Welcome to the bonus section of the Open Source Operating System mini-series. The bonus topic for today is all about Live CD's or LiveUSB. I created this section to give everyone some information on how they can try these open source operating systems without formatting or having virtualization software. The key to doing this is the "live" concept that Linux uses extensively. So here we go:
Live CD's are versions of an operating system that don't require a full install to run. They allow you to boot the operating system from the live disk and use the features of the OS almost as if you had installed it. For those of you that feel inclined to try out one of the operating systems I have highlighted or maybe another one you have heard about, it is easy with Live CD's. I found a list of the operating systems - with download links - that have Live CD's so you can play with them: click here. To create a Live CD, you need only download the ISO (disk image) and use an ISO burning software (Nero or ImgBurn) to put it on the disk. Thats it. You just run the disk on startup or there are even version that let you run the disk over your native OS and you are set. It seems to me that Ubuntu has the most popular version of a Live CD out there so check it out.
Live USB = A live USB or thumb drive would allow you to do the same thing as a Live CD with one fundamental difference. Rather than having a live image to boot from, you can actually install the full operating system on the USB thumb drive. This means that you can insert your thumb drive into the USB port, change your BIOS settings to "boot from USB drive" and then actually boot the computer from your thumb. This is actually a tool that a lot of hackers (the bad kind) use to get access to a hard drive without accessing the native operating system. That is the illegal application of this concept. The legal application is that you can boot to an operating system, get the internet, do whatever else you need to from ANY computer (that allows you to boot from USB). It also provides you a way of experimenting with various Linux OS's without all the cost of buying an extra hard drive or formatting your existing one. Here is a Google search with links to various tutorials and other such useful information (that way I don't have to do all the leg work of explaining it).
Welcome to Part 2 of the Open Source Operating System mini-series. Today's focus is OpenSuse, a sponsored OS by Novell.
Introduction
The OpenSuse website says this about the project: "The openSUSE project is a worldwide community program sponsored by Novell that promotes the use of Linux everywhere. The program provides free and easy access to openSUSE. Here you can find and join a community of users and developers, who all have the same goal in mind — to create and distribute the world's most usable Linux. openSUSE also provides the base for Novell's award-winning SUSE Linux Enterprise products." The fact that Novell is behind the development of this software is interesting because it adds an element of more professionalism to the applications. It doesn't really make it better than other distro as big companies are behind other distros but Novell has done a great job with their Suse project. The OS is based on GNOME which is the GUI that a lot of Linux distros are based upon.
Features
Desktop: The look and feel of the OpenSuse desktop is similar to Ubuntu and XP. An interesting feature that OpenSuse has that Ubuntu does not is a virtual desktop - basically that means that you can seperate your open windows onto different windows and even go through them in a unique way. It also has a lot more desktop effects than other open source OS's like when you grab a window to move it, it kind of of sways with the way you move the cursor. The start menu is really intuitive on OpenSuse: it tabs between documents, applications, and network places to make searching fast, easy, and clean. (see last screen shot - the blue one)
Audio: OpenSuse uses Banshee audio player which I like a lot. It is actually pretty similar to the iTunes format. It also seperates into 3 different windows for artists, albums and songs so that you can sort your music really easily. Playback is typical. Banshee links to online stores so that users can purchase music and play them like on iTunes and other popular audio players. (see center shot for a look at the layout)
Visual: The graphics and video playback are what you would want and expect out of an OS. The graphics are slightly better than Ubuntu but only because the OS includes desktop effects that are pretty fun to play with. A reader pointed out on the Ubuntu post, however, that modifications can be made to the OS's to create better visual effects in Ubuntu (which is true of many Linux distros). Check out his page for an idea of how the GUI's can be modified to have a better look and feel. This is a great demonstration of how users can get MORE out of Linux based OS's because the code is not fenced in and closed off from third party modification. Linux is based on the ability of users to develop ways to customize their user experience and get more out of their machines. The problem is the technical know-how that is required to get these results.
