Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comparison on XP, Mac OSX and Linux?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 13, 2006 6:34:48 AM

Hey guys ,

Im doing an Assignment on Comparing XP, Mac OSX and Linux and I was wondering if anyone could give me several points about each one , or maybe find a link to a comparison on the internet for me, coz im just having a little trouble finding one.

Thanks , Matt.
October 13, 2006 7:04:29 AM

uh... wikipedia (duh).

linux is neat for technical things. Windows is good for games. Mac OS X has some interesting features, such as file vault, making security easy for the average user.

linux and xgl is the best system for productivity work. most software is free, under the GPL license. GNU GPL is a license that allows end users to use software for free. It also prevents corporations from ripping off the free programming community for building user interfaces for free programs, doing a fraction of the work and charging for what they didn't do.

linux is a bit more complex than its other bsd variants, and boots a bit more slowly. linux and mac os x suffer from lack of driver support for some devices, but recently there are efforts to use the existing Windows drivers in linux using a "wrapper" to translate the function results to something compatible with the rest of the linux kernel.

both Windows and linux use a monolithic kernel, although Windows calls it a hybrid kernel. mac os x uses a microkernel, so different tasks are compiled into modules which interact with each other. linux uses modules, and Windows provides function hooks and driver functions which run in kernel mode. However most of the code is compiled into a single kernel.

Windows' biggest weak point is arguably their file system. While ntfs is a big improvement over previous systems, most users need to run with administrator access to do anything, and administrator access allows a user to change any file permissions of any user. In mac os x and linux, a user can run almost any application they need without administrator access. In linux you can even have custom, user-defined file systems for encryption. Windows security is not as segregated as linux security, with the ability for applications such as symantec antivirus to create a kernel hook. these powerful abilities can be used by virus makers as well as legitimate driver and security software programmers, and so they cannot be disabled or else microsoft will be in danger of lawsuit.
October 13, 2006 8:06:42 AM

WinSuperSite has a comparison article between Vista and Tiger.

OS X is more secure, easier to use and doesn't go wrong as much.

XP is less secure, more difficult to use and goes wrong all the time.

OS X rules.
Related resources
a b 5 Linux
October 13, 2006 8:14:20 AM

Like the first reply you got there...

I would add..

Linux: alows its users to see what is going on within the system. Many people like Linux as they can take the source code and modify it to fit their exact requirements. For some organisations this gives them greater confidence as they will not be subject to vendor lockin, unlike forced upgrade from large vendors such as Microsoft.

The system is growing in poularity across a broad range of users. For people with second systems or older hardware they still want to use it makes a lot of sense. At the end of the day price is the biggest motivation for me and many others.. you just can't complain at what is lacking when it cost you nothing..

Windows: Some people just have an irational distain for this company and its products. I am one of them... Continually pushing propiatory standards and forcing user upgrades.

Mac: The middle ground and a lifestyle statement. If a non tech friend wanted to ditch windows I'd rather send them here than to a linux download site. I just know I would have less support calls...
October 13, 2006 8:15:38 AM

Ugh you won't get anything good from here, way too many linux/mac fanboys; MesaRectifier for example.
a b 5 Linux
October 13, 2006 8:29:13 AM

3 way comparison of OS X, Win XP and Ubuntu Linux.

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/56437/index.html

The conclusion at the end:

Quote:
Some companies have taken that risk with UNIX desktops and got burned badly. In the interim, Windows will remain the preferred desktop for the masses. Macintosh will remain the connoisseur's choice of operating systems. Ubuntu will continue as a mid-level desktop and a popular platform for developers.
a b 5 Linux
October 13, 2006 8:30:03 AM

Because we all know there will be no windows fanboys arroung here... :roll:
October 13, 2006 8:51:25 AM

While I see your point, I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy - fanboys are loyal to something beyond reason and to the point of delusion, whereas I honestly belive what I posted. Hey, it's my experience...
October 13, 2006 8:51:58 AM

Nope, fanboy. :roll:
a b 5 Linux
October 13, 2006 9:03:46 AM

Quote:
Nope, fanboy. :roll:


Quote:

Windows: Some people just have an irational distain for this company and its products. I am one of them...


Self confessed :p 

Seriously though.. they all have their merrits and I think the bigger thing is that there is a place for each of them. Thankfully nowdays they can all play together (for the most part....)

