[themacolyte]

As an add on to my last post -

I can compile our large application using .NET on Windows XP Pro via Virtual PC on my PowerBook (1.33 GHz G4 768 MB RAM) with all of my other normal applications open (Safari, Mail, IM, iTunes, Terminal, text editor, iCal, Omni Outliner or Graffle as a typical set) and the PowerBook is MUCH more responsive than my work computer doing the same compile (3.4 GHz HT P4 Dell 1 GB RAM). The PowerBook takes forever to do the compilation of course, but the UI is still instantly responsive and switching applications doesn't make it completely unresponsive for 3-60 seconds like the Dell.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because, generally, the faithful assume any MacOS performance issues to be "user error"

There definitely are a number of people who, for reasons best known to themselves, will not admit any problems in Mac OSX or Apple. Realistically, however, there are also quite a good number of people who will find errors with Mac OSX and Apple, no matter what. the same is true of any OS and company, be it Microsoft and Windows or Linux and Red hat.

I don't know why that is. I think it's because people indentify too closely with their computer and fear that another OS/Brand becoming popular would be like a personal insult to them.

[theolein]

Originally posted by themacolyte:
As an add on to my last post -

I can compile our large application using .NET on Windows XP Pro via Virtual PC on my PowerBook (1.33 GHz G4 768 MB RAM) with all of my other normal applications open (Safari, Mail, IM, iTunes, Terminal, text editor, iCal, Omni Outliner or Graffle as a typical set) and the PowerBook is MUCH more responsive than my work computer doing the same compile (3.4 GHz HT P4 Dell 1 GB RAM). The PowerBook takes forever to do the compilation of course, but the UI is still instantly responsive and switching applications doesn't make it completely unresponsive for 3-60 seconds like the Dell.

I noticed this probelm at the last place I worked as well: Windows tendency to behave raggedly when resources get scarce. I presume you people are using WinXP. Are you using Active Directory? I was just wondering if one couldn't somehow use remote desktop to the Windows machine?

[meelk]

Originally posted by aristotles:
Targon, you are trying to use a "modern" OS with ancient hardware and expecting it to perform with pro-level apps? Did you buy those apps you speak of or you are a troll and a software pirate. If you were able to purchase pro-apps for professional work, you should have a upgraded a long time ago. I mean come on, do you see pros on windows using even a 500MHz P3 with pro-level multimedia apps on XP? Of course not.

Everyone knows that XP is a lot slower than window9x but it is also a lot more stable. The same thing goes for OS 9 versions OS X. Modern OSes regardless of hardware platform require modern hardware. Deal with it.

I quite frankly have a hard time believing that you are doing work on 400Mhz machine with professional audio apps. Given me a fricken break.

meelk, I understand that you are too stupid to connect the dots, so I will explain things for you. The reason for mentioning all those apps was to bring the eye candy level of XP up to the OS X level for doing comparisions on GUI responsiveness. If you don't want the shadows in OS X, you can always turn them off with shadowkiller from unsanity.com to speed up OS X on ancient sub-500Mhz hardware.

I was a windows user for a number of years at home until Oct 2002 and I became exclusively mac at home in mid 2003. I am still a windows user/developer at work (40+ Hours per week) and the work we do involves hundreds of MB to GBs of data. Windows is extremely poor at multitasking data heavy apps.

yeah, let me "connect" the damn dots back for you. you are comparing an osx which specifically has already addressed the windows drawing issue that XP still has like they are comparable, which they are not. When longhorn comes out and the issue HAS been addressed, and you dont have to wait for windows to draw what will you harp on then? Get a clue.

[theolein]

Originally posted by meelk:
yeah, let me "connect" the damn dots back for you. you are comparing an osx which specifically has already addressed the windows drawing issue that XP still has like they are comparable, which they are not. When longhorn comes out and the issue HAS been addressed, and you dont have to wait for windows to draw what will you harp on then? Get a clue.

Excuse me, are you blind? Did you notice that the guy is a Win developer at work? I don't think he would be making comparisons if didn't have real issues.

As for Longhorn, I suspect it will clear out a lot of old Windows problem areas, in terms of security, GUI etc. Especially from those leaked winsupersite screenshots last week, I think that a lot of things that are in OSX (admin password dialog to install software, improved search, Direct3D accelerated alpha blending GUI etc, new kernel) will be implemented in Longhorn. I also think that .Net will be the basis of a lot of things there.

I'm pretty sure it will be a big improvment on Windows and Win32, but that, as was the case with OSX, will come at a price. There are reasons Microsoft has been so uncertain about including stuff like WinFS etc.

[meelk]

Originally posted by discotronic:

Here is a fact for you to try an digest. The Internet relies on 13 root DNS servers all around the world in order to function. On each and every single one of those servers is a flavor of UNIX. If these servers where to be compromised some really sh*tty things would happen. A large portion of government (and not just the United States) and corporate communication would come to a stand still, billions of dollars in commerce would be lost and little old granny wouldn't be able to play bridge on Yahoo! when she wants. In today's global economy taking out those servers would be a catastrophe bigger than the modern world has ever seen.

"try to digest" huh? Actually even I knew this, and I'm not a computer professional in any form. As I remember, what is it, 6 or 8 of these servers are in the US. They have also been brought down here and there individually(in terms of being rendered nearly unusable) by denial of service attacks several times in the last few years. I'm sure you can search the cnn or similar database and find the mentions of it. Sure, ddos attacks arent hacking in, but then again, I would hate to see the security these servers have both in the real and virtual world, and the legal ramifications for anyone who managed to actually take them out.
We are talking REGULAR USERS, not about internet backbones here. Your snobbish answer simply proved that you as a mighty mac user thought you were 'above me', and I was totally clueless. Try to digest that. Its funny that everything people tend to claim is "uncrackable" or "unhackable" is hacked and cracked in no time once someone smart enough actually puts a little time and willpower into it.

[goMac]

Originally posted by Apple_John:
I am switching back to WinXp after 3 years on Mac. I first got myself a brand-new $300cdn Dell just for a project. After upgrade the ram to 512, the machine run smoothly. Not a single crash after 1 year or so. It is just as quiet as my Cube. I am now using it everyday.

My next major desktop purchase will be a Dell. I never like Dell. But it is dirt cheap compare to Mac, and give me zero problem.

I hope to stay with Mac, but I see no reason. 99% of the time I run PS, OO, Firefox and iTunes. OS structure is not important to me, as long as it stables. PC can do the same job 50% cheaper than a Mac.

You're comparing a one year old Dell to an at least 4 year old Cube? Certainly the Dell will be more snappy.

I built my own PC here. 3.6 ghz P4. It's loud, annoying, hot, horrible at multitasking under Windows, and I can't push it as hard as I can my Powerbook. As long as the only thing it ever runs is a nice game it does fine. But it has a tendency to let one task interrupt another, which was something I didn't miss from OS 9.

[meelk]

Originally posted by theolein:
Excuse me, are you blind? Did you notice that the guy is a Win developer at work? I don't think he would be making comparisons if didn't have real issues.

As for Longhorn, I suspect it will clear out a lot of old Windows problem areas, in terms of security, GUI etc. Especially from those leaked winsupersite screenshots last week, I think that a lot of things that are in OSX (admin password dialog to install software, improved search, Direct3D accelerated alpha blending GUI etc, new kernel) will be implemented in Longhorn. I also think that .Net will be the basis of a lot of things there.