Support Forum: OpenSuse has one of the larger support forums for users out of the Linux distros. This is a plus for users that want a free OS but also need some support and help learning how to use it. I will also note that Ubuntu has a large support forum as it is truly the Linux operating system (in my opinion) that has done most to actually make a system that is user friendly and aimed at ordinary, non-IT savy people.
E-Mail: OpenSuse uses Evolution (like Ubuntu) which interfaces with some e-mail accounts (Google in particular). This is like having Outlook on an XP. Evolution is even easier to use in my opinion.
Takeaway
Well, OpenSuse is probably the best Open Source OS out there with a large corporate sponsor. I think it is the most intuitive, the most in line with what consumers want, has the best features, is the sleekest, easiest to customize desktop OS that is free. Be warned, there is a costly one that is even better but it costs something like $80. A lot of companies buy the liscense becasue it is a stable, virus-free environment for their desktop users - and they get professional support from Novell, the company that backs the development of the OS. In the next post, I am going to tell you how you can play with these Linux distributions without having to format your computer or virtualize the OS through the use of Live CD's and Live USB's.
Welcome to Part 2 of Open Source Operating Systems. If you missed Part 1, click here. Today we will focus on Ubuntu. I really like Ubuntu. It was the first Linux distro that I used and I really think it is intuitive and very similar to Windows XP. This is how I will break down each exploration of the operating systems featured in the mini-series: Basic Introduction (background, history) and then Basic Features (userability and how it compares to Windows). The breakdown will be pretty simple but hopefully give you enough of an introduction to understand how you could benefit from it.
Introduction
Ubuntu says this about themselves: "Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more." It was made by a develpoment team (and a community of open developers) for developers and for the use of an everyday Joe like me. So the intimidation factor is really a non-issue when you consider that this product was made for a wide spectrum of users, you included.Ubuntu is an operating system much like Windows actually. It has many of the same characteristics. Using VMware Fusion (click here for info on that little gem of technology) I installed Ubuntu on my computer. I don't use it primarily as I have no need to. The OS, however, is definitely usable as a sole operating system. In fact, I would wager that it could substitute for any mainstream OS.
Features
Accessories: Ubuntu has all the basic accessories you would expect from an operating system like a calculator (advanced one even), desktop sticky notes, dictionary, text editor, bluetooth, wireless technology software interface, screenshot taker, disk analyzer, and anything else you could need. If the basic package does not come with a specific accessory that you need or want, you can get it very easily on the internet. All those things are really limited use and luxury items but Ubuntu has them. It doesn't do anything better necessarily than Windows in this arena although it does have a sticky note applicataion that is pretty cool.
Install: Easy shmeezy... Using a virtualization software, simply load up the ISO and go for it. If you are formatting and installing Ubuntu, boot from CD and follow the instructions. Its pretty step-by-step but if you need assistance, contact me.
Internet: you can use whatever open source web browser you want with Ubuntu. My preference is Firefox (on all platforms really) and it works beautifully with Ubuntu. The internet experience is basically the same as on Windows although some websites interact differently with Firefox than with Internet Explorer. (I took a screenshot of Firefox for y'all - see right)
Instant Messenger: Ubuntu comes standard with an instant messenger that interfaces with a variety of different e-mail accounts, Gmail most importantly.
E-Mail: the application interfaces with Google and some other e-mail services but does not work with Exchange accounts. I also loaded up Thunderbird (which I will feature in later posts) and found it to run delightfully.
Audio: Ubuntu comes with an application called Rythmbox Music Player. Playback is great. I like the way it organizes the music. It has a window for artist, album, and songs. It also has access to music stores similar to iTunes. The OS also comes with a CD burner, CD ripper, and sound recorder. You can see the player to the right with a little chess going on in the back.
Visual: The graphics and general user interface are great. You can see in the scren shots I have taken and appear throughout this post that it has a pretty cool look. Of all Linux-based operating systems, I have found Ubuntu to be the most basic but easiest to use. In this arena, think of Ubuntu as XP. It is really quite similar. Video playback with Ubuntu is great. There is an aplication called Movie Player that plays DVD, AVI, MPEG4, etc. It also comes with a graphics editor and photo manager that both are easy to use and pretty cool actually.
