Why I like Windows

[grndslm]

Yup. Run ANYTHING but Windows as your host OS, and stick to sandboxing it as your guest OS.

Virtualization with any fairly modern processor, 8+ GB of Ram, and an SSD is the beez neez.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I am eternally grateful to the Microsoft ecosystem. The dysfunction that accompanies it pays my bills. If individuals and business were Apple based, I'd have to find another career.

Windows 7 is a decent OS, Windows 8 is like paying for a prostitute and only getting a hug in return.

Mac is the only and obvious choice if you are a power user of any ilk and serious about getting things done. If gaming is your thing, save your money and get a wintel box.

The price argument baffles me. Macs are cheaper than they've ever been. You'll still pay more up front but you also pay more upfront for a Lexus LS400 than you will a Ford Focus. You're paying for the most highly engineered computer hardware on the planet, and the only fully integrated OS to go with it, and a machine that will give you almost zero drama in its lifetime. Small price to pay, methinks.

Deals can be found. Just yesterday I bought a Macbook(2.2ghz C2D/2GB/100GB/13"/Panda mod) for $125 off Jacksonville craigslist.



I work in healthcare and we have a mixed environment of Windows and Mac computers. I spend just as much time fixing goof-ups on Macs as I do on Windows. While the TYPE of goof-ups are different, an end-user is still an end-user.

I also consider myself a power use and I don't have a Mac. Crazy! But then I also enjoy gaming. And can do so on the same computer.

And your comment about "paying for the most highly engineered computer hardware on the planet" is a bit of a puff of hot-air. It is all Intel stuff on a Foxconn board (who makes the OEM Intel boards as well as many other brands). What are nice are the Mac chassis, which are a step-above those of their PC siblings except perhaps the new ASUS Zenbook's.

The most highly engineered piece of computer hardware on the planet would be one of those massive server clusters like IBM's or NEC's.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I get my jollies from showing off the benchmarks of windows 7 running on my 6 year old dual quad xeon mac tower to windows fanboys. blows new wintel hardware out of the water. perspective shift ensues.


I'd be interesting in seeing these performance figures. Please share them if you don't mind.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I get my jollies from showing off the benchmarks of windows 7 running on my 6 year old dual quad xeon mac tower to windows fanboys. blows new wintel hardware out of the water. perspective shift ensues.


You do realize that hardware wise, your mac tower is no different than a "windows" computer ... right? I sure hope so ...

The fact that you have (and paid) for server CPUs has more to do with that than anything else. I dual quad core xenon, whether it's running W7, OSX or Linux is going to do pretty well running a VM ...

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I am eternally grateful to the Microsoft ecosystem. The dysfunction that accompanies it pays my bills. If individuals and business were Apple based, I'd have to find another career.

Windows 7 is a decent OS, Windows 8 is like paying for a prostitute and only getting a hug in return.

Mac is the only and obvious choice if you are a power user of any ilk and serious about getting things done. If gaming is your thing, save your money and get a wintel box.

The price argument baffles me. Macs are cheaper than they've ever been. You'll still pay more up front but you also pay more upfront for a Lexus LS400 than you will a Ford Focus. You're paying for the most highly engineered computer hardware on the planet, and the only fully integrated OS to go with it, and a machine that will give you almost zero drama in its lifetime. Small price to pay, methinks.

Deals can be found. Just yesterday I bought a Macbook(2.2ghz C2D/2GB/100GB/13"/Panda mod) for $125 off Jacksonville craigslist.



I work in healthcare and we have a mixed environment of Windows and Mac computers. I spend just as much time fixing goof-ups on Macs as I do on Windows. While the TYPE of goof-ups are different, an end-user is still an end-user.

I also consider myself a power use and I don't have a Mac. Crazy! But then I also enjoy gaming. And can do so on the same computer.

And your comment about "paying for the most highly engineered computer hardware on the planet" is a bit of a puff of hot-air. It is all Intel stuff on a Foxconn board (who makes the OEM Intel boards as well as many other brands). What are nice are the Mac chassis, which are a step-above those of their PC siblings except perhaps the new ASUS Zenbook's.

The most highly engineered piece of computer hardware on the planet would be one of those massive server clusters like IBM's or NEC's.


Agree completely. The Mac's mainboard was made by the same company that made the mainboard in a Dell ...