I'm pretty sure it will be a big improvment on Windows and Win32, but that, as was the case with OSX, will come at a price. There are reasons Microsoft has been so uncertain about including stuff like WinFS etc.

The sheer stupidity of "hey windows already doesnt draw well, so lets load up more bullsh*t like window blinds, etc" absolutely amazes me. Thats taking a known problem and enhancing it to make your 'point', when the OS you are defending doesnt even have such an issue to start with, so its not a logical arguement from word one.

[theolein]

Originally posted by meelk:
The sheer stupidity of "hey windows already doesnt draw well, so lets load up more bullsh*t like window blinds, etc" absolutely amazes me. Thats taking a known problem and enhancing it to make your 'point', when the OS you are defending doesnt even have such an issue to start with, so its not a logical arguement from word one.

I agree that installing Stardock etc in order to make WinXP look more like OSX is not a valid comparison as it doesn't come bundled with the OS. I'm also sure that Longhorn will offer 3D accelerated, double buffered window drawing, probably even more powerful than that which OSX does. I do think though, that Longhorn will have much steeper hardware requirements than OSX does, but that will be, as is always the case in the PC world, simply a motor for improved hardware sales.

We'll see how they compare when Longhorn does eventually come out, and it'll be interesting to see how Apple changes or improves its OS strategy to compete.

[aristotles]

meelk, go troll somewhere else. You are a windows "fanboy" I'm a windows "developer" with a "real" job. Remember SchemaSoft? Our company hired away some of their staff when Apple bought them out.

I'm well aware of the limitations of GDI and what causes the "blow through" and "white out" conditions with windows today. I'm also well aware of the advancements Avalon is supposed to bring to the gfx system however, that won't mean d*ck all if the threads used to update the windows get blocked by other "processes". Avalon means absolutely nothing the the average user until it is released in it's final form and programs are rewritten to take advantage of it.

You are way out of your league pal.

The thread is getting out of control and off topic. I hope the mods close it soon.

PS. All that eye candy in Longhorn (glass) will require a powerful GPU, 3Ghz+P3 and a GB+ ram.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by meelk:
"try to digest" huh? Actually even I knew this, and I'm not a computer professional in any form. As I remember, what is it, 6 or 8 of these servers are in the US. They have also been brought down here and there individually(in terms of being rendered nearly unusable) by denial of service attacks several times in the last few years. I'm sure you can search the cnn or similar database and find the mentions of it. Sure, ddos attacks arent hacking in, but then again, I would hate to see the security these servers have both in the real and virtual world, and the legal ramifications for anyone who managed to actually take them out.
We are talking REGULAR USERS, not about internet backbones here. Your snobbish answer simply proved that you as a mighty mac user thought you were 'above me', and I was totally clueless. Try to digest that. Its funny that everything people tend to claim is "uncrackable" or "unhackable" is hacked and cracked in no time once someone smart enough actually puts a little time and willpower into it.

Actually 10 of the servers are in the US. A denial of service attack has nothing to do with a virus or trojan on the server itself. It is because of computers outside of the server's zone. Most DoS attacks come from computers that are compromised with a trojan/virus. Most major companies have had to deal with a DoS. Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo!, eBay and many, many others. In other word we are talking about "Regular Users" because this does have an affect on them. Most if not all of the systems that are taking part in the DoS attack are Windows based. Regular users have had their hand in helping along the majority of the problems like denial of service attacks because their machines where compromised. Is it their fault? The bottom line is no. Beside the people who programed the virus/trogan/worm, Microsoft is mostly to blame for their sloppy, buggy, security issue laden software called Windows.

Most regular users don't understand that an anti-virus program, firewall, spy-ware remover and other security measure are needed. Should they really be required to know all this? I don't think they should. Should I as a regular automobile driver need to know how to rebuild my engine if it goes bad? I know to change my oil every 3000 miles, check the tire pressure every couple weeks and other little odds and ends but that should be about it. My doing these things doesn't take away from the time I should be driving.

That is how a Mac works for regular users. In the computer world the Mac just needs the tires checked and oil changed every now and then. It doesn't need a new engine everytime it gets a "bug" on the windshield.

At no time did a I say that UNIX/OSX is unhackable. UNIX has been around since 1969. Windows XP has been around since 2001. Which one has been the cause of more security issues as a total?

If I am "snobbish" by having a valid point I guess you are right by calling me just that. Just don't come here spreading Microsoft propaganda about security. My one question to you is this. How will a virus on UNIX achieve it's propagation?

I use both Windows and OSX on a daily basis and I am confident that I have some knowledge of what I am talking about. What about you?

[OtisWild]

Originally posted by macimmortal:

Have you even used a Mac mini for any length of time? I have. It performs MUCH better than my Athlon 2500+ running XP Pro. Seeing as I built that PC about 2 years ago, it is possible that my impressions when comparing the Mac mini to my PC would be about the same as a "switcher". I for one would be blown away by the performance of a Mac mini after having used an older PC.

I will agree that adding more memory will make the mini even better.

Nope, I go by the word from a few Linux admin power users who bought minis as 'proto-switchers'. They bought the stock 256MB minis. They say it is slow, even compared to comparably-priced PC beige boxes. They say Mail.app is slow compared to Evolution or KMail. They say Safari is slow compared to Konqueror or Firefox. They hate the spinning beachball.

I still think Apple needs to forgo a few percent of margin by putting a bit more into the BOM of the mini, for it to succeed in its purpose of attracting and maintaining switchers. I think the next rev will come stock with a 5400RPM drive and 512mb RAM. I hope and pray it comes with a graphic chipset that's reasonably powerful for modern 3D games, such as a 64MB ATI 9700 or GeForce 6800go.

[meelk]

Originally posted by aristotles:
meelk, go troll somewhere else. You are a windows "fanboy" I'm a windows "developer" with a "real" job. Remember SchemaSoft? Our company hired away some of their staff when Apple bought them out.

I'm well aware of the limitations of GDI and what causes the "blow through" and "white out" conditions with windows today. I'm also well aware of the advancements Avalon is supposed to bring to the gfx system however, that won't mean d*ck all if the threads used to update the windows get blocked by other "processes". Avalon means absolutely nothing the the average user until it is released in it's final form and programs are rewritten to take advantage of it.

You are way out of your league pal.

The thread is getting out of control and off topic. I hope the mods close it soon.

PS. All that eye candy in Longhorn (glass) will require a powerful GPU, 3Ghz+P3 and a GB+ ram.

Being a developer means nothing to me. I've known more than my share of people who develop various kinds of software, which I never had an interest in learning to do. I have a "real" job as well, does that make us even? I'm far from being a windows fanboy. I believe my first post in this thread detailed my interest in OSX, but not in Apple hardware, you might want to read back before using "fanboy". I've never stated MS was perfect, but comparing windows XP to OSX is rather stupid, as it would be more evenly compared with OS9 given its age, would it not?
From what I've heard longhorn will run fine on any 2.5 to 3+ghz machine with at least 512 meg of ram and a half decent dx9 compliant video card. If it doesnt run fine, they have a compatibility mode, which will severly dumb down the graphical effects and enhance performance on older machines, so thats not as much a worry, really.

