Mac vs. PC vs. Windows vs. Linux vs. Huh?

Alright, so I posted this thread on my blog. I'm getting pounded by Linux users, and there isn't any love from the Mac community represented. I could use some help.

Here's and excerpt:

Macs run so well because the hardware and software are developed by the same company. This lends itself to a great end user experience, but winds up much like AOL (don’t get me started). Users are confined to the user experience outlined by apple, unless the occasional developer comes along and expands the experience (go Adobe!).

I'm not trying to advertise or anything (there aren't even ads on my site). I just think the guys in the Linux camp are over representing themselves.

I'm at http://www.jtgraphic.net. I'm a Mac fan, but I'm out numbered! Help!

-JKT

Not sure what help you would need here. It's the internet. Who cares if your opinion isn't shared by all? Just let it go and don't get worked up about it.

Your last commenter actually praises the mac for end users and seems very even handed

I cant really wade in with a valid opinion since I haven't used Linux, but do admire what Linux does and stands for

I've used Linux quite a bit, and I concede that is a very nice platform, and the overall ideal of Linux is a great concept. I think it's going places, but it isn't quite as great of an experience as Mac or Windows right now. That's not to say it won't be in the future. I really like the intuitiveness of Macs. My Mac users tend to have significantly less questions than may PC or Linux users - only because Apple did such a great job with the GUI and overall experience.

-JKT

jtgraphic said:

Macs run so well because the hardware and software are developed by the same company. This lends itself to a great end user experience, but winds up much like AOL (don’t get me started). Users are confined to the user experience outlined by apple, unless the occasional developer comes along and expands the experience (go Adobe!).

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know just what exactly you mean by this. I for one do not feel "limited" to an experience defined by Apple. Nor do I understand what Adobe in particular has done to "expand" it.

And for that matter... regarding this pulled from your blog:

Trust me. If Apple had as much of a market share as Microsoft, they would have just as many problems with malicious software.

Click to expand...

Why should anyone trust you on that? Do you not understand that OS X is simply inherrently more secure than Windows is thanx in part to its Unix core?

lifeisabeach said:

I'm curious to know just what exactly you mean by this. I for one do not feel "limited" to an experience defined by Apple. Nor do I understand what Adobe in particular has done to "expand" it.

Click to expand...

The SDK for the Mac platform costs quite a bit. Development in windows and Linux is free. One of the only platforms available for free development for the Mac platform is Java. Because of the high barrier to entry, software development is stunted. Adobe products like Creative Suite, Acrobat, etc. expand the base user experience that one gets with standard Mac software. I think that it's great the amount of bundled software that comes with and functions well on the OS as well. I think Macs are the best platform for creative media development like music, photos, and video, but beyond that, they lack.

lifeisabeach said:

And for that matter... regarding this pulled from your blog:


Why should anyone trust you on that? Do you not understand that OS X is simply inherrently more secure than Windows is thanx in part to its Unix core?

Click to expand...

Malicious software is a function of demand. No operating system is completely fool proof. The more damage a piece of malicious software can cause, the more "lucrative" it is to develop for the programmer. Just because OS X is built around a UNIX core doesn't make it less vulnerable to attacks - especially from third party software.

jtgraphic said:

Just because OS X is built around a UNIX core doesn't make it less vulnerable to attacks

Click to expand...

Yes and no.
Yes, you're correct... the UNIX core doesn't make it less vulnerable.

Yet, it is less vulnerable to attacks from malware.
What protects it is how the OS works.

The SDK for the Mac platform costs quite a bit. Development in windows and Linux is free.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm wrong, because I'm not really a developer, but xcode and other development tools are available for free at Apple Developer Connection, as are SDKs because I've played around with them a bit.

AlyciaAnimation said:

Perhaps I'm wrong, because I'm not really a developer, but xcode and other development tools are available for free at Apple Developer Connection, as are SDKs because I've played around with them a bit.

Click to expand...

Actually I think I was wrong. I made that statement without doing (recent) research. I guess Apple released their SDK for open development. Some aspects still aren't free, like .mac integration and higher level ADC membership, but the basic engines for Cocoa and Carbon are available for free.

I'm guessing then that the lack of interest from large developers must be a function of market share. I know Intuit releases Quickbooks about a year later than normal without any network support. I'm in a lurch when trying to find Mac based accounting software for large(r) business.

Thanks for correcting me.

-JKT

jtgraphic said:

The SDK for the Mac platform costs quite a bit. Development in windows and Linux is free. One of the only platforms available for free development for the Mac platform is Java. Because of the high barrier to entry, software development is stunted. Adobe products like Creative Suite, Acrobat, etc. expand the base user experience that one gets with standard Mac software. I think that it's great the amount of bundled software that comes with and functions well on the OS as well. I think Macs are the best platform for creative media development like music, photos, and video, but beyond that, they lack.

Click to expand...

The fact you are wrong about the development costs aside (as discussed by others)...

Well if one "limits" themselves to Apple's software, then of course their experience is "limited" to how Apple defines it. The same holds true in Windows... if you limit your software to Microsoft's software, you limit your experience to how Microsoft defines it. Same goes if you only use Adobe's stuff. There's no rule saying you have to use Apple's software. In fact there are plenty of alternative choices for everything they offer. Stating that sers are confined to the user experience outlined by apple is just absurd. If anyone is limited, it's by choice.

Malicious software is a function of demand. No operating system is completely fool proof. The more damage a piece of malicious software can cause, the more "lucrative" it is to develop for the programmer. Just because OS X is built around a UNIX core doesn't make it less vulnerable to attacks - especially from third party software.

Click to expand...

I never said OS X is foolproof. I may have been somewhat inaccurate in touting the Unix core as a reason for OS X being more secure (I'll defer to what DB had to say), but the fact is OS X is more secure, and holding to the marketshare myth while ignoring all the many technical articles that detail why it is is just pure bullheadedness. Just consider how many viruses there are in existence for the Classic Mac OS versus those for OS X. It's generally accepted that there is ONE virus that affects OS X (and only if the user is stupid enough to give it permission to do anything). How many are there for the Classic Mac OS? Not nearly what there are for Windows, but still quite a few, especially Word macro viruses. Heck... how many are there for Linux? Well here's the full list of viruses that affect Linux. Quite a few more than ONE, and for an OS with far less market share than OS X. So drop the market share argument already.