|
PC vs. Mac G5 (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| stefanoc |
thanks guys.
i am so new to this, so im trying to read around.
i am saving up for a synth and a new computer. so i would really like to spend my money wisely.
the reason i like PC is because it will be more convenient for me, but from past experiences, i know it can sometimes be unreliable. but this time im only gonna use the PC for music.
How is AMD nowadays? are they as reliable as pentium or close? i remember i had AMD athlon i think 533mhz and it wasnt that great.
the only reason i prefer mac for now is because it seems like a media standard. im willing to work with audio later as a career. plus i like the fact that the G5 doesnt have a CPU. |
|
|
| DannyO |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Yes, because they are artsy types and Macs are more "user-friendly" (which isn't even true anymore, but it's a commonly-held belief among those types).
|
I'd liek to hear your reasons behind this without getting into a flame war, I have been using PCS and have worked with them for 12 years, in those years I have learn that windows is basically crap and always will be, its way to unstable, not user friendly, very unsafe (security wise), and is very behind in its times, even Gates knows this and has tried to change Windows to the better, but due to the platform that they have always built around they cannot do this, they were gonna do it with the new Vista but it would of lost nearly all of its backwards compatibility, so MS was force to take another route with it, the only OS they have even built that has been any good was NT4.
My brother has always been with Apple since I got into computers, and among the years we always tried them both out and compared Apples to Microsofts OS, everytime threw music benchmarks and threw testing the stability, the MS OS has failed miserably, as for macs ease of use, I don't have much experience for what it has trully been like in the past, but being a PC user, the switch was ALOT easier than I thought, things run and perform how they should be, this is the 21st century, we shouldn't have bad looking OSs that operate in a very primative way, and with windows you have to work at windows to make it work for you, the amount of times that I had to fix the OS even when it was a fresh install was a joke, I would highly recommend ANYONE to get a Mac over a PC, unless you want a really cheap computer, play ALOT of games, or are into customizing.
This probably all makes me sound like a biased that is now a MACFAN, well actually I am a Macfan now lol, but I just hate MS and windows for the fact they knew what was happening with there OS along time ago and did nothing, they could of changed things years ago and have a really good OS by now, but they decided not to as its not financially as good as the route they decided to take, although they are now really paying for it.
With all this said, Mac OSX is not without some problems, it does still crash but is VERY rare and I have only had it crash afew times due to a Alpha stage program I was using, but the fact that I don't get any viruses (OSX only has a handfull and there not even real viruses due to the way OSX is built) don't have any spyware or adware or other horrible bulll constantly getting into my system is nice, anyway I'd like to hear your side Digi, I'm always intrested in getting more info about things I might not know about. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DannyO
I'd liek to hear your reasons behind this without getting into a flame war, I have been using PCS and have worked with them for 12 years, in those years I have learn that windows is basically crap and always will be, its way to unstable, not user friendly, very unsafe (security wise), and is very behind in its times, even Gates knows this and has tried to change Windows to the better, but due to the platform that they have always built around they cannot do this, they were gonna do it with the new Vista but it would of lost nearly all of its backwards compatibility, so MS was force to take another route with it, the only OS they have even built that has been any good was NT4.
My brother has always been with Apple since I got into computers, and among the years we always tried them both out and compared Apples to Microsofts OS, everytime threw music benchmarks and threw testing the stability they MS OS has failed miserably, as for macs ease of use, I don't have much experience for what it has trully been like in the past, but being a PC user, the switch was ALOT easier than I thought, things run and perform how they should be, this is the 21st century, we shouldn't have bad looking OSs that operate in a very primative way, and with windows you have to work at windows to make it work for you, the amount of times that I had to fix the OS even when it was a fresh install was a joke, I would highly recommend ANYONE to get a Mac over a PC, unless you want a really cheap computer, play ALOT of games, or are into customizing.
This probably all makes me sound like a biased that is now a MACFAN, well actually I am a Macfan now lol, but I just hate MS and windows for the fact they knew what was happening with there OS along time ago and did nothing, they could of changed things years ago and have a really good OS by now, but they decided not to as its not financially as good as the route they decided to take, although they are now really paying for it.
With all this said, Mac OSX is not without some problems, it does still crash but is VERY rare and I have only had it crash afew times due to a Alpha stage program I was using, but the fact that I don't get any viruses (OSX only has a handfull and there not even real viruses due to the way OSX is built) don't have any spyware or adware or other horrible bulll constantly getting into my system is nice, anyway I'd like to hear your side Digi, I'm always intrested in getting more info about things I might not know about. |
You said you've been using Windows for 12 years - wonderful, but the OS has changed drastically since then. It was behind the times 12 years ago, maybe even 5 or 6 years ago, but public scrutiny of that company has increased so much that they've been forced to adopt best practices and make a decent product.
I'll address each of your issues aside from the one about it being "bad looking", which is a ridiculous standard to go by and absolutely meaningless in the context of computing. And even so, you can customize Windows to "look" however you want.
From what I understand, your concerns are:
1. Reliability
I've used Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 for about 3 years now, and have experienced a crash or needed to reboot maybe once a month IF that (depending on what you do). Furthermore, most of those crashes are due to poorly-written, unreliable drivers, which is the fault of the vendors, not Microsoft or of the "PC" hardware platform in general.
We have 4 servers at work running Windows Server 2003. Our PDC which is always under heavy load has an uptime of 1.5 months, and the only reason it went down in the first place was because of a domain trust with another controller that had problems with the NIC and was sending bad authentication packets. The other servers have been up ever since they were first installed in Mid-October. Our old PDC, which was repurposed because it could no longer handle the load after 6 years of increasing load, routinely had uptimes of 4-6 months before the change-over.
My personal machine at work has also been up for 1.5 months, and I write and test code on that machine. That means, I beat the hell out of it - I test unsafe components all the time and crash programs all the time, even create memory leaks (unintentionally of course) and the OS always seems to be able to clean up afterwards. I believe I have rebooted that computer 3 times in the past 6 months, each time only to install a new hardware device in it.
My machine at home runs Windows XP and the only reason I ever have to reboot it is due to the flakey drivers that came with my Emu 1010 card. That happens maybe once every 3 or 4 weeks, and it does not actually crash the system, I just lose a couple of ASIO channels (one or two out of the 32 available).