[freakboy2]

i recently got a p4 3.0 w/ ht at work and it has a gf4 4600 installed.

in many things its snappy, but if i hit the start menu, it has to think about it, control panels, it thinks about it.

it's certainly not as "usably fast' as my cube, which by all rights should be getting it's arse kicked by that pc.

what is faster on a PC is resizing browser window. ok.. if that's what gets you off then go for it. That's faster. But put the two machines side by side and try to get some serious work done and there's no comparison.

My PC routinely sits for whole seconds doing [something]... i've tried to turn off every extra service on the box to improve this with no luck.

I'm just not impressed.. in fact my p3 1.4 seems to be about as fast as the p4 3.0.. The difference is just not that much in "snappiness".. for chewing through numbers the p4 blows it away.. but usabilty, they both have the same limitations.. they are both running windows.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a fanboy.. PCs have their strengths, but this "osx is slower" thing is total BS. Also, I'd like to add that the beefiness of your vid card makes all the difference in whether your UI on a mac seems fast or not. A fast video card in a circa 2000 Mac will seem snappier than a modern mac w/ a slow one.

anyway, enjoy whatever you use.

[goMac]

Originally posted by OtisWild:
Nope, I go by the word from a few Linux admin power users who bought minis as 'proto-switchers'. They bought the stock 256MB minis. They say it is slow, even compared to comparably-priced PC beige boxes. They say Mail.app is slow compared to Evolution or KMail. They say Safari is slow compared to Konqueror or Firefox. They hate the spinning beachball.

I still think Apple needs to forgo a few percent of margin by putting a bit more into the BOM of the mini, for it to succeed in its purpose of attracting and maintaining switchers. I think the next rev will come stock with a 5400RPM drive and 512mb RAM. I hope and pray it comes with a graphic chipset that's reasonably powerful for modern 3D games, such as a 64MB ATI 9700 or GeForce 6800go.

Even compared to PC's in its own price range the mini is much better. It has a nice graphics card for the price range.

You have to understand, while Linux is fast, it doesn't have very much in the way of niceness or software. I use Linux on 1/2 my machines. Linux is fast because they left out a lot of the niceties Apple puts in. If you are a power user who doesn't care much for applications, or nice looking simple gui's, Linux works. Linux is not nearly as nice as OS X. While its a more extreme example, its like saying DOS runs faster than Windows. DOS will run faster than Windows, but at a price.

[goMac]

Originally posted by meelk:
From what I've heard longhorn will run fine on any 2.5 to 3+ghz machine with at least 512 meg of ram and a half decent dx9 compliant video card. If it doesnt run fine, they have a compatibility mode, which will severly dumb down the graphical effects and enhance performance on older machines, so thats not as much a worry, really.

From what I've heard Longhorn runs the most cleanly on a dual core chip. I think its even recommended.

[meelk]

Originally posted by discotronic:
Actually 10 of the servers are in the US. A denial of service attack has nothing to do with a virus or trojan on the server itself. It is because of computers outside of the server's zone. Most DoS attacks come from computers that are compromised with a trojan/virus. Most major companies have had to deal with a DoS. Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo!, eBay and many, many others. In other word we are talking about "Regular Users" because this does have an affect on them. Most if not all of the systems that are taking part in the DoS attack are Windows based. Regular users have had their hand in helping along the majority of the problems like denial of service attacks because their machines where compromised. Is it their fault? The bottom line is no. Beside the people who programed the virus/trogan/worm, Microsoft is mostly to blame for their sloppy, buggy, security issue laden software called Windows.

Most regular users don't understand that an anti-virus program, firewall, spy-ware remover and other security measure are needed. Should they really be required to know all this? I don't think they should. Should I as a regular automobile driver need to know how to rebuild my engine if it goes bad? I know to change my oil every 3000 miles, check the tire pressure every couple weeks and other little odds and ends but that should be about it. My doing these things doesn't take away from the time I should be driving.

That is how a Mac works for regular users. In the computer world the Mac just needs the tires checked and oil changed every now and then. It doesn't need a new engine everytime it gets a "bug" on the windshield.

At no time did a I say that UNIX/OSX is unhackable. UNIX has been around since 1969. Windows XP has been around since 2001. Which one has been the cause of more security issues as a total?

If I am "snobbish" by having a valid point I guess you are right by calling me just that. Just don't come here spreading Microsoft propaganda about security. My one question to you is this. How will a virus on UNIX achieve it's propagation?

I use both Windows and OSX on a daily basis and I am confident that I have some knowledge of what I am talking about. What about you?

wow, I am really glad you continue to offer me primers on things I already fully understand like ddosing. As a matter of fact, I've known people on various irc networks who run botnets of various sizes for some time, although I have no interest in or participation in their actions. I never claimed windows to be security problem free, but then again, I'm a personal fan of people LEARNING to use their computer, which I help them do on the side. If you are knowledgeable you can do the same things on either osx or winxp as a "basic user", and do it on a faster machine at less cost with windows.
You have to learn to drive a car, you have to learn the rules of the road. Why should people expect to get on the internet or use a computer without understanding basic concepts of usage and security? The very idea is absurd. A computer is not a toaster.
Next - googling "unix virus" nets any huge number of hits with this little gem which almost seems to be speaking directly to you included.
http://www.kernelthread.com/publicat...ity/vunix.html

Furthermore, as I said, I have "interest" in OSX, but not in apple hardware. I find the OS interesting, but lo and behold, there is no Apple store in my entire state, and the nearest location to even SEE a macintosh machine is a 2 hour drive, which puts my assertion that apple is a niche market and that partially protects it from malware in a very legitimate context.

[meelk]

Originally posted by goMac:
From what I've heard Longhorn runs the most cleanly on a dual core chip. I think its even recommended.

oh, I'm sure everything runs more cleanly on a DP/DC system, but MS has very much bumped down its aspirations for longhorn, and DP/DC setups no longer seem all that necessary. Aside from that dual core processors arent even on the market yet, and even though they will be by the time longhorn is out, that length of time to supposedly have expected people to upgrade is simply too small, and MS knows this.

[goMac]

Originally posted by meelk:
wow, I am really glad you continue to offer me primers on things I already fully understand like ddosing. As a matter of fact, I've known people on various irc networks who run botnets of various sizes for some time, although I have no interest in or participation in their actions. I never claimed windows to be security problem free, but then again, I'm a personal fan of people LEARNING to use their computer, which I help them do on the side. If you are knowledgeable you can do the same things on either osx or winxp as a "basic user", and do it on a faster machine at less cost with windows.
You have to learn to drive a car, you have to learn the rules of the road. Why should people expect to get on the internet or use a computer without understanding basic concepts of usage and security? The very idea is absurd. A computer is not a toaster.
Next - googling "unix virus" nets any huge number of hits with this little gem which almost seems to be speaking directly to you included.
http://www.kernelthread.com/publicat...ity/vunix.html

Furthermore, as I said, I have "interest" in OSX, but not in apple hardware. I find the OS interesting, but lo and behold, there is no Apple store in my entire state, and the nearest location to even SEE a macintosh machine is a 2 hour drive, which puts my assertion that apple is a niche market and that partially protects it from malware in a very legitimate context.

