Laptops: Mac vs WinXP/Ubuntu? | Hacker News Reader

Laptops: Mac vs WinXP/Ubuntu?

9 pointsjyu35 comments

Is there something I'm missing? I have tried to find good arguments for getting a Mac over Ubuntu/Windows, but haven't really found any that hold water. I mostly do documents, presentations, spreadsheets, research, internet browsing, light programming.

The differences between them appear to come down to personal preference than an overwhelming difference: -Security. Mac and Linux have better security handling and less malware than Windows. I use DeepFreeze, which can fight off even laughing kitty. -Survives accidents. Maybe there's a slight difference here, due to the sturdier frame/case of Macbooks? -Performance. I'm looking at response time, level of annoyance during daily use. Vista is a bitch, but WinXP and Ubuntu seem great. With similarly equipped laptops, Macbook seems on par or slower than WinXP, and much slower than Ubuntu.

View on HN

I had been using a Linux laptop for over 6 years until it died last fall. Now I'm using a MacBook and I'm absolutely loving it. Why?

- Power management. Suspend and resume just works. The battery life is great. Linux has catching up to do in terms of power management. (I know ACPI docs are bad/non-existent, and that it's not the kernel hacker's fault, and that lot's of things are improving. But my Mac does a better job right now when I need it, and I didn't have to configure anything.)

- Keynote. I need to give good presentations as part of my job, I need to communicate ideas. Every minute I don't spend fighting my presentation tool is an extra minute that I can spend on content and delivery. OpenOffice Impress and MS PowerPoint drive me nuts. Keynote is so ... simple. It just works. It has a decent interface. Well done animations are suddenly worth the effort (and nothing explains a technical process as good as a well-done animation).

- Presenting works. How many times have I seen people fail to get X11 to talk nicely to a projector? Even (Linux) kernel hackers had that happen to them. If they can't figure out X11, I sure don't want to risk to look unprofessional in front of an important audience. With my MacBook, I just show up, connect my Laptop, and it works. Every time.

- It's still a real UNIX (unlike Cygwin). I've got Emacs, I've got bash, and most of development work doesn't feel any different from what I did with Linux.

- It's got MacPorts. I thought I was going to miss Linux package management tools, but MacPorts is just as good (if you don't mind waiting for the compile to complete).

- Time machine. Yes, I do know rsync. I do know cron. I do know all kinds of tools. Did I use them regularly? No, I was too lazy, as I suspect most people are. Have I lost data because of that? Yes, and it hurt. Now, I do a backup every night when I come home, because it happens automatically. If I break my MacBook, all I have to do to restore my old system (including all installed programs and settings) is to hook up a new Mac to my backup drive. OS X will do the rest, which is great since I bet that my hardware will fail just before an important deadline...

So is all that worth several hundred dollars? For me, it is. Buying a MacBook has taken away one more thing to worry about. I rely on it to just work, and so far it has not let me down.

I thought I was going to miss Linux package management tools, but MacPorts is just as good

MacPorts is decent, but it is definitely not as good as apt/dpkg in terms of overall package quality, comprehensiveness, and convenience. In the same way that Mac power management "just works" (and I agree with you enthusiastically there), Debian/Ubuntu packages "just work." Also, MacPorts only applies to Unix-style software: most Mac applications do their own installation/uninstallation/updates, which is much more annoying.

Another delightful thing about package management on Linux is that it is commonplace to upgrade all the packages installed on your system every 6-12 months, for free, whenever new revisions of your distro are released. Compared to paying $99 for a new version of OSX that isn't integrated with any of your installed packages, it's not nearly as nice.

"Yes, I do know rsync. I do know cron. I do know all kinds of tools. Did I use them regularly? No, I was too lazy, as I suspect most people are."

Laziness is the oddest reason to have for not using cron. Not using cron regularly? This is a joke, right?

The comment about using them regularly was mostly targeted at rsync, tar, and other backup tools. I never invested the effort to automate my backups even though I am well aware of cron.

