So...

So, assume for a second that a person entirely new to computing asked you to describe the difference between the functionality of windows vs. macOS. How would you explain it without resorting to common tropes and brand loyalties, hardware considerations, etc.?

in other words, not resorting to stereotypes of users, the actual devices, history, I'm looking for a raw comparison of the actual operating systems and how a user would encounter them for the first time. Imagine two identical looking machines and the only difference is the OS.*

*barring the keyboard layout, specific key functions etc.

macOS and Windows are programs that perform arithmetic. The programs differ in the way a user interacts with them.

Windows: more customizable environment, vastly more popular, pretty much entire world runs on Windows, more bang for your buck, can build PCs

MacOS: simple, designed for people with low IQ, mainly used for creating art. Overpriced.

>Overpriced
What about hackintosh?

he's a faggot gamertard that still "builds" PCs in 2017, did you expect him to know anything?

Apple has all the fun software that you'd use at home and it works with your iphone.
Windows is for nerdy spreadsheets.

>without resorting to [...] hardware considerations
Why in the name of fuck wouldn't I "resort" to that? This is somebody new to computing, from their perspective (as somebody not able or likely willing to do a Hackintosh) MacOS is fused to massively overpriced hardware. That would be absolutely the first thing I would "resort" to.

>not even 10 posts in and an iFag shows up out of nowhere

Wake me up when Windows finally implement QuickLook-like preview for every file by pressing space.

I've never been into Apple and bought a Mac to make some iOS apps (I didn't even have iPhone). But then I used it for a month and realized what UX hell Windows is.

surface level:
organic vs. techy
round vs. sharp
light vs. dark
warm vs. cool
art vs. logic

in depth, the only thing I choose OSX for is that it's unix based. also, the trackpad click. It's the dumbest thing, like a cup holder, but I can't stand the feeling of clicks on pretty much any other computer. and the metal body. for something I have my hands on all day, my little mac book feels really nice to me.

used to be a huge windows fanboy back during XP. Vista killed windows for me.

worse performance than windows on the same hardware and prayers be said when upgrading

This post is a good example of what I'm NOT looking for. these are peripheral considerations (cost, popularity, ability to build your own), I'm looking for a pure comparison of the OS in terms of the OS. Assume all else is equal

>using a shitty OS because it works with your expensive overpriced phone
???

How is compatibility not a benefit?

I haven't used Win for years. I try not to assume these things haven't been implemented yet, but if preview or column view don't exist in the file browser, that's pretty ridiculous. You should never have to boot up a program for a simple string, audio, or image buffer.

The workstations feature is another one I hope Win users get. I can't imagine not being able to swipe between desktops. Then again... I've seen so many people with multiple monitors, maybe it doesn't? I mean, why move your head if you can just slide the screen from one to the next?

Also, launch pad is nice. It always looks like the dumbest thing to me when a user on in any OS navigates to a program instead of just using a gesture and a few letters to search.

>buying a shitty overpriced phone in the first place

Think about a ship
>MacOS / Apple
you're in the brig with other MacOS prisoners
Windows
you're cleaning the head
>Linux
you're at the helm

- just works, no maintenance needs like system reinstalls or cleaning up registry issues
- almost all UNIX stuff, including installing everything popular with brew.sh one-liners
- cool automation (Automator, AppleScript)
- great app ecosystem, many are Mac-only
- better memory management, better power management (MacBooks work from battery so long because of macOS)
- almost no games, video drivers are shit

congrats on your shitty metaphor. I made one too.

Think about a cup
>you
now imagine two girls sharing shit with it
>suck
now imagine someone seeing it and being disgusted
>dick
you're the video

>PCs
For computer things.

>Mac
For homosexual things.

>macshitOS
>battery management

Pick one.

as I said, shit video drivers
if you're just using some apps and Safari (Chrome wastes battery) – it works 6-9 hours depending on the model

>barring the keyboard layout, specific key functions etc.
That's an important part of the comparison, though.

Generally, OSX and Win are quite similar on a surface level, their major differences begin to emerge when you're using them for more advanced stuff.

General differences, as I see them, would be something like this.

MacOS/OSX
>the mainstream for designers, musicians, and artists - there are some popular solutions only available for it.
>by default abstracts the user very far away from the direct management of the PC. The real file system is hidden, the system expects you to get everything you need from AppStore and use dedicated apps for every possible task. Of course, there are settings for getting the actual access to your machine.
>generally good for people who want to use a computer without knowing shit about them.
>it's great at linking up your other Apple devices if you have them - everything's done easily with no 3rd-party software involved.
>UNIX-based with a package manager.
>A popular platform for Ruby On Rails.

