Tech News
Gates speaks up over Apple commercials
By Steve Ragan Feb 5, 2007, 20:30 GMT
On the Web
Latest Headlines in Tech
- 1. Nerd striptease: Unboxing lets others watch you unwrap your gadget
- 2. An online notepad? Your smartphone as a notebook
- 3. Repeaters help get around wi-fi hurdles
- 4. Spring cleaning for your computer: Get the gunk - and the germs - out
- 5. Computer and internet briefs
Older Talkback
page: 1
Figures no Mac guru's out there are commenting on this yet. Gates does have a very good arguement in this regard. And Macs track record recently is getting worse.
Uninformed non-technical garbage...
'The applications not produced by Apple are written exclusively so they are able to function on the core of the Mac, its operating system OS X. This is why you will see applications like Adobe and others with PC and Mac versions.'
The last time I checked most operating systems required that applications be specifically written to work on their platform.
'Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.'
It sure would be nice for you to cite some sources backing up Mr. Gates statements. I guess he's such a philanthropist we should trust everything he says.
I would have written this on my Dell laptop, but it's too big and ugly to sit comfortably on my lap.
Here's a strange, new idea:
Everyone that likes Windows... should use Windows.
Everyone that likes Mac... should use Macs.
Wow. What a concept! Everyone using whatever the want!!!
I just don't see where the problem is.
Do you (or Bill Gates) understand the concept of advertising? All Apple is doing is using humor to make the claim that Macs are more fun than PCs. Are they making a factual claim? No - 'fun' can't be measured - that's where the marketing comes in. They're playing upon people's perception.
Same goes for Gate's security claim. The Apple commercials suggest that Windows is unsecure (it is, and has been for years). Whether Vista is actually more secure than Mac OS doesn't matter because Windows has a long history of security flaws and the vast majority of security threats are aimed at Windows. Gates may be proud of Vista's security (I'll believe it when I see it), but 10+ years of shoddy programming has led to the current claims from Apple.
And what is Gates complaing about? Windows has a long history of stealing their OS ideas from Macs (who stole the idea from IBM - another story) so Gates should shut up.
Chris' comments above are exactly what is wrong. He obviously falls into the 'elitist' mac-centric category. They will take any opportunity to tell you just how much your windows-based pc sucks. I'm a multiple-computer type of person, and I would likely own some type of mac-based pc by now if I weren't so incredibly turned off by how ego-centric and defensive Apple evangelists are about their system of choice. Live and let live. Unless I ask you your opinions about my pc, keep your mouth shut. It's pretty simple.
Apple ads are only run to make their user base feel better about themselves.
Also, if anyone has ever attempted to listen to any keynote address that Steve Jobs has given at MacWorld, you'll see what you're up against. It's like watching a faith healer take the stage at a southern revival. The audience begs for any opportunity get whipped up into a cheering, clapping frenzy. It's all pretty humorous if you ask me. For the record, I own Apple stock, and love that Steve Jobs has re-taken the helm. He gave the company the much-needed direction to make their stock shares shoot up. I'm a fan of Apple hardware, and have been for a long time. They make very pretty systems of various sorts. Image-obsessed mac evangelists need to realize that the coolness factor isn't the only thing that drives peoples' decisions to buy a computer. Cost--a consideration that mac-based pc's will loose almost every time--is a top priority for most people. Bottom line... there are reasons each person chooses their own system. Both have their merits and both have their trade-offs.
The Month of Apple Bugs was something that's been making the news for the last 2 months. If you weren't aware of it go to http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/ to see what they were up to. The main point they were trying to make is that, while it's true windows has a bunch of security flaws and problems, MS has been working on fixing them. Apple, on the other hand does nothing to either fix the issue, or at the very least inform their users of these problems.
Personally I've been in MS environment since the mid-80s and I've played around with Apple's OS for a few years. My personal bottom line is for OS, I'd stick with linux (just because it's smaller and more secure and a lot easier to get what I need fixed if something breaks) and for software, I'd stick with mainly MS (only because after buying up any company they felt was a threat to them or their own application, they'd turn around and make the application a lot easier to use for the end user). But that's just me.
Security.
Viruses
Last year there were 114,000 known virsuses for Windows PCs, For the Mac 0. That is a fact
http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791917
Where bill gets off stating that there is not shred of truth? OSX has NEVER had a virus.
As for the security issues posted here. They all rely on fooling the user. This is not a 'computer security' issue. Although Apple's system is currently better at warning you that there might be a risk, it will still let you do what ever you want with your coputer. Vista has emulated this, except that they throw so many warning screens that it creats a 'cry wolf' syndrome.
The nigerian 411 scam asks users to send advance money on the promise of millions. Enough users fall prey to this that the perpitrators keep trying. They used to call their victims, Was it your phone's falt that they would fool some people? NO. Now that Malware users are doing the same type of scam, we blame the computer. the computer is much better at warning the user that they are doing something bad than the phone was, and Apple's computers are much better at warning the users than XP computers are.
The rest of the stories are just HYPE to create FUD (Fear, Uncertanty, Doubt) and to sell ad space on news outlets.
Mike W just reminded me about something in his last post. Yes, since Steve Jobs took back the helm at Apple, things have been picking up for them. But I wonder, how many people remember back in the 80's when Apple was about to fold? Does anyone remember who offered to bail them out and help them get back on their feet? (hint #1: it wasn't the gov't & hint #2: Steve Jobs at one point worked with this man waaaaaaaay back before Apple was formed)
God, this is making me feel old now remembering all this
'I would have written this on my Dell laptop, but it's too big and ugly to sit comfortably on my lap.'
Um.... so you are saying windows is worse because your dell laptop is 'ugly'?
let me guess -- you were writing this at some trendy coffee bar, too... i'm writing MY comment from my windows based PC at work. haha! get a job!
anyways, those mac ads are stupid, and untrue. like the one where the PC goes under 'surgery' to be upgraded. yeah, i performed 'surgery' on my PC a month ago. i upgraded the video card and added more RAM -- $200 and the thing runs like a brand new computer. last time i checked, mac systems were not as easy to upgrade like that. you just have to take the horse out back and shoot him, and buy a new one for $2,800.
i think it's pretty hilarious that bill gates is finally making fun of those stupid mac commercials. they really are pretty ridiculous. and no, you cant 'measure fun', but those mac commercials are basically negative attack ads against windows computers, which many consider 'fighting dirty'. so if apple is fighting dirty, why can't billy bob?