Part of the problem is that the manual part of connecting the backup hard drive remains. I don't like online backups since I don't have sufficient bandwidth. So what I was really looking for was a nicely scripted backup solution that integrates with udev, so that I really only have to plug in my hard drive. And figuring out udev -- which tends to change from version to version -- is something that I thought I'd do "later."

autofs and test -e for the existence of a file in the mount point. But this is all moot since you've already decided to let Apple handle it. I wonder how many people who use Timemachine actually verify the backups created with it.

Oh, and interestingly, suspend and resume work flawlessly on my MBP under Fedora 9, without configuration. So yeah, this is still a hardware issue, and when the hardware is good, it works fine.

Ubuntu 8.04 on my Dell D830 has decent hibernation (never use sleep or suspend, so I don't know it they are good).

It seems that assorted issues come up because of various hardware configuration: video card, wifi, sound card, etc. But as of now I'm quite happy with my Kubuntu laptop.

1. power management: works now. no excuses there.

2. kenote: don't know about this, but there are so many choices in this space now. c'mon.

3. ubuntu 8.04 and above are ok with this now. i do it all the time.

4. i'ts more of a bsd-flavored unix. i guess that's ok.

5. macports suck and you know it.

6. time machine: well, i guess that's convenient but i don't know in which format time machines store data. that makes me nervous. here, just copy and paste this. use it EVEN if you have time machine.

$source="mysource"; $destination="mydestination"

rsync --archive --delete $source $destination

i'll throw in the cron entry too for every day at 2am (put the above in run-backup.sh)

# m h dom mon dow command

     0  2  *       *      *        /sbin/admin/run-backup.sh

now, if you like your macbook because you like how pretty it is (which i'm guessing is the real reason) then enjoy it.

If were buying a laptop today, it would likely be a Thinkpad + Ubuntu combo.

You get a nice, productive OS and reasonably priced, elegant and sturdy hardware. What's not to like?

I have to agree here. My personal t42p thinkpad running ubuntu 'feels' just as fast as my work MacBook Pro. I also think the build quality of Apple laptops is very inferior to the thinkpads.

However, the MBP is just more 'fun' to use. So if you have money to burn go for the Apple. If you just need function, get an old x86 laptop and throw ubuntu on there.

Jer

I think you're right, it all comes down to personal preference. I like macs for their sturdy laptop, and osx unix like os.

I got fed up of loosing precious time configuring linux and researching for 100% compatible hardware. I don't like windows, it slows me down. Oh, one more thing, I can get commercial grade apps like photoshop or microsoft words on osx. We always need to be compatible with the rest of the world.

I do pay a premium for Apple laptop, but hey, they're good quality and I'm a sucker for design.

One strong reason is to stay upwind—with the Mac, you can also run XP and Ubuntu, but not vice-versa.

The other major reasons for me, anyway, include Spotlight, Time Machine, Textmate, and Terminal. The first two might not seem all that important, but once you have them, you won't want to live without them.

And, if for some reason you hate OS X, which is uncommon but, I suppose possible, you can consistently boot into XP / Ubuntu.

Yes you can run Mac OS X on a machin, I installed it on my Dell and it worked very good. Its just not easy to install, but than it is as good as a Mac.

It's illegal and also you don't have full hardware support.

There is some confusion about just how illegal it is in the US. The EULA does not permit it, but that isn't the same thing as it being against the law - especially since the EULA is presented post-purchase. (This assumes you bought your copy, of course.)

Still, until judgement in Apple vs Pystar (which is slightly broader) it would be better not to assume anything. Common law systems can produce some funny results and special cases. Just because you can drop a Ford engine into a Toyota without fear of legal action doesn't mean it carries across directly to software.

Being able to use software you buy however you wish with very little fear of inciting legal action is a great argument for adopting Linux, of course :)

The EULA doesn't matter, IMO.

You violate the DMCA when you run OSX86. Certain OS X binaries are encrypted.

I love Ubuntu. 3 Years, no hitches after the first months. Only switched to windows when it came free with my new laptop. Still dual boot Ubuntu, though.

