphics card.

The Alienware m17x does not boast great battery life despite the 12 cell battery pack with a capacity of 6600mAh (14.8V or 97.68Wh). Under full load the battery was drained after only 55 minutes, and only 94 minutes were eked out under full power-saving options. This is probably not an issue for the potential m17x customer though anyway. In the worst case, one can buy a second battery pack.

1.5h idle battery lifetime with disabled WiFi vs "8-9h wireless productivity" (What ever that may mean, at least browsing in Safari) at the same price with killer graphics. Nice.
I wonder what's better, a disabled nVidia 330m and using a Intel IGP to Safari around - or killer graphics and a black screen.

have you seen the hp envy 14 and 17 laptops? totally blow the comparable priced MBPs out of the water. have you seen the newer vaios? there are sub 1000$ models that have i3 processors and 4 gigs of ram.

why dont quad cores with sub 2.0ghz clock speeds count? its not all about clockspeed. also, the i7 quadcores have turbo boost to 2.8 to past 3.0 depending on the model. you are seriously a mega fanboy. not that thats a bad thing but youre biased as hell.

Have a look at the battery runtime of the whole Vaio-line. I stated that earlier. As for the quad-core, indeed they clock the same for single- or dual-core loads, I rechecked the specs, but look at the battery runtime. they all draw 1/3 more power then the dual-core i7s used in the MBP and have no battery lifetime of 8-9 hours. As you stated Sony Vaios, it's 3h there, or 4.5h with an uprated battery. And you can rather take it as a quad-core MacMini with a 17" screen, for $1600.

And I'm biased for bang-for-the-buck. Windows doesn't offer that, regardless of what the hardware costs. Most things I can do with Windows for free, Linux does it twice - and offers me a SVN repository to get the sourcecode and the possibility to change whatever I like. If I have to pay for any Software - I rather pay for a Cocoa App that implements Apple's Human Interface Guidelines. If it's that specialized that it's not available on Mac OS X, send the Bills to the Bootcamp then.

I want to set the record straight...
The OP does a decent job of making an argument, but it's easily debatable. He is basically saying that if A=>B, then C must be true. But it's not. There are just too many variables to making a purchasing decision, so his blanket statement of why a Mac costs more than a PC is NOT always true. If he would have been comparing laptops to laptops with the average business or prosumer, then he has a better argument. But when he lumped all Macs together, his argument falls apart quickly. For example, he says that having iLife increases the value. Well... what if you don't need/want iLife? Well, then it has no value unless you can deduct if from the purchase price. Not to mention, there are free alternatives on the internet. What if you use your laptop in your living room and never take it out of the house. Do you need to pay premium for construction and materials? What if you only use it to surf the internet and maybe pay bills? Wouldn't it make better sense to have a cheap PC laptop that has better access to websites? Does a magnetic catch really matter if your computer is just sitting on a side table next to your sofa? Why pay for something that has no value to you? I could go on and on... but I'm sure you get the point.

We discussed the free GarageBand alternative here, Microsoft's SongSmith was proposed. Google it and have a look. The video cutting feature of YouTube as an alternative to iMovie? dvdauthor command line utility for iDVD?
If you never take it out, have a Mac Mini and a 17" screen for less than $1000 then.
As stated, any $500 "Toshiba" or what ever is comparable to a 2007 MacBook - spec-wise. It still does fine for office, browsing, DVD and even 720p playback.
The "Why pay for anything that has no value to you" argument could be used also if you're a linux user and have a $60 OEM Windows 7 Home Premium license arriving with your laptop.