To the OP: Perhaps your paper could be about the simalarities as well as the differences...
October 13, 2006 9:15:26 AM

Quote:
While I see your point, I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy - fanboys are loyal to something beyond reason and to the point of delusion, whereas I honestly belive what I posted. Hey, it's my experience...


ah delusion, Is that where mac owners are made the believe their operating system is free? :wink:
October 13, 2006 9:40:54 AM

Quote:
Hey guys ,

Im doing an Assignment on Comparing XP, Mac OSX and Linux and I was wondering if anyone could give me several points about each one , or maybe find a link to a comparison on the internet for me, coz im just having a little trouble finding one.

Thanks , Matt.


GUYS STOP !!!! CAN YOU NOT READ THIS FORUM IS POSTING REGARDING TO CPU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyday you have guys like this posting wrong topics in the wrong forum!!!
October 14, 2006 8:22:36 AM

Quote:
ah delusion, Is that where mac owners are made the believe their operating system is free?


WTF?

Anyway, rather than try to explain myself which is clearly pointless or use obviously exaggerated terms in jest I'll present my experience thus far and you can draw your own conclusion.

I used PCs exclusively for 10 years. Then I bought a Mac, and haven't had any reason to return to the Windows fray for any reason other than certain homebrew programs and moving files around on my server. Simply, it does everything that I want from a PC, more, and it does it (in my experience) faster and more stably.
October 14, 2006 10:08:55 AM

Here's a quick summary from somebody who has used them all exclusively (and for the record I prefer Windows or Linux).

Linux - Awesome, as long as you're technically minded. Doubtlessly the hardest OS to use, but also one of the most powerful and flexible. Not to mention cheapest. There's a lot of different builds out there, so research carefully before deciding and it's a good idea to dual-boot to Windows if you're a first-timer because Linux can be daunting and you might need to download a guide that tells you how to install Firefox for Linux :) .

Major Strength: Flexibility - Nothing else comes close in terms of choices. Even in terms of software the vast majority of Windows only software will run on Linux, even if it's a tad slower (although some emulated programs run faster under Linux).
Major Weakness: Usability - Not all software works with it and it's a whole other universe if you're a n00b (as less than 1% of systems run Linux as of December 31, 2005, that basically means everybody is a n00b).

Mac OS: Very easy to use. Excellent packaged features. Limited software support. It doesn't get any easier than using Macs for people who don't like computers. As always, the downside to being so easy is that it can be a nightmare when it gets f'ed up, which it does, although far less often than Windows or Linux. For a technical user, a hell of a lot of things about OS are just plain annoying. Mainly the limits it places on you. If it was easy to run Windows programs on Mac, then I wouldn't let any of my stupid friends run Windows, but getting non-Mac programs to work propperly and speedily on a Mac is a real pain, considering the target audience. For certain professionals though, and many home users Mac OS is the way to go. Of course, ironically, to run the easier to use Mac you need to get educated - not on how to use the computer, but on what software yoou can buy.

Major Strength: Accessibility - Is it possible for computers to get any easier?
Major Weakness: Flexibility - The OS is great, software for it sucks. As does the hardware (although only because of the expense). Choosing Mac OS is surrendering your choices in favour of ease of use. For a limited amount of people, it's beyond compare, for the technically minded, it's all but useless.

Windows: Just about every modern program runs on Windows. What's more, people understand it. It's powerful, flexible and bloody expensive. But it's worth it. The problem with Windows is that all morons use Windows. You have to be intelligent to switch to Mac or Linux, if you don't know what you're doing you have a PC. Which is a problem, because it doesn't possess the innate accessability of Mac OS, where, to be honest, that ease of use is kinda wasted. Once, Windows was crap (everything before Win2k), hard to use (pre-Win95) and seriously unstable (again, everything before Win2k). Windows XP though was a great step in the right direction. It's relatively secure, quick enough, absolutley stable and supremely usable. It's not accessible, but it is usable. The downside to popularity is the sheer volume of viruses/malware out there. Windows isn't much less secure than the other OSes, if you get a virus, I guarantee it is your own fault. However, because it's the most popular, it needs to be the *most* secure, not "close to the leader" (which is Linux). The main problem with Windows, in terms of security, is IE6 (utter crap) and a few design flaws that don't matter anywhere near as much as people think they do. Don't use IE6 and do use a good Firewall program (and a virus scanner wouldn't hurt) and you're right to go.
Did I mention moronic users? Yes, well, I'll go into it again. Virtually all problems with Windows can be traced directly to a moron or act of idiocy. The biggest area Windows needs to improve on is stopping idiots breaking things. Windows is good because when it gets f***ed up it is easy to fix up again (relatively). The problem is, it gets stuffed up all the bloody time! It's too easy for people who don't fully understand their computers to break them. And way to easy for accidents to break them. Windows is weak, it does whatever you say, hopefully Vista will grow a bit of backbone.
Also hopefully the built-in programs get up to speed with Apple or even free stuff you can get for Linux. Calculator: Pass. Everything Else: Fail. Seriously, why include such a dodgy defragmenting tool or useless sound recorder. What's the point exactly?