Games: the OS comes with basic puzzle and arcade games (more than XP and a better variety too) but you cannot play games that you purchase from the store as they are not made (typically) for Linux-based OS's.
Takeaways
Basically, Ubuntu is a great OS for anyone looking to surf the web, listen/download music, watch movies, and produce any kind of office document (spreadsheet, document, presentation, database). It does all the basic things you would expect from an OS and with style. If you think about it, it is pretty amazing to get those applications without costing you a penny. Truthfully, I think Ubuntu has done a huge thing for the Open Source community by really making OSS OS's usable by the everyday person. Other distros are doing similar things which is execellent. The OSS movement really needs OS's like Ubuntu because they standardize and drop the level of skill required to use them. So check it out. The live CD is really good.
This mini-series is dedicated to Linux-based operating systems. That lovable little penguin to the left is the symbol of Linux. I am a relative neophyte to the Linux arena and as such, these posts will focus on the capability these operating systems have to substitute for popular, mainstream operating systems (i.e. Windows and OS X). If I were on top of the Linux game, I could probably give you a more in depth look at each of these OS's. I can, however, offer the perspective of someone who knows a little about them and can use them enough to be able to get along without Windows or OS X. Most importantly, the operating systems I will highlight in the mini-series are a FREE substitute for otherwise costly software. Linux-based operating systems are not always free. In fact, the Open Source Software model is a viable business concept. The idea behind the mini-series is to introduce you to Linux and then highlight characteristics of a few different distributions of Linux-based operating systems. This first part will be solely introduction, upcoming posts will then focus on the desktop version of Ubuntu, OpenSuse, and Live CD's or thumbs. Prepare yourself for a look into Open Source Software (OSS) and Linux.
Some Definitions:
Open Source: any application that has open source code. Source code is the "stuff" applications are made out of. If you want an example of source code that is really basic, simply right click anywhere that isn't a link or a picture on my site here and select "view page source" from the drop down menu. What you see is a bunch of gibberish that is actually what makes this website. Operating systems have a source code rooted in an entirely different language, but you get the point. When source code is open, it means it is viewable and, therefore, modifiable. There is an official open source definition that regulates the use of the term that you can find here (for example I can't just go around saying stuff is open source when it fails to meet the definition - this is a serious legal issue). I read it and found it rather interesting. Lastly, open source does not mean free. A product can be open source and yet be owned and sold by a company that distributes it.
Linux: Basically, Linux is what operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called. See "Kernel" below for a description of a kernel. The kernel was originally designed by Linus Torvalds in 1991 which is where the name originates. The kernel is used in a variety of "Linux" operating systems including, but not limited to: Red Hat, Suse, Mandrive, Ubuntu, etc. When a person says "I use Linux" they could be refering to a variety of distributions of Linux-based operating systems (see definition below).
Kernel: a Kernel is the basic building block of an operating system (see diagram on right). Its basic function is to manage system resources. So think of the operating system in layers. There is the resource layer, the kernel layer, and the application layer. The kernel is the facilitator.
Linux Distribution: a Linux Distribution (or distro) is a deliverable operating system based upon the Linux kernel. Deliverable does not mean finished, rather that the operating system is delivered to "mid-users" and/or "end-users". A "mid-user" or developer is a person that will download or otherwise obtain a copy of the operating system and further develop the code of that OS while the end-user is the individual that will actually use the system to perform the tasks it was designed to carry out. It is important to note that end-users in the case of a Linux distribution are very often developers as well. Linux distributions never really stop being developed. For example, servers (the things that run large application and handle large loads of users and data) are often based upon open source products like FreeBSD, Solaris, and Linux. Such products are developed and sold by a company (end-user) with an open source code that allows the company to modify and customize its performance (development).