As for the professional line of desktops, Apple is way behind the rest of the industry. You pay premium for outdated hardware before you even turn it on. And what about expandability? You can change hardware easily/cheaply on a PC but on a Mac it's almost impossible or too expense. Okay, I know that you are thinking that most people wouldn't want or need to do that. Well, that's my point. Macs are not always the best choice for everyone. Especially if it's a desktop and you need to stay current on hardware. The argument for stability is not valid either. Most professional machines are extremely stable if they optimize it for the task. It's when you take that machine and use it for non-essential things that makes it flaky in a production environment. For example, a $1500 dollar custom built PC desktop (that is optimized for video/3d) will out perform any MacPro currently being sold. Especially if you lock it down and only use if for the task it's designed for.

I don't discuss that until Tuesday, read the news. But build yourself a 2xquad core Xeon machine, and tell me the price. One processor in there is worth $1000. A dual Xeon motherboard is no $200 X58 one. ECC RAM is expensive, too (Not that more than 2% would need that).
Sure you can build an i7 machine for less. But I can build an hexa-core (or dual hexa-core Opteron in regard to the Xeon) AMD for even less then that.

And then there is the OS. Leopard is great... but so is Linux (if you need that) and Windows 7 for consumers. You can be a die-hard Mac fan and still appreciate Windows 7 for what it can do. The point is, there are alternatives that are pretty damn good. The days of saying one OS is superior over another are over. Maybe you have a preference, but for the general population I think it doesn't matter. Actually... I'll go the other way, and say that in some cases it really does matter! For example, some facilities run Linux instead of (any other OS) because they can customize it for their pipeline. OS X is not even an option in those situations!

Have a look at the argument above. If you buy machines in large numbers, those $60 add up. Did we mention that Mac OS X is a Unix and compiles file most sourcecodes for linux and even has a X11? Wanna argument with MingW or Cygwin?

Again, I think some good points were made, but the overall message is flawed. It also smacks of fan-boy-ism. Buy the machine you need for the money that is within your budget... but don't join the cult that makes it.

If you shop on 1-time budget, you're maybe right. If you shop for bang-for-the-buck, that's a different thing. If you have the TCO in mind, that's again a different thing. Macs win the two latter, PCs may get the on-device-pricetag point.

 

[Horus]

If you read and noticed, I said custom built PC. I should have added... comparable options. Don't be obtuse... you knew what I meant. Of course a top end MacPro that it maxed out on ram and options is going to outperform a $1500 custom built PC (unless it's loaded with the same amount of ram). You are comparing a $20,000+ machine to something that costs $1500. But here, let me be a more specific. With all things being equal, a custom built $1500 PC will outperform a MacPro with similar options for less money.

You said:

For example, a $1500 dollar custom built PC desktop (that is optimized for video/3d) will out perform any MacPro currently being sold.

So, what were you saying?

 

[THX1139]

You said:



So, what were you saying?

Not even sure why I'm bothering with a reply. You seem to be the type who finds a flaw in what someone writes and finds ways to use that against them to justify their own flawed thinking. I made a mistake... I wasn't thinking about options of adding ram/hardware. I was thinking more about dollar for dollar. Of course if you take the top end MacPro and max it out, the machine is going to be faster that the $1500 machine simply because of ram. But it's going to cost a ton more money! If you maxed out the ram in the PC, you would narrow the gap for much less than the Mac Pro. So, okay... let's do this. Take the top end MacPro without all of the EXPENSIVE overpriced upgrades... $3200. Now take that $3200 and use it to build a desktop PC. $3200 will buy a lot of power and it will faster and more cost effective than the MacPro. No contest. That was my point.

Another option. Go to Apple and max out the hardware upgrades for the top end Mac Pro (I get $13,399). Take that money and invest in a custom built PC. You could probably build 3 or 4 desktops and either one of those would be faster than the single Mac Pro. Or just build one PC and pocket the leftover $, or build a small render farm to go with the main machine. Etc.

With the PC, you would also a true 64bit system with applications that actually run in 64bit, so there is that advantage too. Final Cut Studio (a primary reason to go Apple) is only 32bit. Again... advantage to the PC when it comes to pro applications.

Okay... do you understand my point?

By the way... I wrote this on my over-priced Mac Pro.

