Mac OS X = UNIX with a GUI?
Dear all,
I am having this discussion with a friend of mine who is a Mac preacher searching for converts (and I am the one he is trying to gain for the Mac religion
).
We are at a point of the discussion where it's coming down to whether Mac OS X is or is not a UNIX with a GUI (an excellent GUI I must say) bundled with extra software.
My claim, based on having worked for a long time with Linux (Redhat, Debian), HP-UX and Sun Solaris, is that Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI (I stress probably the best GUI ever built on top of a UNIX-like OS) + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users.
Ever since I abandoned the Commodore Amiga religion, I have a pragmatic approach with computer platforms. I love UNIX but at the same time I recognize that 90 % + of the world computers use Windows, therefore for my day to day operations, I use Windows.
For my non day to day operations, Linux is just great. And given that when I am using UNIX I rarely use any of the high level stuff, I prefer to go shell/filesystem instead (actually the ability to have full control of the OS from the shell is the reason why I like UNIX in the first place), I don't see any reason to move to Max OS X. Simply put, I don't see anything in Mac OS X that I cannot get from either Windows or Linux. The high level software bundled with Mac OS X doesn't compensate for having a minority OS, not for me at least. And as I said, I try to stay completely away from religious OS wars, I am done with that stage of my life.
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
Thanks!
I am having this discussion with a friend of mine who is a Mac preacher searching for converts (and I am the one he is trying to gain for the Mac religion
). We are at a point of the discussion where it's coming down to whether Mac OS X is or is not a UNIX with a GUI (an excellent GUI I must say) bundled with extra software.
My claim, based on having worked for a long time with Linux (Redhat, Debian), HP-UX and Sun Solaris, is that Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI (I stress probably the best GUI ever built on top of a UNIX-like OS) + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users.
Ever since I abandoned the Commodore Amiga religion, I have a pragmatic approach with computer platforms. I love UNIX but at the same time I recognize that 90 % + of the world computers use Windows, therefore for my day to day operations, I use Windows.
For my non day to day operations, Linux is just great. And given that when I am using UNIX I rarely use any of the high level stuff, I prefer to go shell/filesystem instead (actually the ability to have full control of the OS from the shell is the reason why I like UNIX in the first place), I don't see any reason to move to Max OS X. Simply put, I don't see anything in Mac OS X that I cannot get from either Windows or Linux. The high level software bundled with Mac OS X doesn't compensate for having a minority OS, not for me at least. And as I said, I try to stay completely away from religious OS wars, I am done with that stage of my life.
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
Thanks!
Comments
Dear all,
I am having this discussion with a friend of mine who is a Mac preacher searching for converts (and I am the one he is trying to gain for the Mac religion
We are at a point of the discussion where it's coming down to whether Mac OS X is or is not a UNIX with a GUI (an excellent GUI I must say) bundled with extra software.
My claim, based on having worked for a long time with Linux (Redhat, Debian), HP-UX and Sun Solaris, is that Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI (I stress probably the best GUI ever built on top of a UNIX-like OS) + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users.
Ever since I abandoned the Commodore Amiga religion, I have a pragmatic approach with computer platforms. I love UNIX but at the same time I recognize that 90 % + of the world computers use Windows, therefore for my day to day operations, I use Windows.
For my non day to day operations, Linux is just great. And given that when I am using UNIX I rarely use any of the high level stuff, I prefer to go shell/filesystem instead (actually the ability to have full control of the OS from the shell is the reason why I like UNIX in the first place), I don't see any reason to move to Max OS X. Simply put, I don't see anything in Mac OS X that I cannot get from either Windows or Linux. The high level software bundled with Mac OS X doesn't compensate for having a minority OS, not for me at least. And as I said, I try to stay completely away from religious OS wars, I am done with that stage of my life.
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
Thanks!
Hi there, meet Windows, Unix derivative + GUI. NT and DOS are both Unix children. Albeit more distant than Linux, but children nonetheless. When all is said and done, most every OS in existence has roots coming from Unix. So saying Unix + GUI applies to a LOT more than OS X or Linux.
But as far as reasons for switching go, no one ever said OS X does things the others don't. What you can do in one you can do in the others. But it's how those features were implemented that makes each OS different.
