Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Psyco89 on June 23, 2008, 10:51:03 am
-
11 known viruses to date vs. .......
PCs "Windows" many viruses.
Discuss.
Edit: I voted for burning in hell...
-
1) Awesome is subjective.
2) With the slightest step in preventative measures, Windows does not get viruses either.
3) The lack of myriad viruses does not constitute awesomeness.
4) Pretty much all software is bundled for mac. The only reason that's not the same for Windows is because they'd need a 300 terrabyte hard drive, yet all they need is a couple DVDs for mac.
-
This looks suspiciously like Flame-bait to me...
I'll leave it open, but any rabid-fanboyism will result in a lock :)
-
1) Awesome is subjective.
2) With the slightest step in preventative measures, Windows does not get viruses either.
3) The lack of myriad viruses does not constitute awesomeness.
4) Pretty much all software is bundled for mac. The only reason that's not the same for Windows is because they'd need a 300 terrabyte hard drive, yet all they need is a couple DVDs for mac.
Fix'd
there is some truth in that.
-
I can't wait for an experienced coder to create a mega-virus that completely annihilates all Macintosh computers that are connected to the Internet. Seriously, I would pay someone or some group to do that if I had the cash.
-
I suppose Macs have the advantage of being safe from viruses 'n **** "out of the box", so to speak. But it is also true that if you bother to spend 5 minutes among security issues and software on a Windows, you are also safe.
-
I can't wait for an experienced coder to create a mega-virus that completely annihilates all Macintosh computers that are connected to the Internet. Seriously, I would pay someone or some group to do that if I had the cash.
Read two posts above yours.
-
I can't wait for an experienced coder to create a mega-virus that completely annihilates all Macintosh computers that are connected to the Internet. Seriously, I would pay someone or some group to do that if I had the cash.
:beamz: I KILLZ U OMFG ... oh wait:
This looks suspiciously like Flame-bait to me...
I'll leave it open, but any rabid-fanboyism will result in a lock :)
But seriously. That is ridiculous. Nothing like that would ever happen. Firstly because hackershaxx0rz have very little reason to to attack macs, being a minority OS. I don't deny that Mac OS X is not a lot more secure than windoze, its just that people have no reason to attack it (except for money ... maybe :nervous:). But anyway, there is NO way you could possibly attack every Mac on the internet, firstly because word of such a virus would probably spread faster than the virus itself, meaning that many people would take their computers off line, secondly, because there is no way to send a virus all over the internet without hacking a good deal on non-mac servers, and thirdly, because ther are some mac users who do actually use anti-virus software, or at least pay attention to what they download. Your post looks a lot like flaming with not much thought behind it :rolleyes:
-
If anyone thought I was attempting to 'flame' someone, then I'm sorry, because that wasn't my intention. I'm merely sick of the Macintosh brand being thrown around as some invincible OS, and would like to see that illusion destroyed. :o
Then again, I don't take offense when someone insults Microsoft, so why are people taking offense when I insult Apple? :wtf:
---
there is NO way you could possibly attack every Mac on the internet
I stand corrected.
I can't wait for an experienced coder to create a mega-virus that completely annihilates all a significant portion of Macintosh computers that are connected to the Internet. Seriously, I would pay someone or some group to do that if I had the cash.
Now, there's a way to do that. I won't say how, though, it's kind of obvious.
----
Once again, no offense towards any member of this forum is intended.
-
I don't take offense when someone insults Microsoft, so why are people taking offense when I insult Apple? :wtf:
You know, its just a statistical problem. There is one of you vs many of "people" ;)
-
Man, I hate black and white polls like this. Can't I just vote 'They're pretty okay'?
I like my Mac, but I also like my Windows machine. I don't know maybe there is something wrong with me for not having a ridiculously polarised opinion on computer operating systems
-
I don't know maybe there is something wrong with me for not having a ridiculously polarised opinion on computer operating systems
You and me both, brother. Each one has its pros and cons.
-
Macs are awsome
(http://civilizer.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/middle-finger-of-the-apocalypse.jpg)
-
Macs are awsome
*snip*
I would care but I just remembered your 13... :(
Sorry
-
the Macintosh interface is the worst motherfrakking thing to hit the face of the earth. (not that vista's much better)
it's like firing a teddy bear out of a canon.