 

[Horus]

What you said

Yes, I understand you now and I agree with some of your points but this:

With the PC, you would also a true 64bit system with applications that actually run in 64bit, so there is that advantage too. Final Cut Studio (a primary reason to go Apple) is only 32bit. Again... advantage to the PC when it comes to pro applications.

Snow Leopard is a 64 bit Operating System that can run 64 bit applications.
I know that are you going to say:

But teh Kernelzzzz izzznt 64bitzzz by d3fault

You can enable it, i don't know why you make such a big deal about that.

 

[Giuly]

let's do this. Take the top end MacPro without all of the EXPENSIVE overpriced upgrades... $3200. Now take that $3200 and use it to build a desktop PC. $3200 will buy a lot of power and it will faster and more cost effective than the MacPro. No contest. That was my point.

As long as you don't implement more QPI lanes to your desktop PC, you won't go dual processor. 2x$400 for the 2.26GHz variant. Want more? $600 2.4GHz, $800 2.53GHz, $1000 2.66GHz, $1400 2.93GHz.

[U]Giuly's MacPro receipe:[/U]
Dual-1366 motherboard with at least 12xDDR3 - starting at $400.
2x2.26GHz Gainstown Xeon: $800
2x3x1GB DDR3-1066 ECC Ram: $200
Crappy graphics: $50
1000W PSU - $150 (The MacPro's is 980W).
Case - Let be $100
640GB HDD - $75
DVD drive - $20
Mouse $20.
Keyboard $50.
Windows 7 Ultimate - $275.
2 comparabile CPU Cooler - $200.

put all ingredients in a bowl and gently steer until admixed

Makes $2340. Speed Bump to the next CPU Apple offers? $1200 = $3540 total.
So you get a one speed bump for free - or $960 worth of graphics, HDDs and RAM.
Double the RAM? $200, $760 left.
2x2TB hard drives? $400, $360 left.
Killer graphics? $0 left.
I don't really want to run such a machine on Windows. Your benefit? Internet Explorer 8 is as fast as Safari on a MacMini.
But "I can build something much faster with better specs for less money" is BS, because the CPUs are expensive. If you upgrade RAM, HDDs and graphics, you have no $ left to upgrade the CPU, or upgrade the CPU and stick with MacPro specs.
Even if my calculation differs $200, you don't bump any CPU for that. You just add another 2TB harddrive or 6GB RAM. Or have to put $140 on top to bump the CPU and have base specs.

 

[THX1139]

Yes, I understand you now and I agree with some of your points but this:



Snow Leopard is a 64 bit Operating System that can run 64 bit applications.
I know that are you going to say:



You can enable it, i don't know why you make such a big deal about that.

Well, that's the problem. The applications have to be 64bit and Apple is clearly lagging behind the rest of the industry. If you buy a 64bit machine and install Snow Leopard for the purpose of running Final Cut Studio in 64bit mode, you are SOL because FCS is STILL 32 and there is no update in sight. But for pro applications that are 64bit, yeah... you can boot into 64bit and go from there. But I'm sure you already know about all that.

 

[Laurencia7]

Because they are more evolved pieces of equipment, plus you spend less over time for add on software, and repairs with a Mac than a PC, which fewer headaches.

 

[mabaker]

Great topic indeed.

I have yet to see someone browsing and working actively on a 10 year old computer. I got an almost 10 year old PowerMac G4 Dual 800, yes, even flash videos do run on that thing! And of course it boots faster than any SL Intel mac out there.

In general you can definitely say Apple hardware got less and less quality INSIDE (rather cheap sound chips, no Texas Instruments anymore, subpar HDD models of choice, questionable choices of LCDs) but has about the same level of quality OUTSIDE (solid design that is to last more than 2 years of extensive use). Yet one has to mention how the Macs got CHEAPER AND CHEAPER over the years! Nobody seems to remember the PowerMac costing 3000 USD easily a couple of years ago.