Business Implication of the Open Source Model
It is important to note how the Open Source Software model has affected the business element of software development. First, what is the traditional software development model? Basically, think Microsoft, Apple, and any company that produces a product that you can't change. They sell a product that is meant to be used by a range of consumers. When I think traditional model, I think: closed source code, powerful applications, customer service, lots of money, sometimes monopoly. This does not mean that they can't produce customizable products, but it does mean that you can't see their kernel. They don't want you to see it because it is their trade secret. Like a the secret recipe to Coke. Coke will NEVER give out their recipe because it is what makes them unique and special. This also doesn't mean that companies that follow an Open Source model can't be unique and special.
How does Open Source as a business model differ? We have established that the software isn't always free. In many cases, businesses own the software and make money off it. How does it work if the source code is open? Well, a company basically licenses their product to other companies or individuals to use and they leave the source code open to them. Why is this better than just getting the same product free and open? Well, two reasons really: 1) the product is ready for customization or is customized to meet the needs of the purchasing company upon delivery (or going live, or whatever); 2) these companies provide customer service akin to what you would expect from any other, non-open source company. Now, obviously many companies can still customize their products to meet the specific needs of their customer without following the open source model. The real difference is that a company offering an open source code really is allowing the customer to do what they want with the product outside of whatever they are willing to customize themselves. This model has been adopted on a large scale by companies like IBM, Sun Microsystems, Novell, etc. Even Microsoft, over the years, has opened itself up to the notion of developer communities and even opened up bits and pieces of their highly secretive Windows kernel. As a side note, ALL of the Chinese, Brazilian, and many other governments use ONLY open source software.
What Does All This Mean to You?
The thing about Linux in general is it is intimidating to use. The Linux community is full of computer geeks that love to fiddle around with the source code of all the applications they use so that they get exactly what they want. Most people aren't insane computer geeks like that so the notion of using a product they use is rather uninteresting. I completely understand this sentiment as it is one that I struggle with too. However, it is really important to know that a lot of the time, developers that make these products have the end-user (like you) in mind. They are actually trying to design a product that you can use because they either want to sell it to you (as a more cost effective substitute than say Windows or OS X) or they believe that everyone should be able to obtain products like operating systems legally and free of charge. The products we will focus on in this mini-series are like this. They are operating systems that are free, easy-to-use, and, best of all, require little Linux know-how to operate.
Takeaways:
Please don't feel intimidated if these ideas are new to you or if Linux geeks have frightened you before. What we are about to explore is really interesting and easy to understand on a basic level. I hope that you feel at least a little inclined to play around with open source operating systems as a result of this mini-series. If not, I hope that you understand it a little better and even understand that it is a viable business model.
Welcome to Part 4 of the Mac or PC mini-series. We have covered the price, operating system performance, and perks of the operating systems. Its been a bit exhausting up to this point but I hope that the information helps you make a choice. If not that, I hope that you at least know more now about Vista and Leopard, PC and Mac than you did before. Today's focus is to talk about quality a bit and finally conclude the mini-series. Here we go:
Is quality an issue? The question of quality is really related to consumer perception and actual performance. It boils down to a question of the manufacturing inputs involved for both companies. There is a huge difference between Apple and Microsoft on this front. Apple controls every aspect of their supply chain. They find hardware suppliers (sometimes do it themselves), they manage the logistics, they control the distribution channel. Microsoft, on the other hand, is involved solely in selling licenses. They sell the right to distribute their OS to an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) Dell, HP, Sony, etc. They don't necessarily care about the supply chain to the extent that Apple does. They don't sell the computers that contain their OS. They sell the OS. How does this relate to quality? Apple can control the quality of their OS, the processor, the memory, the hard drive, the blah, the blah , the blah. Microsoft can control the quality of the OS, the vendor, the... that's it.
I think the most obvious implication of this fundamental difference is that Apple can control more aspects of the system their OS is delivered on than can Microsoft. You can ONLY buy Mac from Apple or licensed dealers and either way Apple produces it, no one else. You can buy a PC from any licensed distributor: in other words, Vista can be found on a wide spectrum of systems ranging from real crap to superb. So, when purchasing a PC, you MUST be aware of who you are buying the system from AND what system you are purchasing. Boiled down, a consumer of PC and Mac asks his or herself the following basic questions for each:
PC = what do I want? who am I getting it from? what system? what hardware? will it work? Mac = what do I want? what system?
