Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
So I was thinking about buying a notebook and when I found out the MAC OS X was built on a UNIX platform, I thought that maybe I could get MAC Notebook instead of a window's one. I've always kind of had a thing for macs. Would I be able to write things on The mac and transfer them to my linux box and visa versa and be able to work? It's not vital that everything would transfer without a problem, I just want to know if I'd be able to use them together
Depends on what you're doing. I use Mac OS X, Windows XP, SuSE Linux and transfer stuff back and forth all the time... OpenOffice is supported on all environments for documents. As far as software, anything you write in Java will work on all of them. What do you have that you want to move around between them?
That's pretty much what I want to do, just move documnets, word and other basic office stuff. as far things like programing are concerned, it's not that big of a deal to me, I'm used to the fact that if I write somthing in c++ or some other lanugage, it can only run on the platform on which it was written.
The only other thing that concerns me is I've read a few articles about the Mac OS X is that it has a small tendency to crash and need to rebooted. Like I said I've only glanced at one or two articles that say anything like that, Most of the people that I know that have a mac seem to be a lot happier with a Mac than they are with a window's machine.
OS X is usually pretty stable, it is unix-based, FreeBSD to be more exact but uses a different kernel. Macs are nifty and the wireless and nifty hardware stuff built-in to the notebooks (Powerbook especially) is freakin' cool! However for the same price as a G4 Powerbook (G5's aren't out yet are they?) you'd probably get more bang for your buck in a x86 laptop.
iBooks are cheaper but much less powerful and very much lack the geek-factor. They look better than the Powerbooks though.
I am actually quite impressed with OS X's integration with Linux. I 'spose it is just because of the unix underbelly, but I just recently got a G4, and to my surprise it took all of a couple mouse clicks for it to find and mount a NFS partition on one of my Linux boxes with all my oggs. Slick. You can also use any of the familiar unix daemons and servers we all know and love, and of course there is always a terminal to poke around in if you get too homesick...
And now, the Fink Project ( http://fink.sourceforge.net/ ) has it in their mind to port every single free open-source linux software project to OS X. As you can see from their 'packages' page they have managed to put a very large dent in this seemingly impossible task. Even cooler, you have the choice of running these apps under xorg and the unix window manager of your choice, or use the native OS X window dressings.
My biggest complaint is that OS X is too cutesy for my liking. But this is coming from a guy who uses KDE so take it how you will. I will say that anecdotally, this apple hardware really does rip ass on x86. My G4 is not exactly state of the art, it came with a 400Mhz proc and 128MB of RAM, and this thing plays full-screen DVD like a champ. In fact, and again, this is anecdotal/subjective, but this apple box seems about as responsive as my Athlon XP 2200 (running Linux) under equivalent workload.
All in all, in my opinion, OS X and Linux are about as compatible as you can ever hope for between two such fundamentally different projects, and apple hardware is just plain sweet.
I believe with the PPC architecture, a processors MHz rating doesn't mean that same as it does on a PC but hey, I don't really know that but a 400MHz/128MB Apple will outperform an equivilant PC blindfolded.
Technically, and I am mostly guessing here, but I would imagine that the processor clock speed does mean the same thing as on x86, it would seem though, that the PPC processor is able to push considerably more instructions per clock cycle.
Originally posted by bulliver Technically, and I am mostly guessing here, but I would imagine that the processor clock speed does mean the same thing as on x86, it would seem though, that the PPC processor is able to push considerably more instructions per clock cycle.