Is OS-X worth the hassle?

[Sahee]

My decision to buy a Macintosh based system has been set and the option to have all operating systems installed on one device at once sounds very compelling to me. I made this post in another sub forum, maybe it gets more attention on this thread... and it serves the same purpose:

Hello MacRumors Community,
since about half a year I was saving money for a new laptop. I never intended to buy a Macintosh but after the WWDC I really felt in love with the Retina-Macbook and that's why I am about to jump in foreign water (I am using Windows for more than 10 years).

...of course, this decision has not only been made because of the new Macbook release but although because of the fact that I am Computer Science student and I would like to obtain as much information about operating systems as possible. Having Windows, Linux and Macintosh on a single system sounds perfect for this purpose.

Anyway, I am having a hard time choosing the right Macintosh system for my needs. I already own a pretty powerful desktop machine, that's why I feel the power of the Retina-Macbook could be kind of wasted. As the Macbook air cost's 1500€ with 256GB SSD and 8GB Ram there is only a price difference between the base Retina of 400€. This money is invested into a powerful GPU and a Quad-Core CPU... which enables me to make video and photo editing while I am on the go or in university (which gives me more freedom as I can run every application at home or away). I do not plan to game on my laptop as I am only a casual gamer... so this factor is not important to me.

Yet I defiantly need at least 256GB data space as I will run 3 operating systems and quite a lot software applications... this could actually lead to problems of compatibility between the Retina-Display and the software that I use, as I don't think that every software will be updated, at least for quite a while.

________________________

My real problem is that I am concerned about the robustness of the rMBP (especially the display). As I will carry it around pretty often I wonder if the fact that it lacks the security display glass could lead to problems. Although I am afraid that it could be stolen cause of its pretty high value... I feel like I maybe would be super cautious while carrying it around. I don't think that I would have this feeling while carrying around the Macbook Air. I really would like to have the Retina-Display... its pretty awful that the Air does not have it yet.

So after I explained everything.. what should I buy in my situation?
Macbook Air 13' Inch - 2.0GHZ Dual Core, 8GB-Ram, 256GB SSD (1600€)
Macbook Retina - 2.3GHZ Quad Core, 8GB-Ram, 256GB SSD, 650m (2000€)

I know that even these days most applications only use a single core... so the Air will have about the same speed in many cases, compared to the Retina-Mac.

my third option is to buy the Asus UX21A, which is a 11inch Laptop with a pixel density of 190 DPI (Retina has 220 DPI). It would cost 1300€ but only has 4GB of Ram (rest of the specs are the same as air). The biggest factor against the Asus is that I would lack the Macintosh OS.

Buying a Macbook 13'inch is not an option... the low resolution is a K.O criteria.
The Macbook 15'inch has the advantage that every software can be displayed without any problems (while the Retina Resolution needs optimization)... but it lacks the big factor of portability... furthermore it only has a DPI of 110. (with display upgrade). The option to change Hard drive and Ram is not important to me... when I would really need more Ram as 8GB the CPU would be dated although and data can be copied on external devices... if I really need more internal data space it has been said that the SSD of both, Air and Retina, can be replaced.

 

[leenak]

Ubuntu is a great distro but it doesn't matter much.

In the early 90s, I had a PC with a 60MB HD. I partitioned it so half was Windows and the other half was Slackware. I used the Slackware partition most of the time. I did a similar thing later on with BSD versions and I think they tend to actually give you more learning experience than Linux versions but either is fine. Unless things have changed though, Linux distros now seem to be more 'user friendly' for the former Windows type users. Linux is like dipping your toe in the water, BSD is like jumping in (OSX is based on BSD).

 

[throAU]

Hi InLawBiker (Love the handle BTW)

Just curious your 'suggestion' for which Linux distro to do this with? I've never gone with just Linux as an OS...only in a VM or BootCamp situation. I'm intrigued.

Obviously, when one is running Ubuntu as a VM, it's easy to revert back to what you know (OSx, Windows, what-have-ya)...but to run a machine with only Linux sounds compelling--and as you've said, knowledge 'inducing'

Thanks!

Jeremy

I'm also a unix nerd, and I'd actually suggest not Linux, but FreeBSD, or even better (to get your feet wet), PC-BSD (think Ubuntu but with BSD). Why? Because the command line tools are from the same source as those in OS X.

Linux is different just... because.


Plus, BSD is better (been there, run both in anger as ISP production servers, BSD wins... )


edit:
beaten by the dude above. BSD is Linux done properly. OS X isn't quite based on BSD, but it does draw parts of BSD in for command line tools and low level libraries. The kernel is totally different though, based on Mach.

 

[leenak]

edit:
beaten by the dude above. BSD is Linux done properly. OS X isn't quite based on BSD, but it does draw parts of BSD in for command line tools and low level libraries. The kernel is totally different though, based on Mach.

Not a dude but yeah, saying it is based on BSD is somewhat of a simplification. I like BSD and do think it is a better Unix OS.

 

[throAU]

Not a dude but yeah, saying it is based on BSD is somewhat of a simplification. I like BSD and do think it is a better Unix OS.

Ahh my apologies. Your nick makes more sense now