camn: I have linux on my laptop. I like it.
soundprizm: I didn't mean to ignore you, its just that this issue has been beaten about quite to death (just search on 'mac')and I figure most folks here are horribly sick of this stuff (camn, don't read the following).
I will add to what RWhite and others have said. You (soundprizm) say: "almost everything is compatible with a PC, and almost nothing compatible with Mac" and "you haven't found anything that you would like to use on your PC 'incompatible'". The explanation for this is fairly straightforward, and is due to the historical development paths of the two platforms. I actually find it to be a very facinating story. (Most people on this BBS know all this, so y'all don't have to read it.) In the early eighties, Apple designed Mac to be a high end "micro", w/ bit mapped graphics, desktop publishing, stuff that had previously only been the domain of specialized workstations. I actually did some development for the Mac before it was released to the public (although most of my work since has been on PCs). Macs were considered increadibly cool then. Caught behind the eight ball, and not wanting to miss out on a new cash cow, IBM quickly countered with the IBM PC. Big Blue's (IBM's) strategy: a simple open architecture, a simple command line interface, use 3rd parties for software development, and mainly get it out the door, ASAP. IBM was the primo monolith computer hardware company back then: just mentioning it's name carried such overpowering clout in the business world that everyone figured a decisive victory was at hand. IBM also geared up for what they thought their key audience needed: better business machines, primarily better word processors. They were probably more interested in killing Wang at the time as opposed to duking it out with Apple. IBM manufactured PC hardware, wrote PC BIOS, but most other PC software, including the operating system itself was delegeted to 3rd parties. As RWhite said, at the same time Mac hardware and OS and was all tightly controlled by Apple-- all Mac based apps had to fit very neatly into the Apple Vision and standards. Their machines were higher end-- elitist-- and featured specialized "toolbox" graphics software (rom) and hardware. Macs sold well in universities. The seeds of the disparity between the two platforms, that you have noted, were thus sown, way back then. PCs had no graphics, ran several DOS flavors, had several hardware configurations, but despite this, American business embraced Big Blue, probably 'cause of its reputation. I started doing only PC work around that time. IBM wanted to sell lotsa hardware, so it was all kept very simple and open. Software developers were then being played against one another, and already PC operating system compatability problems were multiplying. I'm leaving out the whole networking here-- another day perhaps. Gates then somehow got the IBM PC to standardize on MSDOS, which he quickly forged into an inpenetrable layer of software. His dominion had begun. His operating system quickly became its own market. IBM then made several other bad decisions. I don't know all the details here, but, PC clones arrived on the scene, and IBM, once considered to be one of the most secure organizations in the world found itself practically dismembered by this whole thing. Turning the tables on the hardware giant, Gates then built the ever so pathetic Windows 3.1 directly on TOP of MSDOS, and before anyone even noticed, he managed to monopolize his newly created PC graphical operating systems market. He then forged the alliance with Intel. Events following that resulted in even more exponential profits for Bill, and some really crappy software for everyone else. Gates played all kinds of masterful games. He simultaneously kept one of his system doors open when he wasn't trying to compete in a particular software area, and slammed another shut when he yearned to devour a particular opponent. Going on in this manner he managed for a decade to stay several steps ahead, and in so doing became the richest man in the world-- and his windows platforms have always been fraught with a legacy of instability for all these reasons. I am not saying that all Microsoft Software sucks and that Steve Jobs is a saint. Nor am I saying that Macs dont have bugs. Apple certainly paid a heavy price elitism, closing their architecture off, and bad marketting. Anyway, you ask why things are the way they are, and these are the reasons. PCs and MS have gotten better, to be sure, but their embattled legacy and the Gate's original 'suck' philosophy remains: too much priority on the $, not enuf on the product. That's why they've always been cheaper, and also why most people who understand computers think they suck. But they're cheaper. And they work well, I guess, if you set them up right, and you can hack into it if you need to. I'm being serious. It's a tool, all tools are limited, but in the hands of a master it will work wonders.
peace,
jk
(ps someone make me shut up)
Im back to the 98 beta that Ive been using forever and ITS ROCK SOLID, FLEXIBLE and COMPATIBLE with everything. AND I have RIGHT CLICK MENUS!!!
) i had OS2 on my pc ones... uhmmm thinking hard here... don't know anymore but it was SHIT anyway. Does anyone know what that was then? (replaced it later for windows95 and then for dos 6.1