-
Tinfoil nooooo
-
lol'd
-
the Macintosh interface is the worst motherfrakking thing to hit the face of the earth. (not that vista's much better)
it's like firing a teddy bear out of a canon.
I don't think so... I always used Windows up until this year when I started my new job and had to use a Mac. The only thing I had to get use to was the one click mouse.
-
the Macintosh interface is the worst motherfrakking thing to hit the face of the earth. (not that vista's much better)
it's like firing a teddy bear out of a canon.
I find that Windows users are often confused with Mac OS X's interface, because they expect things to be where they are in windows. However, if you let go of micro$oft and just trust your intuition, I think you will be much more successful ;)
-
I started ut using macs and went over to windows. it's just a more straightforward interface IMO
-
I've been on a older mac and a newer mac and there is a difference. They have evolved into very accessible and user friendly machines. What did you start on? Things such as hot corners and the view all applications feature on your mouse is really handy.
-
Macs aren't for gaming. That's the only reason I stick with Windows.
Yes, I realize that one can get a Mac Pro that smokes most PCs, but I don't have a bottomless well of money.
-
people who take sides in the mac vs pc debate are stupid.
pcs can be built by anyone, but youre always stuck with a ****ty operating system.
macs have a good operating system, but you cant build em and you have to buy overpriced gay looking hardware.
untill microsoft starts making good software or apple sells its os for use on pcs, computers will suck.
-
You know there are a lot more OS's beyond Windows and Mac OS right? :wtf:
-
Please understand this:
PCs ≠ Windows
and never have been. As a matter of fact
Alpha ≠ VMS
SPARC ≠ Solaris
and now
Mac ≠ Mac OS
Mac ~ Intel PC
Mac = Ripoff
Macs suck because their PCs with a cheesy operating system and a fancy logo, going for 1.5 to 2 times the going rates for computers.
PCs rock because you can build them with parts of your choosing, they're cheap, and you can put virtually any operating system you want on it. I believe there was a project to port Mac OS to PCs, but I don't know why you'd want to, as it's basically Linux with GNOME... only with a Mac logo.
-
You can't forget the button that makes all the windows fly off the screen for no reason. Or that their laptops still have only one mouse button for some inexplicable reason. But the real problem are mac users who seem to think they're so very special because they own a mac.
-
You know there are a lot more OS's beyond Windows and Mac OS right? :wtf:
unfortunately theyre all 2 star oses. i suspect mac osx may be a 3 star os, i dont know ive never used it.
Please understand this:
PCs ≠ Windows
and never have been. As a matter of fact
Alpha ≠ VMS
SPARC ≠ Solaris
and now
Mac ≠ Mac OS
Mac ~ Intel PC
Mac = Ripoff
Macs suck because their PCs with a cheesy operating system and a fancy logo, going for 1.5 to 2 times the going rates for computers.
PCs rock because you can build them with parts of your choosing, they're cheap, and you can put virtually any operating system you want on it. I believe there was a project to port Mac OS to PCs, but I don't know why you'd want to, as it's basically Linux with GNOME... only with a Mac logo.
i have used old macs, and im talking mac classic here, and for its era those were awesome. the equivalent pc was still running dos. macs were using what power pc chps, im not to familiar with the architecture but it was more closed. the ibm architecture was fully open, save the custom bios which was later clean room reverse engineered and made so called clone pcs possible, what was essentially the birth of what we now call the x86 architecture. it has matured to the point that mac decided to just make x86 machines instead of its usual exotic architectures it used in their older machines.
hardware has never been the issue though. in the win 98 era and before there really was no real reason to hate either windows or mac os (pre x). they were both good operating systems for their day. its sort of after that when everything started the downward spiral to the operating system hell we now live in. linux has matured greatly but it never manages to keep up with hardware as far as drivers go. and win 2000 and xp werent all that bad, infact they were pretty good. but todays operating systems are 200% bloatware. im talking linux, windows, and possibly osx (i really should use it one day and form an opinion proper on the thing :D ). i think weve reached the point where hardware has advanced so much and we have to now take a step back and rewrite the books on programming to catch up on the software side of things. im also much awaiting reactos and hopefully have a modern os thats not only free and open but easy to use by everyone.
