Ask HN: MAC vs PC for a developer?
29 comments
Mac, most definitely.
For one, Mac OS X comes with a Python version installed. It also comes with a whole toolbox of Unix utilities, including a number of text editors. (There are many other 3rd party text editors for the Mac, too. Though I stick with "vim" or Xcode myself, both of which are included.)
You can't understate the value of being able to pop down to the Unix layer when needed. There are lots of times where a simple "grep" or "cp" or "mv" is exactly what you need, and I love that this is just built in to the Mac. If you aren't that familiar with Unix commands, I think it's knowledge well worth having; most of the basic ones are really not that hard to use.
I have to use Windows at work, and I have to say I'm amazed with how little it comes with. While it is possible to work productively on Windows, I have found this is only true after a large setup cost. So if you don't mind downloading stuff for hours, you can eventually get the right tools. Still, I have never found Windows tools to be as "integrated" as Unix utilities are; every Windows program wants its own scripting language, its own hackish way of doing things (in my experience, that is; YMMV). Microsoft's command prompt is also pretty lousy; it really doesn't compare to a Unix shell, and the idea that you could only get that level of power by installing all of Cygwin, is a turn-off to me.
For one, Mac OS X comes with a Python version installed. It also comes with a whole toolbox of Unix utilities, including a number of text editors. (There are many other 3rd party text editors for the Mac, too. Though I stick with "vim" or Xcode myself, both of which are included.)
You can't understate the value of being able to pop down to the Unix layer when needed. There are lots of times where a simple "grep" or "cp" or "mv" is exactly what you need, and I love that this is just built in to the Mac. If you aren't that familiar with Unix commands, I think it's knowledge well worth having; most of the basic ones are really not that hard to use.
I have to use Windows at work, and I have to say I'm amazed with how little it comes with. While it is possible to work productively on Windows, I have found this is only true after a large setup cost. So if you don't mind downloading stuff for hours, you can eventually get the right tools. Still, I have never found Windows tools to be as "integrated" as Unix utilities are; every Windows program wants its own scripting language, its own hackish way of doing things (in my experience, that is; YMMV). Microsoft's command prompt is also pretty lousy; it really doesn't compare to a Unix shell, and the idea that you could only get that level of power by installing all of Cygwin, is a turn-off to me.
Excuse me, "PC" does not mean "Windows computer", so I'd pick a PC and install some Linux distro.
Most people mean "Windows machine" when they say "PC" though. Since the way people use a word define the meaning of the word more than even a dictionary definition, PC does in fact mean Windows machine.
I'd argue that "PC" has two meanings then. I'm going for "non-Mac PC", since that's what the title implies by separating Macs from the rest of PCs, and because I don't feel sensitive to exclude a huge set of possibilities.
It definitely has two meanings in the same way that "hacker" does and it is all contextual. If I hear hacker outside of this website I usually assume it is being used derogatorily.
In the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" context there is no confusion what PC means. In Hacker News context I can understand how the term PC might be ambiguous. I am really arguing that at this point though even hackers are calling Windows machines PC's. Although I have always wondered why everyone refers to them as PC's I have never found myself being confused when I hear it nor have I ever been misunderstood when using the term.
In the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" context there is no confusion what PC means. In Hacker News context I can understand how the term PC might be ambiguous. I am really arguing that at this point though even hackers are calling Windows machines PC's. Although I have always wondered why everyone refers to them as PC's I have never found myself being confused when I hear it nor have I ever been misunderstood when using the term.
Exactly, that's why I assume everyone who is on Hacker News is aware of the Linux branch of operating systems, and at least isn't naive enough not to consider them in this kind of choice.
On the same token, a Mac is a PC.
It's not the same. If you say "Mac or PC", it is understood that you mean "Apple computers, or other type of general-purpose personal computers, i.e., non-Mac PCs". But if we interpret "PC" only as "Windows computer", then there's this huge number of OSes we're not taking into account, since we're just considering OS X and Windows.
I suggest that we're all getting a little too pedantic here. The point is it's basically all the same hardware. You can buy anything and put any OS on it, although it's not so nice to put OS X on hardware that didn't come from Apple.
You can install Linux on a Mac these days too.
As a web developer, you'll also probably need to test in Windows and IE. For that, get Fusion or Parallels and you can have Windows and OSX running side by side.
That's true - and another reason to go with Mac.
On my Mac I can test Mac versions of Safari, Firefox, and Opera. I can also have virtual machines to test for Windows Firefox, IE6, IE7, and IE8 at the same time. If I were on a PC I would only be able to have one version of IE installed.
It's still funny to me that to develop websites that work on all of the Windows browsers a Mac is the only thing that makes sense.
On my Mac I can test Mac versions of Safari, Firefox, and Opera. I can also have virtual machines to test for Windows Firefox, IE6, IE7, and IE8 at the same time. If I were on a PC I would only be able to have one version of IE installed.
It's still funny to me that to develop websites that work on all of the Windows browsers a Mac is the only thing that makes sense.
"If I were on a PC I would only be able to have one version of IE installed."