Apple makes computers that generally last, are generally reliable and a joy to use.

 

[sysiphus]

This whole topic is the ultimate fanboy subject, destined to create a firestorm of people fighting over computer hardware and software of which they'll never be more than consumers of.

Apple makes nice computers, that's pretty much what you spent an hour typing up. I agree, macs are nice computers. But it's just a freaking computer.



This is quite possibly the most ignorant response possible, Giuly. Windows 7 is an operating system. Mac OS, for simplicity, is a customized and proprietary UNIX derivative operating system. GNOME and KDE are not operating systems. They are desktop environments usually run on top of some UNIX derivative like Linux. In fact, you can run GNOME on OSX, and it doesn't change the operating system.

Before claiming OSX is the most advanced operating system out there, try to know what an operating system really is, and what OSX evolved from. OSX is very similar to any BSD or Linux distribution.

Thank you! And yes, the OP did lose all credibility on his/her argument about OSX being the "most advanced" by showing he/she can't make a distinction between a window manager (GNOME, KDE, etc) and an operating system. Try this sometime for fun: boot your super-duper advanced Mac up some time into command-line only mode, and learn how your OS really works. Better yet, learn to understand the distinctions between Apple's take on BSD and, say, a modern Linux kernel and then come back and make your case.

Also, try this one on for size: compare the hardware in a Macbook to what you can get for the same money in a Thinkpad. Notice the swappable optical drive, the available docking station, the additional ports, the steel display hinges that will stay tight for a decade, the user-replaceable parts (socketed processor, anyone?), the built in liquid drainage system so you won't kill your computer if you spill coffee in it, the card slots, the far superior keyboard,..etc. You cite the longevity of Apple hardware--in most cases, a fair point...but Thinkpads have at least as good a pedigree. There's a reason why a Thinkpad is the only laptop NASA will send into space.

 

[Giuly]

Thank you! And yes, the OP did lose all credibility on his/her argument about OSX being the "most advanced" by showing he/she can't make a distinction between a window manager (GNOME, KDE, etc) and an operating system. Try this sometime for fun: boot your super-duper advanced Mac up some time into command-line only mode, and learn how your OS really works. Better yet, learn to understand the distinctions between Apple's take on BSD and, say, a modern Linux kernel and then come back and make your case.

I was referring to the usability of Gnome and KDE vs. Mac OS X's Aqua and whatever Windows 7 calls their UI.
So what, XNU's a hybrid kernel of microkernel and monolithic and linux is monolithic. Most Darwin code comes from FreeBSD anyway.
Blah blah, you can't comapare a 2.6.33 GNU/Linux machine running this:

to this:

That's why I said gnome and KDE and not GNU/Linux. Same applies for *BSD, OpenSolaris - you name it.

Thanks for suggesting booting in single-user mode, but I prefer having the terminal in the dock, else it wouldn't be necessary to use Mac OS X.
Mac OS X is a certified Unix and POSIX-compatible, where is your point? XNU doesn't have make menuconfig?

You wanna try to bitchslap a Windows user with your blah blah, I switched to GNU/Linux in '99. You can rather that say I don't know every keyboard shortcut in Windows Vista or 7's calculator, and I don't really care about that.

Oh, and "OSX running gnome" would be called OpenDarwin, wouldn't it? I don't know, maybe my fanboy brains is incapable of correctly understanding the first sentences there.

Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
Darwin forms the core set of components upon which Mac OS X, Apple TV, and iOS are based. It is compatible with the Single UNIX Specification version 3 (SUSv3) and POSIX UNIX applications and utilities.

So:
Linux = XNU = Kernel
GNU/Linux = Darwin = Operating System
Gnome = Aqua = Desktop Environment
Ubuntu = Mac OS X = Distribution

Got it? It's all about the correct terminology. What do you want to call that on Windows? krnl.exe, Windows NT, Windows UI, Windows 7? As Aqua is a core component of Mac OS X thus Mac OS X implies Aqua, there lys your misunderstanding. Setting up a X-Server with Gnome would leave you with Darwin. Like you could say Ubuntu instead of Gnome, but not Kubuntu. Please don't blame your ignorance on me.

