Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until companies like Adobe, Autodesk, Avid and others start selling native Linux builds of their graphics applications I will not even remotely consider making a platform switch.
Overall, operating systems mean very little in the great scheme of things. Applications are what makes any given platform great, not the OS itself.
The Mac didn't rise to the top in creative circles over the OS alone. If you wanted to do professional computer graphics work between the late 1980s and much of the 1990s you needed a Mac to get the work done. Over the last decade Microsoft has matched Apple by virtue of all the best graphics applications being available for Windows too.
Adobe has no plans on ever creative Linux native versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and its other industry leading professional applications.
I'm not interested at all in trying to run those applications under any kind emulation mode in Linux either. ALL emulation systems are slow, no matter how fiercely any fanboy cheer leads for it.
That basically leaves no advantage whatsoever for me to get my professional graphics work done using a Linux machine alone. I'm only going to be guaranteed of getting my work done more slowly and less productively just for the luxury of not paying Microsoft or Apple any money.
Before anyone even tries to suggest it, open source, Linux native graphics applications like The Gimp and Inkscape are no substitute for Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator.
The apps may be what makes a computer "great" as you put it, but it's the OS that makes the platform stable! I come from almost two decades of supporting a unix environment, in a true production environment you run a stable OS, and that's unix!
Until companies like Adobe, Autodesk, Avid and others start selling native Linux builds of their graphics applications I will not even remotely consider making a platform switch.
Overall, operating systems mean very little in the great scheme of things. Applications are what makes any given platform great, not the OS itself.
The Mac didn't rise to the top in creative circles over the OS alone. If you wanted to do professional computer graphics work between the late 1980s and much of the 1990s you needed a Mac to get the work done. Over the last decade Microsoft has matched Apple by virtue of all the best graphics applications being available for Windows too.
Adobe has no plans on ever creative Linux native versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and its other industry leading professional applications.
I'm not interested at all in trying to run those applications under any kind emulation mode in Linux either. ALL emulation systems are slow, no matter how fiercely any fanboy cheer leads for it.
That basically leaves no advantage whatsoever for me to get my professional graphics work done using a Linux machine alone. I'm only going to be guaranteed of getting my work done more slowly and less productively just for the luxury of not paying Microsoft or Apple any money.
Before anyone even tries to suggest it, open source, Linux native graphics applications like The Gimp and Inkscape are no substitute for Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator.
Really??? Ever hear of Silicon Graphics?? Those who really know the evolution of computer graphics know that SGI was the desktop of choice from the late 80's through most all of the 90's when it came to having to do real work on the desktop. What was SGI's OS, it was Irix, not Windoze!
For all of the applications that run on Windows there are versions created for Linux that operate just about the same, if not better. And there is an adobe acrobat reader for Linux, as well as drawing and photography software (like Gimp). Sure it takes getting a little used to the OS and how these apps work but I was tired of crappy Vista and all of the other windoze fluff; the slow response time, constant hang-ups and crashes - it was too much. Since this isn't my work computer I can afford to run Linux and learn all of the ins and outs. I'm very happy with its stability and availability of free programs that work similar to all of those windoze apps, except that nothing crashes.
I'm starting to see a religious war on the horizon, and we're NOT going to do that here.
There have been a few valid points made, but the tone looks like it could get loud in a few more posts... Let's ALL be grown-ups and have an amiable discussion as opposed to a war between the I-Cult and the PC People. We're all adults here.
There are pros and cons to every OS.
Here's my take on things:
Briansgi (and I knew what his handle meant. ) made some excellent points.
In a production environment where everything HAS to work ALL the time, Unix is superior. Once properly set up, your systems will run flawlessly until you have a hardware failure. NOTHING is more stable. For those who didn't know, Linux is an open source derivative of Unix.
Another advantage of Linux / Unix is that it runs fast on modest hardware.
You don't need to replace your machines every time a new version comes out.
And as far as graphics go, I remember in the 90s that the SGI was the Holy Grail of power and processing in the graphics and animation world... It was good for everything else too.
Bobby H also had some valid points:
Since Unix is not really geared to the home user, there is a serious lack of applications available to the casual and semi-professional user.