That's not true. You can have virtual machines to test multiple versions of IE, too.
That's not true. You can have virtual machines to test multiple versions of IE, too.
Microsoft has released a program called "Web SuperPreview". It enables you to compare pages both in IE6 and IE7/8.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8e6...
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8e6...
The performance is kind of "meh", though, especially in VMWare (where it's practically unusable). I personally prefer IETester: http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/
I used to use Parallels but I've switched to VirtualBox. It's free, open source, and works at least as well as Parallels: http://www.virtualbox.org/
This would be the key reason to get a mac. To test anything in OSX legally - you need to be running Apple hardware. (Boot-camp/VMWare Windows and Linux). Until/unless Apple go to selling the OS on it's own - from a testing perspective (if you have to do that) - then a mac is the only way to go.
You can also try free http://www.virtualbox.org/ from Sun.
Mostly agreed, but beware that the UNIX layer on OS X is BSD-based rather than GNU/Linux-based, so it's not exactly the same as Ubuntu or Debian etc.
The biggest win on OS X for me is all the slickness of the desktop (Ubuntu doesn't even come close), and adding easy virtualisation to drop into any OS you want (my choice is VMWare Fusion, but Parallels or Virtual Box work too). Best of both worlds.
The biggest win on OS X for me is all the slickness of the desktop (Ubuntu doesn't even come close), and adding easy virtualisation to drop into any OS you want (my choice is VMWare Fusion, but Parallels or Virtual Box work too). Best of both worlds.
Desktops are a matter of personal preference. I am a Linux Mint (Ubuntu with some additions) user. I have used other people's Macs occasionally and I dislike the desktop.
The advantage Linux has is that if you do not like the desktop you can switch to another.
The advantage Linux has is that if you do not like the desktop you can switch to another.
"I have used other people's Macs occasionally and I dislike the desktop."
Same here. I bought a Mac Mini for some dev work, and the UI drives me nuts. It's pretty, but so far requires way too much mousing and clicking.
I'm sure much of my angst is habituation from using a customized Kubuntu install, but as best I can tell those customizations are much easier in KDE than on the Mac.
Same here. I bought a Mac Mini for some dev work, and the UI drives me nuts. It's pretty, but so far requires way too much mousing and clicking.
I'm sure much of my angst is habituation from using a customized Kubuntu install, but as best I can tell those customizations are much easier in KDE than on the Mac.
[deleted]
I second that. Sure, you could get productive on Windows and Linux, but they're definitely not low maintainence. Plus, you could always install Windows using BootCamp or VMWare Fusion.
I wrote a blog entry on this. although it's from a hobbyists's perspective: http://blog.uncool.in/2009/03/10/thoughts-on-using-a-mac-as-...
I wrote a blog entry on this. although it's from a hobbyists's perspective: http://blog.uncool.in/2009/03/10/thoughts-on-using-a-mac-as-...
I second that. Sure, you could get productive on Windows and Linux, but they're definitely not low maintainence [sic].
Nor are Macs. Every piece of software needs to be updated manually, as there is no system-wide update manager. If you want to install UNIX software (like C libraries that your language needs to bind to), you will need to install some sort of ports system, and maintain that. (When I used a Mac a few years ago, none of the ports systems all had the latest versions of packages I needed, so I had more than one installed. This was a fucking nightmare to maintain.)
Anyway, this (along with Apple's evil-ness) is what killed OS X for me. Yeah, it's really pretty, but it is too hard to maintain. Debian is much better. It is never missing anything I need, and full-system updates are just an apt-get away.
For programming, nothing beats a good UNIX system, as long as you are willing to learn how to use it properly.
Nor are Macs. Every piece of software needs to be updated manually, as there is no system-wide update manager. If you want to install UNIX software (like C libraries that your language needs to bind to), you will need to install some sort of ports system, and maintain that. (When I used a Mac a few years ago, none of the ports systems all had the latest versions of packages I needed, so I had more than one installed. This was a fucking nightmare to maintain.)
Anyway, this (along with Apple's evil-ness) is what killed OS X for me. Yeah, it's really pretty, but it is too hard to maintain. Debian is much better. It is never missing anything I need, and full-system updates are just an apt-get away.
For programming, nothing beats a good UNIX system, as long as you are willing to learn how to use it properly.
When I used a Mac a few years ago, none of the ports systems all had the latest versions of packages I needed, so I had more than one installed. This was a fucking nightmare to maintain.
macports is pretty much dead simple to deal with. And if you want to install something straight from source on OS X it is often no more difficult as it is on linux. My servers are all debian and ubuntu and it's basically painless using them side by side with OS X all day. Plus, with OS X you can have most linux desktop apps + any OS X apps. Even so, OS X is definitely not necessary if someone spends all of his or her time in the shell, and if that's the case linux would be a better choice.
macports is pretty much dead simple to deal with. And if you want to install something straight from source on OS X it is often no more difficult as it is on linux. My servers are all debian and ubuntu and it's basically painless using them side by side with OS X all day. Plus, with OS X you can have most linux desktop apps + any OS X apps. Even so, OS X is definitely not necessary if someone spends all of his or her time in the shell, and if that's the case linux would be a better choice.