I don't know about you, but basic users these days want to do things like get on the internet wirelessly and share photos with friends. I don't know how much money people back home spent on me fixing their PC's in high school to do these things, but I don't really mind myself. I probably had to have a couple spend $200 just to get their PC networked wirelessly this summer (lotta crap wireless stuff out there).

Once I got hired by a couple with a Mac. That was the easiest thing ever. Just show them where iPhoto was on the hard drive.

PC's don't come with the software for the average user to get done what they want to get done. This is why Macs are cheaper.

[aristotles]

Originally posted by meelk:
Being a developer means nothing to me. I've known more than my share of people who develop various kinds of software, which I never had an interest in learning to do. I have a "real" job as well, does that make us even? I'm far from being a windows fanboy. I believe my first post in this thread detailed my interest in OSX, but not in Apple hardware, you might want to read back before using "fanboy". I've never stated MS was perfect, but comparing windows XP to OSX is rather stupid, as it would be more evenly compared with OS9 given its age, would it not?
From what I've heard longhorn will run fine on any 2.5 to 3+ghz machine with at least 512 meg of ram and a half decent dx9 compliant video card. If it doesnt run fine, they have a compatibility mode, which will severly dumb down the graphical effects and enhance performance on older machines, so thats not as much a worry, really.

Being a developer means that i understand how things work to a greater degree that someone like you. It also means that I have access to things like longhorn betas before the general public does. Yes, you are a windows/X86 fanboy. Get lost.

OSX is "never" coming to X86 or X86-64.

Go outside for crying out loud. I'm not interested in debating with a noob or explaining how things work on one of my days off.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Apple_John:
I am switching back to WinXp after 3 years on Mac. I first got myself a brand-new $300cdn Dell just for a project. After upgrade the ram to 512, the machine run smoothly. Not a single crash after 1 year or so. It is just as quiet as my Cube. I am now using it everyday.

My next major desktop purchase will be a Dell. I never like Dell. But it is dirt cheap compare to Mac, and give me zero problem.

I hope to stay with Mac, but I see no reason. 99% of the time I run PS, OO, Firefox and iTunes. OS structure is not important to me, as long as it stables. PC can do the same job 50% cheaper than a Mac.

Well, Macs are definetely no t your thing then... I wouldn't recommend one to you, I'd recommend a Mandrake box.

[EricN]

DELLS REALLY AREN'T THAT BAD, ACCORDING TO CONSUMER REPORTS.

Check it: http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...t_id%20=305449

Granted, that's 2003 info. I think there might be a newer one b/c as I recall, they have now have on eMachines' repair history. Also, I believe that in the newer report, the gap between Apple and other companies (in terms of repair history and tech support) has grown even wider.


Has something happened to Dell in the past couple of years to make them churn out POS computers or something? I highly doubt it! Although...Cringely did mention that Dell's support quality went down once they started making consumer electronics. Check it out: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050107.html

-E

[goMac]

Originally posted by EricN:
DELLS REALLY AREN'T THAT BAD, ACCORDING TO CONSUMER REPORTS.

Check it: http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...t_id%20=305449

Granted, that's 2003 info. I think there might be a newer one b/c as I recall, they have now have on eMachines' repair history. Also, I believe that in the newer report, the gap between Apple and other companies (in terms of repair history and tech support) has grown even wider.


Has something happened to Dell in the past couple of years to make them churn out POS computers or something? I highly doubt it! Although...Cringely did mention that Dell's support quality went down once they started making consumer electronics. Check it out: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050107.html

-E

Every Dell my friends have bought have died at some point, and my roommates Dell's wireless card has stopped working and it rejected a 3rd party Firewire card which is currently running fine in my PC. I know a business which used to buy all Dell, but has had such bad experiences with them, they've vowed never to buy Dell again and are instead buying mom and pop brands.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by meelk:
wow, I am really glad you continue to offer me primers on things I already fully understand like ddosing. As a matter of fact, I've known people on various irc networks who run botnets of various sizes for some time, although I have no interest in or participation in their actions. I never claimed windows to be security problem free, but then again, I'm a personal fan of people LEARNING to use their computer, which I help them do on the side. If you are knowledgeable you can do the same things on either osx or winxp as a "basic user", and do it on a faster machine at less cost with windows.
You have to learn to drive a car, you have to learn the rules of the road. Why should people expect to get on the internet or use a computer without understanding basic concepts of usage and security? The very idea is absurd. A computer is not a toaster.
Next - googling "unix virus" nets any huge number of hits with this little gem which almost seems to be speaking directly to you included.
http://www.kernelthread.com/publicat...ity/vunix.html

Furthermore, as I said, I have "interest" in OSX, but not in apple hardware. I find the OS interesting, but lo and behold, there is no Apple store in my entire state, and the nearest location to even SEE a macintosh machine is a 2 hour drive, which puts my assertion that apple is a niche market and that partially protects it from malware in a very legitimate context.

I really think you are missing the point. The link you provided looks to have proved my point. There may very well be a virus hit the Mac platform any day now. The real question is how will it spread? A virus is a program. In order for a program to get installed on a Mac running OSX the user will have to give it explicit permission to install. Even if this happens odds of it doing any damage to the system and self replicating to other machines is slim due to the architecture. Users are not set as root in OSX. Even if the user does execute a virus the system is still protected because a user isn't allowed to touch the underlying system. If the virus was good enough and the system were compromised and it tried to spread to another Mac running OSX that system isn't going to allow the virus in.

there is no Apple store in my entire state, and the nearest location to even SEE a macintosh machine is a 2 hour drive, which puts my assertion that apple is a niche market and that partially protects it from malware in a very legitimate context.

That is just plain silly.

[macimmortal]

Originally posted by OtisWild:
Nope, I go by the word from a few Linux admin power users who bought minis as 'proto-switchers'. They bought the stock 256MB minis. They say it is slow, even compared to comparably-priced PC beige boxes. They say Mail.app is slow compared to Evolution or KMail. They say Safari is slow compared to Konqueror or Firefox. They hate the spinning beachball.

I still think Apple needs to forgo a few percent of margin by putting a bit more into the BOM of the mini, for it to succeed in its purpose of attracting and maintaining switchers. I think the next rev will come stock with a 5400RPM drive and 512mb RAM. I hope and pray it comes with a graphic chipset that's reasonably powerful for modern 3D games, such as a 64MB ATI 9700 or GeForce 6800go.

Hahaha. Nice. Now tell me something. What in holy hell would a Linux "Power User" want Apple's low end CONSUMER desktop for? The answer: THEY WOULDN'T. Have you used Linux? I have. I can't imagine ANY Linux GUI (Gnome, KDE) ever being considered fast. (btw, I like KDE) Safari slower than Konqueror? HAHAHA. Konqueror's rendering engine IS THE BASIS for Safari. Apple has been OPTIMIZING it and adding the optimizations BACK TO THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY. And if these guys bought Mac mini's to compare them to high end PCs, they are freakin ##@%($* *$$@)$#. I really despise the name calling and childish crap going on in this thread, but anyone that buys a 500 dollar Mac and whines that it is slower than "their" PC needs to get a life. And for the love of God, if they are "Linux Power Users," I would HOPE that they have enough of a clue about Unix to know better than to try to "Power Use" Mac OS X in 256 megs of RAM.

