Can someone compare the top 3 types of computers- Windows, Mac and Linux?
This is because usually people compare the 2 Windows and Linux.
If you know about other OS also can write in here to compare all OS.

Sure:

Windoze sucks
MAC OS sucks less now that it is based on UNIX
Linux rules

You really aren't going to get valid "comparisons". You're going to get opinions.

The benefit to Linux over the other two is it is free and can run on any system the other two can as well as many they can't. Your basis for choosing one thing over another should be your needs and what fits them.

Windoze doesn't tie you to a specific vendor's hardware because it isn't proprietary to the hardware manufacturer like Mac. Mac on the other hand being built on UNIX is more flexible. Linux of course is ultimately flexible because it runs on almost anything and is free.

One question that might be important: What kind of support do you need?
For one stop support (hardware and OS) Mac might be the way to go.

For (bad) support of the OS by the folks that make it Windoze might be the way to go - given its ubiquity you'll find a lot more people that know Windoze than either of the other two.

For Linux you can buy one of the commercial distros (e.g. Redhat Enterprise Level) and get support directly from RedHat.

Of course Linux and Windoze don't give you direct hardware support so you'd need a third party for that if you wanted it. Folks like Dell say they have Linux support so theoretically could be one stop if you bought your Linux and hardware from them. This seems to be getting better but at the moment I can't recommend Dell. HP may do better though I don't have much experience with their support for PCs running Linux (maybe because they had less issues than the Dells?).

Compare with respect to what?

There are many metrics one could use to compare the platforms:
useability / ergonomics
sw availability
multi-user support
reliability
security
cost
freedom (of use--ie OpenSource)

You of course left out Unix--both open and closed versions

Windows, Mac, and Linux are not computers. They're operating systems. We knew what you meant, though.

For me, Windows served its purpose for years. However, after four catastrophic failures in three years due to patch installations, I pretty much gave up on Windows. That last crash was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I also was damned tired of spending hours every month cleaning and sweeping for spyware, trojans, rootkits, etc. And BACKING UP... BACKING UP... BACKING UP because I never knew when the OS was going to take the BIG dump again.

I came to GNU/Linux in June of '06. I wish I had done it five years previously. I LOVE Linux!

Mac? Couldn't say... never used it.

Well, to compare the three:

Linux is open source, you can dig down, find documentation and modify and piece of it to suit your needs. No company produces it or has interest of owning and controlling it.

Mac OS and Windows are closed, there are things that you cannot see or learn or control. Microsoft and Apple blocks you from doing it.

Apple and Microsoft are commercial companies that care about their profit foremost. This has some bad effects on the OS, quality wise (they push it with Marketing) and security wise (they prefer to hide security flaws, since it cost them money to fix them)
Linux is on the other hand not promoted and would not exists and be used so widely if it would not shine through its technological perfection.

In general, you can say that Mac OS and Windows just works, many things are automatic. Linux on the other hand does not have a lot of configuration tools, you need to learn a lot of things and cannot just go click click. Linux shines when things break.
In Windows and Mac OS, you controll as a supporter (the one that fixes problems) is limited, you have to contact the vendors, you cannot do it yourself. In Linux you can do everything yourself. All you need is a brain and curiousity and some technical skill.

Right at this moment, if you don't want to use your brain much, Windows and Mac OS win hands down.
It is all click click click.

When comparing Mac OS and Windows, Mac OS surely wins in some usability issues. No drivers need to be installed and everything works out of the box, since Apple controls both hoftware and hardware. Also, the OS is stylish and beautiful. You can see in Windows XP and Vista that Microsoft tried to copy it, but failed miserably. Also, the Mac OS Moviemaker just beats the Windows XP moviemaker by far (which is also again a cheap copy that came later).
The iPod is another example of "just works" in degrees that Windows cannot provide. It is intuitive and works without explanations...
The Mac used to have only 1 mouse button and worked well with it. Sometimes you got users switching from Mac to Windows asking you what the second mouse button was for and right they were.
It has to be said that Mac OS only has about 5% of the desktop market and a practically nonexistent share of the server market. Due to this, Windows wins big time when it comes to application availability.
Games are also best on Windows.

When talking about security, I would put Linux as the most secure, since it traditionally comes with the user / root seperation (that is very unconvenient, since you got to enter the password every time), all services that could do harm disabled... Mac OS offers more convenience and through it, slightly less security.
It has to be noted that Mac OS underwent a total redesign after Mac OS 9, which was bitterly needed. It is now based on BSD and basically has a unixoid basement.
Windows has been extended and changed endlessly since the original NT and suffers from the bloat (size and speed) and security hazards. Even Vista, with all it's security new features, still includes all the old compatibility modes. it is just a matter of time till we will hear about viruses that exploit it to gain total access to the system.

