No, OSX, the operating system, is standard Mac, not like a tablet. Have you looked at the iPad? I just bought then returned the iPad pro. I was in the opposite position of you. I wanted the window version not the tablet version. Are you near an Apple Store? They have a no questions asked 14 day return policy which would allow you to test one out. It's crazy easy to learn and are awesome, beautiful prices of hardware. Also for customers they offer free beginner classes and one-on-one help. I'm guessing you surf, email, shop, and the basics? Take one for a test spin and if it leaves you wanting, just bring it back. The same goes for their laptops.
Microsoft v Apple
- Thread starter iamn8
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Apple VS Microsoft...jeez, it just goes on and on. Well, how about Cray,huh? Or SGI, or Evans and Sutherland, huh?
Or Vax! Yeah, what about Apple vs Micrsoft vs Cray ve SGI vs Evans and Sutherland vs Vax vs Symbolics?
Well?
Or Vax! Yeah, what about Apple vs Micrsoft vs Cray ve SGI vs Evans and Sutherland vs Vax vs Symbolics?
Well?
A few years back I set out to install Linux on my laptop for the first time.
There was nothing practical about this quest, I set out to gain proficiency in a skill because I saw it as a right of passage and a challenge as much as a practical venture (not to say that there aren't plenty of practical applications).
That said, I didn't go and grab the most popular version of "Linux", I downloaded Slackware. Probably the least automated of any distro that still comes with a GUI.
You can download Ubuntu (the most popular distro), pop it in and with a few button presses it'll be installed and running within half an hour on most computers.
But the point of Slackware isn't just to make a computer run, it's just as much a tool for teaching you what your computer is as well as being incredibly flexible and compatible with hardware from the mid-90's. It took about a week to get my computer running, mostly because I had to read about every system that I was using to make the computer run before I used it. Then I spent an entire day making a shortcut for Firefox. It was actual programming, except all I did was cut and paste bits of code provided by a tutorial, and for me that was probably enough programming for a lifetime.
Then after I tried to install wireless drivers I've been happy to pay Microsoft for their software ever since.
Thus, in this whole equation, I fall somewhere in the middle (I've been doing all my web browsing on Ubuntu for the last four years).
The biggest lesson I learned that year was that pretty much every operating system is basically identical in capabilities.
Mac can do everything Windows can do everything Linux can do everything Mac can do, etc... There are plenty of power users on every system, the only difference is the default levels of control.
You can always defeat restrictions but then you're spending extra time jumping through hoops accomplishing something that the other OS allows by default. Lose automation, gain control.
Is it any surprise that the middle ground is the most popular?
There was nothing practical about this quest, I set out to gain proficiency in a skill because I saw it as a right of passage and a challenge as much as a practical venture (not to say that there aren't plenty of practical applications).
That said, I didn't go and grab the most popular version of "Linux", I downloaded Slackware. Probably the least automated of any distro that still comes with a GUI.
You can download Ubuntu (the most popular distro), pop it in and with a few button presses it'll be installed and running within half an hour on most computers.
But the point of Slackware isn't just to make a computer run, it's just as much a tool for teaching you what your computer is as well as being incredibly flexible and compatible with hardware from the mid-90's. It took about a week to get my computer running, mostly because I had to read about every system that I was using to make the computer run before I used it. Then I spent an entire day making a shortcut for Firefox. It was actual programming, except all I did was cut and paste bits of code provided by a tutorial, and for me that was probably enough programming for a lifetime.
Then after I tried to install wireless drivers I've been happy to pay Microsoft for their software ever since.
Thus, in this whole equation, I fall somewhere in the middle (I've been doing all my web browsing on Ubuntu for the last four years).
The biggest lesson I learned that year was that pretty much every operating system is basically identical in capabilities.
Mac can do everything Windows can do everything Linux can do everything Mac can do, etc... There are plenty of power users on every system, the only difference is the default levels of control.
You can always defeat restrictions but then you're spending extra time jumping through hoops accomplishing something that the other OS allows by default. Lose automation, gain control.
Is it any surprise that the middle ground is the most popular?
In photography it was Nikon vs Canon; autos FoMoCo vs Mopar vs GM; for shipping it's UPS vs FedEx; with bikes it's Harley vs just about everyone else. And the beat goes on. It's so much like reality shows: you can change the backdrop, but the plot is the same.
BTW, I'm fortunate enough to be able to own both: an Apple MacBook and a Dell Latitude. I use them for both work and play, and neither operating system meets my needs completely. I have no strong feelings about either company. They each get some of my money because they both fill a need for me.
I actually had issue in buying a DSLR. Canon has been a friend to astrophotography for a long time. While the Nikon may have been the superior hardware, all the good software was geared around Canon. This is quite literally just now changing. Astrophotographers spend a lot of serious cash on cameras and it was about time Nikon recognized their importance.