As for Apple's profit margins, let me know when you run a billion dollar a year company. As an Apple stockholder, I applaud WHATEVER the hell they are doing at this point.

The AVERAGE consumer (read: email, web browsing, word processing) WILL (and DO) love the Mac mini. At this point, I'm starting to believe that some of you were sent here by either Microsoft or Dell just to stir up sh*t.

[meelk]

Originally posted by aristotles:
Being a developer means that i understand how things work to a greater degree that someone like you. It also means that I have access to things like longhorn betas before the general public does. Yes, you are a windows/X86 fanboy. Get lost.

OSX is "never" coming to X86 or X86-64.

Go outside for crying out loud. I'm not interested in debating with a noob or explaining how things work on one of my days off.

You have used "fanboy" and "noob" all in one sitting. Your debate skills stagger me, you are truly someone to be reckoned with.
Who ever mentioned osx coming to x86?
Get lost? No thanks, I'll stay.

[aristotles]

Originally posted by meelk:
You have used "fanboy" and "noob" all in one sitting. Your debate skills stagger me, you are truly someone to be reckoned with.
Who ever mentioned osx coming to x86?
Get lost? No thanks, I'll stay.

You said, you were interested in the OS, not the hardware. Apple is the only viable and cheapest PPC desktop maker. What other "hardware" would you suggest?

I don't care if you "get lost", just go outside. I'm not interested in "debating" you.

[meelk]

Originally posted by aristotles:
You said, you were interested in the OS, not the hardware. Apple is the only viable and cheapest PPC desktop maker. What other "hardware" would you suggest?

I don't care if you "get lost", just go outside. I'm not interested in "debating" you.

I never said there was other hardware, but frankly, Apple's hardware, aside from the dual G5's is very uninteresting.
Quite bluntly, who the f*ck are you to tell me to 'go outside' or 'get lost'? If you arent interested in talking, then stop posting in the thread, simple enough isnt it?

[theolein]

Originally posted by meelk:
wow, I am really glad you continue to offer me primers on things I already fully understand like ddosing. As a matter of fact, I've known people on various irc networks who run botnets of various sizes for some time, although I have no interest in or participation in their actions. I never claimed windows to be security problem free, but then again, I'm a personal fan of people LEARNING to use their computer, which I help them do on the side. If you are knowledgeable you can do the same things on either osx or winxp as a "basic user", and do it on a faster machine at less cost with windows.
You have to learn to drive a car, you have to learn the rules of the road. Why should people expect to get on the internet or use a computer without understanding basic concepts of usage and security? The very idea is absurd. A computer is not a toaster.
Next - googling "unix virus" nets any huge number of hits with this little gem which almost seems to be speaking directly to you included.
http://www.kernelthread.com/publicat...ity/vunix.html

Furthermore, as I said, I have "interest" in OSX, but not in apple hardware. I find the OS interesting, but lo and behold, there is no Apple store in my entire state, and the nearest location to even SEE a macintosh machine is a 2 hour drive, which puts my assertion that apple is a niche market and that partially protects it from malware in a very legitimate context.

While I really and truly wonder why the hell you are actually posting here, if you don't even have a Mac unless it's just to troll or argue for the sheer sake of arguing, I'll post one last answer to your posts and then I'm done with you.

Firstly, if you don't have a Mac, how on earth can you argue about the relative merits of the operating system? Please answer that one.

Secondly, there are no Apple stores here in Switzerland either, and yet the Mac market is one of the best in the world. Apple has a 6,5% market share here. Your argument on that count is pure bullshit.

Your comment about being "personal fan of people LEARNING to use their computer" is exactly where your biggest problem is: 90% of normal computer users don't want to have to learn anything apart from having to actually just operate the machine. It's a device, not a fucking car. To all those people a computer is a better kind of toaster or telephone.

Your next biggest problem is that you say "If you are knowledgeable you can do the same things on either osx or winxp as a "basic user", and do it on a faster machine at less cost with windows." How on earth would you know?, since you profess to not being able to even have access to a Mac with OSX?

Finally, did you actually read that article on unix security over at Kernel thread? If you had you would have noticed that it goes into depth about various mechanisms of malware on unix in general, but points out the defenses as well. The author is very good. He doesn't make any wild claims about how invulnerable any OS is, but he does mention in passing that the vehicles of spreading malware are another topic altogether, and he doesn't cover them in the article, since they involve more than the theoretical possibility of a virus.

To put it plainly, OSX is not perfect, Linux is not perfect, OpenBSD is not perfect and Windows is not perfect. However, your comments are based on a lack of knowledge, which you try to counter with claims that other, who do know from the basis of both knowledge and experience, are being arrogant.

In other words, you're blowing out of your behind and you're just trolling.

In any case, have fun.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by theolein:
There definitely are a number of people who, for reasons best known to themselves, will not admit any problems in Mac OSX or Apple.

Those are the people I'm referring to when I say "faithful". Admittedly, they're numbers are few, but they tend to make up for that by being quite vocal in forums when discussing problems platforms they are loyal to.

[the Rebel]

Originally posted by meelk:
Being a developer means nothing to me. I've known more than my share of people who develop various kinds of software, which I never had an interest in learning to do. I have a "real" job as well, does that make us even?

Get a clue. Just because you have a "real" job does not mean that you are somehow equally qualified to talk about computer technology and operating systems. Knowing people who develop software certainly does NOT put you at the same knowledge level as a professional software developer. You admit that you have never had any interest in learning the ins and outs of software development, but yet you think that you have a basis for arguing the subject with someone who makes his living by knowing the details.

Originally posted by meelk:
I'm far from being a windows fanboy. I believe my first post in this thread detailed my interest in OSX, but not in Apple hardware, you might want to read back before using "fanboy".

Regardless of your interest in OS X, your choice to use Windows on x86 hardware instead of using OS X on PowerPC hardware shows a certain amount of ignorance. Your implication seems to be that you choose to run an inferior operating system because you believe that your x86 hardware is superior to Apple's PowerPC hardware. I get the impression that if OS X were available for x86 hardware then you would run be running OS X instead of Windows on your current hardware. However, the fact is that even if you were right about which hardware is better, you would be making the wrong choice. For over 5 years, Apple has been designing and optimizing OS X for PowerPC Macs and building PowerPC Mac for OS X. It is simply naive to think that your x86 hardware, regardless of whatever raw power it has, would be able to overcome the efficiency and productivity that would be achieved by an equivalently priced Mac. A $499 Mac mini runs OS X better than any $499 x86 PC could ever dream of running OS X; it just is not possible for a Celeron with shared video memory to handle the load as well as a G4 with 32MB of dedicated video memory. It would take years of R&D for Apple to re-optimize OS X for an x86 processor and there is no motivation for them to make that much effort doing so. Also since many P4 optimizations do not apply to Athlon, Celeron, Durun, or Centrino processors, it only makes the task more daunting.

Originally posted by meelk:
I've never stated MS was perfect, but comparing windows XP to OSX is rather stupid, as it would be more evenly compared with OS9 given its age, would it not?

No, it would not. Absolutely not.

