Home منوعات What`s the difference between Mac OS. Windows and Linux? people’s opinions

What`s the difference between Mac OS. Windows and Linux? people’s opinions

0
SHARE
What`s the difference between Mac OS. Windows and Linux? people's opinions
What`s the difference between Mac OS. Windows and Linux? people's opinions
 What`s the difference between Mac OS. Windows and Linux?
We usually want to know what is the difference between Mac OS, Windows and Linux ?we ask this question to find answers till people know it.
 the question was: 
What`s the difference between Mac OS, Windows and Linux?

and now know answers:
#1 : 
all three operating system are very similar today.  The big difference is under the hood. 
Windows is the most complex, in that each version is designed for backwards support of the previous versions.  The core of windows is the kernel, which is based on the OS/2 [1] operating system, and it, in turn, is based on MS DOS [2] which in turn was a cheap clone of CP/M [3].  Programs that were written for DOS will still run on windows computers today. Windows, like OS/2 is a POSIX [4] operating system, meaning that a program written for a POSIX operating system should compile and run on all POSIX operating systems with very little changes, if any.  Until recently, Windows was a multitasking OS but not a multi-user operating system.
Linux and Mac OS X are UNIX [5] type of operating systems.  They are so simillar it can be hard to draw a distinction between them. Linux was written from the ground up to be a free learning operating system.  The creator, Linus Torvalds [6] wanted a better UNIX than MINIX, and created what eventually became Linux [7].
Mac OS X, is the resulting of blending the NeXTSTEP [8] operating system from the NeXT Cube with Apple OS (at the time OS 9), resulting in OS X (OS 10).  OS X is based on the Mach kernel which is partially based on BSD UNIX.  As such, OS X has its roots in a UNIX OS, whereas Linux was based on UNIX concepts, and design patterns, but was created from scratch.
Today, Linux is the fully open source UNIX system (as is Free BSD), with many flavors that all share the same kernel. OS X is a blending of open source code and proprietary code. And Windows is wholely proprietary code.
Although they all share POSIX compliance, this compliance is limitted to the command line tools.  When it comes to the graphical user interface (the GUI), they are very different. OS X and windows use proprietary window management APIs that enforce a consistent user look and feel, whereas Linux has no standard.  In Linux there are literally dozens of options for the GUI, reaulting it huge fragmentation which means there is no consistent look and feel.  Even when the user chooses a desktop and window manager, the application may not support either and use its own interface.
Beyond the user interface, all these systems allow for multiple users to be able to use the computer concurrently, as well as providing authentication, authorization, and accouting facilities that all acheive the same end goal, but each has their own technique.

Today, all these systems interact with each other equally well. For most, the choice was made the day they bought their computer, but for the ambitious, the hardware does not orevent them from choosing their favorite OS.

#2: Well, everybody knows about Windows because you have to buy it when you buy a computer. It’s been compared to the faint whiff of pee in the subway; always there. Windows  is built on proprietary legacy code that leaves it more open to  malware, and takes more memory and hard drive space because of the  required anti-malware.  


Mac OS and Linux are very similar; both have roots in Unix, a simple but powerful and more secure operating system. Mac OS is proprietary, and it runs on their hardware, which jacks up the price. 

 Linux is open source, and free, so the user community can examine it for susceptibilities. Since Linux runs on cheap hardware like your generic Windows PC, it would be the clear winner for almost anything. But, you have to download and install Linux on your PC yourself, which for me takes about 15 minutes plus the download time.

Linux has a low market share among desktop and laptop PCs, somewhere in the tens of millions (nobody really knows for sure). Everything else – supercomputers, phones, servers, routers – is dominated by Linux. Many phones and tablets run on Android, which uses a Linux base. 

Because of this low market share, it is hard to get developers to write programs and drivers that work on anything but Windows – games, in particular. This is changing as more companies see the benefits of Linux, with Steam leading the way.

There are several different main types or “distro”s of Linux, and many different desktop environments, all of which are customizable to achieve the look and feel that the user desires. (Windows can achieve much of the same, but it usually requires extra programs.)Why Linux is better explains a little more. If that’s “too much choice” for you, the answer is simple: install ZorinOS, Ubuntu, or ElementaryOS and be happy. There are special distros for gamers, artists, musicians, TV watchers, spies, geeks, and many others. 

Here’s a graphical representation. I’m the guy on the bottom right. (Actually, I’m a retired vacuum tube engineer with gray hair.) 

#3 : PC refers to a “personal computer”. The name “personal computer” was coined by Olivetti in 1962 to describe their typewriter-sized Programma 101 computer. It wasn’t popularized until 1983 when IBM released their SCAMP computer which emulated their IBM 1130 minicomputer, but intended for a single user. Today it is widely used to refer to any desktop or smaller general-purpose computer; sometimes it is specifically used to refer to a computer that uses a microprocessor based around the Intel IA32 or x86_64 instruction sets, and sometimes even more specifically one running a version of Microsoft’s Windows operating system.