As far as I know, these statistics are unheard of for Macs.
2. Security
I'll be the first to admit, Windows still has a long way to go in terms of security, but it also has come a long way. Authentication in Windows has been based on the stable and secure Kerberos protocol for at least 5 years, ever since Windows 2000 came out. When it comes to networking, Windows pretty much has it buttoned down.
Certain software in Windows, such as Internet Explorer, is not very secure. However, software in a non-networked environment (or a computer connected to the public internet) is very much dependent on the user. One might say that Linux (or BSD) is a more secure system in this environment, but much of that is because correct operation of the system requires users to become familiar with security. Making a system "user-friendly" makes this impossible - users don't want to deal with security. There is no good compromise between security and ease-of-use, which is why Mac OS X is far less secure than ordinary BSD.
Security simply isn't a valid comparison to make between Mac OS and Windows, because Mac OS has less than 3% of the market share. Macs are "secure" simply because they aren't common or popular enough for crackers to take an interest in them. The actual operation of a Mac has the exact same security flaw as Windows: running programs and services in an administrative context and having the "default permit" (as opposed to default deny) when it comes to access rules.
Security means setting up a firewall and proper ACLs (both for the firewall and for the domain or local computer's users and groups), making those ACL's "default deny", and not running any unnecessary programs or services under an administrative context. If this is done correctly, the OS itself becomes irrelevant, and if you don't do this, you are never going to be secure no matter which OS you use.
---
Now, let's talk about the problems with Macs and the Mac OS.
Hardware Support/Compatibility
Let's not kid ourselves here - Macs simply aren't compatible with most of the hardware out there. "Plug and play" in the PC world was a dream that has, for the most part, been realized in practice today. Bluetooth, USB keys and cameras, firewire devices (including audio products) - they are all things that truly are plug and play. With Macs, it's hit or miss.
You talk about being behind the times, but when it comes to interoperability of files, programs and hardware, Macs are WAY behind the times. The iffy USB support alone is enough to be a major problem.
Software Support
People continue to perpetuate this myth that the only software you could ever want to use on PC that isn't available on Macs is games. Well, here's a quick list of other things you can't find on Macs:
- Integrated Development Environments (such as Delphi or VS.NET)
- Office suites (sure, there is Microsoft Office for Mac, but if the name "Microsoft" makes you cringe, exactly what else is available? And don't say OpenOffice!)
- CAD programs (the juggernaut of this, AutoCAD, is not available on Mac)
- Networking apps (for example, VPN clients and good servers, proxies and firewalls)
- E-mail/PDA software (once again, Microsoft is the only company making anything half-decent for Mac, and they aren't exactly committed to updates and support)
- Database applications
I'm sure there are more, that's just off the top of my head.
The filesystem
God how I hate this on Macs. Now that OS X is based on a GNU kernel it's a bit better for the "power users", but it's absolutely awful how these machines try to obscure everything about the file system.
People who have always used Macs seem lost and confused in the PC world because they can never figure out where anything is. Apple still seems to cater to the clueless and disorganized.
Backwards Compatibility
Microsoft has done a remarkably good - although of course not perfect - job of building current versions of Windows so that they can run programs which were designed for older versions. Apple has its "Classic Application" but compared to WoW (Windows on Windows, used for 16-bit legacy support) and NTVDM (Virtual DOS Machine) it is simply garbage. I can still run *most* DOS and Windows 3.1 apps on Windows XP, can you say something similar for Mac OS X?
---
Again, I could think of many more points here but I think this is more than enough to debunk your claim of the Mac being a "better" platform.
Also, you still haven't shown us any evidence or benchmarks to prove that G5s have better performance than Athlon 64! Cubase SX, which is available on both Mac and PC, performs almost exactly the same on a new G5 as it does on an Athlon 64 - and 64-bit support in Windows isn't even fully functional yet. When Microsoft has made the full transition to 64-bit, Athlons will blow G5s out of the water.
If the G5 is truly such a wonderful chip, why is Apple in the process of phasing it out and moving to Intel-based technology?
|
|
|
| DannyO |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You said you've been using Windows for 12 years - wonderful, but the OS has changed drastically since then. It was behind the times 12 years ago, maybe even 5 or 6 years ago, but public scrutiny of that company has increased so much that they've been forced to adopt best practices and make a decent product.
I'll address each of your issues aside from the one about it being "bad looking", which is a ridiculous standard to go by and absolutely meaningless in the context of computing. And even so, you can customize Windows to "look" however you want.
From what I understand, your concerns are:
1. Reliability
I've used Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 for about 3 years now, and have experienced a crash or needed to reboot maybe once a month IF that (depending on what you do). Furthermore, most of those crashes are due to poorly-written, unreliable drivers, which is the fault of the vendors, not Microsoft or of the "PC" hardware platform in general.
We have 4 servers at work running Windows Server 2003. Our PDC which is always under heavy load has an uptime of 1.5 months, and the only reason it went down in the first place was because of a domain trust with another controller that had problems with the NIC and was sending bad authentication packets. The other servers have been up ever since they were first installed in Mid-October. Our old PDC, which was repurposed because it could no longer handle the load after 6 years of increasing load, routinely had uptimes of 4-6 months before the change-over.
My personal machine at work has also been up for 1.5 months, and I write and test code on that machine. That means, I beat the hell out of it - I test unsafe components all the time and crash programs all the time, even create memory leaks (unintentionally of course) and the OS always seems to be able to clean up afterwards. I believe I have rebooted that computer 3 times in the past 6 months, each time only to install a new hardware device in it.
My machine at home runs Windows XP and the only reason I ever have to reboot it is due to the flakey drivers that came with my Emu 1010 card. That happens maybe once every 3 or 4 weeks, and it does not actually crash the system, I just lose a couple of ASIO channels (one or two out of the 32 available).
As far as I know, these statistics are unheard of for Macs.
2. Security
I'll be the first to admit, Windows still has a long way to go in terms of security, but it also has come a long way. Authentication in Windows has been based on the stable and secure Kerberos protocol for at least 5 years, ever since Windows 2000 came out. When it comes to networking, Windows pretty much has it buttoned down.