Original Release Dates

June 25, 1998 : Windows 98
May 5, 1999 : Windows 98 Second Edition
October 23, 1999 : Mac OS 9
September 14, 2000 : Windows ME
March 24, 2001 : Mac OS X
October 25, 2001 : Windows XP

So as you can see, agewise, it is appropriate to compare Mac OS 9 to Windows 98 or Windows ME. Also, you will notice that even OS X is older than Windows XP by a few months. Regardless, it is stupid to suggest that there is something wrong with comparing the current version of Windows XP to the current version of OS X. Obviously Microsoft has not done much to improve XP since its introduction 3.5 years ago whereas Apple has continued to make significant improvements to OS X, but it is absurd to use that as some lame justification for saying the latest, greatest Windows XP should be compared to the Mac OS that came out 2 years before XP instead of the Mac OS that came out 7 months before XP.

Originally posted by meelk:
From what I've heard longhorn will run fine on any 2.5 to 3+ghz machine with at least 512 meg of ram and a half decent dx9 compliant video card. If it doesnt run fine, they have a compatibility mode, which will severly dumb down the graphical effects and enhance performance on older machines, so thats not as much a worry, really.

Since you don't like the term "fanboy," would you accept the title of Microsoft apologist? Whatever Longhorn will do or won't do is irrelevant. Longhorn is at least a year and a half away. OS X is here now. Any alleged Longhorn performance is unverifiable and subject to change. According to Microsoft, all Windows XP Professional requires is a 233Mhz or higher processor (they recommend at least 300Mhz), 64MB of RAM (128MB recommended), and 1.5GB of available hard disk space. (source : http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...g/sysreqs.mspx). If Microsoft claims that XP Pro runs fine on a 300Mhz Celeron with 128MB of RAM, then I wonder how reliable their claim is that Longhorn will run fine on a 2.5Ghz computer with 512MB of RAM. Only time will tell, but meanwhile we will have OS X Tiger running fine on a $499 1.25Ghz G4 Mac mini with 256MB.

[the Rebel]

Originally posted by meelk:
oh, I'm sure everything runs more cleanly on a DP/DC system, but MS has very much bumped down its aspirations for longhorn, and DP/DC setups no longer seem all that necessary. Aside from that dual core processors arent even on the market yet, and even though they will be by the time longhorn is out, that length of time to supposedly have expected people to upgrade is simply too small, and MS knows this.

Regardless of what Microsoft knows, that does not mean that they are going to be able to make Longhorn perform well on bargain PCs.

Also, many Windows users upgrade or replace their PC every 2 years. So there is enough time for Microsoft to expect people to buy new hardware in order to run Longhorn.

[the Rebel]

Originally posted by meelk:
Next - googling "unix virus" nets any huge number of hits with this little gem which almost seems to be speaking directly to you included.
http://www.kernelthread.com/publicat...ity/vunix.html

Wow you can use Google to find an article that discusses Unix and viruses. Too bad you apparently can not comprehend the contents of the article. It clearly explains the inherent security built into the operating system. All of these OS level security features apply to Mac OS X, but they do not apply to Windows XP or even Longhorn. That is why viruses are so prevalent on the Microsoft Windows platform and they are virtually non-existant on Unix.

Keep reading the article that you found until you understand it and stop believing the FUD myths about the lack of Mac and Linux viruses only being due to obscurity. It is bogus.

Originally posted by meelk:
Furthermore, as I said, I have "interest" in OSX, but not in apple hardware. I find the OS interesting, but lo and behold, there is no Apple store in my entire state, and the nearest location to even SEE a macintosh machine is a 2 hour drive, which puts my assertion that apple is a niche market and that partially protects it from malware in a very legitimate context.

What state do you live in?

[Zak Nilsson]

Originally posted by meelk:
I LOVE the high and mighty Mac user attitude when it comes to spyware,viruses, etc. Lets be frank, the only thing keeping you safe, is you reside in a paltry 2 or 3 percent of the market.

Oh, you'd like to be frank, would you? How's this for frank: Way to completely and entirely avoid my direct challenge to you. Here you are calling Mac users idiots if they put a Mac on the internet without a firewall, but you can't come up with one damn reason why they shouldn't. That's because you're ignorant of the subject matter, and you have no idea how secure Macs are. You're just assuming OS X is like some slightly different version of Windows or something.

I'll ask you again to tell us specifically what will happen to a Mac if you put it on the internet without a firewall. Since you seem to be pretty sure of yourself on this issue it shouldn't be a problem for you to come up with all the evidence you need to prove that putting Macs up like that is an idiot-worthy idea. Right?

I wait in anticipation of your response. This should be good, assuming you decide to actually do it this time.

Originally posted by Targon:
Zak Nilsson > curious, 4 posts, registered in May 99 ??

And?

[Gorloth]

Try running Photoshop with 16 layers with 1.6 Gig of ram being utilized by Photoshop and also running Lightwave doing raytrace renderings on a Dual 2Gig G5 with 3.5 Gig ram. Now both a PC or Mac doing those intensive tasks won't be snappy but OSX will be much more stable and respond to my inputs, where a XP machine will jerk and shrug. The Mac has more memory bandwidth, period. I'll give up "snappy" to have a more stable system any day.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Using Windows is like playing Tetris. It's snappy. Windows drop down fast. Then you open a whole load of windows in a row to watch them collapse and disappear.

[Ashan McNealy]

Office 2003 for windows is killing me. It does **** for me like those correction notes that just wont go away. I want to shoot the computer i have at work.

I'm a happy mac user!

[Cooter]

Originally posted by Zak Nilsson:


I'll ask you again to tell us specifically what will happen to a Mac if you put it on the internet without a firewall. Since you seem to be pretty sure of yourself on this issue it shouldn't be a problem for you to come up with all the evidence you need to prove that putting Macs up like that is an idiot-worthy idea. Right?

...true dat. I have had a Mac OS X Server connected directly to the net for 2 years. Never had a problem. Generally, Apple's security updates follow closely on the heels of newly discovered issues. I am gonna switch my Red Hat 9 co-located erver to a Mac Mini with Tiger Server when its finally available. I love the admin tools. Beats WebMin's ass by a long shot.

But, I would NEVER stick a fresh XP box directly on the net. You would be compromised before you could even download SP2 from MSFT. Thats pathetic.

That said, I do have to use Winders on occasion, so I eagerly await Longhorn and the new gfx subsystem, Avalon.

Competiton improves the breed. I hope Avalon is killer.

[olePigeon]

I have 6 reasons why I refuse to use Windows:

1. I
2. CAN'T
3. STAND
4. PHOTOSHOP
5. ON
6. WINDOWS

[fx9xx04]

I remember when at one point I actually used 56k for internet. It was so cool to be able to download stuff at a full 12kbps! When I switched to Cable, it was SO fast, I mean, a 5 MB file could be had in less than 7 seconds, which was mind blowing to me. But now, even I'm like "hurry the freak up! this cable internet is so freakin slow." it's lost it's appeal, in other words.

When I mess around with PCs, I find that opening, closing and resizing windows is much more quicker than Mac OS X by a long shot. Thankfully, lately with all the news of Apple highering OpenGL engineerrings I hope things will speed up for Aqua because as bubbly, and pretty it is, it is objectively slower.