-
You know there are a lot more OS's beyond Windows and Mac OS right? :wtf:
unfortunately theyre all 2 star oses. i suspect mac osx may be a 3 star os, i dont know ive never used it.
So wait, you have never used Mac OS X but you say it's good compared to some other OS's you may have never used? Talk about a leap in logic...
i have used old macs, and im talking mac classic here, and for its era those were awesome. the equivalent pc was still running dos. macs were using what power pc chps, im not to familiar with the architecture but it was more closed. the ibm architecture was fully open, save the custom bios which was later clean room reverse engineered and made so called clone pcs possible, what was essentially the birth of what we now call the x86 architecture. it has matured to the point that mac decided to just make x86 machines instead of its usual exotic architectures it used in their older machines.
This is somewhat laughable, the x86 architecture has nothing to do with IBM other than the fact they used it, since it's just the intruction set used firstly by the Intel 8086 (hence the x86) which was reused in most of their processors eventually having the popularity they enjoy today. As for Mac deciding to use x86 because they have "matured" is something mighty strange to say since the x86 architecture precedes the power pc one by at least 15 years. Their choice was simply made because IBM was planning to stop making power pcs.
-
As someone who has used both operating systems very often for his entire life, I can forge an unbiased conclusion.
Macs are like the Lamborghinis of computers. They are expensive and not the best for everyday functionality, almost impossible to build on your own, but are stylish, fun to use, usually have high performance, and look great making movies.
Windows PCs are like the Fords of computers. They are usually affordable and functional, sometimes break quickly, not always the prettiest, sometimes problematic out of the factory, but are very good for everyday use with a wide range of applications, highly moddable, and work better for many jobs.
-
Amen! :D
-
i have used old macs, and im talking mac classic here, and for its era those were awesome. the equivalent pc was still running dos.
Same here. In the early 90s, Macs actually had premium hardware and did some things that DOS-based x86 machines of the time were incapable of. There were numerous cases of games back then that were released on both platforms, but where the Mac version had far superior graphics and audio.
Things have changed a lot since then though. The only unique thing Macs have now is their OS, which can be a good or bad thing depending on your usage patterns, but that is basically what you're paying for if you buy a Mac. In terms of the hardware, they're just crappy PCs for the price.
Macs are like the Lamborghinis of computers. They are expensive and not the best for everyday functionality, almost impossible to build on your own, but are stylish, fun to use, usually have high performance, and look great making movies.
They don't really have high performance though. The Mac Pro line is good but nothing special compared to other, similarly priced OEM systems, and the consumer models generally have poor hardware given their prices.
-
The thing about Macs is that they are less demanding that PC's both in terms of cooling and energy, though, I'm sad to say, they seem to have fallen into a trap of trying to keep up with the Jones's and those temperatures are creeping up.
Macs are used a lot for Music and Film work for the reason that they are less likely to overheat, cost less to run, and, in the case of music, because they run comparatively silently next to a standard PC.
That said, for the extra money you spend on a Mac, you could also buy a new cooling system and silent fans for the PC, however, the PC is still more expensive to run over long periods of time.
Macs aren't 'faster' than a PC, they are better built, and more optimised, and sometimes this is more important, especially when you are doing things like Network rendering.
-
This is something I'll never understand about people.
If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.
-
The thing about Macs is that they are less demanding that PC's both in terms of cooling and energy, though, I'm sad to say, they seem to have fallen into a trap of trying to keep up with the Jones's and those temperatures are creeping up.
No, the workstation versions have the exact same hardware as a PC and would have similar power usage. They may run more silent, but I doubt they are any less likely to overheat than any other OEM system. OEM computers in general sacrifice cooling ability for silence, compared to DIY setups.
They're used in the film industry mainly because they have been dominant there for a long time and have well established software available on them (that people working there are familiar with). There aren't any inherent advantages to using them for that purpose.
If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.
Exactly. :p
-
This is something I'll never understand about people.
If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.