The reason OS X is so appealing to so many people right now is that it just does what they want it to without much of a fuss. And it does it well. It doesn't need a lot of tweaking to get the job done. Also, it doesn't pop up a million errors, tell you to install the latest GCC package, or get viruses every 5 mins.
If you LIKE messing around with the command line and tweaking the OS to your every whim, then OS X isn't for you.
Hi there, meet Windows, Unix derivative + GUI. NT and DOS are both Unix children. Albeit more distant than Linux, but children nonetheless.
Sure!
But my question is more direct. There is a difference between being a descendant (or even borrowing ideas from) and being a clone (or an almost clone). In the case of Mac OS X, if I take away the GUI and the high level stuff, all I see is a UNIX, same file structure, same commands (mv, cp, top, etc work equally well in HP-UX, Solaris, Linux...).
Just want to make it clear that the posting is not intended in any way to be demeaning towards Mac OS X. I think that Apple did an excellent job with the OS, but somehow when I hear the preachers of Mac OS X they remind me to the preachers of Linux in the late 90s': they were convinced that theirs was an entirely new OS, ignoring the fact that both Linux and Mac OX X are UNIX-like-clones.
Cheers!
PS: Apparently, I read first an imcomplete version of your posting that only included the first two lines. I agree with your final point, I do like messing around wit the command line :-)).
Sure!
But my question is more direct. There is a difference between being a descendant (or even borrowing ideas from) and being a clone (or an almost clone). In the case of Mac OS X, if I take away the GUI and the high level stuff, all I see is a UNIX, same file structure, same commands (mv, cp, top, etc work equally well in HP-UX, Solaris, Linux...).
Just want to make it clear that the posting is not intended in any way to be demeaning towards Mac OS X. I think that Apple did an excellent job with the OS, but somehow when I hear the preachers of Mac OS X they remind me to the preachers of Linux in the late 90s': they were convinced that theirs was an entirely new OS, ignoring the fact that both Linux and Mac OX X are UNIX-like-clones.
Cheers!
PS: hadn't seen your entire post. I agree with your final point, I do like messing around wit the command line :-)).
I guess I'm not seeing your point here then. Having Unix, the most stable, secure, and widely used OS as OS X's back end was kind of the whole point of OS "X". Apple wrote their own proprietary OS from System 1 to OS 9.
OS X, pronounced OS Ten, was the jump to Unix, an OS that was already well known. So... yes, you can take away the GUI and have a Unix-BSD sub base OS behind it all. But why is that a bad thing?
Maybe you should go look up OS 9 and then go look up it's competition.
I guess I'm not seeing your point here then. Having Unix, the most stable, secure, and widely used OS as OS X's back end was kind of the whole point of OS "X". Apple wrote their own proprietary OS from System 1 to OS 9.
OS X was the jump to Unix, an OS that was already well known. So... yes, you can take away the GUI and have a Unix-BSD sub base OS behind it all. But why is that a bad thing?
Maybe you should go look up OS 9 and then go look up it's competition.
Hey! That I am the one who agrees with you! I think it was a wise decision for Apple to go UNIX, as you say, the most stable and secure OS and certainly one of the most used OS's in mission critical apps. It's my Mac OS X friend preacher who is trying to convince me that Mac OS X is a complete different creature all together from all other UNIX-es.
From your answer, I infer that you and I are on the same page.
Cheers!
Hey! That I am the one who agrees with you! I think it was a wise decision for Apple to go UNIX, as you say, the most stable and secure OS and certainly one of the most used OS's in mission critical apps. It's my Mac OS X friend preacher who is trying to convince me that Mac OS X is a complete different creature all together from all other UNIX-es.
From your answer, I infer that you and I are on the same page.
Cheers!
Well OS X "is" completely different. But not in the way you're talking about. Apple of course did edit their version of the Unix that's in OS X a little bit, but what makes OS X a completely different creature, as your friend calls it, is the UI itself. Lets face it, 99% of the users out there will never even touch a command line, and I'm sure a large percentage don't even know what it is. For those people the GUI serves a mighty purpose.
In Windows, using the GUI, if you want to change the IP address, something an IT admin does on a daily basis, you have to right-click on "My Network Places" (already a UI guidelines no-no by Apple's standards), then click properties, then right-click the the network interface (ethernet, wireless, etc), click properties, then find the TCP/IP Protocol, right-click that, hit properties AGAIN, (that's a total of 4 right clicks) and set the IP address.