Windows
>the mainstream for everything else.
>the cheapest versions of Win10 (and maybe Win8) do have some level of abstraction, but while it isn't on the same level of an Apple PC, it performs much worse. Windows Store just isn't quite there yet.
>aside from the cheapest versions, the OS generally expects you to at least somewhat know what you're doing. It exposes its file system and requesting admin privileges is usually one click away.
>works for linking everything to everything. Can double as a router. None of these are simple or streamlined solutions, though.
>much better at managing CPU time and memory, thus incomparably better for working under a heavy load. Windows very rarely allows UI thread to stutter.
>has an absurd amount of built-in properties, settings, and tools that allow for quite a deep level of customization.
>generally has more intuitive behavior for somewhat advanced users.

Salty Winfags
Salty MacFags

Windows can play games and run programs. Mac can make media

what statement are you trying to make here?

That he doesn't know the difference between a macfag and a unixfag that hates windows.

>t. Salty MacFag

MacOS is a *nix-like OS with the main difference being that it's closed-source and only supports very specific hardware. It has much more support and peripheral functionality out of the box for a naive user than any other *nix OS. Apple computers were originally aimed at tech-naive end users interested in graphic design and desktop publishing, and while the main reason for this - worse compatibility of Adobe products with x86 systems in the 90s - has long since passed, their products still assume that the end user will want to modify their computer's hardware or software as little as possible, and as a result they typically perform the tasks for which they were designed very well, but adapting them for other uses is usually somewhere between difficult and impossible.

Windows is based on Microsoft's NT framework, and is targeted primarily at business uses. Because of this, Windows has a Swiss Army approach to functionality; it is designed to work reasonably well for as wide a range of uses as possible with as many kinds of peripherals and software as possible. As its primary cash cow is businesses, Windows is designed to be easily modifiable by corporate customers, in collaboration with Microsoft as needed, to suit their own use cases, and although this is also possible for end users, Microsoft's support is not as strongly oriented towards them.

A number of open-source OSes, almost all *nix-based, also exist, some of which, like Ubuntu, even compete with Microsoft for corporate customers, while others, like Chrome OS, aim to compete for end users. Their main strength, besides being free to use, is that the whole of their source code is readily available to everyone, including end users, to modify as they see fit. Their main weakness, from the point of view of an end user, is that formal user support is either the product sold by the developers (Ubuntu) or is nonexistent (most others); advanced knowledge or autodidactic skill is required.

>Windows very rarely allows UI thread to stutter.

best post so far.

>almost no games
>app ecosystem
that one was good, but you still mentioned compatibility.
he made a joke about an old-ish ad campaign. what's the emotion here? obviously posts like this are covered in an outer layer of "everyone please laugh at this guy" as all posts like this are, but below that? are you projecting? are you spiteful? it was obvious bait, man! also, odd use of greentext
the OP said without resorting to "peripheral considerations"?
most if not all of this has been solved on windows (or at least can be solved, i'm not even sure how i've rigged my LTSB up at this point)
ding ding ding

>MacOS is a *nix-like OS with the main difference being that it's closed-source
Unix by nature was closed source.

Yes yes, but this isn't 1970. Among the modern *nix OSes, OSX and successors are pretty much unique in being closed source.

mac has ease of use (or had)
and for those who have money to burn

windows for breadth of software (except some specialized professional multimedia editing like final cut pro or logic pro)

both went flat though...

Windows offers functionality for a broad range of types of users, from totally naive to advanced. The system is also more configurable than macOS and supports basically any hardware you can buy. It also has a very broad gamut of software for any kind of task. Having the biggest marketshare also makes it the main focus for cyber attacks, security exploits and viruses. Windows is also the biggest desktop platform for gaming and business software.

MacOS simplifies the user experience as much as possible, focusing a lot on design and aesthetics. The system exposes very few choices to configure it to the average user, but everything is structured in such a way that users can easily get done what the software is supposed to do. Since its marketshare is small there are fewer security risks compared to other systems. But the choice of software is also more limited and more expensive. Same for gaming.

Apple is very expensive and don't really have a lot to offer like it has some nice features but 1,000 I would expect more you can't play games

On the other hand u have a more cheaper that offers much moreee stuff than Apple.
And is good with games and movies
And also the best for photoshop and it has more memory

Basically Mac is expensive but don't have a lot
And Mac wares out after a year it's not so good the keyboard starts to fall off

Holy shit, the Window shilling pajeets are here.

Stfu Apple fuck boy

>crying "shills" when he's the one shilling
(You)

windows: barely sustainable abortion
mac os: unix with a fucky gui

>unix with a fucky gui
soooo unix?

Apple a piece of shit