Certain software in Windows, such as Internet Explorer, is not very secure. However, software in a non-networked environment (or a computer connected to the public internet) is very much dependent on the user. One might say that Linux (or BSD) is a more secure system in this environment, but much of that is because correct operation of the system requires users to become familiar with security. Making a system "user-friendly" makes this impossible - users don't want to deal with security. There is no good compromise between security and ease-of-use, which is why Mac OS X is far less secure than ordinary BSD.
Security simply isn't a valid comparison to make between Mac OS and Windows, because Mac OS has less than 3% of the market share. Macs are "secure" simply because they aren't common or popular enough for crackers to take an interest in them. The actual operation of a Mac has the exact same security flaw as Windows: running programs and services in an administrative context and having the "default permit" (as opposed to default deny) when it comes to access rules.
Security means setting up a firewall and proper ACLs (both for the firewall and for the domain or local computer's users and groups), making those ACL's "default deny", and not running any unnecessary programs or services under an administrative context. If this is done correctly, the OS itself becomes irrelevant, and if you don't do this, you are never going to be secure no matter which OS you use.
---
Now, let's talk about the problems with Macs and the Mac OS.
Hardware Support/Compatibility
Let's not kid ourselves here - Macs simply aren't compatible with most of the hardware out there. "Plug and play" in the PC world was a dream that has, for the most part, been realized in practice today. Bluetooth, USB keys and cameras, firewire devices (including audio products) - they are all things that truly are plug and play. With Macs, it's hit or miss.
You talk about being behind the times, but when it comes to interoperability of files, programs and hardware, Macs are WAY behind the times. The iffy USB support alone is enough to be a major problem.
Software Support
People continue to perpetuate this myth that the only software you could ever want to use on PC that isn't available on Macs is games. Well, here's a quick list of other things you can't find on Macs:
- Integrated Development Environments (such as Delphi or VS.NET)
- Office suites (sure, there is Microsoft Office for Mac, but if the name "Microsoft" makes you cringe, exactly what else is available? And don't say OpenOffice!)
- CAD programs (the juggernaut of this, AutoCAD, is not available on Mac)
- Networking apps (for example, VPN clients and good servers, proxies and firewalls)
- E-mail/PDA software (once again, Microsoft is the only company making anything half-decent for Mac, and they aren't exactly committed to updates and support)
- Database applications
I'm sure there are more, that's just off the top of my head.
The filesystem
God how I hate this on Macs. Now that OS X is based on a GNU kernel it's a bit better for the "power users", but it's absolutely awful how these machines try to obscure everything about the file system.
People who have always used Macs seem lost and confused in the PC world because they can never figure out where anything is. Apple still seems to cater to the clueless and disorganized.
Backwards Compatibility
Microsoft has done a remarkably good - although of course not perfect - job of building current versions of Windows so that they can run programs which were designed for older versions. Apple has its "Classic Application" but compared to WoW (Windows on Windows, used for 16-bit legacy support) and NTVDM (Virtual DOS Machine) it is simply garbage. I can still run *most* DOS and Windows 3.1 apps on Windows XP, can you say something similar for Mac OS X?
---
Again, I could think of many more points here but I think this is more than enough to debunk your claim of the Mac being a "better" platform.
Also, you still haven't shown us any evidence or benchmarks to prove that G5s have better performance than Athlon 64! Cubase SX, which is available on both Mac and PC, performs almost exactly the same on a new G5 as it does on an Athlon 64 - and 64-bit support in Windows isn't even fully functional yet. When Microsoft has made the full transition to 64-bit, Athlons will blow G5s out of the water.
If the G5 is truly such a wonderful chip, why is Apple in the process of phasing it out and moving to Intel-based technology?
|
Hmm good responce, I'm not gonna respond to all of it as it will be too much writing, but the parts I want to point out are the following ones.
Uptime: you say you have these machines that have not been restarted in months and that Macs can not compare, well sorry but both Windows and Macs have uptimes that go into years, not months, my ty laptop was able to stay up for a couple months without restart, I'm not sure which has the lead, it was a couple years ago I did read that out of both of them Mac had a longer uptime, but both were beat by another Unix system altogether.
Security: Now there are ALOT of companies out there that use various versions of windows for protection and are doing fine, but alot of those companies don't really have to worry to much about people trying to get into there systems or bring them down, for the big companies and organizations, like what alot of the government use and NASA and Norad, at the heart of there systems are either Unix designed systems and even Mac OSX, as windows cannot cut it for security, even my brother who lives in germany works for a computer security and admin company, he runs the Apple section and they have other guys running a Unix section and a Windows section, they all have about an equal share of clients, yet the one who gets the most work is the Windows section, they get slammed with loads of there clients needing constant updates and needing security to be made tighter, the guys hate it, although they said they do love it as if it wasn't for how unsecure and stable the windows systems are, they wouldn't have much work, where as the unix and apple departments mainly do upgrades and install new software for clients, they only get real problems every few weeks, but they are just starting to get alot of business for the apple section as there are alot of companies in Berlin mainly that are deciding to switch to Mac computers due to the companies paying too much for administation on the windows systems, some of these companies include all the schools in berlin, MTVs main headquarters and numerous music companies.
As for Mac being safer from a whole bunch of problems due to it not being very popular is a crap reason, there are MILLIONS of Apple computers out there, and they have there fair share of hackers who try and beat it, windows has about 25000 new viruses created each month for it where as OSX has about 2 or 3 that could actually be a threat, you do the maths on mac vs pc and mac viruses vs pc viruses, it takes less than a minute for a windows system to get infected with a virus when connecting to the internet for the first time, and due to how easy it is and how spam, spyware and trojans can get access and spread so easily threw a windows system, most of the internets traffic is actually these little programs constantly being spread threw windows and out onto the net for other windows systems.