The purchasing decision for a Mac buyer is fundamentally easier than it is for a PC buyer. The question of quality, therefore, is more straightforward for Mac buyers than PC buyers (i.e. Mac buyers know what they are getting, PC buyers know what they are getting after more research and evaluation of each manufacturer and system).
Is one really better than the other? If we are just talking about the operating systems, both are very good. Both Vista and Leopard are wonderful accomplishments. To find out which one you prefer most, use them. Play with both of them and do the things you normally do on a computer. You will find out a lot more that way than you will reading my post. I hope that through this little exploration, you have learned new things about both systems and I hope that you will go out and use both. Honestly, I use both operating systems and I really like both of them.
So that's it for this mini-series. Its been fun! Lastly, remember that quality depends on the manufacturer. So if you do decide to buy a PC, investigate the manufacturer AND the specific model you are purchasing. Do a google search for problems with specific models and you will find out if they are having HDD problems, incompatability issues, or whatever.
Welcome to the third installment of the Mac or PC mini-series: Operating System - Perks. I call this section "perks" because it is really an explanation of the features of each operating system that are unique to it. I don't want to talk about the things that each operating system does that the other does just as well like mail applications or iTunes. You will notice, however, that I will focus on certain things that, although both can do, one does better. I want to explore the perks of each operating system as extensively as possible so we will do Vista today and Leopard tomorrow. So let's get started.
Aero: this is the sleek new GUI (graphics user interface) that is a part of the new PC user experience. I briefly mentioned this new feature in my last post but it is certainly of note here. Really, Aero by itself is too broad. Lets narrow it down by the features of the new GUI:
Glass: This is what makes the whole environment look glossy and transparent. You can even customize the colors of your windows to give it the look and feel you prefer the most. The transparency of the windows can be increased so that the windows are practically see-through. Look at the picture to the right and notice that the borders surrounding each of the windwos are practically transparant. This gives Vista a very sophisticated look.
High dpi: Vista comes with greaters dpi (dots per inch) power. Basically, the resolution is better using Vista than in any previous version of Windows.
Live Thumbnails: This is nifty little feature that allows you to see what a minimized window is simply by putting the cursor over the top of it. It expands an image of the window so you can figure out if that is the one you really wanted to open. See the picture on the Right.
Windows Flip and Flip 3-D: Windows Flip by itself is not a new or unique feature. The 3-D version is though. Flip allows you to select between windows on your desktop by pressing alt+tab. A selecter opens up that allows you to tab through to find the window you want. Flip 3-D does the same thing, only it actually arranges the windows in a 3-D fashion and allows you to pick one. I like this feature and it definitely adds to the user experience of Vista.
I have to be fair here. While these features are really nice, they make Vista an extremely heavy operating system. The idea behind Vista, according to Microsoft, was to make it easier to focus on content rather than the environment. Well, I guess I'm not sure if they accomplished that by focusing on the environment and loading it down with features. A lot of Vista users, myself included, agree that Vista is too heavy for its own good. Which is actually why, in the windows family, I prefer the XP diet. Vista users would be interested in the ReadyBoost feature (see below) that offsets this rather significant disadvantage. Office Apps: I personally feel that Microsoft Office 2007 is the most innovative package of office applications available. The "ribbon" idea is extremely easy to use. The buttons on the ribbon make it very easy to get what you want in a document, spreadsheet, or database. I will admit that it does require the user to learn the nuances, however, once learned, Office 2007 is a powerful office suite. I really like it. To make a direct comparison with Office 2008 for Mac, the PC version is much more powerful. I am not sure if this is because Microsoft does not want to make an "as-awesome" version of Office for Mac or if Mac users don't think that the PC style is "as-awesome" as the Mac style. Basically, I hate that Office Mac uses a toolbox which is far inferior to the ribbon on Office PC. Either way, because I personally dislike Office 2008 for Mac I virtualize Office 2007 for PC on my Mac. I included two screenshots so you can see the ribbon in 2007 and the toolbox in 2008.