Windows XP's security when installed is left wide open but there are a number of ways to protect even Windows XP from these vulnerabilities, you just have to know how they work. Exploits are found in other software as well constantly and are being fixed when noticed. Please check out a web site devoted to online security for XP if you want more information on how to make your Windows XP computer safer, don't just disregard it and get something else because you don't understand it. There are professionals working on this stuff of which I recomend the free Antihack Security Groups security package at antihacksecurity.com for protection from hackers on Windows XP. It really does depend on knowing how to set up the security which is left wide open at install for Windows XP.
oh, and about all the 'Viruses' for windows...
yeah there are a lot of viruses for windows. but if you aren't halfway stupid, you don't get them. i have norton antivirus 2001, and windows XP with SP1 installed (no SP2). i got ONE virus, that i hand-removed. i havn't updated norton's virus list since the subscription ran out in early 2002. i have no firewall. so how come i don't get viruses? because i don't click on shady links. same thing goes with the whole 'don't blame the phone' concept. sure, there are more out there for windows computers, BUT why would a virus-maker waste their time with a mac virus that isn't going to be spread to nearly as many computers?
The Mac gurus are busy elsewhere. Gates' comments are just a bunch of untruths. Guess he's not afraid of lying either.
I'll believe Vista is more secure than OS X when I see it.
I've used high-end versions of both systems in office AND graphic design environments. I have no preference because they both crash. They both lag. Against my idea of a perfect OS/computer, they both suck. (I haven't used Vista yet, BTW.)
I've been around 100s of different users. Every Mac user I've ever met seizes ANY opportunity to criticize Windows machines (and often, Windows users) if you talk to them long enough. In my experience, there is no rivalry. Mac users actually believe that they are superior to Windows users and they love to spout off about it.
The way I see it...
Windows users consider their systems as tools.
Mac users consider their systems as pets.
'yeah there are a lot of viruses for windows. but if you aren't halfway stupid, you don't get them.'
My girlfriend's machine crashed. Had to reinstall Windows. I guess I'm stupid, but there's no way of installing XP SP1 and then going to internet without getting a virus - and there's no way of updating to SP2 if you don't connect to internet, if you need the machine the same week. The install process took two and a half working days. Had I known that, I could've just worked for two and a half days and bought a Mac for her with the money.
She got rid of the PC in the end anyway in favor of guess what machine.
Hey AlphaGeek:
'Where bill gets off stating that there is not shred of truth? OSX has NEVER had a virus.'
Are you sure OSX never had a virus? What about OSX.Leap.A?
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-021614 -4006-99
Do some research :)
Why can't we all just get along? I, for one, am an equal-oportunity computer user. Each system has it's strengths, and I don't mind dabbling in each one to benefit from those strengths.
being an advertising, interactive, web professional, I regulary use MAC and PC..both for diffrent purpose.and usage..almost for 12 years
...i have been looking recent commercials from Apple.......which are funny....and not focused on proper computer usage..(nothing technical)...which doesn't prove themselves superior over PC!..i never liked the fact that Apple tried to prove themselves superior over PC in such a kiddish way...
here is what i found so far while using both..
MAC controls USER (MAC is recommended for 10 year old kid ..:D)
USER controls PC (professionals choice...aha..:>)
Chris's comments above are exactly what is _right_, with excecption to his last statement which was clearly opinion.
Steve Ragan uses false logic to support much of his arguement and quotes Bill Gates sensational statements as fact rather than option.
Obviously, Steve Ragan doesn't care about fair and accurate reporting. He simply regurgatates the hottest flame bait, so he can claim to be a 'good' writer since his articles are so 'popular.'
John Gruber has already responded to this better than I could, so I'll quote him:
'Gates’s claim about Mac OS X security is simply false. Flabbergastingly false. It’s irritating that Levy didn’t press him on this point, to ask for a few examples. Perhaps Gates’s “every single day” claim is a reference to the Month of Apple Bugs project, of which only one published exploit, the first, could allow something this serious to happen without action by the user (i.e. by double-clicking an unknown download you didn’t ask for) — and Apple released a security update to fix it on January 23.' -- John Gruber, daringfireball.net
Any computer system which allows administrator access default out of the box will be available for anyone to hack into.
The reason why the Windows PC has had the brunt of hacking is because 95% of the computer population owns a PC.
If the tables were turned and 95% of the population owned the Mac, there would be many more viruses and security threats on it.
Hope this helps!
It's just more attractive for hackers to hack the o/s that most
people have. Mac OS is not any more secure than windows or even
unix machines or linux. They all have security flaws as long as
they are written by human. As for Mac, it does have better looks,
because it's designed for fun not work and it's priced for it.
it's like comparing a sport car to a truck. you pay for the fun
and coolness. PC has more third party software and hardware
so it's just going to have more chance of problem.
More parts, more chance of failure, simple as that.
Mac ads are fun to watch but contains nothing but un-ture statements.
It's marketing and if Gates don't like it, he can spend a few billions
to make his own ads to make MS cool.
I know macs, and I know PCs, and I am just getting into linux. The fact is, you can exploit an ipod and throw linux onto it. Any digital system can eventually be exploited, period. Regardless of 128 bit keys, 14 protection layers, the fact remains that if a script kid wants to feel 1337 then he will do so.
Generally these punks are still living with their mothers and playing mmorpgs all day and eating pudding. In my opinion, the reason the majority of hacks happen on pcs is simply because more people use pcs for business, and hence, all the money is gathered around pcs generally. What is a criminal going to do? Hack into a mac and steal your art or itunes? Please.... I grew up on mac, but got sick of it's lack of flexibility right away.
Now that they are supporting open source, I am supposed to suddenly embrace a mac? Let's face the facts. They hugged the open source world for marketing purposes. For the receord, if pcs had no problems, I'd be much worse at my tech job. Not to say that macs don't crash, but when they do, you don't really get to learn about the os, you just learn the 'fix'. Plus macs are pretty much pcs nowadays anyways. Hopefully with multiple os emulation platforms they will make one computer and put this crap to rest.
First off, let me say that I am both a Windows and Mac OS X user so this is perhaps more of an unbiased opinion than many others. However, I became a mostly-Mac user based on the fact that Windows, for me, was a fairly unstable system (it was constantly crashing or freezing for me, even after SP2) and to be honest, OS X is a much more visually appealing, innovative, and fun to use OS. For this reason, i was very excited when Vista came out because I felt it would finally give microsoft (after five years of development) the opportunity to show what they've got. I couldn't have been more disappointed after installing Vista. Sure there are a number of 'unseen' features such as security, etc., but Vista had an eerily similar feel to it as OS X. In fact, it felt like microsoft basically copied all of the innovative features of OS X, changed its look a little bit, and slapped a new name on it: 'Microsoft Vista'. For example, see...
http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=a6a2e3ada:110943adfeb:-57 32&rf=bm&fr_story=d14603c1e23e6ce37920a8134a2e27b1405a4991&st=1170718780333 &mp=FLV&cpf=false&fvn=8&fr=121706_083319_26f34614x10f92fc2672x1b25&rdm=3995 39.3597612088
http://lifehacker.com/software/top/windows-vista-beta-a-lot-like-mac-os -x-179909.php
In other words, Apple tends to brings forth innovative, cutting edge stuff, while Microsoft tends to sit back and allow other companies to innovate and then copies these features and integrates them into their operating system. The trend I felt was, Apple: innovate, Microsoft: impersonate.