Also as every year there is a competition (don't know the name of it, but could find it on the net probably), this competition is for anyone who can make a successful virus for the mac of make something that destroys it, this gets the attention of ALOT of hackers, yet no one has won in the few years its been running, this is due to the fact that to really effect the OSX system you need to get access which a OSX user is constantly seperate from, whenever you want to install an app that effects it or change some settings, you have to put in your password, so all the viruses out there that can damage OSX needs you to put in your password, so all you gotta do is make sure you don't install anything that is suspisious, if you download a jpeg and OSX tells you its actually a program and you click on it and it wants your password, obviously you don't install it, if you do, your an idiot, thats the benefit of OSX, even when logged in as Admin, your still seperate form the root, so you can't it up, where as windows you always have access to the system so anyone can screw it up and thats how most these viruses work upon.
Hardware support: how are macs not compatible with alot of hardware out there, yes they ain't gonna work with the bits you can buy from most computer companies, but thats how its always been with macs from the very beginning, as for USB, I aswell as a bunch of other people I know with macs, have never had problems, maybe with certain devices specifically made for a PC then it wouldn't work, but thats like expecting a Nintendo controller to work on an Xbox, as for Firewire and Bluetooth, I have plugged all sorts of firewire gear into mine and all worked fine, and as for bluetooth, my brother has numerous gear like cellphones and headsets that use bluetooth and work flawlessly, I don't even think I've seen a bluetooth device on a PC yet, I have seen a couple cell phones not work well, but that turned out to be due to a ty phone and ty software on it.
Software support: I can't comment much about this as I don't try out much of the software you mentioned so have never looked for those or similar apps, like IDE apps and CAD apps, as for VPN, umm not sure what you on about, its easy to setup a VPN on a mac, I have one that my parents can access with there windows computer and my brother and some friends can access from anywhere in the world, I had it setup in no time and no one has had a problem, PDA software I have never tried but I do know people make them as I have seen downloads for those type of apps, as for email and office suites, well that was all due to afew years ago MS and apple made a deal and part of that deal was Apple were not allowed to make or develope any office related software and MS was allowed to make it for mac, so MS had no problem in dominating that area, the contract ended not to long ago and thats why apple have just started to bring out office software, but still cannot compare.
The filesystem: I don't even want to talk about it, Windows hasn't come far at all IMO, its still just a graphic display of DOS if you ask me, so basic, MS might have come far with features or making it look better, but its still got that mid 90s feel to it, and thats due to the fact that the core of windows hasn't changed, this is why Windows has that great backwards compatibility, and this is its main weakness, this is why MS is IMO not gonna be the OS of choice in the future, its getting worse, MS knows this, Vista was originally designed to work on a completely different core and filesystem, and would have been great, but due to this, it lost nearly all its backward compatibility, this is not good for MS, as people will be pissed off and they wouldn't sell much as it would cost business loads of money to make a switch, and new software would have to be created, so MS decided to change the core of Vista back to good oll windows, so you can run all your favourite apps, but also get infected by all the things that have effected previous versions, this IMO is gonna be MS downfall, unless they DO make the change to a new and more secure system, its just gonna get worse and worse.
Oh yea and I never said the G5 is faster than the AMDs (infact I never even mentioned them), I said there probably the same, the ones I were comparing were older CPUs with very different cores, its about time they change to 64bit, Mac has been 64bit for years, and the reasons Apple is changing to Intels is due to IBM not making the quota they gave for producing the G5, also its due to the CPUs getting alittle hotter than Apple would like, also Intel make some very good CPUs, and Apple is mainly interested int he M series, as its fast and has low heat output, which will be much better for the portable devices Apple want to bring out in the future, and in the next generation of Ibooks and Powerbooks, the G5 is too hot to run in those.
I gotta say with the way MS iand Apple are going, I'm looking forward to the future, MS is at a point that if it wants to be around in 10 years, they are gonna have to change windows ALOT, and if the rumors are true, Apples next OSX upgrade (leopard) is gonna have a feature that can run windows apps natively (kinda like WINE) this means that you can make the switch and still use your apps on a much more secure and friendly (IMO) environment, but then you think "it would then get effected by all of windows problems" well not true as the windows apps would run in a kind of shell, so that nothing can be copied out of it unless tou give it the access, but this is all talk right now so who knows.
One last thing, as for me saying the OSX looks better, well since I do spend alot of time on my computer I want to be looking at something that looks nice, and OSX and Apples computers win the award every year for best looking computer, they really are a design of beauty, where as I look over at my PC desktop and it makes me cring, the boring beige box that looks like it was thought up by someone with a lobotomy, and then you start up windows only to be greeted by a OS that starts up with the 80s looking DOS commands, then onto the GUI that looks like a retarded kid drew it with crayons, I don't want to have to run another app just to hide what windows really is. |
|
|
| DannyO |
| Oh yea, also to answer another question, the reason OSX backward compatibility to Classic isn't as good as Windows, is OSX is completely different, OSX was the OS that changed to the Unix system (BSD to be specific), which is the oldest and has proven to be the best and most stable out of all OSs, its the backbone to the internet, due to its design, I don't think another OS can be designed to beat it, theres not anything you can't make a Unix system do or run on (yes this is mainly due to it being open source, which IMO is what all OSs should be). |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DannyO
Uptime: you say you have these machines that have not been restarted in months and that Macs can not compare, well sorry but both Windows and Macs have uptimes that go into years, not months, my ty laptop was able to stay up for a couple months without restart, I'm not sure which has the lead, it was a couple years ago I did read that out of both of them Mac had a longer uptime, but both were beat by another Unix system altogether. |
Again, source? Please provide evidence, and take into account that I'm talking about uptime under heavy load, not uptime with no network services installed and the screen saver running.
| quote: | | Security: Now there are ALOT of companies out there that use various versions of windows for protection and are doing fine, but alot of those companies don't really have to worry to much about people trying to get into there systems or bring them down, for the big companies and organizations, like what alot of the government use and NASA and Norad, at the heart of there systems are either Unix designed systems and even Mac OSX, as windows cannot cut it for security, even my brother who lives in germany works for a computer security and admin company, he runs the Apple section and they have other guys running a Unix section and a Windows section, they all have about an equal share of clients, yet the one who gets the most work is the Windows section, they get slammed with loads of there clients needing constant updates and needing security to be made tighter, the guys hate it, although they said they do love it as if it wasn't for how unsecure and stable the windows systems are, they wouldn't have much work, where as the unix and apple departments mainly do upgrades and install new software for clients, they only get real problems every few weeks, but they are just starting to get alot of business for the apple section as there are alot of companies in Berlin mainly that are deciding to switch to Mac computers due to the companies paying too much for administation on the windows systems, some of these companies include all the schools in berlin, MTVs main headquarters and numerous music companies. |
You continue to tell us that windows "can't cut it" and that the computers require so much more maintenance, etc., etc., but you still have not provided any evidence of this. I work in IT as well, with both *nix and Windows machines and have a fairly intimate knowledge of the security on both, and I've outlined their security models in my previous post - you haven't presented any facts that support your assertion. I've especially never, EVER heard of Macs being used as servers or security gateways, and if the Windows section gets more work than UNIX/Linux, it's probably because they have 10 times as many MS machines and servers out in production. Macs have less than a 3% market share - if they had a 90% market share, trust me, there would be more problems reported.