 

[sysiphus]

I was referring to the usability of Gnome and KDE vs. Mac OS X's Aqua and whatever Windows 7 calls their UI.
So what, XNU's a hybrid kernel of microkernel and monolithic and linux is monolithic. Most Darwin code comes from FreeBSD anyway.
Blah blah, you can't comapare a 2.6.33 GNU/Linux machine running this:

to this:

That's why I said gnome and KDE and not GNU/Linux. Same applies for *BSD, OpenSolaris - you name it.

Thanks for suggesting booting in single-user mode, but I prefer having the terminal in the dock, else it wouldn't be necessary to use Mac OS X.
Mac OS X is a certified Unix and POSIX-compatible, where is your point? XNU doesn't have make menuconfig?

You wanna try to bitchslap a Windows user with your blah blah, I switched to GNU/Linux in '99. You can rather that say I don't know every keyboard shortcut in Windows Vista or 7's calculator, and I don't really care about that.

Oh, and "OSX running gnome" would be called OpenDarwin, wouldn't it? I don't know, maybe my fanboy brains is incapable of correctly understanding the first sentences there.


So:
Linux = XNU = Kernel
GNU/Linux = Darwin = Operating System
Gnome = Aqua = Desktop Environment
Ubuntu = Mac OS X = Distribution

Got it? It's all about the correct terminology. What do you want to call that on Windows? krnl.exe, Windows, Windows UI, Windows? As Aqua is a core component of Mac OS X thus Mac OS X implies Aqua, there lys your misunderstanding. Please don't blame your ignorance on me.

That's cute, but how about not deliberately finding an awful-looking GNOME config? You can make any desktop environment look awful if you want. What exactly was your point?
Face it, Win7, GNOME, and Aqua are all plenty good enough (I personally despise the current iteration of KDE, but that's for another thread). At this point, none of them have flaws such that the user experience is significantly impacted. And if you really want to get picky, try looking up who had fast user switching first. How about multiple desktops? (Hint: "Spaces" wasn't exactly an original idea from Apple). Or what if you want to skin/theme your desktop? No 3rd party tools required for Windows or GNOME. The point is this: a simple "my GUI is better than yours" argument is a waste of time. So how about pointing out something special/unique about the OS that actually makes a functional difference?

 

[Giuly]

That's cute, but how about not deliberately finding an awful-looking GNOME config? You can make any desktop environment look awful if you want. What exactly was your point?

I was told I can't compare Gnome to Mac OS X, because it's no OS. I showed off GNU/Linux running TWM and explained with it as an example the difference between Mac OS X and Aqua, and GNU/Linux and gnome - which you still don't seem to get, regardless of the simple equations.

Want a Gnome pic? There you go:

Miss KDE4? There:

Want Xcfe, too?

Here you have a Mac running Gnome. It seems to read "Darwin", but maybe I just need glasses:

Wanna reskin Mac OS X? Have a Crayola with you when visiting the louvre?

 

[sysiphus]

I was told I can't compare Gnome to Mac OS X, because it's no OS. I showed off GNU/Linux running TWM and explained with it as an example the difference between Mac OS X and Aqua, and GNU/Linux and gnome - which you still don't seem to get, regardless of the simple equations.

Want a Gnome pic? There you go:

Fair enough. I didn't read your post carefully; my mistake. So, getting back to the real question: beyond GUIs, which are largely a matter of personal taste, what do you see in OSX that makes it superior to GNU/Linux?

 

[sysiphus]

Wanna reskin Mac OS X? Have a Crayola with you when visiting the louvre?

Er, what? Are you implying that Aqua is so good that it's either beyond improvement or shouldn't be modifiable to taste?