Mike W: this is why the 'audience begs for any opportunity get whipped up into a cheering, clapping frenzy' at steve's macworld addresses, because he's showing them something that they have never seen before, not something that has been around for years and given a new name.
Dean: 'Apple, on the other hand does nothing to either fix the issue, or at the very least inform their users of these problems.' Actually Apple does fix the issue just as microsoft does, through security updates (two released just last month).
Correction for first link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIUkwPybtM
Sure, it's a matter of preference and I can understand why some people get the impression mac users are elitest snobs, but I've only started using OSX about 2 years ago and have no regrets. Also, someone should point out that MS is a software company...the Apple ads mainly poke at the many lackluster PC implementations of Bill's software (aside from the viruses of course).
Bill can say what he wants about the adverts, but many of the claims are truthfull:
1) Macs are more asthetically pleasing than most PCs (not Bill's fault, but still true)
2) For whatever reasons, the average user will experience more security issues on a PC (just ask that substitute teacher who accidentally showed her class a flurry of porn pop ups and now faces charges)
3) Macs just work (take it out of the box, and within 10 minutes its found your wireless network, printer, digital camera, etc.)
4) The user experience on a Mac is great. (I've had 2 hardware problemns on 3 macs...bad HD which Apple exchanged at the store, bad logic board on my wife's 4 year old iBook and rather than buy a new MacBook for $1000 she made me pay $300 to get it fixed because she likes it so much. I've never had a serious software problem, sure apps freeze, but OSX's force quit is much nicer than the windows counter part...probably haven't restarted in 6 months).
Call me a snob if you want, but for my money Apple > MS + PC
I'm a lifelong Apple user. I started off with Apple computers and then migrated to Macs. I have always used Windows at work. Windows is great because everyone at work uses it and therefore there are few compatibility problems. On th other hand - and this is just a fact - I have ha repeated software/hardware problems with the Windows machine and I am not unique in my office.
I'm not the only one in my family who feels this way. My son is an engineer, he uses Windows at work - at home he has a Mac hooked up to his huge plasma TV. My daughter and wife are both home based Mac users too.
Simpl preference has lots to do with it but simplicity has more to do with it. Apple makes appliances. This computer is like a sophisticated breadmaker or toaster oven. It just doe what you want it to do, no fuss.
I hope that you do not think me arrogant when I say that Apple is on to something tht the others just do not seem to have been able to catch.
And this is why folks, Linux becomes the winner
Quoted: from Everyone On Earth Feb 5th, 2007 - 21:15:24
Here's a strange, new idea:
Everyone that likes Windows... should use Windows.
Everyone that likes Mac... should use Macs.
Wow. What a concept! Everyone using whatever the want!!!
I just don't see where the problem is.
Hey 'Everyone On Earth,' Your mother wears army boots. See, doesn't it make you angry when I say something that isn't true? Mac users feel angry because we've been shamed over the years by people who make judgments without having facts. The problem is we need to make sure everyone knows the truth... Our mothers don't wear army boots (and yes, I kept this clean, but could have said things that were much worse to make my point).
Can we be serious for a second? Macs are kinda fun in a Fisher Price sort of way. Bouncy and shiny they make you feel like a kid again.
Sure that's fun but when you grow up and need to make real money out there in the workplace, you need a real computer. One that does more than give you a pretty multicolored beach ball every time you try to accomplish something more proc intensive than composing an email.
I too have both Mac and PC and being in the entertainment industry I use real tools that make the processor go vroom. 3D Studio Max, (not on the Mac BTW), Flash (terrible on the Mac), Fusion (oops no Mac version), Lightwave, (uh no Mac version again) Autodesk Maya (yes it's on the Mac but if you try to use it you'll quickly see it's stinky) and many MANY other apps all just work better on a PC. Try it and you will see that you will successively wait more time for OSX to think than for a PC to think.
We just recently tried to upgrade one of our Protools deck that is unfortunately on on a Mac and I have to tell you it was ridiculous the amount of times it crashed and did not work correctly. We lost a lot of moeny trying to get it up and running. the PC versions were laughing at it's pretty bouncy icon trying to start and then crash.
Suffice it to say that no matter which side of the fence your toe is on, the pc, for all it's many flaws is simply a better machine for serious work. And don't EVEN get me started on FCP! Pure trash.
In the end if you want to make funny videos of Aunt Lucy waking up to the dog pooping on her head, then buy a Mac. If you want to win awards, buy a PC.
Macintosh was originally copied from Xerox, I am talking about the GUI originally on the apple I and II.
Windows copied Apple. That is very obvious.
Macintosh actually also copied Next.
Commadore, and VIC20 copied Apple.
Its all bull, although Apple is the most original popular software system out there, its actually a copy of the idea from Xerox labs, that both Jobs and Wosniak visited back in the 1970's.
Microsoft sucks! All they've ever done is copy what Apple does. Why don't they try to at least be original?
PC Hater
In reply to Chris, why are all you mac people soooooooparanoid and insecure?
Peter,
I'm neither of the two.... I just hate to see so many people using junk. Why don't you just admit the truth that Apple blows em all away? I admit that Apple dropped the ball in their marketing concepts early on, but don't bet on them making the same mistake twice. They make the best computers bar none!
I used a PC ONCE.....
I administer Mac, PC, Linux, and IRIX every day and I have been using all 4 for well over a decade. Gates' claims are generally bogus and it shows a complete 'wah-wah' attitude of a 2nd grader...a very rich 2nd grader, but a 2nd grader nonetheless.
Mac OS X, Linux, and IRIX are inherently more secure then Windows. They always have been and they probably always will be - and it has nothing to do with '3rd party applications' or anything else the PC zealot of an author will tell you. Anyone with a little computer science knowledge could tell you why: they were built that way. Are they 100% secure? No, but nothing is. But they are a heck of a lot more secure. In terms of Vista, the jury is still out. Is it better? Probably - but I doubt that it will beat out the UNIX-like OSs. The only way Windows has begun to approach the security of UN*X is to adopt the standards already employed by UN*X (ie: if you can't beat'm, join 'm).
Other points: I haven't upgraded to Vista, but Mac has always been a double-click upgrade. Windows has always been a trouble and you never knew whether or not the resulting install will work. Is Vista better? Don't know yet. Unlike this author, I tend to only comment on a subject once I have experience with it. Linux? Linux is generally harder to upgrade then either Mac or Windows. IRIX? Better have a weekend (no, I'm not kidding).
As many in the real tech press have noted: Bill Gates sounded like a crying ninny in the referenced article. People have seriously begun to question his mind just because he was so whinny.
gates is a whiner...and not so hip, did you see him on the daily show? he's SO dull...a non-cool white leg geek...
Hilarious. It never ends.
Since nobody on either the pro Mac or pro PC side of this debate has the slightest interest in anything other than trumpeting their own uninformed opinions, this is just another stupid us vs. them piece. Tiresome at best.