One other problem you might be overlooking is that many self-proclaimed Windows IT "professionals" actually know jack about security, whereas with Linux, as I said earlier, to be able to use it at all requires a pretty good knowledge of its security model. Many of the various security problems associated with Windows are actually a result of much more fundamental problems, like poorly configured firewalls or ACLs.
| quote: | | As for Mac being safer from a whole bunch of problems due to it not being very popular is a crap reason, there are MILLIONS of Apple computers out there, and they have there fair share of hackers who try and beat it, windows has about 25000 new viruses created each month for it where as OSX has about 2 or 3 that could actually be a threat, you do the maths on mac vs pc and mac viruses vs pc viruses, it takes less than a minute for a windows system to get infected with a virus when connecting to the internet for the first time, and due to how easy it is and how spam, spyware and trojans can get access and spread so easily threw a windows system, most of the internets traffic is actually these little programs constantly being spread threw windows and out onto the net for other windows systems. |
What's your point? Yes, there are a few million Apple computers, and there are a few billion Windows machines. You have to look at these things proportionally. Many of the "new viruses created each month" for Windows are actually worms, and their effectiveness is driven only by the stupidity of the users who open unsafe attachments, which is what's prompted Microsoft to start locking down their browsers and e-mail programs. I guarantee you that most Mac users are equally daft and wouldn't think twice about opening such attachments if they received them.
It's not a question of the ease-of-use of creating viruses, it's a question of motivation: why would anyone want to write a virus for Mac OS when its penetration is going to be less than 3 percent? Probably less than 1 percent since many of those Macs are standalone machines or in closed networking environments. What people really want to hit with these virii are the corporate networks and Macs practically do not exist at all in that area.
| quote: | | Also as every year there is a competition (don't know the name of it, but could find it on the net probably), this competition is for anyone who can make a successful virus for the mac of make something that destroys it, this gets the attention of ALOT of hackers, yet no one has won in the few years its been running, this is due to the fact that to really effect the OSX system you need to get access which a OSX user is constantly seperate from, whenever you want to install an app that effects it or change some settings, you have to put in your password, so all the viruses out there that can damage OSX needs you to put in your password, so all you gotta do is make sure you don't install anything that is suspisious, if you download a jpeg and OSX tells you its actually a program and you click on it and it wants your password, obviously you don't install it, if you do, your an idiot, thats the benefit of OSX, even when logged in as Admin, your still seperate form the root, so you can't it up, where as windows you always have access to the system so anyone can screw it up and thats how most these viruses work upon. |
Again, ridiculous. The Mac can never be more secure than its Kernel, which is based on BSD code. Do you not know that the concept of a "rootkit" originated in the UNIX world? Try to get it through your head that many of the smartest security experts simply do not want to waste their time on a silly Mac virus competition. :rolleyes: Believe it or not, most of these people are in it for the money and they're not going to make any in the Mac world.
You do not "always have access to the system" in Windows unless you configure your computer to always log you in as an administrator. That is the fault of the user, not the operating system, and *all* corporations and companies with IT departments will see to it that this does not happen.
New versions of Windows have the exact same protections as you are talking about with your Mac. It's not Microsoft's fault if users click past the warning boxes and open unsafe attachments anyway. If Windows has 100 times as many users, it's likely to have 100 times as many stupid users!
| quote: | | Hardware support: how are macs not compatible with alot of hardware out there, yes they ain't gonna work with the bits you can buy from most computer companies, but thats how its always been with macs from the very beginning, as for USB, I aswell as a bunch of other people I know with macs, have never had problems, maybe with certain devices specifically made for a PC then it wouldn't work, but thats like expecting a Nintendo controller to work on an Xbox, as for Firewire and Bluetooth, I have plugged all sorts of firewire gear into mine and all worked fine, and as for bluetooth, my brother has numerous gear like cellphones and headsets that use bluetooth and work flawlessly, I don't even think I've seen a bluetooth device on a PC yet, I have seen a couple cell phones not work well, but that turned out to be due to a ty phone and ty software on it. |
How are they not compatible? They simply aren't. Here's a list:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/i...ible_List_-_NCL
And a very incomplete list of incompatible USB storage devices:
http://kb.dantz.com/al/12/1/5641.html
Your analogy of expecting a Nintendo controller to work on an Xbox is not valid here because the two platforms *claim* to support the same hardware (this is why Macs have PCI slots). Even if they didn't claim that, it is still a disadvantage for Macs because the amount of hardware that's designed "natively" for Macs only amounts to a fraction of what's available for PCs.
Bluetooth headsets for cell phones obviously have no relevance to this discussion. However, the fact that you have not seen bluetooth used on computers is more than likely a result of you being a Mac user, because there is virtually no support for it! Windows, however, supports a variety of bluetooth devices. Bluetooth-enabled computers can join a PAN (Personal Area Network) which is in many ways like a regular LAN. I use bluetooth to transfer files to and from my Treo phone (which incidentally is Palm OS - again, Windows has pretty good interoperability with other platforms, unlike Macs). Speaking of which, you ever tried to do a HotSync on a Mac? :stongue:[/QUOTE]
| quote: | | Software support: I can't comment much about this as I don't try out much of the software you mentioned so have never looked for those or similar apps, like IDE apps and CAD apps, as for VPN, umm not sure what you on about, its easy to setup a VPN on a mac, I have one that my parents can access with there windows computer and my brother and some friends can access from anywhere in the world, I had it setup in no time and no one has had a problem, PDA software I have never tried but I do know people make them as I have seen downloads for those type of apps, as for email and office suites, well that was all due to afew years ago MS and apple made a deal and part of that deal was Apple were not allowed to make or develope any office related software and MS was allowed to make it for mac, so MS had no problem in dominating that area, the contract ended not to long ago and thats why apple have just started to bring out office software, but still cannot compare. |
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]I love how you end the paragraph with "still cannot compare". I've never heard of these "deal" between MS and Apple - why on earth would Apple make that deal? And even so, what's preventing other companies from making 3rd-party office software?
