Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lion is actually too expensive
- Thread starter mark28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My car starts, stops, turns left and turns right but that doesn't make it more expensive than a Ferrari.
No, you have it backwards. Why waste your time with Linux, when Lion can do everything Linux can?
Linux can't run Adobe products, so your premise is false. And if you are buying a Mac, Lion is free. If you just like free stuff, have some of these:
Might have to charge for this . . . 
Linux is great, if you want a project. When I want to tinker, I install Linux and spend the next week trying to get it to act like OS X. Then, I come to the realise that in the time spent fiddling with Ubuntu, I could have researched and written an 8000-word article and maybe even found an answer to the whole problem of world hunger. Linux is pretty amazing, and I don't want to take away from that, but from an operational standpoint, it's a hobby like trying to fix up a classic car over the course of a few years.
I know this feels like a troll thread, but it is also incorrect.
Let me know when Linux can natively run the following applications. No substitutions, VMs or other emulation allowed. I need (or just want) these specific applications. Look-alikes aren't acceptable because they're not compatible enough. Only then will it be just like OS X.
Aperture/Lightroom (okay, aperture is OS X only, so Lightroom mentioned)
Photoshop
iTunes (the store is important, so it's not just for media playback)
QuickBooks
TurboTax/H&R Block
1Password
iWork/Office (iWork is OS X only, so Office is okay, too)
Civilization 5
Again, emulation/VM is not acceptable. If I can't run the apps I need natively on the OS, then the OS itself is not useful to me.
Let me know when Linux can natively run the following applications. No substitutions, VMs or other emulation allowed. I need (or just want) these specific applications. Look-alikes aren't acceptable because they're not compatible enough. Only then will it be just like OS X.
Aperture/Lightroom (okay, aperture is OS X only, so Lightroom mentioned)
Photoshop
iTunes (the store is important, so it's not just for media playback)
QuickBooks
TurboTax/H&R Block
1Password
iWork/Office (iWork is OS X only, so Office is okay, too)
Civilization 5
Again, emulation/VM is not acceptable. If I can't run the apps I need natively on the OS, then the OS itself is not useful to me.
These reactions are funny here. The upgrade from SL --> Lion could have been free as a server pack and I'm not the only one with this opinion.
The new features that were added in the upgrade from SL --> Lion are not that special when looking at other OS's which are free. I stand by my opinion that Lion could have been a free server pack.
The new features that were added in the upgrade from SL --> Lion are not that special when looking at other OS's which are free. I stand by my opinion that Lion could have been a free server pack.
From an OS perspective perhaps, though I'm unfamilar with the auto-save feature. Please detail which distro does that?
An operating system's main function is to provide the ability to run programs and that's where Linux falls short of OSX. The depth and breadth of apps available to Linux pales in comparison to OSX. There is no app AFAIK that offers non-destructive editing of images. Gimp compared to PS or pixelmator is a GUI nightmare,etc.
Upgrading linux can be fraught with headaches as well. I've dealt with it enough to know that OSX has this one feature over Linux by light years.
Talk about a roundabout way to make your point. This is a totally different point to the one you started the thread with.
Why don't you delete your original post and put this there.
Still wrong but at least it had a point.
A) you're clearly trying to start a never-ending, and already mentioned about 876776 times on here mind you, war.
B) Why aren't more people jumping to buy it then if it's so holy and cheaper? End scene.
B) Why aren't more people jumping to buy it then if it's so holy and cheaper? End scene.
First off, we don't get free service packs. Those are for windows users and quite frankly, never add as much functionality as a new version of Mac OS X. We get free upgrades for all version numbers 10.7.x all the way until 10.8 or whatever is realeased. Those are your "service packs" that fix bugs and add smaller new features similar to the service packs (which you generally only get one or two of) in windows.
Linux upgrades are free, and generally the add as much functionality as an upgrade from SL to Lion did, or Tiger to Leopard if you like that analogy better.
The fact of the matter is, that if Lion's new features aren't worth the 30 dollars they charge for it, then I don't know what is. I would much rather pay 30 dollars for a new operating system with new features and full time support than get a free Linux upgrade that I have to support and upgrade components by myself, and I even like Linux for tinkering with.
Oh yeah, Linux focuses on the user experience.
Compared to that 'experience' Lion is priceless
I used Linux for 6 years before switching to OSX. It's a good OS for 90% of what computers are used for, but it is not OSX by any means. I used Linux for two reasons, Microsoft pissed me off after 15 + years of use and it was free. Like Android, there are tons of free apps out there for Linux. Those apps are, in general, not the quality of the apps you can get on a Mac. Sure, the apps on OSX cost money, but they work without having to spend hours screwing with them. If you feel that Linux is better than OSX, and it's free, the choice for you is clear. I work on Windows and Linux machines for my job all the time, when I get home, I just want something that does what I want with minimal hassle.
Don't get me wrong, I run an Ubuntu Server, rebuild old machines with Ubuntu and really like linux on the whole, but you're rather incorrect with this statement.
Linux can't run any of my programs I use to get work done, such as Ableton Live, Logic Studio, VDMX, Pro Tools etc.
It also can't run many of my personal apps, like iTunes (yes, it can run the windows version with WINE, but not very well), though there are versions of Chrome, FileZilla, VLC, Handbrake, Skype, Last.fm, Spotify and Steam (soon enough!), but on the whole it's not a proper mainstream OS yet, not until proper commercial applications are being developed for it.
Desktop Linux and "user experience" is great . . . if your standards are low enough.
Let's leave the 3rd world operating systems to their respective "developing" markets and get with the times.
I used Linux for about 2 years, between 2004 and 2006. It became readily apparent why it's free. A fun experiment and a learning process. That's about it.
Not buy a state of the art operating system that is the highest iteration of a consumer OS?
Let's leave the 3rd world operating systems to their respective "developing" markets and get with the times.
I used Linux for about 2 years, between 2004 and 2006. It became readily apparent why it's free. A fun experiment and a learning process. That's about it.
Not buy a state of the art operating system that is the highest iteration of a consumer OS?