When I used a Mac a few years ago, none of the ports systems all had the latest versions of packages I needed
Things change. Hackers have been migrating to the Mac en masse. So MacPorts has gotten better and better.
Two or three years ago I went through the pain of installing Ruby/Rails, MySQL, Apache, and git from source -- that was the popular choice at the time, because MacPorts was just not up to date. But MacPorts now has current versions of ruby, mysql, git, and apache, so it's time to switch back.
Yeah, it's probably not as good as apt-get. On the other hand, on the Mac I have Mac software, which more than makes up for it. And if I'm ever nostalgic for apt-get a Linux virtual machine is not far away.
Things change. Hackers have been migrating to the Mac en masse. So MacPorts has gotten better and better.
Two or three years ago I went through the pain of installing Ruby/Rails, MySQL, Apache, and git from source -- that was the popular choice at the time, because MacPorts was just not up to date. But MacPorts now has current versions of ruby, mysql, git, and apache, so it's time to switch back.
Yeah, it's probably not as good as apt-get. On the other hand, on the Mac I have Mac software, which more than makes up for it. And if I'm ever nostalgic for apt-get a Linux virtual machine is not far away.
I'd argue there is really no such thing as a low maintenance developer system. Any good developer will need to customize their environment alot to be as productive as possible, and this means different things for different developers. Personally I choose linux because I like the development tools available there best and find it easiest to make any changes I need. That said though, OSX and Windows are perfectly legitimate choices for different people. From what I've seen though, OSX is no more low maintenance for your average developer's "requirements" than anything else.
For web development though I'd say osx or linux. I just havent seen sort of tools on windows to justify putting up with it unless you're focused on microsoft technologies (or a hopelessly entrenched windows user).
Ubuntu is as low maintenance as it gets imo.
But with Ubuntu, you can't pay $30 for an app whose main feature is a 10 megapixel icon for the dock.
You say upgrading every 6 months is low maintainence? Not to mention having new versions of everything pushed to you every week. Sorry, but I just don't have the bandwidth for that kind of thing.
If you had said Debian, I would have agreed, but Ubuntu is just a pain to maintain.
I use PCLinuxOS on my PC. So far, I don't have any qualms. Simple, easy to use and new releases come out when the developers feel the time is right.
If you had said Debian, I would have agreed, but Ubuntu is just a pain to maintain.
I use PCLinuxOS on my PC. So far, I don't have any qualms. Simple, easy to use and new releases come out when the developers feel the time is right.
There are the versions that are supported for 4 years. Boradband internet is good if you are running Ubuntu, that is true, but the actual effort of updating is not so bad (you could also automate it).
I have not yet run updates on my MacPort installation, but I would expect similar updates to Ubtuntu, except taking much longer (as MacPorts seems to compile everything on my Notebook, rather than downloading binaries). Or what do you mean by "everything"?
I have not yet run updates on my MacPort installation, but I would expect similar updates to Ubtuntu, except taking much longer (as MacPorts seems to compile everything on my Notebook, rather than downloading binaries). Or what do you mean by "everything"?
I don't know how the project is organized internally, but as a user it seems to me that the Ubuntu guys have no fixed schedule for pushing new updates. I will have updates to a few libs in the morning, then another, much larger update in the evening, followed by another small update next morning. If I don't install the updates, they pile up over time. These days, if I ever end up using Ubuntu, I never update anything unless it's something I need (eg, new version of Python, Emacs etc.).
I don't want new software as soon as it is released. I can do without bleeding edge software. I just want a safe, stable distro.
I don't want new software as soon as it is released. I can do without bleeding edge software. I just want a safe, stable distro.
I think the updates are all security updates, which I personally want to get as soon as possible. It's true that a lot of times it seems like software I don't need, but who can tell in today's complex software environments? Maybe some other program I need relies on the program that I don't seem to need.
It's actually one thing that might speak against Ubuntu that for every release they freeze the version of the software version. At least that is my understanding. It is of course possible to install newer versions, but it would be more complicated than just using the package manager.
It's actually one thing that might speak against Ubuntu that for every release they freeze the version of the software version. At least that is my understanding. It is of course possible to install newer versions, but it would be more complicated than just using the package manager.
Another thing that just came to mind: if updates at random times bother you, I am sure you can configure the updater program to only check for updates once a week or something like that.
FWIW, Apple also pushes out hundreds of megabytes of updates I don't even need. At least the apt-based Linux distributions only try to update packages you have.
I have a Mac and a PC and I feel more productive on a PC. I think the main reason for this is that I'm a "maximised windows" kinda guy and switching between windows and tasks feels much more smooth and simple for me in Windows. It may sound like a small thing but because the OS X dock deals with apps, not windows, it can be a pain switching between open windows (yes I'm aware of shortcut keys etc). Also the tendency of OS X to clutter the screen with open windows (which it seems most people are happy with) really frustrates me. Spaces alleviates this somewhat, but I much prefer something like Photoshop on Windows, for example. Much cleaner.
