no, but it comes with an awesome OS!
there's no competition, so apple could charge as much as it wants to
OS X is harder to exploit than Windows. How is that such a difficult concept to understand? Yes, Macs can get viruses, but I do not believe that if they had 99% marketshare they would have as many exploits as Windows does. Everyone makes it sound like, the bigger the target, the more exploits. If that was the case you'd see people breaking into fort knox every day instead of stealing petty cash from convieniance stores. Security is what matters in an OS, and Windows does not have the security that *nix and Mac does.
Fort Knox is one bank. Compare the number of robbery attempts at that one bank to a chain, say, Bank of America, which has more market share. Now tell me which is bigger. If there were 3,000 Fort Knoxes, I guarantee people would knock them over more.
This thread is pointless. Neither is better.
Wow, this is good guys!
Anyway, to address a couple of things...
malak: My PC has no AV or the like on it, even though it runs windows, and I have no problems. My family members, who I have tutored over and over again about how to avoid viruses never seem to get it, and I have to keep cleaning them off (they have NAV and XPSP2). I also started troubleshooting with macs before I knew how to use OS X (btw, those were OS X boxes) and had absolutely no problems. In fact, that's really what got me interested in Macs in the first place. Also in my experience, I've noted that noobs get used to OS X extremely quickly even after using Windows. The benchmarking thing is also pointless for those who are either; not using the software that is benchmarked, or don't use it to the degree that the benchmarkers are testing it at. They're important for people who would do that sort of thing with their system, but not for those who aren't. I'm not denying that Macs can be slower at some things in Photoshop compared to PC's but to people who don't use Photoshop, this isn't important. Even people that just touch up photos and use filters on small files in Photoshop don't even care. Ask halfadder about that.
Amaroque andcoejus have a point about the viruses vs user base.
Anyway, to address a couple of things...
malak: My PC has no AV or the like on it, even though it runs windows, and I have no problems. My family members, who I have tutored over and over again about how to avoid viruses never seem to get it, and I have to keep cleaning them off (they have NAV and XPSP2). I also started troubleshooting with macs before I knew how to use OS X (btw, those were OS X boxes) and had absolutely no problems. In fact, that's really what got me interested in Macs in the first place. Also in my experience, I've noted that noobs get used to OS X extremely quickly even after using Windows. The benchmarking thing is also pointless for those who are either; not using the software that is benchmarked, or don't use it to the degree that the benchmarkers are testing it at. They're important for people who would do that sort of thing with their system, but not for those who aren't. I'm not denying that Macs can be slower at some things in Photoshop compared to PC's but to people who don't use Photoshop, this isn't important. Even people that just touch up photos and use filters on small files in Photoshop don't even care. Ask halfadder about that.
Amaroque andcoejus have a point about the viruses vs user base.
So you honestly feel that either:
A. OS X has no more, or even less security than Windows XP?
B. Security isn't a consideration when predicting the number of exploits for a system?
I can understand A being due to a lack of information, but B baffles me.
I do agree than neither OS is better for everyone. But I think there is a single OS that is best for each individual person's needs.
EDIT: BTW, my point with Fort Knox is that it has more money (read market share) than a convieniance store, but it also has more security. People go after a easy target, not a difficult one.
A. OS X has no more, or even less security than Windows XP?
B. Security isn't a consideration when predicting the number of exploits for a system?
I can understand A being due to a lack of information, but B baffles me.
I do agree than neither OS is better for everyone. But I think there is a single OS that is best for each individual person's needs.
EDIT: BTW, my point with Fort Knox is that it has more money (read market share) than a convieniance store, but it also has more security. People go after a easy target, not a difficult one.
Your analogy is flawed. I'm not talking about a bigger single target. I'm talking about (hypothetical numbers) 1,000 PC's compared to 10 MAC's. Even if the Windows OS was harder to exploit, more people will try. Why? Because there is a 100 fold as many targets.
Also, as I stated earlier... People who write viruses want them to spread. You can't do a good job spreading, if there is a hundred fold less targets to spread to.