Major Strength: Does everything extremely well in whatever way you like. Except, sometimes, work.
Major Weakness: Too easy to fubar. Also most of the included utilities suck.
October 14, 2006 12:02:16 PM

Quote:
both Windows and linux use a monolithic kernel

That's completely false for linux :-)

On linux you can do what you want: if you need a very small memory footprint for emebedded systems or limited resources PC or when even a 1% more speed is critical you can compile a monolithic kernel, but usually 90% of users compile a modular small kernel and provide all other functionality (device drivers, non-root filesystem support, etc.) by loadable modules.

A mere 10% of linux installations are made with statically linked kernels, but it's to the user's choice, while in Windows you can't decide anything on the kernel and device drivers.
October 14, 2006 12:04:36 PM

This thread needs to be moved. It relates nothing to CPUs
There is a section for OS questions.
October 14, 2006 12:05:05 PM

Quote:
WinSuperSite has a comparison article between Vista and Tiger.

OS X is more secure, easier to use and doesn't go wrong as much.

XP is less secure, more difficult to use and goes wrong all the time.

OS X rules.


I disagree, I have had way more problems with osx than xp and osx sux the way there is no thumnail view, its is pretty and has a nice interface though.
October 14, 2006 12:56:14 PM

To Althaz: I couldn't have said it better myself, and agree completely that Windows security problems are as much a problem of perception as anything else. I have heard arguments that basically went "ever heard of a zombied Linux? no, that's 'cos Linux rules and Windoze sux" etc etc. Which completely forgets to take into account that if you're trying to build a bot net, are you going to try and hack the 95% of the worlds machines that run broadly similar OSes, or the 5% which are split between any number of Nix variants and others? Even more tellingly, that 5% are likely to be many times less likely to do something stupid that could allow their machines to become infected. The main threat to a computer's stability is user-stupidity (I'm ashamed to say even I've been caught out once or twice :oops:  ).

to Maury73: While what you say is true about modules, Linux is still classified (at least on Wikipedia) as being a monolithic kernal, this article should explain why.
October 14, 2006 2:25:22 PM

Some of you guys have either never used osx, or are really ignorant. osx is based on the freeBSD (apple site) a derivative of the original AT&T Unix. For the most part, most applications will compile and function under both operating systems. EX. I have the same version of openVPN installed on my laptop (Mac) and my server (Linux) and my desktop (BSD). However, even though you can go out, download darwin unix, install it on your pc, mac, sparc box, etc, you will not get the Aqua user interface. This is closed sourced and is basically what you are paying for when you buy a copy of OS X. Now Linux is also a derivative of the original Unix operating system. So naturally, both operating systems share a common ancestry. A tree that shows the entire ancestry of Unix is available Here. So what you really asked above is, what is the difference between Windows and Unix.

Now as for the difference between Unix and windows, that list is really long and you will have to dig as deep as you want on that. Just do a search on wikipedia and you should be able to find out a lot of information.
October 14, 2006 3:20:27 PM

Quote:
To Althaz: I couldn't have said it better myself, and agree completely that Windows security problems are as much a problem of perception as anything else. I have heard arguments that basically went "ever heard of a zombied Linux? no, that's 'cos Linux rules and Windoze sux" etc etc. Which completely forgets to take into account that if you're trying to build a bot net, are you going to try and hack the 95% of the worlds machines that run broadly similar OSes, or the 5% which are split between any number of Nix variants and others? Even more tellingly, that 5% are likely to be many times less likely to do something stupid that could allow their machines to become infected. The main threat to a computer's stability is user-stupidity (I'm ashamed to say even I've been caught out once or twice :oops:  ).

to Maury73: While what you say is true about modules, Linux is still classified (at least on Wikipedia) as being a monolithic kernal, this article should explain why.