Of course there are other means of getting to the same menu, but that's the easiest way. Which is still no easy task relatively speaking. And honestly, "logically speaking", is WAY too far out of the way, and misplaced. To do the same task in OS X, click the System Preferences icon in the dock, click "network" click either Ethernet or Wireless, and there it is, the IP address. Not hidden under 4 layers of submenus.
The entire OS is laid out like this. Logical, easy, and by far the most productive. No other OS even comes close to this simplicity. Most Linux boxes mimic the Windows UI, which is a mess of unfollowed guidelines. THAT is what your friend is talking about.
Well OS X "is" completely different. But not in the way you're talking about. Apple of course did edit their version of the Unix that's in OS X a little bit, but what makes OS X a completely different creature, as your friend calls it, is the UI itself. Lets face it, 99% of the users out there will never even touch a command line, and I'm sure a large percentage don't even know what it is. For those people the GUI serves a mighty purpose.
Yeah! I agree with that too. The UI is what makes Mac OS X different.
As for your last point, I just happen to be on the remaining 1%. To change the IP address there is nothing quicker than a ifconfig here and there. I find the Windows way painful (in Linux I just do it manually) but then again, it's what 90% + computer users have...
Cheers!
In the case of Mac OS X, if I take away the GUI and the high level stuff, all I see is a UNIX, same file structure, same commands (mv, cp, top, etc work equally well in HP-UX, Solaris, Linux...).
Yes, you can actually take away the GUI and run X11 on top of the BSD layer. Two ways for that: (1) run the OS X GUI and X11 in parallel and let the latter take over the screen (this will hide the former), (2) log in as console in the login window, once you have set up the necessary .xinitrc file. This will kill the OS X GUI and will let you in a pure X11 environment.
I have never tried the method (2), so I don't know the details or if there is something to pay attention to. But I love the commodity to have a full blown X11 environment running in a parallel world with hidden Mac OS X applications, ready to be called again with a keystroke when needed (in which case the X11 UI is hidden).
If you LIKE messing around with the command line and tweaking the OS to your every whim, then OS X isn't for you.
Why? Mac OS X comes with a terminal application (a proper OS X application) and with X11, under which you can install xterm, aterm, etc. You can mess with that as much as you like. Usual warnings apply of course.
Plus, a Macintosh is the only and one platform today capable to run virtually everything in parallel using the emulation and virtualization solutions available. This includes legacy Mac OS applications, almost everything Windows-related, many Linux distributions and Unix flavors too. And when you get enough of all that, the OS X GUI and application bundle (Apple and third-party) is there to give you relief.
... NT and DOS are both Unix children. Albeit more distant than Linux, but children nonetheless. When all is said and done, most every OS in existence has roots coming from Unix. ...
This is completely wrong. MacOS X 10.5 is certified by the Open Group as UNIX 03. Linux is what is known as a Unix workalike. MS-DOS has no roots in Unix. It is the evolution of Q-DOS, which Microsoft bought from Seattle Microcomputer. Q-DOS was largely copied from Intergalactic Digital Research's CP/M. CP/M was inspired by DEC's RT-11 for that company's PDP-8 [or was it the PDP-11] minicomputer. RT-11 predates Unix by years. NT was Microsoft's version of OS/2 with an incompatible GUI. IBM/MS OS/2 was largely designed by the same guy who designed DEC's VMS.
Thank you for your very good points. In fact, even Apple advertises Mac OS X as a UNIX with a GUI/UI (again, great ones!),
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html
So next time I have one of those Mac priests trying to convince me that Mac OS X is NOT a UNIX with a GUI, I'll tell them to read the sacred scripture of their church!!!!
Is Mac OS X to UNIX what Mormonism is to Christianity? Given that Mac OS X is UNIX certified, and the mormons didn't get the blessings of the Vatican while other christian faiths did, I am more tempted to say that Mac OS X is to UNIX what Anglicanism is to Christianity. For agnostics like myself, one will always find fanatics claiming that their denomination is better, but at the end of the day, they all look Christians to me, with very little differences from one another.
Cheers!