If you had a computer with a totally vulnerable OS, but with only one user... Why would the author spend the time writing a virus for that one computer, when he could spend a bit more time writing, but infect 1,000 computers instead of one?
I wasn't talking about a bigger single target, each dollar bill is a target.
Just because more people try doesn't mean they will succeed.
Just because more people try doesn't mean they will succeed.
Let me put it another way. If Windows has, for example, 1000 exploitable holes. Because it has a large market share most or all of those holes will be exploited. The same will happen if Mac gets a large market share, except OS X doesn't have as many holes. It might have, for example, 100 holes. Yes, if Macs get popular all of it's holes might get exploited, but it doesn't have as many holes to begin with, so it will still be better off than Windows.
The more people that try, the more the chances of succeeding, yes?
If you have 100 times as many people trying, you are much more likely to succeed, regardless of the OS. Do you really know how many holes OS X has? There have been a lot less attempts to exploit any holes.
We honestly wouldn't know the answer to how many OS X vulnerabilities there really is, unless it was as popular as XP.
Example: WinXP would seem much more secure if you didn't have so many people trying to exploit any vulnerabilities.
I'm not trying to say OS X sucks, or WinXP is great. I'm just saying that we can't make an accurate comparison, due to the current circumstances...
I agree that we can't make an accurate comparison. And I don't know how many holes either OS has. But I would be very suprised if *nix, and therefore OS X, had nearly the number of holes that Windows has. I'm not basing this off of the number of viruses or anything like that. I'm basing this on the security practices that are employed in each OS.
I've never used mac and probably never will in my lifetime unless microholes goes out of business
Whole argument that vulnerabilities scales with marketshare just baffles me.
The best example of the opposite is of course IIS vs Apache.
Apache has over 3 times the marketshare of IIS, and guess which one has had the most vulnerabilities, by a huge margin?
Oh and I love users who say "I don't need AV/firewalls/whatever" because I'm careful about what I do.
I suppose you don't use seatbelts either because you're such a good driver? :roll:
I agree more that OS X has less vulnerabilities than Windows, merely for that fact that UNIX has been around much longer, and back when Windows was in diapers, UNIX was getting hacked into and having it's holes fixed.
Just from the perspective of a PC user, and the main reason I think that many veteran Windows users have a real issue with OS X is due to the ways windows and apps are handled in OS X opposed to how they are in Windows. My brother made a comment today about this being what he hates about OS X and why he doesn't enjoy using it.
The main two issues is how apps can be closed on OS X compared to Windows, and the apparent "window clutter" that occurs on OS X when Windows users switch (come to think of it, this was a real problem for me until after about 2 weeks of using OS X when I found out about a really nice feature of Mac OS that is more apparent in OS X than previous Mac OS versions).
I'll deal with how apps are closed first. In Windows, to close an app, you simply close all the Windows in that app by 10 different ways (note: if it's an MDI app, this isn't really an issue):
1. Click the x
2. Click File -> Exit
3. Double-click the control menu (the icon in the top left corner of the window)
4. Click the Control menu, and then click Close
5. Press Alt-F4
6. (not mainstream as it only works in some apps) Press Ctrl+W
7. On some apps you can click File -> Close (usually only those that Ctrl+W works in)
8. Right-click the title bar and click Close
9. Right-click the Taskbar tile and click Close
10. Press Alt+space to open the control menu and click close
On OS X, closing all the windows can be done by 3 methods:
1. Click the Red button that has a x in it when the mouse moves over (if you use the blue colour scheme, otherwise it's grey
)
2. Press cmd+w
3. Click File -> Close
However, on a Mac, closing all the windows doesn't close the app with most apps (I've only come across two that this is not true of, and one of those is System Preferences, which is very inconsistent of Apple). This said, there's three (again) methods, which are much faster than on a PC (unless you're lucky to have all the taskbar tiles in a group so you can right click and click Close Group):
1. Press cmd+q
2. Click the app menu (the bold one with the app's name in it) and click Quit
3. Right-click (or equivalent) on the dock icon and click Quit
I much rather the OS X way here. After realising this and learning the keyboard shortcut, I never find it an issue with closing an app (now I laugh at Windows users who have trouble with it, maybe I shouldn't hehe).