But when I tried to configure a wireless card on a wintel box, I could not even find the control panel to mess around with the wireless card. It was a task, shifting through windows and windows just to end up in the same place or reading drawn out, cryptic instructions. I tried to find it where you might look, like, "Network," but no, just more control panels for more useless configuration. I never figured out where it was, but it made me appreciate the simplicity, albeit slowness comes with the package, that Mac OS X has to offer.

I think part of the problem is not only Mac OS X but Apple also has starved us of decent hardware. I mean, we still have Radeon 9200s and Nvidia 5200s floating around in the line up! Holy cow, didn't someone tell Apple that these cards a little dated? The G4 has seen it's day and needs to be made available in the mini and iBook - not the Powerbook. WTF is up with AGP 8x? Who puts 256 MB RAM in their computer, especially with Mac OS X? The G4's slow clock speed also contributes to many spinning beach balls. Wasn't there a time when Apple had the edge on hardware and software?

Mac OS 9 and winbloze have the edge on snappiness, but often crash or can leave applications unstable. As far as the hardware, Apple needs to get its butt into gear because better hardware is being sold for PCs for the first time. I'd never switch to windows, not with the viruses, hardware conflicts, software conflicts, instability, ugliness, complexity, and "genericness". I swear, regadless of how quick other software is, Microsloth has taught people that the aforementioned discrepinces is what you have to experience. Well, F U, Microsloth.

[limepi]

It is my experience that neither Mac OS X nor Windows has a significant performance advantage.

Many operations in Windows do feel faster. For instance, resizing windows and scrolling. If you're performing only these tasks then the Mac will seem to lag. There are also operations which are much slower on Windows; for example, deleting files (inexplicably) will often take several seconds. Other things, such as compiling Java code, are also much faster on the Mac. I've seen a 700 MHz G4 compile faster than a 2+GHz Pentium machine.

The unfortunate aspect of this situation is as I mentioned above: the areas where OS X appears sluggish are the areas that are hit upon most frequently by end users. But it's unfair to categorically say that either operating system is faster than the other.

As for spyware and viruses, let me be brunt. I feel that any system is vulnerable to these kinds of malicious attacks, especially when the user is unaware of the threat. The simple truth is that virus and spyware writers simply don't target the Mac because it's not worth their time. The only "reward" that virus writers get is the sociopathic thrill of causing harm to others. The bottom-of-the-barrel companies that employ spyware tactics usually don't have the resources to port their efforts to the Mac. We are safe at the moment because we are under the radar.

That's why I wish Apple success in switching Windows users in moderate numbers. We need to find a "sweet spot" (if one exists) where the Mac's market share is sufficiently numerous to attract legitimate software and game developers, but still low enough to keep the unwashed from bringing over their software perversions.

I'm glad that Apple's doing well, while at the same time I'm concerned that we're becoming a bigger and riper target. I think that we need masses of Windows users to draw fire away from our platform.

So my attitude when meeting a potential switcher (going either way) is: if you're coming to the Mac, then great�welcome to the fold. Meetings are every Wednesday and donuts will be provided. If you're switching to Windows, no problem. I hope that it works out for you. It's a perfectly fine operating system and your choice doesn't bother me. Just keep using that iPod; my shares of AAPL and I appreciate it!

What an odd symbiotic relationship. Apple comes up with the ideas that revolutionize the computing industry, and the remainder of the industry shields us from harm.

A fair trade, no?

[theolein]

Originally posted by limepi:
...
The simple truth is that virus and spyware writers simply don't target the Mac because it's not worth their time. The only "reward" that virus writers get is the sociopathic thrill of causing harm to others. The bottom-of-the-barrel companies that employ spyware tactics usually don't have the resources to port their efforts to the Mac. We are safe at the moment because we are under the radar.

...

This is one of the biggest misconceptions floating around the IT world. It is an argument that Microsoft (and just about ever gullible user) trots out every time another round of malware hits Windows.

But it's not that simple.

Go to http://netcraft.com/ Take a look at the server statistics for Microsoft's IIS server vs. Apache. You'll see that Apache is used quite a bit more than Microsoft's IIS. Now, if you go to a site that tracks exploits for the two servers and the rates of them getting hit, you'll notice that IIS has historically been more vulnerable than Apache. I say historically, because IIS 6.0 is much better than previous implementations.

Now, Apache is open source, and IIS is Microsoft's baby. According to your, and Microsoft's logic, Apache should be getting hit more often than IIS, which is not the case.

This whole fallacy is simply FUD. The popularity of a software is not the true extent of its vulnerablity.

[Zak Nilsson]

Originally posted by limepi:
As for spyware and viruses, let me be brunt. I feel that any system is vulnerable to these kinds of malicious attacks, especially when the user is unaware of the threat. The simple truth is that virus and spyware writers simply don't target the Mac because it's not worth their time.

I think you meant "blunt". Okay, so I'm glad you feel that way. Do you have anything - and I mean anything at all - that can prove that your opinion is justified on this particular topic? For example, can you prove the existance of even one virus for OS X? Do you honestly believe that not a single person has tried to create an OS X virus yet because it's "not worth their time"? I mean can you actually prove that market share is the sole reason? OS X has been around for 4 years. People have actually TRIED to create OS X viruses (read: proof of concept) and yet not a single virus exists for OS X.

Can you quantify your explanation regarding the lack of Mac viruses, i.e. you believe it's because of Apple's market share and nothing else? Despite the facts that the OS has been out for 4 years and has millions and millions of users? "Security through obscurity" is not an acceptable explanation in light of the facts regarding OS X, its popularity and its market share.

There are far more acceptable reasons for OS X's freedom from viruses, and market share has nothing to do with it.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Zak Nilsson:
I think you meant "blunt". Okay, so I'm glad you feel that way. Do you have anything - and I mean anything at all - that can prove that your opinion is justified on this particular topic? For example, can you prove the existance of even one virus for OS X? Do you honestly believe that not a single person has tried to create an OS X virus yet because it's "not worth their time"? I mean can you actually prove that market share is the sole reason? OS X has been around for 4 years. People have actually TRIED to create OS X viruses (read: proof of concept) and yet not a single virus exists for OS X.

Can you quantify your explanation regarding the lack of Mac viruses, i.e. you believe it's because of Apple's market share and nothing else? Despite the facts that the OS has been out for 4 years and has millions and millions of users? "Security through obscurity" is not an acceptable explanation in light of the facts regarding OS X, its popularity and its market share.

There are far more acceptable reasons for OS X's freedom from viruses, and market share has nothing to do with it.

I don't mean to flame you, but there is one trojan for Mac OSX that is in the wild: http://securityresponse.symantec.com...04.trojan.html This is one that is a simple applescript "rm -rf ~" shell script wrapper, but it has a Microsoft Word 2004 Web Install icon. Someone in the Mac OSX section saw it on bittorrent warez sites, and apparently one user was even conned by it and lost his home folder data.

Now, obviously, this is nowhere in the league of the legions of remote exploits that abound on the Windows platform, and it does involve a bit of social engineering (greed and gullibility) and it needs the user to download it and run it. But it does exist.

Obviously, this is possible on any platform. It says almost nothing about OSX security. What it does show, is that no platform is safe from the user itself, but that is a tradeoff that computer users will have to accept as part of computer using life.