I would like to see some facts presented somewhere - anywhere. Claims from either side that are backed up with solid references, hyperlinks, and dates would be a good start. Neither side has done so. I honestly don't care about the vacuous opinions of either PC or Mac users, or of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Just the hard facts, please. Why is it so hard for either side to be specific?
The stupidest thing I've read yet is the guy who said he wouldn't buy a Mac because 'Mac users have an attitude'. One would hope that a person might be able to rise above what other people think (imagine) and just get what actually works best for their situation.
I wouldn't buy MAC user either.
People love it when Gates gets ticked off. Keep the stories coming even if its not true.
One of the first graphical interfaces for PCs was IBM's Topview, which was stolen and then used by Microsoft, becoming a major influence in the design of Microsoft's file viewing system(through Windows XP at least). One of the first PC graphical systems was the MacOS, stolen from Xerox, Unix.
I would think that many die hard Unix and Linux users are waiting for the time to buy an Apple at a sum they can afford, this given that the Apple system has a Unix systems interface. Now if Apple would just unbundle the OS from the hardware...which they are very close to doing, we may see a tremendous shift in the number of Apple users.
I would be interested and I run OpenBSD and FreeBSD in VMWare...my only problem is the cash it takes to buy a decent Apple.
I've worked in the I.T. industry for a number of years. More recently amongst Apple computers. I'm yet to speak to someone who's converted from Windows to Mac OS X, and regretted it. But on the same hand, the vast majority of Windows users I speak to who wouldn't even consider a Mac, are ones that haven't even used one, and are oblivious to what Mac OS X can offer then.
You can make your own conclusions from that, but my point is; regardless what it is in life, you should always have an open mind. And if you don't, the only person missing out, is you.
Does Monsters and Critics still employ editors? Or did they fire them all? This article was loaded with errors.
May I please give a 'bad guys' perspective?
Malware has always been written from the greatest use point-of-view.
It it the same as with pay per use software - where the market goes, there goeth I.
I write viruses (because they're easy) and trojans (because they're profitable) and spell-checkers (because I can spell, unlike most programmers) for PC - and that means Windows - because that's where the market is.
Since Linux has started to catch on in the corporate market, and since Mac is now such a close variant of Linux, I have started to port all of my especially noxious programs to all 3 platforms. Beware of success.
Since it is just a matter of having 3 compilers, and since each OS has the unique vulnerabilty of having an idiot between the keyboard and the chair....
What more is there to say?
i dont think you can really listen to anything either company says and just try them both and see what suites you because there both just big corprate liers.
For one, there will obviously be more exploits for pc users BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE OF THEM, there cheaper, and most people, if not all, have some type of knowledge of a pc. the only real way to learn a mac is to make the choice for yourself to swich to a mac.
second i dont really think apple is taking humorus blows at vista because vista is a totally new os that not many people have experience yet so apple is taking full advantage of this and attacking it now so people will swich to a mac. This is apple best chance to get as many new users as posable because customers are thinking have if im going to learn something new they might as well learn a mac.
I dont really think ms was thinking about this. I am a computer nut and a pc user but everyone i talk to that isnt as into computers as i am, i say vista, and they say 'what is that' so ms i dont think is ready to make this big of a change.
im really mad that they didnt put more effort into advertising because this could change everything between pc and mac users. Mac procentage is deffintly going to go up because apple is really on there grind to take pc customers... and if ms wants to stand a chance, there going to have to do something much bigger and better and start to come at apple just like they are.... like 5 os in a row that are all the same in my eyes as a pc user.... you can only change the colors of the minus, expand, and exit so many times before it gets old...
but again this is me as a pc user... if i used mac i would be sticking up for them just the same...
what has mac done to pull customers but put a new name on an old os and attack vista..
I live for ms but if they dont start to do somehting and soon there going to regret it... this is not a argument between the two companies... this is a race... and ms will get left in the dust if they dont step up and letting apple get the upper hand...
It saddens me to see the richest man in the world having to resort to sheer lies to defend the undefendable, sad … so sad …
Mr. Gates is … quite simply a liar
If you want a system where the hardware and operating software are all controlled by one company then buy a mac. After all these years all that apple can do is make stupid commercials, it can't sell more mac's and it can't get most of the public to want or buy their machines. I can't imagine world where it was all mac all the time- oh wait, it would be the iphone world where the phone cost $500 and Job's won't let any software run on it that is not apple. Written on Vista while listening to my Creative Zen Vision W.
I use multiple systems for multiple jobs. Its no different then working on your house or car. There is a right tool for the job.
In my opinion, Macs are awesome graphics, video, and sound editing machines. Having worked in the printing field for many years, I got to say, I would choose Mac any day for that type of work.
However now that I do IT related functions, I go across everything from Mac to PC to Linux (flavors) and back again. Each one performing thier task as they were intended, with the least amount of administrative effort.
Yeah i could use a PC to do graphics and markup, or setup a PC to be a firewall Gateway....but why go thru the hassle when there are specific OS's to handle specific duties. I have been there when executive decisions come down saying that we need to switch everyone/servers over to Linux (Red Hat) because they read the latest news article saying that Linux is the most secure and free OS...and that you can run your entire business using FREE software that rivals competitiors --- talk about hot steamy pile of marketing there. :P
Bottom line - use what you need or feel comfortable with (or forced to use at work) to get the job done, whether thats media, gaming, business, security, etc. The right tool for the right job!
My first computer was a Power Mac and had it for six years. When I had it, it was easy to use and all but very limited in what I could put on it. Any games or programs that I wanted for it had to either be specially made or I just couldn't have it. It crashed and never recovered when I tried installing AOL 6.0. So we then got a Dell with Windows XP.
Learning to use Windows was ten times easier and yes there are problems; nothing is perfect. Not even Macs. But I have not regretted my decision to move to Windows.
Now all of my friends, save one, were all Windows users at first. Then they switched to Mac and it just irritates me that all of a sudden, since they got their Mac, they have this superiority complex.
If your into music and art, then get a Mac because they work better in that area. Don't tell me to get a Mac for my everyday life because I don't need it. And personally I think Macs OS X is very complicated to use.
I like Windows. I can do what I want when I want to. If you want a Mac, then get a Mac. Its as simple as pie.
Who cares ! In the end it's their on freaking money and they (windowers or mac'ers) don't spend mine.
While it's pretty clear that Gates has a point about those commercials (to some extent) it would have served him better to have brushed off the Newsweek questions with some humor. I tried the indignation approach last summer in commenting on an earlier version of 'Mac vs. PC,' but have now decided to just roll with it. More on my blog if anyone's interested.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/11104
...but not spellchecked or grammar checked on a Mac...
It all comes down to preference. If you prefer to have a computer that looks good in your living room but can't really do much, you get a MAC. If you want to be able to use great software, engineering or design tools, or play great games, you get a PC.
Its not that difficult of a choice.