Linux is a more friendly Unix like OS, but it too, sorely lacks in some application areas because of it's small market share. While there are many Open Source versions of popular applications, most of the big software companies do not make Linux native versions of their applications, and running them in emulation mode or on a virtual machine is not sufficient in a commercial environment. Sometimes there's nothing like the real thing.
But if you want to get down to where the cheese binds, for the average user, you're going to pay more for MAC hardware. You're going to have fewer choices of everyday apps than you would in Windows (because MS has the biggest market share) and they're going to be more expensive.
Quite frankly, a MAC is no harder or easier to use, it's just different. Everyone has their own preference.
Also for those who didn't know, MAC's OS-X is built on top of BSD (another Unix derivative) with many UI enhancements.
Windows currently has the biggest market share thanks to MS's marketing and predatory business practices. That said, no software company can go wrong writing Windows apps. You can do just about anything you want on it.
There are a few cons though...
You get very little out of the box without buying a lot of apps.
The stability is only so-so for the average user.
The OS is SO bloated that you need BIG hardware to make it run at a reasonable speed, especially in the case of Vista.
The security is ABYSMAL, you need to get at least three 3rd party utilities to keep the nasties out of your machine. And yes, there are MANY, MANY more nasties written to kill your Windows because Trojan and virus writers also go after the biggest market share.
If MAC or Linux were king, people would start writing malware for those also...
The difference is that Unix / Linux would survive it a LOT better because of its user structure. It's more secure. The rule here is "Least Rights Required" to perform your tasks. Even if you're a goofy user, visiting evil sites and installing malware, the rights hierarchy will not allow a single user to blow up the machine and render it un-bootable.
For those who say "Well, you can have Administrators and Users in Windows", I submit to you: Try using your Windows box as a Limited User for a week, and see how much hair you have left afterwards.
All that being said, it IS possible to run Windows trouble-free...
If you REALLY know what you're doing.
When it comes to an OS, the perfect one for you depends on what you use your computer for.... PERIOD.
And all of you need to stop calling Synop a Linux fanboy!
He's finally been able to try something he's always wanted to try, and he's liking it because it's shiny, new and exciting for him, and his machine is now performing twice as well as it did under Vista. For his uses, it will fit the bill very nicely.
Computers and OS's are tools... Not a religion!
Let's keep the tone friendly here and have a nice, enlightening discussion.
I'm starting to see a religious war on the horizon, and we're NOT going to do that here.
There have been a few valid points made, but the tone looks like it could get loud in a few more posts... Let's ALL be grown-ups and have an amiable discussion as opposed to a war between the I-Cult and the PC People. We're all adults here.
There are pros and cons to every OS.
Here's my take on things:
Briansgi (and I knew what his handle meant. ) made some excellent points.
In a production environment where everything HAS to work ALL the time, Unix is superior. Once properly set up, your systems will run flawlessly until you have a hardware failure. NOTHING is more stable. For those who didn't know, Linux is an open source derivative of Unix.
Another advantage of Linux / Unix is that it runs fast on modest hardware.
You don't need to replace your machines every time a new version comes out.
And as far as graphics go, I remember in the 90s that the SGI was the Holy Grail of power and processing in the graphics and animation world... It was good for everything else too.
Bobby H also had some valid points:
Since Unix is not really geared to the home user, there is a serious lack of applications available to the casual and semi-professional user.
Linux is a more friendly Unix like OS, but it too, sorely lacks in some application areas because of it's small market share. While there are many Open Source versions of popular applications, most of the big software companies do not make Linux native versions of their applications, and running them in emulation mode or on a virtual machine is not sufficient in a commercial environment. Sometimes there's nothing like the real thing.
But if you want to get down to where the cheese binds, for the average user, you're going to pay more for MAC hardware. You're going to have fewer choices of everyday apps than you would in Windows (because MS has the biggest market share) and they're going to be more expensive.
Quite frankly, a MAC is no harder or easier to use, it's just different. Everyone has their own preference.
Also for those who didn't know, MAC's OS-X is built on top of BSD (another Unix derivative) with many UI enhancements.