Simply put, I don't see anything in Mac OS X that I cannot get from either Windows or Linux.
Mac OS X has more software support than linux (no Adobe apps on Linux) and it is better than Windows for stability, overall performance, ease-of-use etc.
Take the benefits of unix with commercial support and you've got a recipe for the perfect OS. What lets Apple down is their hardware.
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
I would agree with that but those things are important. I've used Linux before and every time I've found it to be slow (driver issues probably) or just that there was nothing to do in it. You get Firefox, the GIMP software and instant messaging apps but what else can you do besides use one or two specialized commercial apps?
Media support is quite a big thing for me and Linux doesn't have Quicktime. I use that all the time in a variety of applications.
For me personally, OS X is the best unix platform and the easiest to use, which makes me question why people would use Linux. OS X can do stuff that Linux can't but Linux can't do anything OS X can't from what I can see. Windows has the best commercial software and driver support so it can offer more.
Also don't forget, a lot of what comprises OS X came from NextStep. OS X is a hybrid of Next and FreeBSD platform. Steve Jobs founded Next after he was kicked out of Apple.
For me personally, OS X is the best unix platform and the easiest to use, which makes me question why people would use Linux. OS X can do stuff that Linux can't but Linux can't do anything OS X can't from what I can see. Windows has the best commercial software and driver support so it can offer more.
Yes. If Mac OS X had a worldwide market share > 40 %, I think this question would be a no brainer. The problem is that it's not the case and I think it's unlikely to be the case unless Apple decides to open the Mac platform to other hardware manufacturers. And there is the catch: if Apple wanted to make Mac OS X an open hw architecture, they would run into the type of hw support problems for which MS has been accumulating knowhow during decades. Not sure if it's an easy challenge.
As you pointed out, one of the best things of Windows, which is largely ignored by most of its critics, is that for all its shortcomings in stability and security, it supports a wide variety of hardware seamlessly. Mac OS X's stability comes at the price of a very tightly controlled driver support. That's nothing new. During the UNIX wars, that was the model Sun, HP, IBM and Silicon Graphics tried. And none of those workstations was able to capture a sigfinicant market share in the desktop. True that none of those workstations was price competitive either with Wintel or Mac. But it's also true that the average non geek computer user (ie, people like my sister) doesn't care much about the stability/security aspect beyond a very minimum threshold. They care more about having an easy to use platform that is widely deployed and for which there are insane amouts of hw/sw to choose from: that's exactly what Windows gives them.
And in my particular case, most of the stuff that I do day to day with Windows (text processing, email, etc) is intended to interact with users who are 90% + Windows users. I don't want to waste a single second of my life having to deal with file formatting issues; we all know that no file format conversion across platforms is ever flawless (not even from Mac MS Word to Windows MS Word and viceversa). And for my non day to day ops, I have Linux!
Dear all,
I am having this discussion with a friend of mine who is a Mac preacher searching for converts (and I am the one he is trying to gain for the Mac religion
We are at a point of the discussion where it's coming down to whether Mac OS X is or is not a UNIX with a GUI (an excellent GUI I must say) bundled with extra software.
My claim, based on having worked for a long time with Linux (Redhat, Debian), HP-UX and Sun Solaris, is that Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI (I stress probably the best GUI ever built on top of a UNIX-like OS) + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users.
Ever since I abandoned the Commodore Amiga religion, I have a pragmatic approach with computer platforms. I love UNIX but at the same time I recognize that 90 % + of the world computers use Windows, therefore for my day to day operations, I use Windows.
For my non day to day operations, Linux is just great. And given that when I am using UNIX I rarely use any of the high level stuff, I prefer to go shell/filesystem instead (actually the ability to have full control of the OS from the shell is the reason why I like UNIX in the first place), I don't see any reason to move to Max OS X. Simply put, I don't see anything in Mac OS X that I cannot get from either Windows or Linux. The high level software bundled with Mac OS X doesn't compensate for having a minority OS, not for me at least. And as I said, I try to stay completely away from religious OS wars, I am done with that stage of my life.
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
Thanks!
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-certification
From the above link:
Mac OS X 10.5 on the Intel platform is a "true" UNIX OS, rather than just being UNIX-like.
I believe IBM and HP are the only other vendors who have a OS certified as such.