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
As for Linux compatibility-forget it. Of course somebody who loves Linux operating systems will tell you to write your own drivers for your printer or your scanner. I think I will leave that job to Epson programmers. But Linux operating systems make great servers.


No, someone who loves Linux is going to try to correct you and point out that Ubuntu's hardware support is very near equal to Windows, and surpasses that of Windows in many cases where you have to install the drivers in Windows (which is often: you rarely if ever need to install a driver in a Linux distribution. It "just works"!)

No one is ever going to suggest that you "write your own driver". All mainstream, user-oriented distributions come with all the drivers you'd need WITHOUT having to download or install them. Mystic is simply incorrect and is spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Try Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora or openSUSE to see how awesome Linux gets. You do not have to go and get installation setup programs to install programs (you just use ONE "software center" to choose what applications you want, and simply click "Install" and you're set!) ad all of the main ones come available as "live" media whereby you can test out the OS without touching your hard drive, so you can evaluate and experiment all you want without fear of messing up your Windows installation.

You'll never have to pay for upgrades, you'll never get hacked or encounter a virus and you'll never be met with expiring "trials" of garbage-ware. Most distributions include Firefox, Chromium (Chrome without the Flash plugin pre-installed), LibreOffice/ OpenOffice, VLC and all sorts of programs you're already familiar with. Open source software respects your freedom of choice (very unlike Apple and Microsoft), and is cost-free. And if you wish, many Windows applications work just fine using an emulator called WINE. I use Photoshop CS2 under WINE in Ubuntu darn near every day.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
No one is ever going to suggest that you "write your own driver". All mainstream, user-oriented distributions come with all the drivers you'd need WITHOUT having to download or install them. Mystic is simply incorrect and is spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

Maybe all he's ever tried is Arch or he knows only people that use it.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Garak

Maybe all he's ever tried is Arch or he knows only people that use it.

Or Gentoo!

I use Arch on my personal system. I have no DE (but all of my apps are GTK-based; avoiding those that require Gnome when I can), no Display Manager, etc. The system is minimal and screaming fast; but installation and maintenance is NOT in any way, shape or form for the uninitiated. Ubuntu? I have installed it for around a dozen friends, family and neighbours and they're all deliriously happy, and none are technical people at all. None, I'd expect, know what a driver *is*.

 

[Mystic]

Let me correct you here. I was almost talked into switching to Linux right here at this website. And somebody here, I can't remember who, told me that I should write my own drivers for my printers and scanner. So when you say that nobody is going to suggest you writer your own driver, it happened right here at this website. Somebody could do some research and find it.

For years I thought about switching to a Linux operating system. I even tried one on a DVD and I visited several Linux websites where people encouraged visitors to switch to Linux. While I was doing that I was TWICE attacked by malware on two of those websites. It would seem they are not too friendly to Windows visitors thinking about switching to Linux.

I visited this one website where they showed progress in making various printers and scanners compatible with Linux operating systems. My printer and scanner were NEVER made compatible. But Windows 8 comes out, a brand new and different operating system, and is INSTANTLY compatible with most printers and scanners.

Now maybe I use printers and scanners that tend to be different than what people use here. I kind of live in my own world. I enjoy photography and I do a lot of photography and I work on photographs on my computer. I use photo printers quite a great deal and I use scanners that are actually capable of scanning, with decent quality, negatives and slides. So maybe I have a hard time finding printers that are compatible because I am using true photo printers and scanners that are actually capable of scanning film.

I am not a Linux fan boy or Mac fan boy or Windows fan boy. I will use what operating system works for ME! Let me repeat that in case anybody does not understand. I WILL USE WHATEVER OPERATING SYSTEM WORKS FOR ME!

I used Apple Computers and Windows computers for a long time. I do dislike that there is so much malware for Windows. Although there is actually a growing amount of malware for Apple operating systems and even for Linux. Don't believe it? Go to Threatpost and type in 'Linux.'

What I might do (it would be kind of expensive) is use a Linux computer for some things and a Windows computer for other things. Linux so far is great at security but don't underestimate the malware writers. I used Apple Computers for a long time but they are expensive and the more money Apple makes the more they change. Even the typical Apple users seem to have changed and now you have a lot of these arrogant know it alls who don't really know anything. I can't stand a Mac fan boy. They are weird and I often seem to know more about Apple Computers than them. Heck, I often knew more about Apple Computers than employees at the Apple Stores. I have had to tell Apple users how to turn on their firewalls. I sort of think that Apple in the end will turn out to be a sort of dead end and Linux might do an end around and bypass all of those smiling Apple users someday.