Windows currently has the biggest market share thanks to MS's marketing and predatory business practices. That said, no software company can go wrong writing Windows apps. You can do just about anything you want on it.
There are a few cons though...
You get very little out of the box without buying a lot of apps.
The stability is only so-so for the average user.
The OS is SO bloated that you need BIG hardware to make it run at a reasonable speed, especially in the case of Vista.
The security is ABYSMAL, you need to get at least three 3rd party utilities to keep the nasties out of your machine. And yes, there are MANY, MANY more nasties written to kill your Windows because Trojan and virus writers also go after the biggest market share.
If MAC or Linux were king, people would start writing malware for those also...
The difference is that Unix / Linux would survive it a LOT better because of its user structure. It's more secure. The rule here is "Least Rights Required" to perform your tasks. Even if you're a goofy user, visiting evil sites and installing malware, the rights hierarchy will not allow a single user to blow up the machine and render it un-bootable.
For those who say "Well, you can have Administrators and Users in Windows", I submit to you: Try using your Windows box as a Limited User for a week, and see how much hair you have left afterwards.
All that being said, it IS possible to run Windows trouble-free...
If you REALLY know what you're doing.
When it comes to an OS, the perfect one for you depends on what you use your computer for.... PERIOD.
And all of you need to stop calling Synop a Linux fanboy!
He's finally been able to try something he's always wanted to try, and he's liking it because it's shiny, new and exciting for him, and his machine is now performing twice as well as it did under Vista. For his uses, it will fit the bill very nicely.
Computers and OS's are tools... Not a religion!
Let's keep the tone friendly here and have a nice, enlightening discussion.
Until companies like Adobe, Autodesk, Avid and others start selling native Linux builds of their graphics applications I will not even remotely consider making a platform switch.
Blah, blah, blah... etc.
ALL emulation systems are slow, no matter how fiercely any fanboy cheer leads for it.
(Insert some words and stuff here.)
My dear boy, you might consider getting your ears checked, for I hear no fan boy cries and cheers. Simply a man who finally got a chance to run Linux properly and is excited about it. Surely new experiences excite you as well?
Did anyone in this thread tell you that you should switch? No. Then why bring this up? Making your post a bit of an irrational, irrelevant rant in what otherwise would have been a decent thread.
I could tell you of my personal experience with emulation systems, (Wine, DOSbox, VMware, and various console emulators. Specifically Wine.) but I doubt you would care, and I would rather not give you something else to rant on.
The only fan boy cries I hear are your own. Please, kindly accept other's operating system choices even though they may not be your own. I am a person who has used Linux, Microsoft, and Apple operating systems, and this policy is one I have learned to embrace. (That's right, no calling me a fan boy of anything. I'm sorry.) Since no one attacked you, I see no reason for you to defend. (Feeling insecure?)
On a more positive note, Synopsis, I am glad to see that Linux is finally working for you. You will find that using it is quite the learning experience. (In a fun way.)
Also, might I add that Tiger, and Leopard are based on BSD? Think about that.
Last edited by KingSkully; 12-31-2007 at 07:55 AM..
Reason: Wanted to add something...
And all of you need to stop calling Synop a Linux fanboy!
He's finally been able to try something he's always wanted to try, and he's liking it because it's shiny, new and exciting for him, and his machine is now performing twice as well as it did under Vista. For his uses, it will fit the bill very nicely.
Computers and OS's are tools... Not a religion!
Let's keep the tone friendly here and have a nice, enlightening discussion.
Can I get an Amen?
Amen brother! That's precisely why I prefer to get my tech support on the OK thread.
Warrior tech wars is on full throttle in other parts of the tech internet kingdom. We are here to listen and learn to both sides.
Linux as in Ubuntu absolutely sucks. It is highly user unfriendly. Upon installaton I was totally clueless as to how you install the drivers. I quickly abandoned it and wiped it off and happily went back to windows XP. Unless you're prepared to take a lot of time learning how to run it, I would strongly urge anyone from installing anything like Linux. You will, indeed be sorry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) made some excellent points.