And there is the catch: if Apple wanted to make Mac OS X an open hw architecture, they would run into the type of hw support problems for which MS has been accumulating knowhow during decades. Not sure if it's an easy challenge.
No, it's relatively easy to get that right.
1) you define a tight set of hardware and software standards
2) you certify to (1)
This is what both Apple and Microsoft do. The problem Microsoft have is they have a large set of legacy technology to support and they didn't define or enforce standards tightly enough dating all the way back to their first 'Multimedia PC' specification. You also have lots and lots of manufacturers who do not follow standards and do not certify yet somehow it's Microsoft's fault when your uncertified card, printer or device addon doesn't work in a new release of Windows.
IME Microsoft gets a lot of crap thrown at them for device incompatibles when it's usually the device manufacturers fault.
So basically guys, do you agree with the statement Mac OS X is a UNIX + GUI + a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users?
To answer your initial question though...
No, it's not.
It's Real proper 100% UNIX (certified) based on BSD + a GUI + a whole set of advanced frameworks (as an ex-Amiga guy you'll know about Libraries) and other pervasive technologies built in to the core like Applescript (like ARexx but moreso), PDF creation in everything without hacks like Ghostscript or having to buy Acrobat....
I don't know what you mean by a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users. All the apps you get in OSX are pretty much pro grade tools.
If you buy a Mac you also get some bundled apps like iTunes, iPhoto etc as part of iLife. That isn't part of OSX. Do you mean those? if so, try using them - they're plenty powerful despite being easy to use for non expert users.
Perhaps you should read http://www.apple.com/macosx/
The point with Mac OS X is you don't have to choose between the power of Linux and the mainstream application support of Windows - you've got BOTH - and you've got Mac OSX and now you can even run Windows should you find there isn't a Mac or open source UNIX alternative. WTF would anyone run Linux as a desktop OS?
To answer your initial question though...
No, it's not.
It's Real proper 100% UNIX (certified) based on BSD + a GUI + a whole set of advanced frameworks (as an ex-Amiga guy you'll know about Libraries) and other pervasive technologies built in to the core like Applescript (like ARexx but moreso), PDF creation in everything without hacks like Ghostscript or having to buy Acrobat....
It seems to me that the answer is yes. You are even emphasizing that Mac OS X is actually real UNIX with 10.5, which is a good thing!
Some people's retoric try to deny that fact, in the same way that some Linux fanatics deny that Linux is UNIX. Oh well!
I don't know what you mean by a bunch of bundled software/applications intended for non expert users. All the apps you get in OSX are pretty much pro grade tools.
What I mean is that, in my case, I barely use any of the high level tools when I am in a UNIX environment. As an example, I do my backups with tar/gzip rather than letting some high level backup utility do it for me. Call me paranoid if you want, but to me (and to most expert users) that's the beauty of UNIX (which Windows lacks), I have full control of the OS from the shell. So, while I am sure many of the non expert users will appreciate the pro grade tools, I couldn't care less because I'll will not use them in most cases.
Perhaps you should read http://www.apple.com/macosx/
I have already played with Mac OS X, and the impression that I got is Mac OS X = UNIX with a GUI. And all the answers I've gotten so far, including yours, seem to agree with that statement (save a couple of pointless technicalities).
The point with Mac OS X is you don't have to choose between the power of Linux and the mainstream application support of Windows - you've got BOTH - and you've got Mac OSX and now you can even run Windows should you find there isn't a Mac or open source UNIX alternative. WTF would anyone run Linux as a desktop OS?
That isn't true. Windows is still by a huge margin the most widely supported platform for both HW and SW. And as I said, achieving such level of support is not a trivial task.
But even if I limited myself only to MS applications (Word/PowerPoint/Outlook), I still run the risk that I receive (or I send) a file to one of the many 90%+ who use Windows that has format conversion problems. Wasting 10 min to correct each such potential problems is not worth to me the change. Windows already takes care of that stuff. And for other stuff (like scientific computing), I have Linux. So, as I said, I really don't see the benefit of switching, for a user like me, unless Mac OS X was adopted by 40% + of users (which is unlikely to happen due to the strict control that Apple has on Mac OS X and the hardware).
Cheers!