I guess if you love design and beauty, you should take a look at Mac OS X.. it really shines in that like no other OS... If somebody tells you that Windows and Linux look very beautiful (gnome is especially awful), chances are they are geeks, totally technically oriented and have not much grasp about esthetics and such (me included)...
That look is also combined with the hardware, which follows it...

If you had come to Linux in 01 instead of 06, you would not have loved it nearly as much----It evolved dramatically in those five years. I dabbled periodically in that period and always got frustrated. It was not until late 2005 until I started seriously transitioning.

I guess this highlights a key discriminator of OpenSource and Linux vs everything else--it is much more dynamic. As they say about the weather in some regions: "If you don't like, just wait a few minutes."

So true here in Hampton Roads, VA.


Windows = fragile, like glass
Mac = attractive with a strong core, like an apple
Linux = durable even in harsh conditions, like a penguin

Pixellany is right, if you don't specify what aspects of the operating systems you want to compare you're only going to get opinions, some of which may be a wee bit biased.

That's true, pixellany. I should have stated that I wished I had begun to learn Linux back then. I probably would still have had to use Windows for most of my computer chores during that time. However, starting back then would have put me well on my way learning in anticipation of the recent strides in GNU/Linux desktop computing. Believe me, for a Windows point 'n click zombie, Linux has a steep learning curve. My only advantage was a previous knowledge of programming and DOS. For most Windows "mom and pop" users, learning GNU/Linux is an even steeper curve.

EXCELLENT analogies!

Yes, but there is no way to escape bias.
It comes with not everybody spending the same time on the same systems, liking some more, some less, because they do better what is important to you.

Bias isn't that bad tough when the reasons behind it are clearly explained. Then, an opinion can approximate fact as close as possible.

Comparing the security architecture for example, where it came from (XP / Vista from NT) and how it evolved.
Full redesigns are usually a very good sign, since good stuff can be kept and old obsolete things get thrown out.

I guess I'd take exceptio to the "works" part of that. Windoze "works" when it "works" but you almost never have a clue as to why when it "doesn't work". Reboot and reload and the watchwords in Windoze troubleshooting. There's a reason the "blue screen of death" is in the vernacular.

You have little control over the way Windoze "works". Compare that with UNIX and Linux where you can go deep into the internals of the system or even write your own code when things don't "work" the way you want.

Some folks knock Linux saying newer kernels don't "work" on older or odd components sometimes. However you can make it "work" with enough effort. (You can build your own kernel if it comes to that.) Windoze on the other hand if there is no driver will never work and they don't mind telling you to do massive upgrades or abandon your old hardware to load their later operating system versions. Windoze therefore doesn't "just work" - it "just works on occasion on the resources they specify you must have".

I mean the term "just works" as in "I don't have a clue what I am doing, having no experience or anything and just click click click"...everything automatic. And you can do anything like this in Windows. That was my only point. Enabling for the dumbest and simplest of users that exist.


Oh yes, I don't disagree with you. Windows looses big time when things start breaking and the do quite often, especielly when you lean on it hard and push it a little, as I require my OSs to perform.
Then, when things don't work anymore, there is really no way to fix Windows and see how it all works in every detail. In Linux you can, yes. You can, in essence, solve ANY problem.. In Windows you just can't.
As a pro, needlessly unsolvable problems just make me very angry.

Yes, I totally agree with you. You can make Linux work with everything if you want to, sometimes it needs a little effort. Nothing is impossible. That is why we all use it, and it gets better every year. In some cases, Linux hardware recognition out of the box is better than that of Windows XP (without installing any drivers).
And some things are just plain impossible with Windows, no matter how smart you are or how hard you try. That is why Windows has vanished from many systems in my realm of influence.

Ok, i will then specify for the convince for everybody.
Mainly based on Digital Media Compatibility (Whether can I any web download a music and listen or connect any Video Camera or Camera onto my Computer), Games availability (I know Windows got a lot really don't know why and who has the second "largest" game availability), security and reliability.
(I have heard of Macs are almost cost as equal as Windows because the Windows requires other third party software while a Cheapest iMac might cost about $1700 Singapore Dollars , approximately 1k USD.)
Freedom of use- I am no programmer yet, and I don't really need to install OS on multi-computer,as now, therefore freedom of use might not important to me, as I think that Freedom of use might focus on the 2 points, ability to modify the program and install on many computers as we want.