If you don't know how to use a computer, get a MAC..it will babysit you through the process.
If you're older than 12, you'll get much more satisfaction from a PC with Windows/Linux/anything else simply because Apple's hardware is junk and they have shlt for 3rd-party support.
I use both Mac and PC at my work. What like with Mac is user interface other than that I don’t see nothing that beat windows. Comparing with cost, user friendliness and support, windows are far superior to Mac. I totally agree with Bill Gates comments and Apple should stop fooling people with there advertisements.
I guess MAC users don't know how to use the grammar check button:
'Using the same methods that most PC users are open too when dealing with how to exploit a user and their system'
'With out outside influence'
Unfortunately the computer one uses is often not a matter of choice. I have to use a PC at work as well as a PC at home because that is all my company will support for remote access. PCs have come a long way toward being more user friendly, but I still can not beleive how massive and massively underwhelming many MS products are. Being required to use them promps me to react negatively.
Technically speaking, the Mac/FreeBSD platform is far superior to the Windows platform, especially since moving away from Motorola/IBM.
The graphical interface is nicer and the OS crashes less (yes, it still does crash sometimes).
As far as security goes, it is marginally better. The FreeBSD subsystem is very secure in general, but a target for some sophisticated attack vectors. The OSX GUI is either extremely secure or...
Less developers develop for Mac. This includes developers of viruses, worms and malware. Developing applications to run on the Mac has always been a hassle and has always been better on Windows systems. Bill Gates got his start developing software for programmers and this shows clearly. Without native applications that meet the needs of the vast majority of users, they will not use Macs even if everything else was better.
The biggest problem with Macs is that they totally exclude the enthusiast. You want to build yourself, selecting the best componentry possible? Tough luck. Buy this box exactly the way we sell it (at a price premium) and lump it. Upgrade parts have always been far more expensive on Apple platforms so you just need to buy a new one if you want something new (that is, if there is a driver for what you want on the Apple platform).
This presents the following challenge for the Prius-driving Mac-loving crowd:
Find a way to make the thing useful for the common person and technical enthusiasts. Failing this, find some way inside yourself avoid the smug attitude. People don't necessarily use PCs because they are cowed or stupid.
I personally have used a wide variaty of OS's. From Unix Linix, MacOSx and all of MS. I really like the free nature of linux, but can't switch yet, as not all my toys and software work on it. BUt as soon as they do.. CU.
I'm OK with Mac, but it does babysit to much in my opinion and to little flexibility. But, if they go the route of MS and let HW vendors write drivers for it and let the OS install on cheap HW, then I might opt for it. For now however, I am sticking to MS. Why? Because, I am not a user that needs babysitting. I like the fact that all my toys work on it. I have had MS for years and like the classic look. I don't care for all the colors and effects. I have XP right now and turned off all the effects. Don't need them. My wife our PC everyday for Photoshop and DvD authoring. It has yet to crash. My system has been on non stop for nearly 2 years, not one virus or crash. Just using a good firewall and virus scanner.
All the OS' have advantages. In my case it's MS. But as soon as I see another OS that works better, I will switch.
Mac user’s please looks at PC before you say something. You defiantly feel what you missing in real world.
Both Apple and Microsoft 'borrowed' nearly all their technology from the Xerox Star cobbled together at the Palo Alto Research Center long prior to Apple or Microsoft even considering a GUI, mouse etc.
Fact is, Microsoft never runs ads cutting down Apple or the Mac OS because they don't need to. Apple is the underdog, and their pathetic use of attack ads shows just how defensive they've become. I own a couple of PCs and five Macs, and those ads make me ashamed to be a Mac user. Why can't Apple just sell their OS and point out what's good about it? Why do they think it's necessary (or funny) to rip Microsoft (and all Windows users)? It's just preaching to the converted, and it's not going to win anyone over to Apple's side. Besides, since Apple abandoned the Mac OS and moved to Unix, there's really nothing left to love anyway.
Gates is just angry that all his engineers wear iPods. His version was 4.5 pounds with a fan and keyboard and his employees kept getting back problems horking them around.
With all their money, M$ has never taken the time to truly understand consumers. That's all Apple does, it's called good business. Basically we are comparing a Porsche to a Volvo. They are both good at what they do. The truth is, with web based appz taking over, the OS is becoming irrelevant. In a few years, we will have Linux/Google people in this argument calling Apple users elitists & Windows users dinosaurs. Peace.
1.Apple can’t even write there own OS anymore they stole it from Berkeley Software Distribution
2.How long has the aero interface been around for? Since 2004 when the OS was a concept/beta OS, also since then apple have stolen some of the feachers from Windows (Vista) explorer i.e. The search bar and layout etc. I could go on and on about little petty things like that but I wont. Fear enough Microsoft have borrowed some things, but hasn’t everybody else? Linux and UNIX use menu bars etc.
3.Apple are total hypocrites and they should keep there mouths shut… OK!....
I didnt bother reading all this because its a lot of back and forth pissing contests but did you ever think that Windows has virus' while Mac does not because Windows has more users?
I mean writing a virus for Mac would essentially be a terrorist attacking some small town in the midwest.
Yeah, I'm sure Xerox Star decades ago looked just like Mac OS X, Vista, KDE, GNOME, etc do right now. Please. Not to take anything away from Xerox, but that was many-many generations ago. They were also the first to network computers together, but I doubt anyone would say they invented the Internet. Sure, they had great ideas, and they planted some seeds, but each of these companies/organizations subsequently have done a ton of innovating (some more then others). Drop the Xerox thing already. It's a tired point that everyone knows anyway and considering how much has evolved since then, the point just doesn't hold that much water anymore.
I would say that fewer PC users care about the the whole thing than Mac users. What I do know is that there are more PC users than Mac users. Why? They are sold at Wal-Mart and other and other Dept. stores, whereas Macs are (mostly) not. I.e. they are cheaper. More reliable? I dunno. Faster? depends. Better? Who cares. For $300-$400 bucks, 99.9% of people's computing needs are solved. It's all about the bottom dollar.
You are all a bunch of freakin geeks... its just a computer... does it let you get your job done?
does it hurt your poor little sensitive feelings when someone says something bad about your computer?
Its a computer... get over it... you people look like a bunch of pathetic idiots... 'mine is bigger than yours'
I work with computers everyday... im an IT guy, but there is no way in hell that I let myself get as worked up and argumentative over such trivial subjects as this like the majority of you.
I own a PC, I will soon be buying a Mac to do photo editing and what not... i will still keep and use my PC regularly... but im not gonna fight with a bunch of people over what is better and whats not... pull your heads out of your asses already.
I use a Mac and a PC and Linux, and they all serve a purpose for me...so whatever. Apple and Microsoft Red Hat are business that makes products that I use as tools, nothing more. They are not a religion to me.
So I'm not writing in response to whether Mac or Windows is better. I'm writing in response to the poor journalism. Was this artical written by a 12 year old? It reads like a report for school. The author is basically quoting another article and rehashing it with his opinions. Not very enligtening opinions at that.
