[MoreCowbell]

I originally started the Laptop thread and have pretty much decided to wait until Vista comes out to upgrade. However, many of you said to consider going to a MAC.

Tell me...what are the positives of going to a mac??? Also, what would I lose?

[nabutes]

You should watch the mac commercials on apple.com

[txusa03]

Mac uses intel chip now and their OS underneath is Unix.

[MB330]

Originally Posted by gluck75

I originally started the Laptop thread and have pretty much decided to wait until Vista comes out to upgrade. However, many of you said to consider going to a MAC.

Tell me...what are the positives of going to a mac??? Also, what would I lose?

You loose few handred viruses for sure, that was created for Windows OS...

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by NIVKI89

You loose few handred viruses for sure, that was created for Windows OS...

Yup, that's no joke. Probably the biggest fallacy of Windows.

Then again, I bet if the MacOS was the major OS, hackers would just shift from Windows to the more popular (and more prey) OS and develop viruses for the MacOS.

It's not that the MacOS is bulletproof (nothing is). It's just that hackers don't want to waste their time making viruses that'll only affect Mac users and that only constitutes a fraction of today's computer users.

EDIT: I continue to believe that Apple hires offhand hackers to develop viruses, worms, and trojans against the Windows OS just to slim down Microsoft's monopolizing powers.

[JamieA]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Yup, that's no joke. Probably the biggest fallacy of Windows.

Then again, I bet if the MacOS was the major OS, hackers would just shift from Windows to the more popular (and more prey) OS and develop viruses for the MacOS.

It's not that the MacOS is bulletproof (nothing is). It's just that hackers don't want to waste their time making viruses that'll only affect Mac users and that only constitutes a fraction of today's computer users.

EDIT: I continue to believe that Apple hires offhand hackers to develop viruses, worms, and trojans against the Windows OS just to slim down Microsoft's monopolizing powers.

LOL at last comment

I agree that Mac is not a platform of focus, so the weaknesses don't tend to be targeted. But to be fair, there are other technical reasons for OS X's good record:

1. Users do not run by default in administrator mode like Windows does, therefore making it less likely for a vulnerability to become a problem.

2. Because of this, software can't modify the system or install applications unless the user specifically gives permission by entering the Administration password into a dialogue box that pops up whenever software tries to do this.

3. Unix is an old operating system (1975 I think was the year of the first version, but this is stretching my memory a bit too far). This is a double edged sword because there is some code written back then when the IT world was a safer, more stable place, but is also advantageous because time has seasoned and hardened Unix.

4. Related to this, Unix is a proper enterprise OS, also used in defence, so hardening a Unix machine is well understood and can be done because many of the required features have been built in over time as commercial and government concerns have demanded them. Thus, Apple's Mac OS X install is pretty much nailed down from the start.

[JamieA]

Originally Posted by gluck75

I originally started the Laptop thread and have pretty much decided to wait until Vista comes out to upgrade. However, many of you said to consider going to a MAC.

Tell me...what are the positives of going to a mac??? Also, what would I lose?

Take a look at my long winded Post #29 in response to your question in your other thread.

[vladinecko]

Originally Posted by JamieA

1. Users do not run by default in administrator mode like Windows does, therefore making it less likely for a vulnerability to become a problem.

2. Because of this, software can't modify the system or install applications unless the user specifically gives permission by entering the Administration password into a dialogue box that pops up whenever software tries to do this.

these are the two main reason why there are virtually no effective viruses for the Mac. it's very difficult to write one because every time you want to change something that matters (system-wise) you hit a wall with "enter password, asshole" written on it. so unless you're stupid enough to download an email attachment named "Open Me" from an unknown person, you open it and enter your password when prompted, you're pretty much protected. now if you do do that, that your own damn fault, not the system's.

another reason why OS X or Darwin or UNIX is a lot safer than Windows is that the programmers who built it were actually awake, thinking and collaborating while writing the code. that means, there are a lot fewer bugs, security holes or buffer overload opportunities that are so often and so easily exploited under Windows.

another thing to mention about OS X or Apple in general is that it has a character. that is why you see Mac users being complete maniacs about their computers because they genuinely love them. there is just something about it that makes you that way. just like with BMWs. there is something to those cars that makes us want them, talk about them, worship them and use them all the time. and Windows simply doesn't have THAT thing, the mojo, or whatever you wanna call it.

[JamieA]

Originally Posted by vladinecko

...another thing to mention about OS X or Apple in general is that it has a character. that is why you see Mac users being complete maniacs about their computers because they genuinely love them. there is just something about it that makes you that way. just like with BMWs. there is something to those cars that makes us want them, talk about them, worship them and use them all the time. and Windows simply doesn't have THAT thing, the mojo, or whatever you wanna call it.

I 200% agree.

[nyyankee]

agree 100% with all the points that were aready posted. I also noticed that nobody posted any negative comments about macs.