>> Windows security problems are as much a problem of perception as anything else.

Not true. Windows allows (in fact relies on) users and their apps (virusses) being able to add stuff to the operating system (put/change/delete files in /windows, add/change/delete registry settings, etc).

Linux locks the OS away. As a normal user, you or anything you run can't modify the system at all.
October 14, 2006 3:24:29 PM

Quote:
Some of you guys have either never used osx, or are really ignorant. osx is based on the freeBSD (apple site) a derivative of the original AT&T Unix. For the most part, most applications will compile and function under both operating systems. EX. I have the same version of openVPN installed on my laptop (Mac) and my server (Linux) and my desktop (BSD). However, even though you can go out, download darwin unix, install it on your pc, mac, sparc box, etc, you will not get the Aqua user interface. This is closed sourced and is basically what you are paying for when you buy a copy of OS X. Now Linux is also a derivative of the original Unix operating system. So naturally, both operating systems share a common ancestry. A tree that shows the entire ancestry of Unix is available Here. So what you really asked above is, what is the difference between Windows and Unix.

Now as for the difference between Unix and windows, that list is really long and you will have to dig as deep as you want on that. Just do a search on wikipedia and you should be able to find out a lot of information.


>> Linux is also a derivative of the original Unix operating system.

No, linux was written from scratch, it doesn't use any of the original Unix code. Thats what the whole SCO thing is about.
a b 5 Linux
October 14, 2006 5:19:02 PM

Quote:
No, linux was written from scratch, it doesn't use any of the original Unix code. Thats what the whole SCO thing is about.


Well said sir... Linus would be proud :D 
Don't forget.. Linux is really just a Kernel and not an OS like Windows.
October 14, 2006 5:51:46 PM

Quote:
To Althaz: I couldn't have said it better myself, and agree completely that Windows security problems are as much a problem of perception as anything else. I have heard arguments that basically went "ever heard of a zombied Linux? no, that's 'cos Linux rules and Windoze sux" etc etc. Which completely forgets to take into account that if you're trying to build a bot net, are you going to try and hack the 95% of the worlds machines that run broadly similar OSes, or the 5% which are split between any number of Nix variants and others? Even more tellingly, that 5% are likely to be many times less likely to do something stupid that could allow their machines to become infected. The main threat to a computer's stability is user-stupidity (I'm ashamed to say even I've been caught out once or twice :oops:  ).


Well done! That is exactly why windows gets exploited more. Majority of developers/hackers/crackers (whatever you wanna call them)will not be using mac os anyway. There are a lot more tools for windows, that have been developed by people over years which make it a lot easier. IDA only came out for mac recently, could go on forever, but you summed the point up in one.

If you want to gain from an exploit, you're gonna gain a lot more by exploiting a widely used less monitored system.
Yes linux is widely used all over the net, but they are administered by more computer educated people.
October 14, 2006 6:14:04 PM

Quote:
WinSuperSite has a comparison article between Vista and Tiger.

OS X is more secure, easier to use and doesn't go wrong as much.

XP is less secure, more difficult to use and goes wrong all the time.

OS X rules.


I could add:

OS X doesn't work with 95% of the apps I used, especially for games.

I'm on the same install of WXP for the last 3 years. All I had to do is keep AV up to date + check every few days. It's called: "Taking care of your system!".

My futur PC system will cost me about 70% of the same configuration from APPLE.

I know OS X has strengh that WXP doesn't have, don't get me wrong. But all you can do on a MAC you can on a PC. But not the other way around, or you don't have the choice of application you do on a PC. I would have way too much habit to changed to go the MAC way, just the same to you the other way around. So stop saying how superior you are and go talk to your MAC friend. :evil: 
October 14, 2006 6:25:31 PM

Quote:
While I see your point, I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy - fanboys are loyal to something beyond reason and to the point of delusion, whereas I honestly belive what I posted. Hey, it's my experience...


Sorry Mesa for being rude before.

I want to tell you that yes... OS X is mostly superior to WXP (what about upcoming Vista????), but their is strong benifit from using WXP also.

So nobody can say OS X is all good while WXP is all bad. It depends on what you do with your system and your liking.