As for the other software, simply because you don't use it does not mean it doesn't exist, and it's a serious problem with Macs. I'm not sure what kind of VPN you set up, but several types of VPNs (especially IPSEC) do not work easily or correctly, which is largely due to the fact that it's based on a BSD kernel and these things have never worked reliably on that system either.
| quote: | | The filesystem: I don't even want to talk about it, Windows hasn't come far at all IMO, its still just a graphic display of DOS if you ask me, so basic, MS might have come far with features or making it look better, but its still got that mid 90s feel to it, and thats due to the fact that the core of windows hasn't changed, this is why Windows has that great backwards compatibility, and this is its main weakness, this is why MS is IMO not gonna be the OS of choice in the future, its getting worse, MS knows this, Vista was originally designed to work on a completely different core and filesystem, and would have been great, but due to this, it lost nearly all its backward compatibility, this is not good for MS, as people will be pissed off and they wouldn't sell much as it would cost business loads of money to make a switch, and new software would have to be created, so MS decided to change the core of Vista back to good oll windows, so you can run all your favourite apps, but also get infected by all the things that have effected previous versions, this IMO is gonna be MS downfall, unless they DO make the change to a new and more secure system, its just gonna get worse and worse. |
Windows sticks with that file system because it works and nobody has ever complained about it - why would they change it?
Vista was never designed on a different core and filesystem, where did you get that information from? The only change in file system that Microsoft made was in the early 90s when they came up with NTFS, which has been the standard on new products ever since then. It supports everything that the other file systems support (i.e. mount points and symbolic links). The only real difference between NTFS and ext3 (Linux) is that it uses drive letters instead of a generic "root". You can make a case for either one... I think they're both fine.
The Mac file system is HFS+, which is okay, but it still doesn't support journaling like NTFS and ext3. In fact, NTFS was a quantum leap in innovation because it was the first consumer- and corporate-grade journaling file system (ext3 came out much later - versions of Linux as recent as a year or two ago all used ext2 because ext3 hadn't been fully tested).
You've missed the point, though, which is that Macs try to hide all sorts of system files and obfuscate the file system for its most clueless users. It's hard to understand where a file really is on a Mac, and many users don't - they just know where to click to get to it.
| quote: | | Oh yea and I never said the G5 is faster than the AMDs (infact I never even mentioned them), I said there probably the same, the ones I were comparing were older CPUs with very different cores, its about time they change to 64bit, Mac has been 64bit for years, and the reasons Apple is changing to Intels is due to IBM not making the quota they gave for producing the G5, also its due to the CPUs getting alittle hotter than Apple would like, also Intel make some very good CPUs, and Apple is mainly interested int he M series, as its fast and has low heat output, which will be much better for the portable devices Apple want to bring out in the future, and in the next generation of Ibooks and Powerbooks, the G5 is too hot to run in those. |
You make it sound like Macs have been 64-bit since the beginning of time, but they only introduced that with the G5. The G4 was an ordinary 32-bit chip. Apple went 64-bit right around the same time AMD did.
Anyway, it was the other guy that said G5s always outperform the Athlon 64s, not you - sorry about that.
| quote: | | I gotta say with the way MS iand Apple are going, I'm looking forward to the future, MS is at a point that if it wants to be around in 10 years, they are gonna have to change windows ALOT, and if the rumors are true, Apples next OSX upgrade (leopard) is gonna have a feature that can run windows apps natively (kinda like WINE) this means that you can make the switch and still use your apps on a much more secure and friendly (IMO) environment, but then you think "it would then get effected by all of windows problems" well not true as the windows apps would run in a kind of shell, so that nothing can be copied out of it unless tou give it the access, but this is all talk right now so who knows. |
In terms of interop, I hope you're right. As for Microsoft having to change their OS drastically, you're entitled to your opinion but I really have to disagree.
| quote: | | One last thing, as for me saying the OSX looks better, well since I do spend alot of time on my computer I want to be looking at something that looks nice, and OSX and Apples computers win the award every year for best looking computer, they really are a design of beauty, where as I look over at my PC desktop and it makes me cring, the boring beige box that looks like it was thought up by someone with a lobotomy, and then you start up windows only to be greeted by a OS that starts up with the 80s looking DOS commands, then onto the GUI that looks like a retarded kid drew it with crayons, I don't want to have to run another app just to hide what windows really is. |
You can go ahead and "trick out" your PC as much as you want. They sell all kinds of stupid fancy-looking cases, although I can't imagine why anybody would want one.
It's all well and good if Macs look better but to be honest, I don't spend a lot of time looking at the tower - it sits under my desk, and when I get around to doing up a "studio" it's probably going to be in another room to cut down on the noise.
Once again, the Windows GUI can be customized to look however you want it to look - even like the Mac OS. Personally, I prefer simplicity to the candy-apple look on Macs, but to each his own!
| quote: | Originally posted by DannyO
Oh yea, also to answer another question, the reason OSX backward compatibility to Classic isn't as good as Windows, is OSX is completely different, OSX was the OS that changed to the Unix system (BSD to be specific), which is the oldest and has proven to be the best and most stable out of all OSs, its the backbone to the internet, due to its design, I don't think another OS can be designed to beat it, theres not anything you can't make a Unix system do or run on (yes this is mainly due to it being open source, which IMO is what all OSs should be). |
And Windows NT was a completely different OS from Windows 95/98. They still brought it together on Windows 2000 with WOW and NTVDM.
