OS X Wins the OS Wars this Year- PCMag

Discussion in 'macOS' started by G4R2, Mar 10, 2008.

  1. G4R2 macrumors 6502a

    Nov 29, 2006
  2. heatmiser macrumors 68020

    Dec 6, 2007
    This is exactly what I wrote a few weeks ago in the MBP forum. Someone else stated Ubuntu didn't require Terminal use, but anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes setting up Ubuntu will testify otherwise; you simply spend too much time entering text into the box to make the OS viable for the vast majority of people. This was precisely why I ditched Ubuntu months ago after trying it on my laptop. They're never going to "catch on" as a mainstream alternative until using Ubuntu requires no more Terminal work than using OS X does.

    As a matter of fact, here's the post:

  3. clevin macrumors G3


    Aug 6, 2006
    lol, I don't think so. running ubuntu for more than 5 minutes will require users to use some sort of terminal?

    Lets put it here and let others comment on that.

    PS. where is OS war? who against who? Isn't OS war supposed to be evaluation of market performance? like browser war I, and browser war II?

    price: ubuntu 4.5/5, OSX 4/5? how exactly a free stuff can't score 5/5 in price comparison?

    Interface: ubuntu 2.5/5, XP 3/5? how exactly does advanced 3D desktop lose to windows XP?

    Bundled softwares: M$ loses $600,000,000 for a bundle of media player, how is that fair?

    hardware: ubuntu 2.5/5, OSX 3.5/5, does Ubuntu run on more hardwares than OSX or not?

    PcMag is trying, but its shallow as hell.

    PS2. does anybody know the adoption rate of leopard? Last time SJ said it was 20%, how about now?
  4. kuwisdelu macrumors 65816

    Jan 13, 2008
    It depends on the person. Some people who use Ubuntu may never need the Terminal. Some will need it in the first 5 minutes just to get everything working. It depends on your computer's hardware. Yes, Ubuntu will run on a lot more hardware than OS X, but having OS X also implies that you have a Mac, which is more or less guaranteed to not give you any driver troubles. If you try to put Ubuntu on some computers (like my old Dell I installed it on a few weeks ago), you'll pretty much need to delve into the Terminal to get it to work. I had to, and, yes, it worked eventually, but it was a headache and I don't think the average user could necessarily do it. If they have hardware that works well with their distro of Linux, it'll be a piece of cake, but if not, yes, it can be rather difficult.

    By the way, I'm a supporter of Linux. I think it's made great strides in the last several years, and it's much more usable now than it used to be. I think many, many normal users could install Linux completely without trouble. But there are still plenty of setups that can cause driver issues that ultimately force the user to use the Terminal. I don't think this is something that's Linux's fault, because trying to support every hardware setup everywhere, especially for equipment without open-source drivers, is very, very difficult. There's not a whole lot Linux can do about it, but it's an issue to remember nonetheless.
  5. mason.kramer macrumors 6502


    Apr 16, 2007
    Watertown, MA
    I used a shell (not Terminal, a shell :D) extensively in order to configure my ubuntu distro. I had to chmod stuff, chown stuff, sudo edit text configuration files, hunt down and build obscure wireless drivers from source, hunt down and download the mp3 codec (it is not included in the canonical repository for legal reasons, apparently), download and configure Beryl, download some usable fonts, and that's just what I can remember off the top.

    I don't know how much of this stuff I could have done with a GUI. Probably not the wireless drivers part: anyone who wasn't an expert would have been screwed on that end, and that's a complete deal breaker. Especially if they didn't have a second computer available to google about wireless networking in Ubu.

    And even if I had used a graphical text editor instead of emacs, configuring text files is just as "bad" as using a shell, from the point of view of a technophobe. I'm willing to wager that some of the files I edited did not have a gui front end.

    My general feeling about Ubuntu is, like the guy in the article said, "who has the time?" I agree that the price should have been a 5, but if the category were "cost", it would have been lower than a 4.5 in my book.

    But yea, I agree with you again, clevin, interface score is 2.5 v 3? Windows XP is butt ugly. I would give "out of the box" ubu a 3.5 and "out of the box" XP a 2 or less, just for the horrible text rendering, ugly, junky window chrome and ugly default background and choice of background pics. (That's a two WITH Clear Type enabled, which it is not default).
  6. GradientMac macrumors regular


    Dec 5, 2007
    They called Safari a bad browser. Wtf... I love Safari? I downloaded it for Windows!
  7. kuwisdelu macrumors 65816

    Jan 13, 2008
    I didn't understand this, either. I mean, for someone who likes Firefox or Opera a lot, it may not be their, but it's certainly better than IE...
  8. killmoms macrumors 68040


    Jun 23, 2003
    Washington, DC
    Not only is there already a thread on this article over in the MacBytes forum, but it's now three pages of mostly browser infighting. ;)
  9. a456 macrumors 6502a


    Oct 5, 2005
    Now this is thinking different! A bit galling! An underhand blow that will be believed and regurgitated the windoze crowd.
  10. kuwisdelu macrumors 65816

    Jan 13, 2008
    I know. I even posted there. :rolleyes: But I tried to be an arbiter. It's possible to like both Safari and Firefox while bashing IE :D
  11. G4R2 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nov 29, 2006
    I did a forum search prior to posting this thread and actually posted this a few hours before the MacBytes forum post.

    As for the article, I do think it was inconsistent at times, perhaps a reflection of the different natures of the operating systems, the way they are marketed, and who they are meant to please.

    Overall, however, I have found PC Mag to be far more objective and informative in their reviews than CNet. CNet has deteriorated badly and though well funded practices a form of amateur journalism that is barely distinguishable from a pre-schoolers blog.

Share This Page