It's a known fact that OS X is a BSD-derrived kernel + way awsome-o GUI. It's also a fact that Windows and OS X (and KDE and my cell phone) all do just about the same thing equally well. They give me pretty pictures to navigate my file system, execute my programs, and configure my operating system parameters.
That said, there are many differences between Windows, OS X, and the other *nix cousins that differentiate these options in the marketplace. Linux was (not so much anymore) a giant pain in the ass to install, configure, update, and fix. OS X had (not true anymore) a small user-base and limited available programs. Windows had *everything* available to *everyone* at *all* times and places.
Now this doesn't mean I'm preaching Windows doctrine. In fact I generally hate it. I've gotten lost one too many times in the registry and ended up crying on the floor while reinstalling some bastard re-incarnation of an M/S DOS GUI (Win95, 98, 98 SE, Me).
I digress. The point I wanted to make is this: Windows/Linux run on just about every computer you can fathom. You can (literally) blindfold yourself, thrash around wildly in the computer parts section of Staples, then drop an extension cord in the pile of mess and boot Linux. This is awesome until you have some quirky hardware incompatibility. Or, you could buy a Mac, which has *extremely* limited hardware options, but has a rock-solid OS that is custom-tuned to run almost solely on that hardware.
I honestly believe that is why OS X is so smooth and stable. There are no 'workarounds' and the like that you must play to get that new NIC card booted in your system. In a Mac, a piece of hardware either 'works', or it wasn't soldered to the motherboard during fabrication. As such, the operating system team spent less time supporting hardware and more time stabilizing the HW/SW interaction and the OS GUI awesomeness that OS X has.
As Linux gains market-share, open-source software matures, and Windows release dates slip (by years), I see Apple's OS market-share increasing as it rides the wake of Linux/open-source, as it already has many of the fundamental similarities (cult-like following, robust OS) with so much more eye-candy/fluff that the every-day user will swoon to. Macs are just plain easy to use.
So yes, get a mac. Use boot-camp and triple-boot Linux, OS X, and Vista, and have it all in one sexy aluminum box, and see which OS you really end up using more.
I quit reading about 5 posts in, so if this a repeat, I apologize.
....
.
I liked your answer. My friend said he'll lend me one of his Mac OS X computers (he has serveral) and I'll do some tests. However, it's unlikely that I switch because,
- As you said, Windows is everywhere. And to me, that's a big + of Windows despite the fact that, like yourself, I am not a a Windows fan. If the market share of Mac OS X increases to 40 %, then I'll give it a more serious thought. I know it's a chicken and egg situation, but I am into OS religious wars any more (ie, I am not going to adopt an OS just for the sake of fighting MS).
- In terms of cult following, I was (and in fact I still am even today in the deepest of my heart) an Amiga cult follower during my teens. Neither Linux nor the Mac can match the experience of owning an Amiga during the late eightes (when every other computer from the competition was years light behind in the multimedia and OS departments). And talking about cult following, the Amiga cult is pretty much alive despite the fact that no new Amiga hardware has been released for more than a decade. Whatever remains alive from the Amiga community is due to the loyalty of its followers. I haven't known any single computer platform able to match that type of following, not even Linux or Mac owners
Cheers!
I liked your answer.
Thanks! It was a long day at work - I was afraid that wouldn't make any sense.
My friend said he'll lend me one of his Mac OS X computers (he has serveral) and I'll do some tests.
Excellent! You know, checking email, surfing the web, etc. are identical on all the major OSes. Even every-day office work (Word/Excel/etc, databases/etc) are identical (or close to it) with Open Office and MS Office (Mac/XP only). I like Word more on my Mac than I did on XP because of all the toolbars that go transparent and that flashy GUI stuff. I find it funny that Linux and OS X mount shared Windows drives better than Windows does!
- In terms of cult following, I was (and in fact I still am even today in the deepest of my heart) an Amiga cult follower during my teens. Neither Linux nor the Mac can match the experience of owning an Amiga during the late eightes...
My first computer (I was five) was my father's old Amiga Commodore 1000. I had two 3-1/2" floppies and no hard-drive. In fact, I used the VGA monitor from that system for another 10-15 years as TV. I swear the best versions of Tron and Breakout (just to name a few of the classics) were on my Amiga. What an awesome machine.