ReadyBoost: This feature compensates for some of the heavier aspects of Vista, specifically those memory taxing aspects of Vista. ReadyBoost is probably one of the coolest features I have seen on a PC in a long time. Basically, it allows you to use a thumb drive as memory. It works by sending any overflow from the system memory to a cache on the thumb drive. When you initially plug in a thumb drive into your computer, Vista will recognize it and ask you what you want to do with it (i.e. open it, play the music on it, play a video, etc.). You will also be asked if you want the drive as your ReadyBoost drive. If it doesn't ask you that, go to My Computer, right click and select properties, click the ready boost tab and set up the drive that way. You can allot up to half of the drives capacity (i.e. 2 gb for a 4 gb stick, 4 for an 8, etc) up to 4gb total. I just happen to have tried it on both the 2 gb and 4gb setting (I have a 4gb and 8gb stick) and the 4gb was almost superfluous. Using 1gb of system memory I ran an operation that took around 15 seconds (eons - it felt like). Adding ReadyBoost with 2gb extra memory, the same operating took 2.5 seconds. Using 4gb of memory it took around 2 seconds. So it works and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There is a claimed disadvantage to this feature pointing to the fact that flash memory can only carry out a finite number of "writes" and that eventually your drive will be worn out. This is true, but it will take around 10 years for most drives.
That does it for Vista, stay tuned tomorrow for the post on Leopard.
Welcome to Part 2 of the Mac or PC mini-series. Today's topic for discussion is the differences between the operating systems utilized by the Mac and PC respectively. As we all know, PC's are based on the Windows operating systems while Mac is based upon the OS X operating systems. Popular versions of Windows include 95, 98, 2000, XP, and most currently Vista. Recent popular versions of the Mac OS include Tiger and Leopard. Today's discussion will focus mainly on the performance characteristics of each of the operating system’s most current platforms, Vista and Leopard. We will focus on the requirements of each OS and talk a bit about performance: Here are the minimum requirements for each system:
Windows Vista: * 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor * 1 GB of system memory * 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space * Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: o WDDM Driver o 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) o Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware o 32 bits per pixel
Leopard: * Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor * 512MB of memory * DVD drive for installation * 9GB of available disk space * Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply. * Some features require Apple's .Mac service; fees apply.
Now, let's compare and contrast the two OS's in a factual manner. I will try to keep my opinions out (although a couple might seep out). The factors we will focus on here are processors, memory, appearance, and battery usage for laptop owners:
Processors: As you can tell, the processor requirements are basically the same. Mac still uses the PowerPC processor although it only manufactures its new computers using Intel chips. Really, both need to be run on dual core chips. You won't be able to run Mac on an Intel chip designed before a certain date that aren't core based (which is only really applicable if you want to run Leopard on a PC). Additionally, PC supports AMD processors while Mac does not. AMD are supposively better at running games and stuff. As far as processors are concerned, no huge differences unless you really want to play games on an AMD.
Memory usage: There are significant differences between the machines on this front. I have run Vista on 1gb of memory and I have to say, it sucked. Personally, I think Vista is a bogged down version of XP (oops, an opinion). That is to say, they added some features pinnacled by the Aero GUI (said gooey, Graphics User Interface) that gives Vista that sleek, smooth look. The only drawback is that it consumes a lot of memory (unless your machine has a video card with autonomous memory - which is to say, it does not share memory with the machine. Most computers don't come with video cards like that). Try this, if you run Vista and are using the desktop sidebar, it should come with a system performance monitor (if it isn’t there, click the little plus sign on top of the sidebar and select CPU performance or whatever). It looks like a speedometer. Now, with all applications closed, look at the monitor. It will tell you how much memory your system is using just sitting there. Right now, mine says 40% of 1gb... with nothing running (besides the sidebar). Mac, on the other hand, is another story. To give you an idea, I am currently using 1 gb (of 2) with the following open: 6 pages of Firefox, a sticky note program, a 4gb download, Word, Powerpoint, iChat, Microsoft Messenger, Divx Player, iMail, iCal, and iTunes (playing the Killers). I am only using half of what I have. So, hopefully that illustrates the differences of system usage for you.