[donger274]

i had a iMac when i was litttle, omg i hated it, everyone was playing video games while i played oregon trail

ill never go mac again, and i love windows, i just got this computer and i think im top of the world.



god does anyone remember the worm virus though? i couldnt turn in my essay got a B in the class. only reason i didnt like windows

[vladinecko]

if it is gaming, and gaming alone, that you want to use your computer for, not even then you have a valid reason not to use a Mac. i think it's been mentioned here a million times that it is now possible to run Windows on any Intel Mac at full speed without emulation. if you take a Macbook Pro, for instance, there is more than plenty of power (more power than many PC laptops) on both CPU/memory and graphics side to run any modern game or application (Windows or OS X) without sacrificing any visual quality.

also, it is only a matter of time when all games start being developed for both platforms in parallel since there are no more hardware-specific barriers.

these days, you can name any reason or argument about Apple/OS X not being superior to PC/Windows and i can provide two or three counter-arguments.

[Squawks]

How about vast hardware support for PCs. I'm not saying you can't alter hardware in Macs but in my opinion it appears that hardware is both more available and easily upgradeable in PCs. PCs are relatively flexible in regards to gutting/changings its innards from motherboards all the way to graphics controllers.

[Hunter399]

Macs are awesome

GO FOR IT!

[ages944]

Originally Posted by vladinecko

another thing to mention about OS X or Apple in general is that it has a character. that is why you see Mac users being complete maniacs about their computers because they genuinely love them. there is just something about it that makes you that way. just like with BMWs. there is something to those cars that makes us want them, talk about them, worship them and use them all the time. and Windows simply doesn't have THAT thing, the mojo, or whatever you wanna call it.

heh heh, this was my theory that prompted me to start the whole Mac vs Windows poll.

Mac's rock Gluck, but they are a big change from windows, which will take getting used to. However, as you can see, a lot of us here think it would be a change for the better.

[Squawks]

You need to define 'maniacs' because from all the stuff I see on tomshardware/anandtech back in the days including overclocking, severe hardware modifications, insane cooling systems, etc. - they consist primarily of PC users.

[Daneel]

Originally Posted by vladinecko

are a lot fewer bugs, security holes or buffer overload opportunities that are so often and so easily exploited under Windows.

It's not quite as simple. For instance, did you know that OS X had a buffer overflow bug in a PASSWORD field? I mean, come on! That's just ridiculous.

The second problem is that OS X was a rewritten operating system. Apple based it on the Mach microkernel (from Carnegie Mellon), added a bunch of FreeBSD stuff on top of that, and then wrote Quartz/Carbon/Cocoa etc for the user interface stuff. Apple therefore had the opportunity to redesign the OS from the ground-up for the internet era. The disadvantage was that OS X was not compatible with System 9 and below applications; OS X has to, in effect, load up a copy of System 9 in order to run system 9 apps.

Note that because of the hodgepodge kernel design (mach is a microkernel, yet BSD is monolithic), OS X's threading model is just unbelievably slow; hence its poor performance as a server operating system. It's the worst server OS of the lot, in fact. It just grinds to a halt.

The third issue is that Apple uses a closed and propreitary hardware model. OS X developers KNOW which processor and which graphics card and which sound chipset and which wireless card that they will have in the system. Hence, they can optimize for those specific hardware devices. In contrast, Microsoft develops primarily for the PC, in which all components are off-the-shelf. Thus, MS has to support two-three different CPUs manufacturers, dozens of memory types, three main video systems, many sound systems, many motherboards, and innumerable wireless chipsets, to say the least.

If you take a look at the vast majority of blue-screen errors that used to show up on older Windows systems, they were almost always because of driver problems. And very often, because of VIDEO driver problems. I don't know if any of you guys work at Nvidia or ATI, but if you do, I'm sure you are aware of the type of development cycles those two companies have, and the corners they cut in their driver development.

Furthermore, Windows XP with SP 2 (or even before) rarely experienced BSoD that were not hardware related. Also, with Win XP SP2 and a firewall, a windows system can run for months without requiring a reboot or slowing down. The basic premise is that you need to know how to configure the system.

Jamie, you are right that the *nix's were developed with multi-user networks in mind, but take a look at the official bug lists of the Linux kernel; there are hundreds, if not thousands of bugs in the official 2.6 (latest stable version) kernel.

Vladinecko, you make some good points, but saying that the Windows developers were lazy/incompetent/etc is pretty ignorant; if Microsoft could rewrite windows from scratch, and could get away with supporting only a handful of hardware configurations, believe me, Windows would be far ahead of OS X. There are some extremely talented developers at that company.

[Squawks]

Very eloquent post, Daneel. You have my approbation.

[vladinecko]

Originally Posted by Daneel

It's not quite as simple. For instance, did you know that OS X had a buffer overflow bug in a PASSWORD field? I mean, come on! That's just ridiculous.

The second problem is that OS X was a rewritten operating system. Apple based it on the Mach microkernel (from Carnegie Mellon), added a bunch of FreeBSD stuff on top of that, and then wrote Quartz/Carbon/Cocoa etc for the user interface stuff. Apple therefore had the opportunity to redesign the OS from the ground-up for the internet era. The disadvantage was that OS X was not compatible with System 9 and below applications; OS X has to, in effect, load up a copy of System 9 in order to run system 9 apps.