Mac refers to a specific brand of personal computer sold by Apple. Older models were based the Motorola 68000-series microprocessors, then the PowerPC RISC processors, and today Intel microprocessors. Early models shipped with a proprietary MacOS, later models shipped with an open-source OS called XNU based on the Mach microkernel and OpenBSD (this is the foundation for Apple’s OS X operating system).

Linux refers to an operating system kernel originally written by a Finnish university student named Linus Torvalds, released as open-source software, and subsequently developed by a larger community and packaged up in a variety of operating system distributions used on a wide variety of hardware platforms. It is processor-agnostic and runs on most any hardware platform using a general-purpose microprocessor).

#4 :

 #1: Flexibility

If you’ve used OS X, you know it’s user-friendly but not very flexible. In that regard, OS X is very much like Windows: You get what you have and there’s not much you can do with it. If you don’t like the layout of the desktop, you can move the Dock to either side, you can shrink it, or you can make it auto-hide. You can also add third-party applications and themes the desktop. Outside of that, you’re out of luck. Say, for example, you would like to have only the Dock on your desktop (with the taskbar features integrated). You can’t do it. That taskbar is as much a part of OS X as the Blue Screen of Death was in Windows 95. Linux is a different story. You don’t want the taskbar but you like its features? No problem. Add whatever features to whatever taskbar or panel you want. Linux can pretty much take any configuration you throw at it. And if you still don’t like what you have, install a different desktop or window manager and you’re good to go.
#2: Open source
One of the biggest issues that Linux users have with OS X is the license. Apple took a BSD kernel to create its own Darwin kernel, released it under the Apple Public Source License (which was accepted by the Free Software Foundation), and then layered on top of that proprietary software to create OS X. At one point, Apple created OpenDarwin, which was a collaborative effort between Apple and the open source community. That project lasted four years before Apple took it down because it felt the effort to create an open source Darwin operating system had failed. In 2007, PureDarwin was created to continue the work that was developed with OpenDarwin. The PureDarwin project has come a long way and can even run Linux-based window managers (such as Enlightenment) on top of it. OS X, however, is still locked tightly together and can’t compete with the openness of Linux.
#3: Command line
Although most OS X users would balk at this (saying they have no use for the command line), most power users know the command line is crucial to serious administrative tasks. In this department, OS X falls way short of Linux. With Linux, you can do pretty much everything you need from the command line. With OS X? Good luck. Sure, OS X does have a fairly good set of command-line tools, but for the power admin, it’s just not enough. This is one area of OS X that I simply can’t figure out. Why didn’t Apple just migrate the Linux coreutils over to OS X? There are projects aimed at getting coreutils to compile on OS X, but it would have made more sense to have this by default. The coreutils package is a huge toolkit that contains nearly every basic command you need. OS X had to reinvent that wheel. But this goes beyond the coreutils package. What about installing via command line? What about command-line security? What about starting/stopping services from the command line?
#4: Hardware requirements
I have two Macs in my household. One Mac is an old iBook running at 800 Mhz with a 512 MB of RAM. That machine is slow with OS X running on it. But with Yellow Dog Linux, that little laptop runs much snappier. Same hardware, different OS. The other Mac is a G4 1.2 processor with 1 GB of RAM. I have an equivalent Intel machine running Ubuntu 8.10. The machines do not even compare in performance. The Ubuntu machine is faster on all levels (from boot to application launch). Taking a look at the minimum system requirements for OS X and Ubuntu, you see:
OS X: 876 MHz or faster CPU, 512 MB of RAM, 9 GB of disk space
Ubuntu: 700 MHz x86 processor , 384 MB ofRAM, and 8 GB of disk space
So obviously Linux can run on lesser powered machines by default. And Ubuntu 8.10 is not the most optimized of the Linux distributions. Mandriva Spring 2008 has even fewer requirements (claiming to run on ANY CPU and only 256 MB of RAM).
I have read of benchmarking tests claiming that OS X outperforms Ubuntu 8.10 soundly. But real world results would seem to contradict those claims. I ran a less-than-scientific test with the Mac iBook G4 1.2 and the Ubuntu 8.10 on a 1.2 processor. Both machines had 512 MB of RAM. On the Ubuntu machine (running the Enlightenment window manager), I was able to open up the following applications before the machine began to bog down: Firefox, OpenOffice Writer, OpenOffice Calc, OpenOffice Impress, Scribus, The Gimp, Amarok, GnuCash, Thunderbird, Basket, Audacity, Gqview, and aterm. The OS X machine was a different story. With OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, and iTunes open, the machine started to crawl. There was a noticeable degradation in performance. That’s an OS running 14 applications vs an OS running four applications before the OS comes to a crawl. I don’t know about you, but I would prefer the ability to run 14 apps.
#5: Security
In the most recent “Pwn 2 Own” competition, both the OS X and the Windows Vista machines were hacked, whereas the Linux machine was not. Of course there are pundits across the globe who will argue this one from all three sides, and finding unbiased results is akin to finding a definitive answer to the age-old TCO argument. But I can say, unequivocally, after 10-plus years of experience with Linux, that I have never had a machine or server compromised in any way. This, of course, is not to say that OS X is unsecure. But Linux simply is better equipped in the area of security. How? Tools. With tools like iptables, fwbuilder, and SELinux, Linux can lock down in many ways, on many levels. So you take a similar kernel but you add to that kernel-level tools to heighten security, and you can quickly see how Linux overpowers OS X in the area of security.
6. Portability
Another area where Linux shines over all other operating systems is in its ability to migrate an installation from hardware to hardware. Linux has an uncanny ability to be able to relocate. I have taken complete hard drives and moved them from one machine to another. So long as the architecture was the same (in other words, not moving from a x86 to an x86_64 machine), the migration always seemed to work with little to no adjusting. OS X, on the other hand, is landlocked to the machine it was installed in. Also, with Linux, you can take certain directories and move them from machine to machine. This works well with the /home directory. Having the ability to migrate your /homedirectory from one machine to another can make building machines a snap. With OS X, you’ll always be reinstalling from scratch.
#7: Cost
This is a big one for many people. First, you have the cost of the operating system alone. Linux is free. Period. OS X is currently selling for $129.00. Next is hardware cost. The cheapest Macbook you can purchase is $999.00. You can purchase a $399.00 laptop that will run Linux like a champ from any given dealer. Add on top of that the cost of the software you will need, and you can run up a fairly large tab. Linux? Nada. You can have an office-ready Linux machine that will tackle most every task you put to it for the cost of the hardware alone. Mac? Not so much. So if you’re looking to cut costs (and who isn’t, in this economy?), Linux is the way to go.
#8: More available software
This may come as a surprise to you, but Linux has far more software available than OS X. In a completely unscientific test, I did a search for both Linux and OS X on Welcome to Freecode (an index of UNIX and cross-platform software). Here are the numbers: Linux 11,781 results. OS X 1,477 results. Of course, many would say that it’s not a fair search because Welcome to Freecode is decidedly an open source  leaning repository. With that in mind, lets turn to Google and search for OS X Software and Linux Software. The results: OS X 19,100,000 hits. Linux 45,700,000 hits.
One of the things that separates Linux from all other operating systems is that for every task in Linux, there are numerous tools available to undertake it. Let’s look at the task of word processing. For Mac, you have Microsoft Office and OpenOffice as the major players, and then you have minor players, like Bean, Nisus, Mellel, and NeoOffice. With Linux, you have the major player OpenOffice, and then you have the minor players Textmaker, Abiword, Hangul, EZ, Kwrite, gedit, nano, vi, emacs, Flwriter, Ted, Siag Office, LaTeX, EditPad Pro, etc. You get the picture. And yes, you can install Linux apps on OS X with Fink. I’ve done this. It’s not a good solution because the software often is prone to crashing or not running at all.
#9: Not so dumbed-down
I have tried to come up with the phrase that is the opposite of “dumbed down,” but I’ve had no luck. So work with me on this one. One thing that Apple did very well with OS X is dumb down the operating system interface to the point where most all tasks are easy for anyone to do. But there are those who do not want that dumbed-down experience. With Linux, you can have a desktop experience on every level. You can have the full-on, dumbed-down experience akin to OS X with either GNOME or KDE. Or you can go to the complete opposite and use the console as your desktop. Or you can experience anything and everything in between the two. With OS X, many power users feel like someone is holding their hand throughout the experience. With Linux, you can let go of that hand from time to time or even chop the hand off and replace it with a hook. When you’re using the Apple desktop, OS X is in control. When you use the Linux desktop, you are in control.
#10: Keyboard efficiency