Since no computer operating system meets all of my needs I might use a Linux computer for the internet and a Windows computer to work on photographs, scan photographs, and print photographs. And I am talking about actual photo quality prints-not some kind of trash that some people find acceptable.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
... it happened right here at this website. Somebody could do some research and find it.


Oh, boy. So if I told you to go jump off a bridge you go around saying "people tell me to go jump off a bridge"????? Come on, Mystic: Just because one isolated person tells you to do something does not reflect AT ALL on the product they're talking about.

I'll tell you what: Mystic, I think you should go write your own drivers for your Windows and Mac-based hardware. There, now someone has also told you to write your own drivers for other OS's as well.

There are hundreds of Linux distributions, each with their own strengths and intended purposes. The desktop-oriented ones like Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora, etc. are no-brainers. Then there are the Arch's and Gentoo's of the world, which are quite involved to get running but are 100% customized, because you darn-near built the system from scratch.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
While I was doing that I was TWICE attacked by malware on two of those websites. It would seem they are not too friendly to Windows visitors thinking about switching to Linux.


Let me guess - You cannot supply us with the URL's of these malicious sites? And if a web site attacks you with malware, wouldn't it be all the more reason to use Linux?

And AGAIN, Mystic, how is one or more malicious sites and indication of the ENTIRE community? Don't you think there are malicious "Windows" and "Mac" sites?

Originally Posted By: Mystic
But Windows 8 comes out, a brand new and different operating system, and is INSTANTLY compatible with most printers and scanners.


Point taken. Windows compatibility is almost 100%, with very, very few pieces of hardware or software "breaking" from Windows version to version. I do not envy the Windows software engineers AT ALL having to take into account backwards-compatibility for their legions of corporate customers. That'd be a tough haul.

You'd be shocked, though, to see a compatibility list between Ubuntu and Windows. Shocked, I say.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
What I might do (it would be kind of expensive) is use a Linux computer for some things and a Windows computer for other things.


Lots of people dual boot or use a virtual machine, if only because Ubuntu is easier to use and safer.

*I* dual boot because I use some video and audio production software that is Windows and Mac-only.

But I cannot agree more, Mystic, with your assertions that you use what is best for you. That is the smartest thing to do. What Linux advocates try to do, though, is point out that the stuff that was automatically loaded on your machine when you bought it is NOT the only option for you; and in most cases is not the best/ most secure/ fastest/ easiest one!

I used Apple Computers for a long time but they are expensive and the more money Apple makes the more they change. Even the typical Apple users seem to have changed and now you have a lot of these arrogant know it alls who don't really know anything.

Linux distro's, almost exclusively, have no profit or revenue motive. They're only in it to make the best software possible. Consequently, no one has an advertising budget to let normal people know that it even exists.

 

[Brandon Gatz]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I get my jollies from showing off the benchmarks of windows 7 running on my 6 year old dual quad xeon mac tower to windows fanboys. blows new wintel hardware out of the water. perspective shift ensues.


I'd be interesting in seeing these performance figures. Please share them if you don't mind.


I'm out of town till the weekend, will post numbers when I get back to my mac.

 

[Mystic]

Did I touch some sort of a nerve?

No I can't give you the URLs of the Linux websites where I was attacked by malware. That was years ago. All I did was visit some websites where people who liked Linux were trying to convince people to use Linux. Maybe they needed better security for their websites, which presumably, because they liked Linux so much, were websites managed by Linux servers. I think they should have expected some Windows (and Apple) users to visit their websites. But I was a little bit surprised being attacked by malware at websites where they presumably had all of this wonderful Linux security. Maybe it was wonderful Linux security for Linux users but not wonderful security for the Windows and Apple visitors they should have been expecting. And back in those days security was not as bad on the internet. But being attacked by malware at Linux websites where Windows and Apple users were being told they should switch to Linux did nothing to encourage me to switch to Linux.

And you were not the guy who told me to write my own drivers, were you? I would have to research it to find out who it was. I was really thinking about switching to Linux until that smart aleck remark by somebody here.