Having said that, the shell in OS X is really useful and a lot of Linux stuff you'll be using (Python for example) feels nicer in that shell than under Windows. Others here have commented on the "unix core" and it definitely is a benefit.
For me, though, I'm content to use Windows and Putty/VNC into my Linux box when required.
If you can, play with a Mac before you buy it. Developers tend to be a picky bunch so what works for others may not work for you.
Having said that, the shell in OS X is really useful and a lot of Linux stuff you'll be using (Python for example) feels nicer in that shell than under Windows. Others here have commented on the "unix core" and it definitely is a benefit.
For me, though, I'm content to use Windows and Putty/VNC into my Linux box when required.
If you can, play with a Mac before you buy it. Developers tend to be a picky bunch so what works for others may not work for you.
tiled wm like ion3, wmii, dwm open new windows automatically maximized
no need to use mouse to scroll, move, resize, min, max window ... huge time saver
no need to use mouse to scroll, move, resize, min, max window ... huge time saver
The downside is that you'll consider complete sentences a waste of time ;)
And don't forget stumpwm (http://www.nongnu.org/stumpwm/), the common lisp window manager !
And xmonad.
As a long-year ion3 user I'd like to second that.
The productivity boost is comparable to moving to vim/emacs from notepad.
[deleted]
Does ion3 handle standard .desktop shortcuts? A lot of the smaller WMs (with the exception of XFCE) want to re-implement launchers for every app.
I don't think so, mainly because ion3 doesn't really have a "desktop". It is fully programmable though, so you could easily write a script that searches your $HOME for .desktop shortcuts and adds those to the builtin menu, creates keyboard-shortcuts or even dock-icons for them.
Personally I have never cared much for desktop-shortcuts. My most used applications are all on the keyboard (F1 xterm, F5 browser) and for the less used stuff I simply "F3, amar<TAB><CR>" (runs amarok via the "launch" shortcut).
Personally I have never cared much for desktop-shortcuts. My most used applications are all on the keyboard (F1 xterm, F5 browser) and for the less used stuff I simply "F3, amar<TAB><CR>" (runs amarok via the "launch" shortcut).
I think the advantage of having non-maximized windows is that dragging and dropping data from one app (or even one window) to another is a lot easier and more intuitive without going through the Windows task bar.
It's also easier to do something like read directions on a webpage while you execute those directions in another window without hiding it when accidentally clicking in the browser.
It's also easier to do something like read directions on a webpage while you execute those directions in another window without hiding it when accidentally clicking in the browser.
That's true, but these are not actions I perform regularly. When I want to drag things around or read something while I interact with another app, I'm happy to change my behaviour temporarily.
Using virtual desktops really makes task switching on a Mac much less painful.
And/or you use Quicksilver and Witch. And life becomes even less painful.
I hide the Mac OS dock on day one and never look at it again, except for every couple of days when I have to relaunch Quicksilver. (It's not the best-maintained piece of software in the world, and it has some kind of long-term memory-management issue. One of these days I might have to try Launchbar instead.)
I hide the Mac OS dock on day one and never look at it again, except for every couple of days when I have to relaunch Quicksilver. (It's not the best-maintained piece of software in the world, and it has some kind of long-term memory-management issue. One of these days I might have to try Launchbar instead.)
As someone who is doing programming nearly 90% of my working hours, and someone who used all three major systems (OS X, Vista, Linux), I would suggest you go with a computer that is giving you highest raw metal power for the buck.
If you are really working and not playing around with desktop cpu monitor gadgets or trying out hundreds of time organizing schemes instead of doing some actual work, you will come to the conclusion that it's not that much about the editor, or the OS you are using, it's all about cpu and memory cycles you wait for while compiling, debugging, testing.
Since Macs aren't actually known for their "bang for the buck" ratio (in hardware terms), I'd go with a PC and install either Vista or Linux. Mac OS X simply doesn't add that much value to justify the price difference (plus it has its own quirks and wtfs).
If you are really working and not playing around with desktop cpu monitor gadgets or trying out hundreds of time organizing schemes instead of doing some actual work, you will come to the conclusion that it's not that much about the editor, or the OS you are using, it's all about cpu and memory cycles you wait for while compiling, debugging, testing.
Since Macs aren't actually known for their "bang for the buck" ratio (in hardware terms), I'd go with a PC and install either Vista or Linux. Mac OS X simply doesn't add that much value to justify the price difference (plus it has its own quirks and wtfs).
it's all about cpu and memory cycles you wait for while compiling, debugging, testing.
Did you miss the part where the guy did a lot of Python development and HTML/CSS?
"Why are you sword-fighting in the hallway?" "Oh, I'm waiting for my CSS to compile!"
Last year DHH claimed to be doing all his Rails development on a MacBook Air, a wonderful machine which I really like but not the fastest computer around. On the other hand, it's still faster than anything I had years ago. And the speed difference between the Air and my 24" iMac doesn't much matter for Rails, unless you recompile your MacPorts or rubygem docs on an hourly basis.