The internal architecture mostly, a Mac uses less energy because it uses a lower clock speed than PCs, which is why old Macs used to not need a fan, hence why they were silent. Macs have only started using PC parts recently, and have suffered for it, they don't have the (relative) cache speed they used to have, and that is what causes a bottleneck in most PCs.
Edit: What a lot of people don't realise is that 'Gigahertz' has a lot less impact on system-speed than they think.
-
PCs ≠ Windows
Pretty much all of us know that, it's just a few of the people on the Mac side seem to fail to realize that and everyone else on their side follows them, and it's pretty much futile to go against it.
Of course, if they're right and Macs aren't private computers, what are they? Community computers?
-
This is something I'll never understand about people.
If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.
The internal architecture mostly, a Mac uses less energy because it uses a lower clock speed than PCs, which is why old Macs used to not need a fan, hence why they were silent. Macs have only started using PC parts recently, and have suffered for it, they don't have the (relative) cache speed they used to have, and that is what causes a bottleneck in most PCs.
Edit: What a lot of people don't realise is that 'Gigahertz' has a lot less impact on system-speed than they think.
They switched to a standard PC architecture over two years ago, which is not exactly "recent" anymore. :p And in any case the old G5 processors were much more power hungry than the Core 2-based Xeons they use these days. The clock frequencies certainly aren't the only factor that determines power usage.
-
Meh, it's recent from my perspective...now get orf my lawn :p
And yes, cycles aren't the only thing that determines power usage, but I saw a comparison a few years ago between the power usage of a bank of Macs and a Bank of PC's. The PC's actually completed a rendering job earlier, but were using up electricity faster than the speed increase compensated for, so the PC's were faster, but the Macs were cheaper to maintain over a long period of time, so I suppose it really boils down to what is more important.
Though, part of me wishes I had a Mac, since PC's just cannot seem to be able to support ASIO and Virtual Instruments anywhere near as well for some reason :(
-
You were probably looking at PCs running P4-based Xeons, which haven't been sold for quite a while. The Core 2 Xeons are way more power efficient.
I grew up with those old System 6/7 Macs (and still fire up those classic games in emulators every now and then), but two years in the computer industry still feels like a long time to me. :p
-
people who take sides in the mac vs pc debate are stupid.
pcs can be built by anyone, but youre always stuck with a ****ty operating system.
macs have a good operating system, but you cant build em and you have to buy overpriced gay looking hardware.
untill microsoft starts making good software or apple sells its os for use on pcs, computers will suck.
Not a bad post.
Truth be told, if I had the money I would run a PC desktop (dual-booting Windows and Linux) and a MacBook pro notebook.
For MOST users, Apple makes very good systems. MacOS X actually is inherently more secure than Windows (It's a UNIX-based OS, for whoever said it wasn't). Of course, the malware market for Macs is primarily restricted not by inherent security, but its piece of the marketshare. For people writing malware, it makes much more sense to target the less secure, often misconfigured operating system that controls 85%+ of the market (accounting for Apple, Linux, and server operating systems that make up the rest). Apple's success is their own problem - they can make all the various claims about Windows so long as their marketshare remains a tiny fraction of the overall industry. While malware may eventually have a more difficult time infiltrating MacOS should it become a viable target, it isn't immune to attack.
In general, Apple makes very good machines. The components are solid and the OS is intuitive. I tell EVERY SINGLE HOME USER I know to buy an Apple when they tell me they're having computer problems and want a new PC. Windows PCs are fantastic so long as you take the time to properly configure them and maintain them. Most home users do not. MacOS is a relatively maintenance-free OS that works just fine straight out of the box. For your average user that surfs the Web, listens to music, watches movies and TV, and uses office functionality an Apple computer is more than sufficient. It is not a viable option for gamers, however.