I am not a programmer and I can't write my own drivers. When we set up our new computing system at work I did work directly with a programmer. He loved Linux, hated Microsoft, Windows and Bill Gates, and had to use Windows software because Linux software was not able to do the job. He used mostly all Windows programs to do the programming.

I think I would use Linux for just a few things-mostly security on the internet, for email, things like that. I would use Windows to operate my photo printer, for my scanner, for working on photographs in Photoshop CS6 (not CS2-is that as far as their WINE Photoshop support has progressed?), and for Microsoft Office.

For a while years ago in the past I had an ISP who used Linux servers and run by a guy who really did know how to set up Linux servers. Set up by somebody who actually knows what they are doing a Linux server is great. I will say I was impressed with Linux servers IF they are set up by somebody who knows what they are doing.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I get my jollies from showing off the benchmarks of windows 7 running on my 6 year old dual quad xeon mac tower to windows fanboys. blows new wintel hardware out of the water. perspective shift ensues.


I'd be interesting in seeing these performance figures. Please share them if you don't mind.


I can't provide numbers or specifics, but can confirm what gr8gatzby has observed. I have a colleague here at work that does modeling. They run the model on a Mac Pro tower running windows. It is faster and more stable than any of the high end wintel computers that were tried.

Ed

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Did I touch some sort of a nerve?


Not at all. Discussion forums are here to facilitate discussion. Given that our discussion will have zero impact on the world outside of our discussion, I think we're pretty safe to just... Discuss.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
No I can't give you the URLs of the Linux websites where I was attacked by malware. That was years ago. All I did was visit some websites where people who liked Linux were trying to convince people to use Linux. Maybe they needed better security for their websites, which presumably, because they liked Linux so much, were websites managed by Linux servers.


Most sites (like BITOG) use Linux or UNIX servers. Most who run web sites like that don't know what OS their service provider is using.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I think they should have expected some Windows (and Apple) users to visit their websites. But I was a little bit surprised being attacked by malware at websites where they presumably had all of this wonderful Linux security.


You're not making a lot of sense. And why why why do you continue to associate ONE (forgotten) web site with an entire operating system?

If you asked about whether or not you should buy a BMW and I told you "Heavens no! You're supposed to cut off your index fingers if you own a BMW!" would you then go talking to everyone about how you'd never own a BMW because you were told that you have to cut off your index fingers?!

Did the person or persons running this mysterious malicious web site represent Linux? How about the person who told you to write your own drivers? These things have nothing to do with one another!

Originally Posted By: Mystic
But being attacked by malware at Linux websites where Windows and Apple users were being told they should switch to Linux did nothing to encourage me to switch to Linux.


That's because you keep correlating things that have nothing to do with each other.

YOU WERE NOT ATTACKED AT A LINUX WEB SITE. You were attacked (?) at a web site run by a person or organization that had information about Linux on it. If you are talking about a web site that ran Linux, then BITOG is a Linux site. So is a vast majority of web servers. So is Android. Your GPS probably runs the Linux kernel. If someone hacked THIS site and infected your system, would you blame a particular brand of motor oil?????

Originally Posted By: Mystic
And you were not the guy who told me to write my own drivers, were you?


I couldn't write a driver if you put a gun to my head, man! I am not a programmer. But even if I was, I am just a person who can say this or that, and none of it represents Linux, and none of it may be correct; just like people who say this thing or that thing about Windows or Mac or the moon or who shot JFK. It's just people talking. Linux has no official voice save for Linus Torvalds.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I think I would use Linux for just a few things-mostly security on the internet, for email, things like that. I would use Windows to operate my photo printer, for my scanner, for working on photographs in Photoshop CS6 (not CS2-is that as far as their WINE Photoshop support has progressed?), and for Microsoft Office.


That's awesome, Mystic. People using computers to do stuff that makes their lives better is how it is supposed to work!

 

[grndslm]

Mystic, go download VirtualBox and install any Linux distribution you want. Try them all out within Windows, and if you don't like one... delete it. Once you find one or two you really like, then consider installing it thru other means in order to really start using your hardware with Linux (like USB support, can't get that thru virtualization, but it's GREAT for browsing each OS).

If you ever feel like you're threatened with malware, then open up VirtualBox and view a webpage thru Linux.... and say good bye to the trojans and virii.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I get my jollies from showing off the benchmarks of windows 7 running on my 6 year old dual quad xeon mac tower to windows fanboys. blows new wintel hardware out of the water. perspective shift ensues.