But, if you see no value in the Mac OS, by all means use something else.
Did you miss the part where the guy did a lot of Python development and HTML/CSS?
"Why are you sword-fighting in the hallway?" "Oh, I'm waiting for my CSS to compile!"
Last year DHH claimed to be doing all his Rails development on a MacBook Air, a wonderful machine which I really like but not the fastest computer around. On the other hand, it's still faster than anything I had years ago. And the speed difference between the Air and my 24" iMac doesn't much matter for Rails, unless you recompile your MacPorts or rubygem docs on an hourly basis.
But, if you see no value in the Mac OS, by all means use something else.
Not much about the editor? So I guess I should dump emacs and go back to good old Notepad... After all it doesn't matter. Right?
And emacs is not the apex of what an editor could be. Not even close.
And emacs is not the apex of what an editor could be. Not even close.
PC running Linux is your best bet. Take the money they save versus buying a Mac and use it for a second monitor which I find to be one of the most important development tools. Having your code and browser open at the same time will make your life that much easier.
I disagree. I find virtual desktops much easier to use than looking at a monitor that isn't in my field of vision. I would rather press a key than make my body uncomfortable.
(For this technique to work, though, you need to be very comfortable with the keyboard, and you obviously have to disable desktop-switch eye candy. Not a problem with xmonad ;)
(For this technique to work, though, you need to be very comfortable with the keyboard, and you obviously have to disable desktop-switch eye candy. Not a problem with xmonad ;)
I use virtual desktops and use multiple screens. I find it much easier to glance back and forth between two screens (or three, or four) than to switch virtual desktops and locate something. (This may be a training effect though)
Pick the PC.
If you happen to be starting at the place I work, the only way I can get a Mac is if new employees say they want a PC. Otherwise I'm stuck. I don't know if I'm next on the list, but even if not that'd get me one step closer to my Mac.
So, yes. That's why you should pick a PC.
If you happen to be starting at the place I work, the only way I can get a Mac is if new employees say they want a PC. Otherwise I'm stuck. I don't know if I'm next on the list, but even if not that'd get me one step closer to my Mac.
So, yes. That's why you should pick a PC.
So you pick the PC because there's a waiting list for the Macs?
Honestly, if work is buying the computer for you, I'd get a Macbook (or Macbook Pro depending on the budget they're giving you) and run OS X and your Linux flavor of choice side-by-side. Develop in Linux--you may find that you never need to go to OS X so you might even opt to get rid of it. The hardware is really great; the new models are built very well and I hear there is good support for the hardware features like the camera etc. in Linux (double-check that obviously).
Especially for Python, which is installed in Leopard but is frozen at 2.5.1, and general web development, you won't struggle at all in Linux. If you're comfortable in a portable power editor (read: vim/emacs) then you're golden. Plus, apt-get is _incredible_. Coupled with multi-booting or VM'ing, you'll happily test across multiple operating systems and browsers.
Especially for Python, which is installed in Leopard but is frozen at 2.5.1, and general web development, you won't struggle at all in Linux. If you're comfortable in a portable power editor (read: vim/emacs) then you're golden. Plus, apt-get is _incredible_. Coupled with multi-booting or VM'ing, you'll happily test across multiple operating systems and browsers.
The only disadvantage of picking a Mac is that (unless they spring for a Mac Pro) you can't stuff it to the gills with RAM.
Until the latest generation of consumer Macs the limit was 4gb, though now if you spend $500 you can get 2x4gb DDR3 for an iMac or Macbook (though the Macbooks can only address 6gb). In the PC world, you can get 4x4gb DDR2 for a desktop Core2 motherboard for $350, or 6x2gb DDR3 for a new Nehalem motherboard for $240.
Until the latest generation of consumer Macs the limit was 4gb, though now if you spend $500 you can get 2x4gb DDR3 for an iMac or Macbook (though the Macbooks can only address 6gb). In the PC world, you can get 4x4gb DDR2 for a desktop Core2 motherboard for $350, or 6x2gb DDR3 for a new Nehalem motherboard for $240.
You're doing web development, not building a supercomputer or trying to run your laptop as a high-performance server. That level of RAM is entirely unnecessary on a machine used for dev.
I disagree. Doing web dev, you could easily be running a browser with multiple tabs, web servers, db servers, and a handful of virtual machines all at the same time. The more RAM you have, the smoother it all runs. That is unless you like nice little pauses when you switch apps. If you have a 32 bit system, you should have 3GB if you can. 64 bit, throw in 6 or 8 GB. Memory's cheap.
Buying extra RAM from Apple is for the birds, really. You can buy third party RAM for cheaper and install it yourself, no problem.
Laptop or desktop?
If it's a desktop, I won't comment, that's entirely up to you (maybe others have advice) - I haven't used a desktop regularly in at least a year. If it's a laptop, though, unless you work in a totally Windows-centric environment, a MacBook Pro is the only choice (even in a Windows shop, I'd consider it since you can dual boot and the hardware itself is really nice). Get one N-O-W.