The other problem was that of the "window clutter" on OS X (and any Mac OS that is). This occurs when programs are opened and due to the nature of Mac OS, there is the inability to fully maximise a window without resizing it (there's only a Zoom button - the green one in OS X). When I first started using OS X (my bro does this still), I found myself minimising the windows, so that my dock was full of them (I found a neat keyboard shortcut - cmd+m). My dock looked worse than the screen did before! Then I came across two items in the app menu called Hide Appname, and Hide Others. I tried them out. It was amazing! The screen clutter went away! This is something I wish was on Windows - a way to hide a particular app, or all the others, without minimising everything (i.e. not the Show Desktop thing). I then realised that this feature was also on OS 9 and earlier, but OS X had a shortcut key for it (cmd+h for Hide current app, and cmd+option(alt)+h for hide others), which made it even better. So, one of my main key combinations that I use is cmd+h. I never minimise anything anymore (so I get a little irritated when I go back to Windows - it's sad, I know). I've lost the "minimise mentality" that many Windows users have to clean up their screen. On Windows, it's not an issue, because the taskbar tiles are there for every window, but on OS X, dock icons are only there for each app, so when you minimise a program on OS X, it makes a mess.
OK, this is what hide does - it completely hides any trace of the app off the screen (except for the little triangle under the dock icon showing that the app is running). To simply show it again, switch to it. If you only want one app on the screen, simply hide all the others. It's that simple.
These two points are things I find that Windows users commonly find difficult with OS X and one thing that makes them not want to use it. But when you actually find out how to fix them, with simple keyboard shortcuts, it's no longer an issue. These are two things that I find make the OS X GUI more efficient that that of Windows.
Just from the perspective of a PC user, and the main reason I think that many veteran Windows users have a real issue with OS X is due to the ways windows and apps are handled in OS X opposed to how they are in Windows. My brother made a comment today about this being what he hates about OS X and why he doesn't enjoy using it.
The main two issues is how apps can be closed on OS X compared to Windows, and the apparent "window clutter" that occurs on OS X when Windows users switch (come to think of it, this was a real problem for me until after about 2 weeks of using OS X when I found out about a really nice feature of Mac OS that is more apparent in OS X than previous Mac OS versions).
I'll deal with how apps are closed first. In Windows, to close an app, you simply close all the Windows in that app by 10 different ways (note: if it's an MDI app, this isn't really an issue):
1. Click the x
2. Click File -> Exit
3. Double-click the control menu (the icon in the top left corner of the window)
4. Click the Control menu, and then click Close
5. Press Alt-F4
6. (not mainstream as it only works in some apps) Press Ctrl+W
7. On some apps you can click File -> Close (usually only those that Ctrl+W works in)
8. Right-click the title bar and click Close
9. Right-click the Taskbar tile and click Close
10. Press Alt+space to open the control menu and click close
On OS X, closing all the windows can be done by 3 methods:
1. Click the Red button that has a x in it when the mouse moves over (if you use the blue colour scheme, otherwise it's grey
)2. Press cmd+w
3. Click File -> Close
However, on a Mac, closing all the windows doesn't close the app with most apps (I've only come across two that this is not true of, and one of those is System Preferences, which is very inconsistent of Apple). This said, there's three (again) methods, which are much faster than on a PC (unless you're lucky to have all the taskbar tiles in a group so you can right click and click Close Group):
1. Press cmd+q
2. Click the app menu (the bold one with the app's name in it) and click Quit
3. Right-click (or equivalent) on the dock icon and click Quit
I much rather the OS X way here. After realising this and learning the keyboard shortcut, I never find it an issue with closing an app (now I laugh at Windows users who have trouble with it, maybe I shouldn't hehe).