I'd be interesting in seeing these performance figures. Please share them if you don't mind.


I can't provide numbers or specifics, but can confirm what gr8gatzby has observed. I have a colleague here at work that does modeling. They run the model on a Mac Pro tower running windows. It is faster and more stable than any of the high end wintel computers that were tried.

Ed


You have to match the hardware though Ed. You can't compare some i7 Windows box to a dual quad-core Xeon Mac and then call PC's [censored]. That's sort of what I was digging at. I have a lot of experience with server hardware. What is being compared against here is server hardware. Apple just put it in a tower

To be clear: You have the same CPU's in a MacPro and in a Lenovo/DELL/HP server, the performance is going to be the same. The host OS doesn't matter. I can virtualize Windows on RHEL just like the Mac boys are doing on OSX.

Here's a screenshot from a Cisco rack box that serves some accounting software:

There are 12 physical cores there and 12 virtual ones. This isn't exotic hardware, you just won't find it in a desktop.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I get my jollies from showing off the benchmarks of windows 7 running on my 6 year old dual quad xeon mac tower to windows fanboys. blows new wintel hardware out of the water. perspective shift ensues.


I'd be interesting in seeing these performance figures. Please share them if you don't mind.


I can't provide numbers or specifics, but can confirm what gr8gatzby has observed. I have a colleague here at work that does modeling. They run the model on a Mac Pro tower running windows. It is faster and more stable than any of the high end wintel computers that were tried.

Ed


I agree and it is more than just hardware. My mac runs the atomic theory models and data fits far faster than my colleague's dell. Mine is a C2D, he has an i7. I wouldnt believe it unless I saw it. We ran multiple tests with our stuff. i am running on OSX, while he on W7.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gr8gatzby
I get my jollies from showing off the benchmarks of windows 7 running on my 6 year old dual quad xeon mac tower to windows fanboys. blows new wintel hardware out of the water. perspective shift ensues.


I'd be interesting in seeing these performance figures. Please share them if you don't mind.


I can't provide numbers or specifics, but can confirm what gr8gatzby has observed. I have a colleague here at work that does modeling. They run the model on a Mac Pro tower running windows. It is faster and more stable than any of the high end wintel computers that were tried.

Ed


I agree and it is more than just hardware. My mac runs the atomic theory models and data fits far faster than my colleague's dell. Mine is a C2D, he has an i7. I wouldnt believe it unless I saw it. We ran multiple tests with our stuff. i am running on OSX, while he on W7.


It isn't the hardware at all.

You aren't running this software in a Windows 7 VM on top of OSX, which is what we are discussing with respect to performance benchmarks.

Using OSX is no different than using xBSD, Linux....etc for virtualization. Which is ultimately what is normally running on the server hardware that what is used in the MacPro compares to.

There are many pieces of software that work a LOT better on a *nix OS than on Windows. That doesn't mean the hardware in whatever box is running OSX is somehow magically better. It isn't. A XEON of a given model number is a XEON of a given model #.

A more telling demonstration of this for you and your example would be for you to use BootCamp and boot into a Windows 7 environment and run the test there.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

To be clear: You have the same CPU's in a MacPro and in a Lenovo/DELL/HP server, the performance is going to be the same. The host OS doesn't matter. I can virtualize Windows on RHEL just like the Mac boys are doing on OSX.


They compared it to equal hardware, IBM and the like servers. They weren't running windows as a virtual OS on the Mac, they were booting in Windows. The hardware may indeed be the same but the implementation varies. I see that even with standard wintel machines here in the lab. I have one instrument that would crash the software with a main bus overload when run on Compaq or HP machines. It's been rock steady for 7 years on a Dell. The company explained that Dell held the timing on the bus to tighter tolerances.

Ed

 

[OVERKILL]

Back when Mac's were running PowerPC processors the Mac boys always argued that their CPU's were better because their computers tended to run faster.

They weren't. The OS was faster.

Now that we've got the same hardware in PC's and Mac, somehow the same argument is being made....

It was the OS, then, it is the OS now. Having the hardware in a Mac tower or laptop doesn't somehow instill it with omnipotence, causing it to rise above its brethren of the same model number and somehow out-perform them by a massive margin.

What you are seeing is the result of running a *NIX-derived OS on good hardware. No different than rockin' FreeBSD, NetBSD or a Linux distro on a PC.