Seriously - these things are freaking awesome, ever since I got one I can't imagine ever buying anything else. I've never met a person that bought one and didn't absolutely love it. First laptop I've ever had that didn't feel like a cheap plastic toy...
Go for a 15" matte screen, though - the bigger ones are too cumbersome, and the glossy screens just suck.
If it's a desktop, I won't comment, that's entirely up to you (maybe others have advice) - I haven't used a desktop regularly in at least a year. If it's a laptop, though, unless you work in a totally Windows-centric environment, a MacBook Pro is the only choice (even in a Windows shop, I'd consider it since you can dual boot and the hardware itself is really nice). Get one N-O-W.
Seriously - these things are freaking awesome, ever since I got one I can't imagine ever buying anything else. I've never met a person that bought one and didn't absolutely love it. First laptop I've ever had that didn't feel like a cheap plastic toy...
Go for a 15" matte screen, though - the bigger ones are too cumbersome, and the glossy screens just suck.
a MacBook Pro is the only choice
Why do you say that? Thinkpads are built much better, and IMHO are better-looking. You should only get a MacBook Pro if you want to run OS X. If you are going to run Windows or a UNIX, you definitely want a Thinkpad.
(Only disadvantage is that Thinkpads are a real pain in the ass to buy. "Ships in more than 4 weeks." Fuck.)
Why do you say that? Thinkpads are built much better, and IMHO are better-looking. You should only get a MacBook Pro if you want to run OS X. If you are going to run Windows or a UNIX, you definitely want a Thinkpad.
(Only disadvantage is that Thinkpads are a real pain in the ass to buy. "Ships in more than 4 weeks." Fuck.)
You need a *NIX system with some sort of port system (i.e. MacPorts, aptitude, etc.) and the ability to open VM's to test a bunch of the configurations that come up. Mac, Ubuntu both qualify. Windows is sorta possible via Cygwin.
Particularly since work is buying the computer, I'd get a Mac for the hardware, and then decide what OS to throw on it later. You can run whatever you want on a shiny new Macbook Pro.
Particularly since work is buying the computer, I'd get a Mac for the hardware, and then decide what OS to throw on it later. You can run whatever you want on a shiny new Macbook Pro.
1) You just did.
2) Intel/Mac or Intel/Linux, so you can run IE6/7 in a VM/Wine. Macs are lower maintenance.
3) TextMate/Coda or Xcode (or Scribes in Gnome) will be your definite friends, as well as Terminal and Firefox/Safari's debugging features. Python and the relevant libraries come with both systems and are easy to add to.
4) Would not recommend any Windows version for doing either development or design. Or anything mission-critical, for that matter. All the software you need comes with the Mac in the "Developer Tools" package on your Leopard DVD or in the public repositories for your Linux distro. You'll find many more choices are available, and you may even fall inlove with some.
Major disadvantages of a Mac over PC would be that the hardware is mostly set in stone at the time of purchase, which can, even if rarely, become a nuisance. There is some very strong classic gaming going on on the platform, but new titles often go on by not noticing OS X, which can be a bummer if you like your machine to be your do-everything, including being a gaming console. There are no disadvantages in relation to development, however.
And now for something completely different: don't let them buy you a Mac if you won't own it when they do. That is, there will most probably come a point when you'll want to own it.
2) Intel/Mac or Intel/Linux, so you can run IE6/7 in a VM/Wine. Macs are lower maintenance.
3) TextMate/Coda or Xcode (or Scribes in Gnome) will be your definite friends, as well as Terminal and Firefox/Safari's debugging features. Python and the relevant libraries come with both systems and are easy to add to.
4) Would not recommend any Windows version for doing either development or design. Or anything mission-critical, for that matter. All the software you need comes with the Mac in the "Developer Tools" package on your Leopard DVD or in the public repositories for your Linux distro. You'll find many more choices are available, and you may even fall inlove with some.
Major disadvantages of a Mac over PC would be that the hardware is mostly set in stone at the time of purchase, which can, even if rarely, become a nuisance. There is some very strong classic gaming going on on the platform, but new titles often go on by not noticing OS X, which can be a bummer if you like your machine to be your do-everything, including being a gaming console. There are no disadvantages in relation to development, however.
And now for something completely different: don't let them buy you a Mac if you won't own it when they do. That is, there will most probably come a point when you'll want to own it.
Since so many pros and cons have already mentioned, I'll just add that the Mac keyboards are not so super for coding (at least the german ones). It doesn't have "Home", "Page Down", "Page Up" or "Del", other keys like "~" and "\" require weird keyboard combos ("\" = alt+shift+"/"). Probably not an issue if you are a whiz with Emacs or Vim, but I tend to not remember many keyboard shortcuts, so atm it still bothers me occasionally (I am fairly new to OS X).
The MacPorts package manager works surprisingly well, but I still miss my Ubuntu when I have to install other stuff than the Unix things.
Also, the preinstalled programming languages on OS X might get in the way of the ones you install with MacPorts. Another case where I prefer Ubuntu, because it reduces the number of "app managers" messing with the system.