BSD is also not the best and most stable out of all OSes. It is good, and it is stable, but Linux has much more features and software/hardware support, and there are other OSes designed specifically for rock-solid stability, like the EROS microkernel, CapROS, Coyotos, etc. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
You know I can sum these huge posts up to this:
Both Macs and normal pc's have their advantages, same goes for OSX vs Windows.
What I think triggered the defence mechanism of our apple fan here is that he doesn't like that the things these pro audio dudes where saying about mac being better are being questioned.
Mac did work a lot better in the past with DAW's, history has proved that. Now you can obviously see a shift. Many hardcore audio nerds still proclaim apple is much better because they still think a pc will crash every hour. And that isn't strange considering the old windows where pretty much crap. They just haven't found out that windows has grown up with the introduction about xp...
On the other hand, if some guys really now all about processing power and it will be the same companies which build these pc parts. And noting that apple is going the change to the pentium processors says a LOT.
Then again:
Both Macs and normal pc's have their advantages, same goes for OSX vs Windows.
It's a matter of preference really. No need for defending your choice, just make sure you're happy about the choice you made or do something about it. |
|
|
| DannyO |
Hey, sorry but I don't have the time to go looking for my sources which some I doubt I could find now, plus alot of my knowledge also comes from other IT guys, I can't exactly give you there phone numbers, for reference, I have not been using macs for long, my brother has, I been using Windows for years, I have used them all, and started with the original PC-DOS, the reason I'm talking this way about Mac, is due to the fact that, I started to hate windows, I was sick of trying to keep it running good, had constant problems on them and on the other computers in the house, what really got me was when I got my Mac, which was only afew weeks ago, and I saw how it performed and how it was designed to operate, I was PISSED as I said to myeslef "how come windows isn't anything like this" not due to the eye candy with OSX but how it ran, I then proceded to put it threw tons of different tests to see how it performed, and the only time it messed up when I was messing around cracking my neighbours WEP wifi signal with Alpha software, all the computers I have owned in the past with all the different OS, I had to format right from the start, my current laptop that I got was horrid, I don't know what people with no computer experience would of done if they got it, its just time and time again I have been disappointed with every new version of windows, the only time I enjoyed using a PC was bac k when you had to use DOS, I loved it, then from there it went downhill.
Anyway to answer some of your questions briefly and to clear some things up (don't really have time, its a busy day).
Uptime: phone up some business or something and ask the admins about there uptime, I don't know how you haven't heard about Windows computers and Mac computers not being on for ages, my laptop like I said was on for weeks sometimes a couple months at a time, I didn't ever treat it nicely, as I'm always messing with some pretty messed up programs, and trying to use it for HD video and audio production, it ran like , although I was always able to mess with the OS to make sure I didn't have to restart, my prents actually know about there network systems they use at work, and there uptime is around 11 months or so, only going down to do upgrades to hardware, but the Admins there do say they spend most there time trying to make sure it stays up.
Even back in england I helped run our schools network system, which was mainly PC and good ol Acorn computers, our uptime there was normally about 8 months or so easy, and part of our main system was a ty old Acorn computer trying to run al sorts of things on a network of about 8 thousand students (our network branched out into other schools around the region).
As for the security part, do you think that nobody tries to hack OSX, that competition is huge, the prize is 50 grand, so it gets alot of attention, and most hackers even use Macs or Linux as they can not be infected by viruses or there own damaging programs, plus they can run windows in a shell and try there programs/viruses out without the worry of bringing down there own system, plus it adds security for the hacker as Macs have always been able to read Windows filesystems FAT or NTFS but Windows has never been able to read Macs or the Unix systems.
Hacking is actually a test of skill, trying to get access to a system that your not supposed to be able to, it doesn't take someone very long to learn how to access windows at all, Unix and OSX are very hard, and thats why it doesn't have as much interest as most hackers are just high school idiots that maybe know afew tricks, and there main intention is to destroy or corrupt a computer (not what hacking is actually about) and they would rather spend time making the easy viruses, worms, trojans for a windows system than try and hack a near impossible filesystem, this is the reason theres so much that messes up windows, cos its vulnerable and easy, true if there was as many apple users as windows there would be many more problems with it, but they still wouldn't be as bad as windows has, and its just as easy to find out the problems on the net as on windows, you think most apple users don't use the internet, they do, and if they have a problem they will let it be known on a forum or something, its easy to find this info, and I have gone looking for as much bad news on apple as I can, and the main things I find is problems with hardware in there first revisions.
and yes Macs can never be more secure than there kernal, which is pretty damn secure, I also never said BSD was the best, I said Unix was the best.
Due to some of your answers I question some of your knowledge, you do know what you are talking about, but the part about not hearing about Apple servers or them not having long uptime or with windows having long uptime baffles me.
As for compatibility, what the hell kind of link is that, thats for OSx86, thats not even designed to run on that hardware, its not even official, thats like beta software, so of course its not gonna support all that hardware, WTF, thats like installing windows on a mac, OSx86 is the development of OSX to run on Intel CPUs and the rest of the Apple hardware, its never gonna be released as a seperate OS to install on any other computer, all those torrents and the like for OSx86 to download and install is basically leaked software that apple was using to test out OSX on intels (which will be coming out in january), its never gonna run on your common PC hardware, its not even supposed to run on AMDs as its only made for intels SSE set, and to run on AMD you have to have a SSE emulator, that mockery of a OS is all that will ever be, its basically testing software.
Also I have not been trying to run my mouth of about G5 being better than the rest, I love the CPU, but also love AMDS and Intels CPUs, there all good in there own way, I'm not trying to start some RISC vs CISC bull, I'm glad Apple is changing to Intels.
As for your second link you gave my, LOL, thats a tiny list, nearly all USB devices might run on Windows, but out of all my USB hardware, I've had a bitch of a time trying to get some of them to run properly, like my external harddrive and iriver, which both work perfect on my mac, even though the iriver isn't actually supposed to work on it.
and like I said, Apple only uses specific hardware, there were never designed to run any other internal hardware from PCs, thats one of the reasons for the stability of Macs, and one of the reasons Windows struggles, due to Windows trying to be compatible with thousands of different products.
I don't have much time left so the rest will be brief.
