You'd pick Windows for its established features and broad compatibility.
You'd pick Windows for its established features and broad compatibility.
Windows feels like a poor operating system, which is why I’d prefer MacOS. However, both aren’t right for me, so I’m sticking with GNU/Linux instead.
When everything functions identically, motivation drops unless you value style, ecosystem integration, or specific app needs that already fit your workflow. Personally, I don’t see a strong reason to change if the choice existed. Traditionally, I see the OS as having three tiers of complexity: Apple offers fewer hardware options and less flexibility, with a tightly connected set of peripherals and services that simplifies technical tasks. The underlying design limits deeper technical customization. Windows provides a broader range of hardware and more customization, offering a balanced mix of technical possibilities and interoperability, though it can be complex. Linux gives extensive hardware control but comes with challenges in troubleshooting and limited support for certain applications. Each path demands a different approach, from learning new workflows to dealing with varying levels of official backing.
If all Linux systems were equally compatible, there would be no need to spend extra on advanced appearances or improved performance.
I’m mostly on MacOS, using it most of the time; I just switch to Windows when I play games. If MacOS can handle most games, I’d avoid using Windows altogether.
I wouldn't do it since I'd end up spending money even though Windows is working perfectly. After using it for a long time, it would actually be pointless to learn another operating system when I could achieve the same results either way.
Absolutely, you're assuming this question means you can set up Mac OS legally and simply, just like Windows on hardware. It's similar to getting the OS X Home Edition boxed.