My personnal experience: -Windows Vista is not bad, my next Laptop is with Windows Vista. Windows Vista only works bad on old hardware/software. -I have worked on Mac OS X for 4 months, I will not buy a mac soon, here is why: Mac is cool for new users, it is easy to use. But if you are a good Linux/Windows user, you'll find that Mac OS X is a loss of time. I can do things faster in Linux and Windows. For documents presentations, spreadsheets its pretty much the same for Mac or Windows because they both use Microsoft Office. I personnaly prefer Microsoft Office than OpenOffice. For internet browsing they all have firefox, so pretty much the same. I don't know what you call exactly light programming. For Web Developpement I think it is pretty much the same, for Programs I love Visual Studio and I hate Mac OS X SDK Developer (or something like that) so that gives you my opinion. And I think dual boots are stupid, I prefer one perfect OS, so I'm not buying a Mac to put Windows on it.

> If you are a good Linux/Windows user, you'll find that Mac OS X is a loss of time

I don't doubt this is true for you, but I fail to see your logic. Mac OS X offers the power of Linux with vastly better user experience. OS X lets you do all the powerful *nix stuff but at the same time saves you from having to hunt for drivers and do tons of configuration. There's definitely something to be said for Linux, but time savings isn't one of those things.

Yeah, except if you want to actually install various open source software/libraries.

Then you spend hours trying to see which of the various competing mac package-management systems have some (out-of-date) version of the software. Or, you give up and try compiling from source, to find that nothing compiles cleanly with out all sorts of various problems.

I've gone through this process so many times for even mainstream software, and it's never worked without a lot of fiddling on mac (and sometimes even not then). With Ubuntu, all the software I need is either in the standard repository, or it can be easily compiled (with no twiddling of configuration).

Of course, YMMV, but I tend to use a lot of libraries and FOSS packages for my work, and it's definitely significantly easier to manage on Ubuntu.

Hardware can definitely be an issue on linux, but if you do some research beforehand to see what will work, you're in the clear.

Also, people seem to forget that Apple does have an advantage here. It has complete control over the hardware. Essentially, it is a hardware company.

A GNU/Linux system on the other hand needs to work with everything. Older hardware and newer hardware. This is a maintenance nightmare if you don't have the hardware specs. Which a lot of manufacturers don't/won't release.

As for the browsing/email/administrative use of a system, then i find any modern distribution would do that with hardly any configuration. I use Ubuntu, but Redhat/Suse are also fine. Any desktop-centric distribution that is.

Better user experience? Not for certain kinds of work. If you're in the terminal a lot, for example.

The OS X Aqua terminal really blows, and its X11 terminal isn't much better. I never have any problems with terminal settings under Linux, but every time I try to SSH under OS X some stupid thing happens like the Backspace key doesn't work. X11 is balls slow under OS X, too. Under Linux I can install any software I need in 15 seconds, whereas under OS X, if I need some library or something, I end up searching the 'net and finding some random guy who distributes such-and-such a package for OS X, and it always has a wonky install process (which invariably makes it impossible to uninstall).

So yeah, Linux saves me a LOT of time.

I should point out that I do use OS X for games, web browsing, and casual programming tasks. It's a good OS, but I can't live with it when I'm really trying to be productive.

I do use OS X for games, web browsing, and casual programming tasks.

It's been a while since I looked into games on Linux, but if this is correct, things are worse than I could have imagined.

I completely agree. I've been using ubuntu for a few years now, but use OS X at work. A lot of coworkers are pretty hardcore developers but still insist on using OS X.

Anyone who tells you that Macs "just work" and that linux takes too long to setup (or hardware isn't supported, etc) haven't used linux, and specifically ubuntu, in the last couple of years. It does what OS X should be doing -- easy to get started, but doesn't go out of its way to shield you from advanced features.

Quick side rant -- OS X does in fact "just work" if you're doing basic to intermediate things (checking email, digital photos, etc). As soon as you want to do something slightly advanced, it isn't the beautiful experience anymore at all -- a coworker of mine got so frustrated trying to setup PGP in mail.app that he switched to using Thunderbird. Planning on doing any serious C development? There's no ldd command for OS X. Want to really tweak your terminal (see parent)? Good luck. If you're serious about development and want something that'll scale with your skill level, use linux.