'When designing a system, you can make it as secure and as flawless as you want. The issue is what risks you expose the system to from outside influence. Windows uses several outside applications, and those often attract security problems. There are also threats from inside the system in the case of the Office flaws and exploits over the last few months. Apple addresses this issue by using its on internal applications, and very little from outside vendors. The applications not produced by Apple are written exclusively so they are able to function on the core of the Mac, its operating system OS X. This is why you will see applications like Adobe and others with PC and Mac versions.'
That doesn't even make sense. If you are using outside sources for software, it's still the responsibility of the OS writers to make sure they are secure. And, like somebody else said, of course the applications are writen for OSX. Would you write a program for Linux that you are going to run on Windows?
I don't understand how an article like this gets on Google news. If I want to read reports like this I'll become a high school English teacher.
Mac being immune to virus and hacking is total B.S. did you not read article properly?
It is simple:
Why are so many viruses written to infect MS operating system and not the MAC operating system?
Look at the numbers.
Percentage of people I personally know of that own a PC - 100.00%
Percentage of people I personally know of that own a MAC - 0.00%
The last person I knew that owned a MAC, it was 1984.
Reading the above posts, it looks like PC's and Mac's both have a problem with spell check. And no, I'm not a grammar Nazi.
It's funny how user alphageek states that there are 0 Mac Virus's. This site:
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/g/macvirus.htm
begs to differ. Yet another ill-informed egocentric mac user!
Well, the Apple FanBoys definitely win the grammar and spelling awards for the comments section. 80% of the pro-PC comments shown are clearly written by either children under 12 or the mentally retarded. 'there' vs. 'their', use of 'MAC' as a possessive. Ugh.
I've been a MCSE for about 15 years, as well as a MacOS user back from System 6 (Macintosh IIsi). There's only one clear theme from this whole thread: the literacy in this country is going to shit.
The 64bit version of Windows Vista is immune to viruses, so Mac users what do you have to say about that?
It's funny. You cannot argue against a majority of the points that PC users, or Gates, have made. Therefore, you begin to attack the 'literacy' level of the people posting comments. You want to talk about them acting childish? Take a look in the mirror there bud!
On a side note, I would not say that Vista is immune to Virus's. As has already been stated, anything electronic is NOT immune to bugs. It is definitely a more secure version than previous ones however.
Also, as has been previously stated, if people would pull their heads out of their forth point of contact, they would realize that the reason PC's are 'less secure' is not because of the programming, but rather because it is common sense that you go to the place with the largest supply. There are far more PC users than Mac users, so it stands to reason that there would be far more attempts at hacking PC's than there would be of Mac's.
The only reason I use windows is because I'm a gamer. Anyone care to challenge that the Mac has less games designed for it than Windows? The amount of games for the Mac is pitiful. Personally, I've never used OS X or any Mac related product before, so I won't comment on how good or bad it is. But I have one question for all the Mac users out there: If OS X and Mac in general is so much better than Windows, then why are 95% of computers using Windows? Oh, by the way, don't pop a blood vessel or spit out venom and blood answering that one!
If anything, the last week on the Month of Apple Bug’s gave you seven different methods to completely take command of a system running OS X. Using the same methods that most PC users are open too when dealing with how to exploit a user and their system. That is, fooling them into taking some action somewhere on the system, which in turn delivers the ‘payload’ or the attack its self.
Did anyone bother to proof thiss???
Mac is starting to suffer from the same issue as Windows always has.
Mac is gaining in popularity and it is becoming widely used. This attracts hackers (both good and bad); they will find exploits and exploit them, either for personal gain or to educate. Mac OSX is not necessarily 'more secure' then Windows it just wasn't as widely used as it is now. Over the past few years it has been gaining attention (great for Apple!) and now its OS vulnerabilities will come to light.
I just wish that anybody trying to rebuke someone would check their grammar and spelling. When there are mistakes like that, it makes people look illiterate. Then where is all the strength in making their points? Get an education, people, either with a Mac or PC, but quit posting until you can post well.
Wouldn’t the percentage of 64bit PC/Vista users be equivalent to the percentage of Mac users? Meaning that the chance of being hacked or infected is just as low as that of Mac users.
Doesn't anybody proof-read things before they publish them? This article was very difficult to read because of numerous typos, making a reader have to backtrack to try to determine what the writer was trying to say. A spell-check is not the same as going over a piece before submission to make sure you have it right. Do you have an editor, or ANYONE who reviews things before putting them online?
Common sense would say that Vista is going to turn into the new windows. If you were a hacker, you would want to start finding its flaws early so that you can mass attack when it takes off. Apple has yet to have a system take off enough to cause someone to want to make that sort of preemptive strike.
i have used mac since 1998 at home, and a PC at my work. it is a matter of choice. get a firewall and update your system - mac or windows - whenever there is a security patch available. know the internet sites that you visit, don't open emails from people you don't know.
other helpful hints for living in the modern world
don't put water in your gas tank. don't buy cheap gas. don't eat high fat foods. smoking may cause cancer. walking across a busy street without regard to traffic may be hazardous to your health.
people - use your heads, think and don't do dumb things. computers may not be for everybody. sadly, typewriters are not manufactured any more. pen, paper and the postal service still work, so does the telephone.
good luck
Justin said:
JustinFeb 6th, 2007 - 15:35:18
It's funny how user alphageek states that there are 0 Mac Virus's. This site:
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/g/macvirus.htm
begs to differ. Yet another ill-informed egocentric mac user!
If you took a look at that site, it featured viruses from System 6 and 7, circa 1989. Prehistorical in computer terms. Not exactly relevant to Mac OS X, which is what alphageek was referring to. Seems like you're the one who is ill-informed.
LoL. My mistake. I forgot, Mac hides behind the 'difference' between a worm and a virus. Failing to acknoweldge the fact that worms can be just as bad as a virus.
I have had two professional careers that require computers.
I have used PCs given to me by companies I work for business purposes (sales management, communication) and I have used Macs for Video production. My experience with both is that communication with Macs is far better once you have MS Office Pro for Mac installed. This is largely because so much of the business world communicates sending Word and Excel documents. I have had to make too many calls to my IT person to work out bugs (even while using firewall and anti-virus software) to ever promote PCs as safe for communication purposes. I have also sat in on too many Video users meetings where discussions bog down over which drivers to download and compatibility issues with PCs to ever recommend them for video production use to someone that is just starting out.
Apple's closed system approach gives them a defined edge for systems that work well and virtually right out of the box. You pay more for this.
Windows open system helped them capture the Lion's share of business. It is a shame that they have become the target of so many virus attacks. I am relatively sure that if equal effort was thrown at the Mac it would suffer also. I am content using just one system - a Mac - loaded with Adobe and Apple software for video/audio production and MS office for Mac for my business communication now that I am in business for myself and can afford only one platform. Macs may seem like a style choice because of Apple's advertisement but Macs are used by professionals every day that would use a machine made in Italy by retired Russian soldiers if it were productive for them. Many of us do not pay the extra money for the style points. We want to be productive.