One of my biggest pet peeves with OS X is the fact that there is no normally functioning Delete key. Instead you have to hit fn + Delete to get the delete key to work as it should. This is pretty common practice with the OS X keyboard, which is about as efficient to a hard-core programmer as a salad is tasty. And it’s not just the Delete key. The End key doesn’t do what you would expect, either. To get to the end of the line, you have to add the fn key to the End key (so fn + End will get you to the end of the line.) Another issue — mouse buttons. I know this is a fundamental design that makes sense to Apple. But the majority of people like two mouse buttons. And with Linux, you actually get THREE mouse buttons. With those three mouse buttons, you can even do a simple copy and paste function (highlight text with a left mouse button and then click the middle mouse button to paste). The Linux keyboard is just far more efficient than the OS X keyboard.

#5 : Windows – closed-source DOS (Disk Operating System)-based operating system, designed for general hardware.


OS-X – shared-source (some closed, some not) UNIX-based (Darwin kernel) operating system, designed and optimized specifically for Apple hardware.

Linux – depending on the flavour, either open, shared, or closed source (some commercial flavours are closed, most are open), UNIX-based operating systems designed for general hardware.

OS X and Linux flavours are distinct but quite similar in functionality (particularly at the command line level). Windows has the largest market share (>85%). 

In the end, every operating system has pros and cons, so I’m not going to get into a battle of which one’s better.