You say people are happy with Windows?, try asking nearly everyone I know then.
yes there are equal percentage of dumb people on Macs as on PCs.
Most people want a computer to do some basic things, check email, browse the net, they don't want to have to do anything else, and they shouldn't have to, not everyone wants to learn about computers, there just a tool, and with windows most the people I know had to learn how to put up with using that tool, I like the fact that Apple made OSX to be an idiot system, pretty much it is just a point and click to do what you want to do, and if you want to learn and do more with them, then you can easily ( I am amazed how easy of a system it is to learn)
As for the filesystem spreading files all over the computer,......umm I don't know what experience you have had with them, but I ahve really been ing with mine, and it rarely puts anything in the roots sections, any plugins or drivers of any kind, I install myself into a library which is nice and seperate from the rest, and easy to maintain if I'm ing with it, and when I go to install my programs they are generally just one self contained file (kind like a directory), you just drag the file to where you want to install it, and your done, some are slightly different depending if they need to install files to other areas, but its easy if you want to know where things are going.
As for Bluetooth, so you have had some good experience with yours, great, so has my brother, all macs come with bluetooth standard, there are alot of mac users using bluetooth products and have not reported any problems.
VPN, I don't remember what type I have made, but its protected and it works, as for the other types of VPNs, maybe some of those are new to macs and so haven't got much support yet, theres alot of standards and made for windows computers alone, mac can't and doesn't want to have to incorporate them all into the system, some should be left alone, like WEP, what a useless encryption system.
Oh and my bad on the 64bit thing, I meant OSX has been 64bit for years, well since OSX came around.
Oh yes and go look up about the deal MS and Apple made, I'm sure it won't be hard to find, MS helped out Apple when they had financial problems back in 97 I believe, they helped as they have a long history together (MS working for Apple), part of the deal was that MS had the rights to some of there ideas and that Apple were not allowed to make a Office program (MS knew that section of the market could be very good financially).
Also the source I got for Vista got shut down by MS but I'm sure the info is still out there, there was even a leaked beta version a year or so ago that some people got ahold of, from there experience with it, people said MS was on the right track, the OS was COMPLETELY different, had alot of OSX features and Unix features. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
^ Dude, you're just repeating yourself. We get it, you had some bad experiences with Windows. We get it, you prefer the Mac. That doesn't make it a better system - you still haven't given us any objective criteria here and you haven't given us any facts.
OK, I goofed in the incompatibility list, wasn't paying attention. Here's a fresh one:
http://www.macintouch.com/tigerrevi...patibility.html
There's a bunch of old Mac software on that as well as a bunch of hardware.
I've explained in depth about the respective security models, filesystems, and reliability and performance criteria. You're just talking out of your ass and don't seem to actually know a damn thing - it sounds like you just had trouble getting your old PC to work properly, which is a problem I've personally never had and millions of other PC users have never had.
Either post some information here that's actually objective and verifiable here or STFU. Nobody wants to hear your diatribe against Windows and Microsoft - honestly, it sounds like you've been reading a little too much slashdot, or just think Macs are cool and look cool and are trying to rationalize that. Half of the stuff you're posting is just plain wrong and/or misquoting things you said earlier.
I've got better things to do than argue about something so pointless. If you have a single number or fact to post, please do, otherwise I'm considering this discussion closed. |
|
|
| DannyO |
I'm back, haha your so easy to predict Digi, mr know it all, no matter what the subject is, I was trying to keep things nice and simple try to get my point ACROSS, but obviously that won't enter your thick hardened skull, I repeated myself alot due to you just not understanding my first responces to alot of your , I knew this was all gonna end up like this in the end, mr perfect know is one of just afew people in this world who never has a problem, as for your indepth explanations, it sounds more like your just trying to shoot out big complicated words to try and sound like you know what your talking about, I see it in every post of yours, and apart from your ty little links to useless info, including that new link you have posted, you haven't posted any official info either, just your own personal bull, that last link which has a fair amount of programs and the like in them, is mainly little tiny problems, , if I wanted to be that picky about programs, I'd say windows is incompatible with itself.
You want all these links to all the info I got, that, I ain't going looking for them, I shouldn't even be on my computer right now, plus you'd end up moaning about them not being official or some , I've seen how you like to moan about anything and everything.
Since you know so much about microsoft and how perfect they are, you should work for them, you'd fit right in.
lol...your busy eh, trying to add to that massive postcount of yours, what is it 6 thousand now?..lol |
|
|
| GreenLight |
This thread is kinda pointless to much dismay ... The Mac OSX system is open based ... so if my version of Logic pro 7 was to crash during operation, it isnt going to drag the ENTIRE system down with it ... can't say that for windows - Yet, hopefully Windows will catch on to that ... I could give two s about MS-DOS and all that crap that doesnt apply to performance ... I Produce Music, So I want Performance ... I can grab a G5 right off the lot and just run my audio Interface and Install programs and Im set to do what I'd like to ... on account That my powerbook G4 alone runs 30-40 % More effecient than a standard Pentium 4 Processor ... Whats to say about the G5 ? To push a Windows based PC to what a standard Mac OSX system can do ... I'd end up spending my lot upgrading everything, the same exact money that would have been used to buy OSX based Pro Audio Programs ...
Don't get me wrong now ... I still have a handful of things I can prove great on XP ... Like some Programs I cannot use on OSX ... I can use on XP ... Dual even Triple Processing power ... all that performance fancy crap ...
WHY ARGUE THE POINT ? ... BOTH HAVE THERE PRO'S AND CON'S ... I RUN BOTH OSX AND XP IN MY STUDIO ... UPGRADE YOUR WAY OF THINKING , AND GET IN A PROFESSIONAL WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THE WAY YOU MAKE MUSIC ON THESE PLATFORMS , AND I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL NOT LOSE OUT BECAUSE OF BEING " RACISTS " TOWARDS WHATS BETTER THAN WHAT ... ITS ONLY AS GOOD AS YOU MAKE IT ... JUMP THE NEXT TRAIN OR GET LEFT BEHIND . |
|
|
| DannyO |
^^^ thank you, finally a decent post.
To the original thread starter, sorry for the massive thread highjack. |
|
|
|
|