Nate: I've shot 'em all also over the years. Hasselblad in my opinion has never been challenged for medium format. Pentax and Olympus were never challenged weight wise with very good optics. Except when Canon introduced the first quality digital 70-200 f/2.8 the only difference, digital wise, lately between Canon and Nikon is generational. Each company spends lots of money "one upping" each other, whether it's MP, weight, fps, etc.
I shoot with Nikon and use some of my peers Canon product now and then. Not a penny's worth of difference with regard to quality and customer care any more. It's all generational differences. Which makes it expensive for the pro shooter, one can't afford to be more than a generation, maybe two, behind. Bodies are no longer simply light tight boxes which held film flat, they are a heck of lot more sophisticated in the handling of noise, moving information, buffer size, etc.
I've always thought that it was what was between the shooters ears that made the difference. Today, people are getting quality shots with iPhones, pocket cameras with digital zooms, etc. So the eye and patience are even more important than the equipment when distinguishing good shooters. Nothing will trump great glass and a good eye though.
I shoot with Nikon and use some of my peers Canon product now and then. Not a penny's worth of difference with regard to quality and customer care any more. It's all generational differences. Which makes it expensive for the pro shooter, one can't afford to be more than a generation, maybe two, behind. Bodies are no longer simply light tight boxes which held film flat, they are a heck of lot more sophisticated in the handling of noise, moving information, buffer size, etc.
I've always thought that it was what was between the shooters ears that made the difference. Today, people are getting quality shots with iPhones, pocket cameras with digital zooms, etc. So the eye and patience are even more important than the equipment when distinguishing good shooters. Nothing will trump great glass and a good eye though.
That philosophy carries over to AP as well. My FSQ is for all practical purposes a giant telescopic lens. The software that drives the cameras however is as important as the camera and they all support Canon. As I said, this is changing now. I've shot with quite a few cameras and find myself tied to Canon due to software restrictions and not any choice I've made. I feel no tie to any of them. Luckily I now use a high end CCD camera so DSLRs aren't something I use too often. There is currently a bit of resurgence in DSLR astrophotography due to recent sensor advancements. Astrophotography is quite a different animal from terrestrial, one I'm struggling with. Shooting 20min+ exposures, lots of them, over days and weeks... In narrowband... very different. You can lose data due to wind or satellites or whatever... It takes a level of patience I don't yet have, but I'm trying.
I started with DOS 3.3, then Windows 3.1 which sat on top of DOS 4 something (4.01?), and I used Windows through Win 98 with DOS (5?) underneath. At that point the Internet opened to the public. Prior to the Net, my computer was for word processing: first WordPerfect on DOS 3.3, then Word for Windows. I got tired of troubles with Win 98 and tried a couple of Linux distributions, Mandrake and Debian, then BSD.
This got tiresome and I moved to Win 2000 Professional, which didn't require an underlying DOS version. At that point, I was on a Dell Pentium. I used MS Word a lot offline. I was never a gamer, so that aspect of MS vs Apple was irrelevant to me. I couldn't afford a Mac. In 2006, I bought a used 2002 Mac G4 Quicksilver and got rid of the Windows machine (still running Win 2000). When the Mac died I went back to a PC because of cost, this time a laptop running Windows 7. The screen is now dead on that and I don't have Internet at home. So I moved from a flip phone to an iPhone with unlimited data. I also have a cheap Android tablet my mother gave me because she preferred her smartphone (Android). I used the wifi in that to get online at work before the iPhone. Now I mainly use it for reading PDFs. My next computer will be a Mac. I plan to also get an iPad for PDFs (the Android tablet is small) and for all the great apps for the tablet I have now on my phone (guitar and photography apps especially).
If all you're going to do is open a browser and be online, the differences between Mac and PC might be unimportant. Apple is driven by aesthetic concerns (certainly under Jobs), and has always had the artist in mind with their design and applications. Microsoft has different motivations. Android is Google's version of Apple's vision.
This got tiresome and I moved to Win 2000 Professional, which didn't require an underlying DOS version. At that point, I was on a Dell Pentium. I used MS Word a lot offline. I was never a gamer, so that aspect of MS vs Apple was irrelevant to me. I couldn't afford a Mac. In 2006, I bought a used 2002 Mac G4 Quicksilver and got rid of the Windows machine (still running Win 2000). When the Mac died I went back to a PC because of cost, this time a laptop running Windows 7. The screen is now dead on that and I don't have Internet at home. So I moved from a flip phone to an iPhone with unlimited data. I also have a cheap Android tablet my mother gave me because she preferred her smartphone (Android). I used the wifi in that to get online at work before the iPhone. Now I mainly use it for reading PDFs. My next computer will be a Mac. I plan to also get an iPad for PDFs (the Android tablet is small) and for all the great apps for the tablet I have now on my phone (guitar and photography apps especially).
If all you're going to do is open a browser and be online, the differences between Mac and PC might be unimportant. Apple is driven by aesthetic concerns (certainly under Jobs), and has always had the artist in mind with their design and applications. Microsoft has different motivations. Android is Google's version of Apple's vision.
- Status