The other problem was that of the "window clutter" on OS X (and any Mac OS that is). This occurs when programs are opened and due to the nature of Mac OS, there is the inability to fully maximise a window without resizing it (there's only a Zoom button - the green one in OS X). When I first started using OS X (my bro does this still), I found myself minimising the windows, so that my dock was full of them (I found a neat keyboard shortcut - cmd+m). My dock looked worse than the screen did before! Then I came across two items in the app menu called Hide Appname, and Hide Others. I tried them out. It was amazing! The screen clutter went away! This is something I wish was on Windows - a way to hide a particular app, or all the others, without minimising everything (i.e. not the Show Desktop thing). I then realised that this feature was also on OS 9 and earlier, but OS X had a shortcut key for it (cmd+h for Hide current app, and cmd+option(alt)+h for hide others), which made it even better. So, one of my main key combinations that I use is cmd+h. I never minimise anything anymore (so I get a little irritated when I go back to Windows - it's sad, I know). I've lost the "minimise mentality" that many Windows users have to clean up their screen. On Windows, it's not an issue, because the taskbar tiles are there for every window, but on OS X, dock icons are only there for each app, so when you minimise a program on OS X, it makes a mess.
OK, this is what hide does - it completely hides any trace of the app off the screen (except for the little triangle under the dock icon showing that the app is running). To simply show it again, switch to it. If you only want one app on the screen, simply hide all the others. It's that simple.
These two points are things I find that Windows users commonly find difficult with OS X and one thing that makes them not want to use it. But when you actually find out how to fix them, with simple keyboard shortcuts, it's no longer an issue. These are two things that I find make the OS X GUI more efficient that that of Windows.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
PC's are less expensive and perform better. Many people seem to think MAC's are better but this is based on history. MAC's in the past had higher screen resolutions, were faster, first with firewire etc. This is why many artists think MAC's are better for their work. That is not true. Times have changed and PC's perform much better and are alot cheaper.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
Actually there is alot of proof. There were alot of links in the topic the last time there was this same debate here. You can find alot through google. Here is one:
http://www.digitalvideoediting...iews/cw_macvspciii.htm
In the other topic there was even an article of Adobe reccomending PC's over MAC's which is pretty sad since Apple uses Adobe products to advertise their MAC's.
http://www.digitalvideoediting...iews/cw_macvspciii.htm
In the other topic there was even an article of Adobe reccomending PC's over MAC's which is pretty sad since Apple uses Adobe products to advertise their MAC's.
Oh Great FAIR test there. An OLD G4 Mac. I don't care if it's Dual CPU, a G4 is more like a PIII. Where is the G5 and dual G5's in that test. The Mac did win over the 2.53 P4 in some of the tests which is impressive in itself. I would have figured the P4 2.53Ghz would beat even a Dual G4. Show me a more FAIR test with a G5 or Dual G5. I have seen such tests and where conducted in a FAIR way the G5 and especially Dual G5 held up very well.
Oh good, now when I do high end video editing (which I don't do), I can use a PC and wait 5 fewer seconds for the video to process. Of course I lost 2 minutes of my own time due to the better workflow that tends to exist on a Mac.
I don't understand why computers have to be the absolute fastest thing out there. If it's fast enough to do what I want, why should I care that I could buy a PC that does it slightly faster? Computers are fast enough now that for all but the most intensive apps the computer waits on you instead of the other way around.
I don't understand why computers have to be the absolute fastest thing out there. If it's fast enough to do what I want, why should I care that I could buy a PC that does it slightly faster? Computers are fast enough now that for all but the most intensive apps the computer waits on you instead of the other way around.
I usually don't feed the trollls but...
Nice 2+ year old link there buddy. Now please feel free to go dig up the threads from Nov-Dec 2002 that talked about this article and make your comments there.
Lethal
If the Mac was an open standard like the PC, I think it would do much better. That's what stops me from owning a Mac... Cost vs performance, and Tweakability (is that a word?).
A Mac isn't the most "hardware enthusiast" friendly. If the Mac was an open standard, I'd have one rite next to my PC.
Not to argue your decision to use PCs instead of Macs, but what exactly do you mean by not being an "open standard"?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter