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.

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.

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.

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...

Ugh you won't get anything good from here, way too many linux/mac fanboys; MesaRectifier for example.

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:

Because we all know there will be no windows fanboys arroung here...

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...

Nope, fanboy.

Self confessed

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...

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

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!!!

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.

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.

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.