Note that because of the hodgepodge kernel design (mach is a microkernel, yet BSD is monolithic), OS X's threading model is just unbelievably slow; hence its poor performance as a server operating system. It's the worst server OS of the lot, in fact. It just grinds to a halt.

The third issue is that Apple uses a closed and propreitary hardware model. OS X developers KNOW which processor and which graphics card and which sound chipset and which wireless card that they will have in the system. Hence, they can optimize for those specific hardware devices. In contrast, Microsoft develops primarily for the PC, in which all components are off-the-shelf. Thus, MS has to support two-three different CPUs manufacturers, dozens of memory types, three main video systems, many sound systems, many motherboards, and innumerable wireless chipsets, to say the least.

If you take a look at the vast majority of blue-screen errors that used to show up on older Windows systems, they were almost always because of driver problems. And very often, because of VIDEO driver problems. I don't know if any of you guys work at Nvidia or ATI, but if you do, I'm sure you are aware of the type of development cycles those two companies have, and the corners they cut in their driver development.

Furthermore, Windows XP with SP 2 (or even before) rarely experienced BSoD that were not hardware related. Also, with Win XP SP2 and a firewall, a windows system can run for months without requiring a reboot or slowing down. The basic premise is that you need to know how to configure the system.

Jamie, you are right that the *nix's were developed with multi-user networks in mind, but take a look at the official bug lists of the Linux kernel; there are hundreds, if not thousands of bugs in the official 2.6 (latest stable version) kernel.

Vladinecko, you make some good points, but saying that the Windows developers were lazy/incompetent/etc is pretty ignorant; if Microsoft could rewrite windows from scratch, and could get away with supporting only a handful of hardware configurations, believe me, Windows would be far ahead of OS X. There are some extremely talented developers at that company.

I agree with you on one point, that is, it's not quite as simple.

yes, i know about password buffer overflow bug, however, that was fixed over a year ago and the bug was not even known until after it was already fixed. there are, i'm sure, many buffer overflow holes in the system and/or bugs in general. the difference is how much damage can they cause, how soon they're discovered, and how soon they're patched and patched well and effectively. I'm sorry but Microsoft is notorious for its slow and poor response to security issues. Only in my company, there have been countless times when our Windows servers were put down for a long time just because MS's security updates broke more things than they fixed.

My point is, sure there are bugs in OS X too, but there is just no question that if the two systems were put side by side, Windows would win in both quantity and severity of all security problems.

To OS 9 vs OS X issue, I'm not even going to answer that because it's now over 6 years after the transition has been done and so to argue why a modern OS doesn't natively run applications from its archaic times (since OS 9 is in fact just one of many updates to the original Mac OS dated back to 1980-s) is simply ridiculous and inadequate. It's like asking from Windows XP to natively run some or all of old DOS applications. Please!

Concerning OS X's threading model. I cannot believe you're bringing the hybrid kernel design (which Windows uses as well by the way) as a negative! Almost all modern operating systems use this model (yes, combining monolithic and microkernels) to give the system the best of both worlds (messaging, extensibility, protected memory on one hand and speed on the other). If you want, I'll spend some time digging out benchmarks of both Windows and OS X servers because calling it "slow" or coming to a halt is simply untrue.

About closed hardware model. This issue is also slowly getting resolved as switch to Intel has arrived. Since there are no Mac-Intel desktops yet, it's hard to argue how easy it is to upgrade Mac vs. PC. also, i don't think it was Apple's theory of closed hardware model as much as unavailability of parts for the PowerPC platform. On OS level, this is simply a matter of how well the I/O layer is written and how large the driver database is.

I'm not saying there aren't talented developers at Microsoft, however, it just seems like certain parts of the OS were designed/written by interns or someone who was just hired yesterday and wasn't briefed on what's going on in the development process.

For bugs in 2.6 release, as I mentioned previously, at least they are documented and known there are only hundreds of them. Windows big security issues usually come out with a crash of some huge corporation's network as an employee was redirected to a page in IE that contained a very simple virus taking advantage of a hole that should have been patched in the QA process before the OS was even released. I just read an article somewhere stating number of bugs in Windows is counted in hundreds of thousands.

[MoreCowbell]

Hey Vlad...

if you need a job, all you need to do is ask...

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by vladinecko

About closed hardware model. This issue is also slowly getting resolved as switch to Intel has arrived.

And what Apple source are you quoting from? Sorry, vlad, but talking about Apple going open-hardware like today's PC is just vaportalk at the time being. Until it actually happens, it's nothing but speculation.

EDIT: and even worst is the fact that the same people who buy Macs to begin with are those exact same folks who choose the facile path of not having to haggle with upgrading/maintaing parts all the time while folk who love the flexibility of hardware changes/modification will always veer towards the world of Windows and PCs.

[krndanic307]

I just got the macbook 13" the newest one that came out... I bought it a day after it was launched! =]... Best computer EVER!!!!... As my cousin says... buying a mac it was one of the best investments!