I find that whatever environment you're most comfortable with is the best way to go. I find that XP/Ubuntu are more comfortable for me than other environments. I can use a Mac, but I find myself working against it (probably due to experience) in times when I really need things to be straightforward. It's a bit like learning Emacs for me, I can see that there's some power behind it but I find it too different to vi to bother. In this case, my vi would be Linux or Cygwin.

I'm not keen on Vista at all and would much rather use XP or even 2000. I suspect I'll avoid it till Windows 8 comes out.

I also don't think that the price difference between a Mac and PC laptop is justifiable, but different strokes for different folks I guess.

I work on various hardwares (laptops, desktops, macs) so sometimes i need to move an installed hard drive on one mobo to another different mobo

win98 hd can be used across, good luck with XP / Vista

iBookG4 tiger hd can be swappable to mac mini

ubuntu hd, i had occasions when it's not swappable (always kernel panic on other mobo - must reinstall from scratch)

OpenBSD always works (tm) on every mobo, even on my 10 yo XD380 thinkpad

BUT YOU CAN USE VMWARE!!! errr, i use simpler, OS / hardware independent tech: VNC

my setup now is: win98 for legacies, win-only software / hardware mac mini for fancier hardwares bluetooth, firewire, DVI etc

OpenBSD for development, VNC to win98 and Mac Mini (powerPC)

It used to be OpenBSD+Ubuntu ... However, time tweaking Ubuntu is better invested in win98+mac ... i feel ubuntu is trying to be win/mac/BSD* and it's weak in the three fronts -- weak identity, designed by committee for mass

you may think supporting 3 OS is more complicated; however it's not true

if the OS misbehave and need complete reinstallation: win98: i could just dd if=win98 of=/dev/disk2 and it's ready in 10 mins shrug osx: reboot from install disc, format tiger partition, map the tiger-image and it's ready in ~30 mins OpenBSD: just do ftp reinstall, untar Site44.tgz and it's production ready in 15 mins Ubuntu: i dunno, ... i'll prolly waste another hour+half or two reinstalling it

NB: Can u operate 3 OS (Win/OSX-powerpc/Unix) on a single machine? * BSD is more powerful than linux ... err GNU/linux ... or should i say GNU/BSD ? ... I dunno, i just want to hack and use the most powerful tools available, no time for silly nerd politics

The Mac Dev tools kick ass, but if you want to stay cross platform (e.g. Python or Java for example), then you are probably as well on Ubuntu as anything else.

Certainly, if I had the same requirements, I might want a TP running Ubuntu.

If you like the Mac hardware (shiny, vents at the back, beautiful underneath) get a Mac laptop, since you can run Ubuntu or Windows easily on it.

I'm really a Mac guy, but I run Ubuntu on my remaining non-Apple hardware, and it works great. It always seems a tad smoother than OS X for mainstream Unix dev, e.g. No faffing with Fink or Ports etc.

Last laptop purchase had me seriously looking at macs, but I ended up getting an OS-free Dell D830 because it offered 1920x1200 15in screen and the clit mouse, both unavailable on macbooks.

I did spend a fair amount of time dicking with things to get a few things working Just So, though Ubuntu 8.04 seems to have fixed most of my previous annoyances.

I got a mac HATE IT, there are 2 programs that I cant use so end up spending 95% of time in VMWARE.

Also tried to install bootcamp, but MAC os says can't move files and I need to backup entire hd and then restore it. (MAC OS doesn't have defrag)

I don't think a mac is for everyone. It's important to use what ever tools are best suited for you or your work.

Did you not know that two of your main programs weren't available for OS X? Guessing by your use of MAC you didn't research much. Same for the defrag, there are several utilities that can do that for you (or you can just copy back and forth from a backup drive). iDefrag is a popular one, but I've never used any as I have plenty of free space and fragmentation's not an issue for me.

OS X doesn't defrag because HFS+ is journaled - it doesn't need to be defragged.

I think you can't go wrong with WinXP, and even Vista is OK. My friend uses it on Laptop with one-core Intel processor and 1GB ram, and he was able to configure it so it is booting and running as fast as XP.

If you could possibly provide more info as to how your friend did it. I'd definitely be interested, my laptop needs a boost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com