Appearance: Vista is a very sleek looking OS. The lines are much smoother than XP (which was huge for XP when it came out because its lines were really smooth too). The Aero graphics enhancement feature is really quite neat. I have turned Aero on and off to see the difference and it’s big. Leopard is also a very sleek looking OS. Its GUI is a bit different in terms of memory taxation (discussed above). Leopard doesn't need a super-duper video card which excludes it from being able to play a lot of the new computer games because it does not typically use acceleration and such, but then again, PC's don't usually come standard with graphics acceleration. This can be a pretty serious disadvantage to the gaming inclined. However, if you don't really play computer games (because you hate them or play PS3, Xbox360, or Wii) then who cares if the computer plays games. A lot of people do, however, watch movies on their computer and both Vista and Leopard playback movies in similar quality. The LCD screens on both are relative equivalents although PC's can really vary in quality as manufacturers differ.
Battery: For Laptop users: The battery usage between the two OS's vary substantially. Vista is quite draining on a battery. It can drain a battery about 50% faster than XP. A typical computer running windows Vista gets about 1-2 hours of charge on average. I went ahead and tested this by running Vista on my machine and asking some family and friends that use Vista to see what kind of charge they were getting. Most computers reported about 1.5 hours of charge. So what of the Mac? Leopard is FAR LESS DRAINING on the battery. If I am running typical programs like a web browser, word processor, or what have you, I get around 5 hours of charge. If I watch a movie that number drops to 4 hours. This is true of all MacBooks, however, I cannot personally vouch for the Pro. So, I asked some guy and some other guy (on separate occasions) that I found in the hall at school and they reported 4 hours per charge. The pro has better hardware so no big stretch of the imagination there.
My Take: Now I will let my opinions flow forth. As far as system performance is related to the operating systems run by Mac and PC respectively, I would conclude that the Mac outperforms the PC. There is really only one area where PC is typically better than the average Mac and that is in the video cards they use on average. However, I must say that this difference is trivial considering there aren’t many computer gamers left in the world and why would you really need all that video power without any use for it? Waste of money really. Memory and Battery usage are two areas where Leopard really outperforms Vista.
I won’t say much more than that. Please feel free to comment on what has been written. I would love to respond to any concerns or questions you have about today’s subject.
Live CD's are versions of an operating system that don't require a full install to run. They allow you to boot the operating system from the live disk and use the features of the OS almost as if you had installed it. For those of you that feel inclined to try out one of the operating systems I have highlighted or maybe another one you have heard about, it is easy with Live CD's. I found a list of the operating systems - with download links - that have Live CD's so you can play with them: click here. To create a Live CD, you need only download the ISO (disk image) and use an ISO burning software (Nero or ImgBurn) to put it on the disk. Thats it. You just run the disk on startup or there are even version that let you run the disk over your native OS and you are set. It seems to me that Ubuntu has the most popular version of a Live CD out there so check it out.
Live USB = A live USB or thumb drive would allow you to do the same thing as a Live CD with one fundamental difference. Rather than having a live image to boot from, you can actually install the full operating system on the USB thumb drive. This means that you can insert your thumb drive into the USB port, change your BIOS settings to "boot from USB drive" and then actually boot the computer from your thumb. This is actually a tool that a lot of hackers (the bad kind) use to get access to a hard drive without accessing the native operating system. That is the illegal application of this concept. The legal application is that you can boot to an operating system, get the internet, do whatever else you need to from ANY computer (that allows you to boot from USB). It also provides you a way of experimenting with various Linux OS's without all the cost of buying an extra hard drive or formatting your existing one. Here is a Google search with links to various tutorials and other such useful information (that way I don't have to do all the leg work of explaining it). 
Posts