The MacPorts package manager works surprisingly well, but I still miss my Ubuntu when I have to install other stuff than the Unix things.
Also, the preinstalled programming languages on OS X might get in the way of the ones you install with MacPorts. Another case where I prefer Ubuntu, because it reduces the number of "app managers" messing with the system.
The American one doesn't have these issues it seems. That's odd.
My work just bought me a mac book pro, and coming from a souped up desktop running Linux, there were some upsides and downsides. Personally I would pick Apple hardware if you can get it and run OS X, but if you've never used Linux or OS X, odds are good that unless you really want to rethink how you use your computer, Windows is going to be the best choice for an operating system. One of the benefits of OS X, as others have mentioned, is the Unix core, but the applications for OS X are really awesome as well - Textmate, CSS Edit, Things. However, if you normally develop on Windows, the application centric vs window centric model of OS X takes some getting used to. Personally I prefer OS X's window manager over Windows, but that's just me.
If you need to use Photoshop for your HTML/CSS editing (for taking image from layouts, for example), dont go with Linux. Because you will not have the possibility to install the latest version of Photoshop in any version of Linux. Sure you can use a VM for things like that, but Photoshop requires a lot of memory. Sometimes you'll have to open a 100 megs Photoshop file (PSD files can really be huge like that)... Because of this, i cannot imagine myself using something else than a Mac or Windows. Unfortunately, because i love Linux otherwise.
I find a combination of OSX with an Ubuntu VM (vmware) works really well.
That way you can keep your dev environment the same as your production linux machine .. it's pretty hard to beat apt-get.
By using VMWare, the OS you use doesn't actually matter that much as long as you have a decent terminal and your personal editing weapon of choice (jEdit in my case).
By using VMWare, the OS you use doesn't actually matter that much as long as you have a decent terminal and your personal editing weapon of choice (jEdit in my case).
While there are a number of long-winded arguments that could be made in favor of X vs. Y, Mac vs. Windows or otherwise, it's hard to argue against the simplicity of the OS X platform.
Windows is inherently high maintenance in my experience unless you keep your installed applications to a very specific short list. Uninstalling software, or worse, drivers, can be an exercise in frustration.
I've never had an issue removing software on OS X as applications are generally quite well behaved or they're effectively managed by the Darwin Ports system.
It's also great that doing source installs on OS X is trivial. I don't think the same can be said for Windows. Tradition is to go the binary installer route there, and there's so many badly written installers.
While I respect those that choose to use a Linux-based desktop, as it can be quite a chore to keep up to date and tricky to get different apps to work together politely, I'd say that approach only works for people with intimate familiarity with the various quirks and caveats of their distribution. To get something like Debian, Ubuntu or Gentoo running in top form takes talent.
Making Windows into a productive development environment can be just as much of a challenge, too, and there's some things that can never change. The registry is a persistent horror, drive letters and backslashes in paths are an extreme nuisance, and the second-class status of things like a proper command line shell and compiler are just examples of my grievances with Windows.
While it's possible to glue together a workable environment in Windows, especially if it's just for something simple like PHP + MySQL, once you really want to stretch your legs and be more adventuresome you may run into trouble.
Although it could be fanboyism, 99% of the people I see at web-biased conferences are on Mac machines. It's the singular dude using the Dell who's doing the "think different" thing.
Windows is inherently high maintenance in my experience unless you keep your installed applications to a very specific short list. Uninstalling software, or worse, drivers, can be an exercise in frustration.
I've never had an issue removing software on OS X as applications are generally quite well behaved or they're effectively managed by the Darwin Ports system.
It's also great that doing source installs on OS X is trivial. I don't think the same can be said for Windows. Tradition is to go the binary installer route there, and there's so many badly written installers.
While I respect those that choose to use a Linux-based desktop, as it can be quite a chore to keep up to date and tricky to get different apps to work together politely, I'd say that approach only works for people with intimate familiarity with the various quirks and caveats of their distribution. To get something like Debian, Ubuntu or Gentoo running in top form takes talent.
Making Windows into a productive development environment can be just as much of a challenge, too, and there's some things that can never change. The registry is a persistent horror, drive letters and backslashes in paths are an extreme nuisance, and the second-class status of things like a proper command line shell and compiler are just examples of my grievances with Windows.
While it's possible to glue together a workable environment in Windows, especially if it's just for something simple like PHP + MySQL, once you really want to stretch your legs and be more adventuresome you may run into trouble.
Although it could be fanboyism, 99% of the people I see at web-biased conferences are on Mac machines. It's the singular dude using the Dell who's doing the "think different" thing.
if someone pays for me: mac
if i have to buy myself: used pc for sale, install openbsd/ubuntu and i'm ready
but of course ...
no vim ... no work
if i have to buy myself: used pc for sale, install openbsd/ubuntu and i'm ready
but of course ...
no vim ... no work
I'd go for a Mac. If it's too expensive Linux computer would do. Windows use a lot of resources (IMO) which would be very necessary in web-side development.