Bill Gates' whining reminds me of one of those unpopular kids in high school who were smart but socially inept. If you make the mistake to have a conversation with one of them as a respectable human being, they start putting down everyone else who is content, because they have no other topic on their mind.
It's not just Windows that's insecure.
I realize there's little point in submitting my opinion regarding this article or its ensuing comments, as everyone has their mind made up - and ultimately, I agree with all those who say, 'use what you like.' However, I thought my two cents might be useful for some.
I have worked in IT as a software developer since the early 90s, and I have developed applications on Windows 98, Windows XP, OS X, and several flavors of UNIX, Linux and BSD. My primary focus has always been web applications development and database programming, though I've also developed in C, C++, python, AppleScript, Visual Basic, and a handful of other languages. I was also employed a few years ago maintaining and developing intrusion detection systems for high availability clustering solutions. I have used every operating system listed above (with the exception of Windows 98) on home/office machines, laptop computers, and servers, and I've used OS X, Linux and BSD variants on clusters and RAID systems.
The first thing I can tell you is that, without a doubt, some operating systems are better at some tasks and worse at others. For example, OS X's implementation of MySQL is miserably inefficient in comparison to Linux's implementation. But of course, the majority concern here isn't how these systems handle database software - it's how they'll work for us in our homes and offices, while performing everyday tasks. From the tone of the comments here, it's obvious that security is a major concern.
To that end, it goes without saying that no operating system is totally secure. The only way to completely secure a computer is to unplug it. But there are two important points to make here, in comparing Vista and OS X: (1) it's far too soon to make security comparisons between them, as very few of us have even used Vista in daily activity; (2) the attacks on OS X's security are about as accurate as the defenses of it, which is to say, neither view of OS X's security is very accurate.
To address point 1: it should be obvious to all of us that most of what we know about Vista's security model is what we've been told by third parties, primarily Microsoft. Even if you're using Vista, you haven't used it for very long. Exploits and viruses will inevitably arise for Vista; the question is how Vista will handle them. OS X, for example, has a *nix-based security model; this means that, for the most part, exploits remain in userspace and don't end up in the master boot record for your hard drive (a viral problem that's plagued all versions of Windows). If Vista implements a similar security model (and all reports indicate it does), it should bring all the 'easy' exploits to a grinding halt. But there's no way to know conclusively until Vista has been in the wild for awhile.
Per point 2: yes, OS X has exploitable bugs. Yes, there have been a handful of viruses for OS X. There is certainly some truth to the 'hacker attention' theory (i.e., there are fewer exploits for OS X because fewer people use it). However, to my knowledge, the danger level for every known virus and worm for OS X has been designated 'low' or 'very low,' and the vast majority of 'easy' exploits (i.e., exploits that require little skill and attention on the part of the hacker) do not give the attacker root privileges - rather, they remain in userspace, as they should. This can screw the user, of course, but the machine continues to function and is much more easily recoverable. Those exploits which do give root privileges often require skill and experience on the part of the attacker, and as anyone who has hacked a Linux system knows, it's not nearly as easy as launching a crippling system-wide attack on Windows XP (which often just requires opening a file). Furthermore, my last job was at a tech support firm that specialized in Macs (yes, believe it or not, there are actually whole companies that use Macs to run their business operations). I saw various exploits implemented, generally against web servers, and generally involving open source software (we had a heck of a time with Horde, for example) - as with most open source projects, patches for these exploits were released within a few days. I only ever saw one class of viruses in the wild for OS X - Word macro-viruses, which are a problem with Microsoft Word and not with OS X, and which affects only Word and Word documents. The majority of support calls we received weren't security related in the slightest, but usually had to do with compatibility issues (getting older Mac software to work on OS X, getting PPC software to run on the new Intel Macs, etc). Overall, on desktop machines, laptops, web servers, RAID machines and dedicated database machines, I encountered very few security issues. I never, ever encountered the kinds of security problems found on XP running Internet Explorer and/or Outlook - viruses that spread when a user simply looks at a file, exploits that launch when a user just opens an email, malware that installs itself when a user visits a web page.
In short, OS X IS better than XP, security-wise. But that says nothing at all about Vista, at least not yet.
I'm starting to think I need an 'iLife'. I'm that un-cool person who read the C++ UI Interface book made infamous on the Apple v PC commercials and what do I have to show for it?
I'm a software architect entrepreneur minting money by creating applications for the 95% of global computer users on PCs running Windows.
As they say though, money isn't everything. I really aspire to be respected by the do-nothing bohemian cool kids and uninspiring trolls of academia.
Sarcasm aside, I think Mac users should feel pretty good about Bill Gates even addressing the issue (I'm sure Newsweek pried it out of him).
Apple has recently changed its name from Apple Computer to Apple Inc. We need to all get along understanding that comparing Apple to Microsoft in this day in age is like comparing Apple to Wal-Mart. Even though they dabble in each others markets (MSFT’s feeble attempt with the Zune and Apple's OS X) they dominate two totally different worlds under the technology umbrella.
I imagine being a Mac OS proponent is like being from France. Everyone acknowledges your culture but nobody really cares what you’re saying. Am I way off the mark?
Actually, again as a multi-system admin and a 'geek,' I don't tend to buy the idea that the reason why Macs are more secure has much to do with the size of the population. A little sure, but not nearly as much as folks tend to think. Have you ever read /. ? If a truly useful Mac virus or even more importantly, exploit were designed, the developer would gain immense street cred (compared to Windows for which exploits are considered simple). As it goes, the only people that talk about 'lack of Mac security' are PC zealots or Antivirus software developers with a product to sell. Neither camp holds a lot of water with me simply because they both have their own agendas.
What is interesting to me is the fact that pure, system level exploits are so prevalent on MS products. In other words, these are exploits that come straight from the factory and do not require the user to install anything or click on a web link etc. Instead, they are 'out of the box' problems. Further, often when such a problem is found to exist, MS takes forever to publish a patch. When 'out of the box' issues come up with Apple - and they do occasionally - the update usually comes out within days or even hours. Nice since this is often before the script kiddies really have a chance to get going.
No, the philosophy is just different. Plain and simple. Windows was designed in a manner that generally lacks design - if that makes any sense - and is therefore more susceptible to problems and any 'security' features are usually mapped upon years of kludge code. Mac OS X (whose underlying code was originally derived from NeXT which was originally derived from BSD which was originally based upon SysV or one of the original multi-user systems) was built with an underlying elegance that is great for the engineer. While the innards of Windows tend to be huge and cumbersome to learn and manage, the UN*Xen were built to be much more modular. Security has always been handled in a centralized manner, and processes/files/directories/etc have always been split - at kernel level - into any number of separate and protected camps.
