3 ms·

How debatable? On Intel you get the desktop and backward-compatibility with old windows applications. What is your definition of general-purpose?

by ot 14y ago

rbanffy 14y ago
I adopt the "works for me" definition which, in the end, is the one I should use to select hardware for my use. Of course, you should probably not use the "works for rbanffy" definition for your own hardware acquisitions. Most of my apps are designed to run on Linux. My IDE is Emacs and my system management tool is a shell. With that in mind, anything that's not Unix-like negatively impacts productivity. I have used Cygwin on Windows but, while it goes great lengths to make Windows a comfortable environment, in the end it's just not worth the effort if you can just run the real thing on your machine. Windows also takes ages to set up with software downloaded from just about everywhere. With Linux, I issue an "apt-get install" and sit back while the environment gets assembled. On a Mac, I have to install the xcode command-line tooling, ports and everything from that point on is completely automated. On Windows I don't even want to think the steps I'd need to take and the buttons I'd need to click before being able to just work.
- ot 14y ago
  Then it is your definition that is debatable (and self-centric). By the same reasoning Linux is not general-purpose because it does not run Visual Studio. OSX, Linux and Windows are equally general-purpose by all reasonable definitions.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    The only useful definition is a self-centric one because you'll use what you buy. I have no use for a machine that runs Visual Studio or Office, therefore, my criteria for selecting a computer will be very different from someone who needs to run both programs. For someone who wants to run games, a Windows PC with an ATI graphics card would be a good choice. For someone who wants to run Emacs and develop web applications, it's simply not the best one.

How debatable? On Intel you get the desktop and backward-compatibility with old windows applications. What is your definition of general-purpose?

by ot 14y ago

How debatable? On Intel you get the desktop and backward-compatibility with old windows applications. What is your definition of general-purpose?

rbanffy 14y ago

I adopt the "works for me" definition which, in the end, is the one I should use to select hardware for my use. Of course, you should probably not use the "works for rbanffy" definition for your own hardware acquisitions. Most of my apps are designed to run on Linux. My IDE is Emacs and my system management tool is a shell. With that in mind, anything that's not Unix-like negatively impacts productivity. I have used Cygwin on Windows but, while it goes great lengths to make Windows a comfortable environment, in the end it's just not worth the effort if you can just run the real thing on your machine. Windows also takes ages to set up with software downloaded from just about everywhere. With Linux, I issue an "apt-get install" and sit back while the environment gets assembled. On a Mac, I have to install the xcode command-line tooling, ports and everything from that point on is completely automated. On Windows I don't even want to think the steps I'd need to take and the buttons I'd need to click before being able to just work.

ot 14y ago
Then it is your definition that is debatable (and self-centric). By the same reasoning Linux is not general-purpose because it does not run Visual Studio. OSX, Linux and Windows are equally general-purpose by all reasonable definitions.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  The only useful definition is a self-centric one because you'll use what you buy. I have no use for a machine that runs Visual Studio or Office, therefore, my criteria for selecting a computer will be very different from someone who needs to run both programs. For someone who wants to run games, a Windows PC with an ATI graphics card would be a good choice. For someone who wants to run Emacs and develop web applications, it's simply not the best one.