So you're saying you mostly edit text? There are only so many variations on typing things on a keyboard and having them appear in a text editor. You'd probably be fine either way, so you're really just looking at cost.
I'd suggest that if you've never used a Mac, the potential lost productivity you'll have using and learning an unfamiliar OS could be a burden to you.
What have you been developing on up to this point?
I'd suggest that if you've never used a Mac, the potential lost productivity you'll have using and learning an unfamiliar OS could be a burden to you.
What have you been developing on up to this point?
I also do a lot of Python development and a bit of HTML/CSS work. I recently had to toss up the pros and cons of an MBP versus a Dell XPSM1530. The 1530 won on the grounds that it was £700 cheaper than the Mac, more powerful and a better screen. The related cons (Vista, being a Dell) aren't so bad and I'll upgrade to Win7 when it comes out.
You need to have access to and be competent on all systems.
My weapon of choice is the MacBook Pro. Pretty fast hardware. Swap in a 500gb hdd and triple (or more) boot os x, windows (xp and vista), ubuntu, bsd, etc.
Or you can get a bunch of different machines and use synergy. I found that to be most useful for testing web stuff across platforms.
My weapon of choice is the MacBook Pro. Pretty fast hardware. Swap in a 500gb hdd and triple (or more) boot os x, windows (xp and vista), ubuntu, bsd, etc.
Or you can get a bunch of different machines and use synergy. I found that to be most useful for testing web stuff across platforms.
[deleted]
get a mac pro with gobs of ram. thats what i got a couple years ago. use it to rock vm instances of windows/linux/solaris whatever. mac is, by far, the leading dev tool in this space.
going to various computer/dev conferences over the years it was hard to not notice the rise of apple laptops to the point where they are at least 60% of all laptops seen at these conferences.
nevertheless, whatever you do - mac or pc - be sure to get at least two monitors. studies have shown, and i can attest, that multiple monitors is the number one thing you can do to increase your productivity.
my rig: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9864615@N06/756229467/
going to various computer/dev conferences over the years it was hard to not notice the rise of apple laptops to the point where they are at least 60% of all laptops seen at these conferences.
nevertheless, whatever you do - mac or pc - be sure to get at least two monitors. studies have shown, and i can attest, that multiple monitors is the number one thing you can do to increase your productivity.
my rig: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9864615@N06/756229467/
if you don't need gaming, I'd get a linux box ( or a mac ), and run windows in a virtual machine.
linux, duh
Linux Box running proxmox virtualisation
if you're serious about web developing you'll be wanting to test your sites in multiple versions of I.E, Firefox & Webkit & Opera. That means running Windows at some point, virtualisation is your best way. I run ProxMox virtualisation http://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Main_Page which runs a Linux in OpenVZ for running the HTTPD stack and various 2k/XPs etc in Qemu.
But the answer shoudl really be : the one that runs the tools you use in the best possible way.
I run Plan9 for my text editing requirements and I say it was the best I've come across. so YMMV
But the answer shoudl really be : the one that runs the tools you use in the best possible way.
I run Plan9 for my text editing requirements and I say it was the best I've come across. so YMMV
For desktop web development all you need is an iMac 24" and Photoshop.
Nothing else...
Nothing else...
Don't forget that on OS X you would find Textmate, which has no match yet. On windows the best editor would be Notepad++. But nothing comes closer to Textmate.
If you wish to save some money, then better got for a PC.
That's quite an opinion you've thrown there. I run OS X and refuse to use anything but Vim--but I'm not going to try convince developers to switch. I think it's a little ridiculous (even though I'm sure it happens) to switch to an operating system exclusively for Textmate...
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it's completely unreasonable to say Textmate has "no match yet". And, for the record, yes, I do own a copy of Textmate, and wasn't happy with it after several months of usage and went back to Vim. MacVim is my editor now.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it's completely unreasonable to say Textmate has "no match yet". And, for the record, yes, I do own a copy of Textmate, and wasn't happy with it after several months of usage and went back to Vim. MacVim is my editor now.
When I changed jobs last year, I briefly was at a place where all developers were on Windows (After 2 years of having a Mac at work). I started digging around, and there's a Windows "clone" of Textmate which is built to also fully support TextMate Plugin Bundles.
I used it for awhile, and it's pretty good. It's called "E" - http://www.e-texteditor.com/
I still prefer TextMate, but if stuck on Windows, E is pretty nice for getting close in editor.
I used it for awhile, and it's pretty good. It's called "E" - http://www.e-texteditor.com/
I still prefer TextMate, but if stuck on Windows, E is pretty nice for getting close in editor.
I use Komodo for Python on Mac as well. It's really nice. Plus you can always drop into vim when needed.
Doing it all on Windows just feels wrong to me after years of Mac use ;-)
Doing it all on Windows just feels wrong to me after years of Mac use ;-)
My criteria are: most productive for web development lowest possible maintenance
I mostly develop in python and also do a lot of HTML/CSS editing
what would you recommend and why? what software would you use on a mac? what are the major disadvantages of a mac over pc?