For me, gamer, video editor (home movies, but... :wink: ), and system upgrader at times, WXP is a much better choice.

Also, Ninja is right, it should have been posted in the OS section... Oups!
October 14, 2006 6:53:47 PM

While Windows isn't as stable as OS X, I still prefer Windows because:
1) I don't want to overpay for hardware directly from Apple
2) Windows is more widely supported
3) I'm kind of a performance junkie (How many overclockers do you know using OS X? :lol: )
October 14, 2006 6:54:53 PM

Quote:
3) I'm kind of a performance junkie (How many overclockers do you know using OS X? :lol: )

Does Wusy count?
October 14, 2006 7:09:38 PM

This is my view although i've never used linux...

Linux: Totally customizable and only for experienced users.

Mac anything: Not customizable at all, fool proof, system, media specific OS. Good for people who like to take it out of the box and run it instead of fiddling with it.

Windows: Good for everyone, fairly easy to use, pretty customizable, vulneable due to being a gigantic target for hackers.

I like windows. Mac seems to just want to look pretty. I'm too lazy and dumb to use linux(I think :wink: )
October 14, 2006 7:11:44 PM

Try unbuntu. They'll send you ten CD's of it for free.
October 14, 2006 7:28:16 PM

Quote:
Try unbuntu. They'll send you ten CD's of it for free.


Maybe when i get my new computer. I'm tired of fiddling with my POS p2 celeron. :wink:
October 14, 2006 7:50:02 PM

One very important difference between the Windows and Linux worlds is the patronising attitude of Microsoft. With Linux you don't get any nonsense like Genuine Spyvantage, media players which try to access remote servers behind your back, etc etc. Linux is software written by humans for other humans. Windows programmers are more like sheep-herders driving their customers towards ever more lucrative marketing opportunities regardless of their best interests. Should you decide what you do with your own PC or should a software vendor dictate its proper use?

Perhaps Macs fall in between: another big company but one which is - at least some of the time - genuinely trying to create a good computing experience?
October 14, 2006 8:15:42 PM

Re: Niz: Not so. Linux is very much a Unix kernel. Linus wrote Linux from Minix which Andrew Tannenbaum wrote from BSD which was an early open source branch of Unix developed while Unix was still under AT&Ts umbrella and AT&T still under serious antitrust constraints. Supposedly, Unix System V and BSD borrowed heavily from each other before System V became a proprietary system and before System V R4 was developed. Years ago, SCO purchased the rights to use System V R4 but not the actual ownership of that system itself. Years later, Caldera, itself a Linux distributor, purchased SCO and then changed its name to SCO and then began its attempted shakedown of corporate Linux users, which would include its own clients. So what is SCO lawsuit really about? Go figure![/quote]
October 15, 2006 1:54:19 AM

Quote:
1) I don't want to overpay for hardware directly from Apple


ahhhhhhhhh, yes, i forgot to pic up on that from the user that quoted me.....The cost of the O/S is included in the price of the apple system, although it doesnt account for the other 40 odd percent over charge you get.

To explain to any dumb idiot, this is the year 2006, there is no such thing as FREE! If you think FREE exist's ill happily sell you a dell PC with a $200 markup because windows is FREE.
October 15, 2006 2:04:33 AM

Quote:
This is my view although i've never used linux...

Linux: Totally customizable and only for experienced users.

Mac anything: Not customizable at all, fool proof, system, media specific OS. Good for people who like to take it out of the box and run it instead of fiddling with it.

Windows: Good for everyone, fairly easy to use, pretty customizable, vulneable due to being a gigantic target for hackers.

I like windows. Mac seems to just want to look pretty. I'm too lazy and dumb to use linux(I think :wink: )


Not been here long but, tend to agree with a lot of your posts.

As for windows not as stable as OSX, try putting the amount of win users on osx. People would hack it to the ground, its lifeline is the fact that no one is interested in destroying it, then .......i wont go into a social engineering aspects, but.....im sure some people could think up of their own sentences to go between the dots..

Theres also the old cliche, computers only do what you tell them to. Windows, linux, macos.........it doesnt matter, leave a nice buffer overflow exploit.........and we're in. (oh yeah those windows noobs you constantly slag off, they are running linux as root, yeah you forgot about that? switch everyone to linux and 10% would use root constantly....)

meh anyway cant be bothered to say anymore, people seem to forget the bigger picture though. nn
!