[zzarg]

I love my PowerBook. It's a Rev.A 12" - 1.12gb RAM, 867Mhz. It's got Panther and I usually use VPC to make windows stuff work

but last week I bought a new Vaio T27GP/S ... because it just wasn't cutting it.... performance was good but every now and then it would just freeze. it would run of of RAM and just not handle it properly.

Safari and iTunes together would be a real problem.. it was more stable if I didn't run iTunes at the same time, but I think VPC was pushing it over the edge.

VPC also had some problems of its own - despite the promise it's not a 'seamless' integration - while not an OSX/Apple fault, it made my ability to work in a maixed environment harder than I could justify.

I'd thought about getting a new 15" PB but the is-it-isn't-it saga (thanks rumourville) or Tiger was offputting (I so don't want to pay AU$229 for an OS a couple of weeks after spending $5k on a new laptop. It's different in the WinTel world where Microsoft don't sell that hardware as well but Apple as a single vendor create an expectation of loyalty but never seem to follow through.

Then there was the dealer when I went to look at the new 15" ... "...well, what do you expect, your current PB is more than a couple of years old, you should think of upgrading every 24 months...".... I have a 4 year old Vaio that works well, and even a 5 year old Compaq which I recently gave to a friend who's now running their small business off it - no complaints. The 12" case is warping, the little screws keep trying to fall out and the palm rest is corroding. My Vaio is pretty much spotless, and the Compaq has lost the cover to one of the ports.

I am really missing OSX. The consistant UI, the range of quality tweaks, the integration (BLuetooth for OSX users is a reality. FOr Windows it's a nightmare), the integrated spell-checker (you can tell when I post from a PC... typos !)

But, at the end of the day for $1000 less I got a machine with the same amount of RAM, a higher resolution screen, an RW+/- DVD and the same size hard drive and much better battery life. I don't get the virus/trojan problems that plague the windows world and are often held up as a reason to switch - because I'm careful, paranoid and use up-to-date protection.... but I realise the benefit of a 'safer' environment for many

I still use my PB for email etc when I'm at home and I'll probably get another one day.

If anyone needs a 'simple' computer for surfing, mail and office apps... I'd always recommend a Mac. For me as an ASP/SQL developer... today a PC is a better solution (sorry !)

[theolein]

Originally posted by zzarg:

...

But, at the end of the day for $1000 less I got a machine with the same amount of RAM, a higher resolution screen, an RW+/- DVD and the same size hard drive and much better battery life. I don't get the virus/trojan problems that plague the windows world and are often held up as a reason to switch - because I'm careful, paranoid and use up-to-date protection.... but I realise the benefit of a 'safer' environment for many

I still use my PB for email etc when I'm at home and I'll probably get another one day.

If anyone needs a 'simple' computer for surfing, mail and office apps... I'd always recommend a Mac. For me as an ASP/SQL developer... today a PC is a better solution (sorry !)

As an asp/sql developer you could probably have saved even more money by buying a desktop, (with which you could also develop using VNC) to be honest, but obviously, if asp/sql is your bread and butter, you're better off with a dedicated machine, even if that ties as much to Microsoft as OSX ties you to the Mac. I don't think I'd like to develop asp/sql stuff in VirtualPC.

However, the fact that there are other languages and applications, especially for the web, doesn't strike OSX off a professional developer's shortlist at all, if you ask me. Anything done with php/perl/python/ruby/java/mysql/postgresql/oracle/sybase can be done as well if not better on OSX. And that's ignoring the C/C++ and X11 crowd, many of whom have switched to OSX as a development platform. Or the OSX developers themselves, who, since Apple is gaining in marketshare, now have a real market and a real chance.

Also, the phenomenal resolutions offered on many PC laptops are a bit of a two edged sword in my eyes. At my last job, as a Windows sys admin, I had a Dell 15" Laptop with 1600x1200 resolution. Even at the higher dpi setting, with the large fonts, I had difficulty reading what was on the screen.

That said, I don't want to come across as a mindless Apple zealot. I liked HP/Compaq machines for their quality (Vaios, however, I have mixed feelings about. They have a very bad rep) as well as IBM Thinkpads, and I don't really mind using Windows, which, if one knows what one's doing, is a perfectly good platform for work and play. Given the choice, however, I would almost always go for OSX and Macs.

[LeeG]

Originally posted by meelk:
Viruses, trojans and spyware just dont "magically" appear no matter how much people in the Mac community want it to be so.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-22_11-5314563.html#


Yes, they do magically appear....

[resuna]

Originally posted by ReggieX:
just like MS doesn't force anyone to use Outlook Express

Maybe not OE, but certainly Outlook.

If you buy a Pocket PC you *have to* use Outlook, Despite the fact that Microsoft has created this whole grand structure of embedded objects and common APIs Activesync doesn't use them in a standard way. Third-party mail programs are definitely second-class citizens. The third-party connector I used for Notes didn't go through ActiveSync, it had to have its own applet on the Pocket PC that it connected through directly (through the TCP connection Activesync runs over).

[resuna]

Originally posted by theolein:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com...04.trojan.html

This hardly qualifies as being "in the wild"... it was released through bittorrent, yes, but it's gone extinct because there's no mechanism for it to propogate. It's like the "Phage" exploit on PalmOS (which Symantec made a big thing of when they were trying to convince people to install Norton for PalmOS). It's funny how all popular platforms have one "weak" piece of malware that shows up "in the wild" for a short time and then vanishes, but gives the antivirus companies something to point to in their scare marketing.

What it does show, is that no platform is safe from the user itself, but that is a tradeoff that computer users will have to accept as part of computer using life.

And one logical way to make that tradeoff is to avoid using software that encourages exploits, and adjust the settings of the software you do use to ensure that you never open even "safe" objects without a deliberate action on your part. For example, in IE on Windows never select "always trust software signed by..." when that's presented to you. In Safari on Mac OS X, disable the automatic unpacking of "safe" objects.

[resuna]

Originally posted by OtisWild:
Nope, I go by the word from a few Linux admin power users who bought minis as 'proto-switchers'. They bought the stock 256MB minis. They say it is slow, even compared to comparably-priced PC beige boxes. They say Mail.app is slow compared to Evolution or KMail. They say Safari is slow compared to Konqueror or Firefox. They hate the spinning beachball.

First, "They bought the stock 256MB minis"... you need more RAM than that. We've established that.

Second, "They say it is slow, even compared to comparably-priced PC beige boxes." ever hear of economy of scale? Of course Apple's not going to be able to sell systems as cheaply as people who build hundreds of times as many.

Third, "They say Mail.app is slow compared to Evolution or KMail. " And all GUI mail software is a dog compared to oldschool command line and curses mail packages like "elm", which is what I use on my Mini.

Fourth, "They say Safari is slow compared to Konqueror or Firefox." So use Firefox. Doh.

Fifth, " They hate the spinning beachball." Me too, and I hate it when an X11 app does a global grab and forgets about it and locks up the whole GUI and I have to switch back to the console and kill it.

People don't buy Macs for performance. They by Macs because they're tired of tweaking their computers and they just want to use them. It's not surprising that Linux fans still in larval stage (where all that tweaking is still 'fun', and they haven't turned into old grumpy BOFHs like me) aren't going to be impressed...