I've heard it said, and from my experience it tends to be true, that Windows of today is basically a single-user system with multi-user support 'kludged' on top. This is in direct contrast to Mac OS X/BSD, SysV (such as IRIX), and Linux whose original design goals included massively multi-user systems. Perhaps Vista is better - but I tend to doubt it will be that much better. Again, none of this says these UN*Xen are perfect, but they are a heck of a lot closer.
Wow.
I use Windows at home, and Macs at work.
I just loaded Vista on my home PC. It's nice. Looks good, feels sleek, definiately better then XP.
BUT, most of these new featuers that make Vista so good have been available to me for the past 18 months on Mac OS X.
Sure, I can see Microsoft have refined & tweeked some of these features, but for an operating system that's taken 5 years, and $5b, I'm a little confused to what all the fuss is about?
The only feature that is actually worth talking about is DirectX 10. At least that will help keep my son occupied.
Google & Apple are working together in many ways, and both have invested interests in each other.
Google is taking market share from Microsoft.
Apple is taking market share from Microsoft.
It's great to see :)
Prior to OS X, I was a Mac fanatic. Of course, prior to OS X, Microsoft was pushing Windows 98 and Windows Me, which were inferior by comparison. OS X changed all that for me. Mac OS 9 was elegantly designed, easy to troubleshoot, easy to support, and while it had a very nasty habit of locking up periodically it was a great system. Hackers had no command line to work with, no access to source code, and very few vulnerabilities. Not so with OS X. As the Month of Apple Bugs showed, there are some major security holes in OS X. The main hole is that just about any application crash can be exploited to gain root access to the machine. It was OS X that killed my Mac fanaticism, and Apple's smug, misleading commercials that keep it dead.
As Bill Gates pointed out, Microsoft published most of the details of Vista's interface WELL BEFORE Apple released OS X. So if OS X and Vista look alike, it's very likely that Apple did the copying from Microsoft and not vice-versa, since we know Apple is very tight-lipped about upcoming releases.
I haven't worked with Vista yet, but I can tell you that on a daily basis, I don't have security or virus problems with either OS X or Windows XP Pro. I have only ever found one 'bug' in Windows XP during LOTS of normal use, but I've found MANY bugs in OS X during just occasional use. (Want to see one? Leave your Activity Monitor up, bring up the Dashboard, launch the ESPN and World Clock Widgets, and leave them up as much and as often as possible for a week. You'll find they start consuming ever-more CPU and RAM. That one has been in OS X since Widgets were introduced and has been reported to Apple by others besides myself. See themacsucks.com for Mac issues.)
Apple has sold quite a few machines on the illusion of security in OS X. Microsoft, because it's in such a visible position in so many businesses, can't create the same illusion because its products' flaws get instant and widespread exposure.
The reality is, as another poster mentioned, that both OS X and Windows have bugs. Both platforms have their supporters and detractors. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. If you like the Mac and get what you need from it, then by all means it's the right system for you and you should use it. If you like Windows and get what you need from it, then it's the right system for you and you should use it. If neither one floats your boat, there's Linux and a whole host of other OSes out there. You can probably find one that gives you what you're looking for.
I agree: Use whatever best serves your needs.
I am just exploring Macs, and so cannot really speak to how well they stack up to Windows based PCS. To date, I my primary computer is a dualboot Windows XP and Suse Linux 10.3 computer. One thing that I found about using Windows XP is that I have to install, update and run at least 5 different programs to keep my computer clear of viruses, spyware and trojans. My standard anti-virus program plus A-Squared free, Ad-Aware, Spywareblaster, and Spybot Search and Destroy. I consider that a real PITA. For those that claim not to have any virus issues with Windows XP, are you sure?? I once had a co-worker tell me that he did not use any anti-spyware or anti-virus program with his Windows XP based computer as he saw no need to do so and was confident that he had no trojans, viruses, or malware. I told him to test drive Avast Anti-Virus. The next day, he couldn't stop thanking me for telling him about Avast. He stated that when he ran Avast, 10 Trojans were detected on his computer.
Because I consider updating and running all the various programs to keep my Windows XP computer secure, I now boot into and use Suse Linux 10.3 to perform all my internet related activities. I find that the Mozilla FireFox browser in Suse Linux 10.3 seems to run faster and more smoothly than the FireFox browser in Windows XP. Why that is, I have no idea. The biggest problem with Suse Linux 10.3 is how much time I had to spend tweaking it to get certain things(i.e., built in wireless card) to work. Then the whole issue incompatibilities surfaced. I discovered that my Lexmark x3470 printer was incompatible with Suse Linux and if I wanted to use a printer I would have to buy another Suse Linux compatible printer. Linux, or at least Suse Linux, does not work out of the box.
As an inexperienced Mac user, I have researched Macs given my goal to try one. The biggest issue seems to be price, which has caused some users to resort to building Hackintoshes to get a feel for the Pseudo-Mac experience. I heard that a Mac that sells for $2000 in the U.S. sells for $6000 U.S. in Brazil. The fact that Macs are super expensive to fix vs Win XP based PC's is a real problem with Macs. In fact, it is nice to know that I can easily fix my own PC desktop and Laptop on my own considering that the interior layout lends itself to this. With a Mac, that is a totally different story. When I get a Mac, I just hope that it does not breakdown, as I would hate to pay an arm and a leg to get it fixed.
Then of course the reality of all of this. I don't see Microsoft losing its global dominance anytime soon. Whether you hate Windows or whether you like Windows, the world really revolves around Windows and it will continue to remain the dominant operating system no matter what form it takes or what issues arise. When you use a dominant operating system, it does not take rocket science to figure out that you are not likely going to experience lack of long term or short term support for it whether software or hardware related.
I am a microsoft developer and architect using .net technologies. I welcome competition across the board. I have a tool provided by MS that allows me to develop any application, in half the time of any other programming language. Business drives technology, not some, 'apple' geek with an IQ of, say...a hollywood actor that would sell his soul to make a paycheck. I get it....he is cool. Apple (MAC) users are cool. I have a 10 year old daughter, she owns an IPOD. I think it is great that Apple has found a niche that works for them. There is a lot of money in entertainment and they deserve the income generated from entertaining. America is experiencing a shift right now when it comes to our youth. I love the ignorance of liberal politics and media. The youth of america thrive on ignorance and jump on the bandwagon of anti-war movements and rebellion. Bring on the change! I will totally enjoy watching the failure of a spineless liberal in office....however..I find myself wanting to get the heck out of this country and hope I can take my daughter with me.
I'm in college, I have a sony VAIO, and my roommate has a MacBook Pro.. So far, I paid $1050 for mine, and he paid $2000+ for his. I do everything he does (actually he stole some programs from my computer) and his computer has actually overheated multiple times. I agree in that it is a sleeker look, and definitely a 'trendy' tool. The way I see it, You're paying 1600 or so for a nice laptop, then another 700-900 for the name. If you ask me, not worth it.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story