Where Apple's good qualities start to break down is when you look at pricing. You can assemble a high-end PC for $2000 quite easily. MacBook Pro's start at $2000. A PC laptop with the same basic usage and functionality can be had for as little as $1200. That's one hell of a markup for the Apple brand. The key problem lies in Apple's hardware controls. Having been consistently paranoid throughout their development, Apple certifies every single component that goes into their systems, and they are extremely selective about what components they choose. Whereas a PC owner can choose from many different brands of hard disk, RAM, processor, video card, Mac users are stuck with what Apple gives them. While their desktops do retain minimal upgradeability (you always have the unfortunate problem of driver support for hardware components, even on a Mac), their laptops cannot be upgraded. That's not much different from a Windows-based laptop, except the $800 (minimum) price difference. Of course, Apple uses this strategy to try to weed out components that could be prone to failure. Unfortunately, it comes with a much heftier price tag than the hardware itself actually demands.
Personally, I'm not willing to pay a much higher price for a system that essentially cannot be upgraded just because it features a much better OS. I can quite easily load up Linux if I get really sick of Vista - and to be honest, after properly configuring it to my tastes, I'm actually fairly impressed with Vista. Granted, I had to turn off all the crap aimed at home users but the same was true of XP.
Apple computers and PCs have different roles to play in the market and should occupy different niches. If we could convince people who know very little about computing to switch to MacOS and leave those who know what they're doing on Windows (and simultaneously convince Microsoft that their OS's should be geared towards power users and not the "I just want to watch movies and surf the web" crowd) the entire computer market would be in a much better position.
Either that, or Apple should just sell their damn OS as a standalone and let people install it on their home PC instead of Windows. They'd be smarter to get out of the hardware market in the long run. Unfortunately, it's a very lucrative market for them (given the price markup) that they're reluctant to abandon because they still attract the "I'll buy a mac because it's cute!" crowd.
The MacBook Air is a perfect example of idiocy in a price tag. Yeah, it's thin, yeah, it's wireless everything, but it really doesn't actually do anything that a terminal can't. But it's still nearly $1800. That's ridiculous.
Incidentally, I voted True for the poll.
-
Apple computers and PCs have different roles to play in the market and should occupy different niches. If we could convince people who know very little about computing to switch to MacOS and leave those who know what they're doing on Windows (and simultaneously convince Microsoft that their OS's should be geared towards power users and not the "I just want to watch movies and surf the web" crowd) the entire computer market would be in a much better position.
Are you running for office? :yes:
-
I've had very limited experience with Macs over the years, but I do know that, while taking a class in a room filled with OSX (not sure of the exact version) machines a year or two ago, there were some fundamental UI traits that just seemed plain counter-intuitive. For instance, take the Close button. On just about every OS I've ever used, that little X in the upper-right corner translates to "end program." It's worked like that on Windows since 3.1 (or at least 95), it works like that on Solaris, and it works like that on at least two distros of Linux that I've used (Fedora and Knoppix). And yet, when I click that friendly X button in OSX...it closes the window, not the entire program. No, to close the entire program, I'd have to go up to that annoyingly ever-present menu bar and select from a drop-down list. Sense it does not make.
Sure, this is a very tiny anecdote, but I'm kind of the opinion that, if an OS can't even manage to do the close window thing right, I don't have much of an impetus to explore it further.
-
That is damn irritating
-
Or just press Apple-Q :nervous:
-
You know there are a lot more OS's beyond Windows and Mac OS right? :wtf:
unfortunately theyre all 2 star oses. i suspect mac osx may be a 3 star os, i dont know ive never used it.
So wait, you have never used Mac OS X but you say it's good compared to some other OS's you may have never used? Talk about a leap in logic...
i have used old macs, and im talking mac classic here, and for its era those were awesome. the equivalent pc was still running dos. macs were using what power pc chps, im not to familiar with the architecture but it was more closed. the ibm architecture was fully open, save the custom bios which was later clean room reverse engineered and made so called clone pcs possible, what was essentially the birth of what we now call the x86 architecture. it has matured to the point that mac decided to just make x86 machines instead of its usual exotic architectures it used in their older machines.
This is somewhat laughable, the x86 architecture has nothing to do with IBM other than the fact they used it, since it's just the intruction set used firstly by the Intel 8086 (hence the x86) which was reused in most of their processors eventually having the popularity they enjoy today. As for Mac deciding to use x86 because they have "matured" is something mighty strange to say since the x86 architecture precedes the power pc one by at least 15 years. Their choice was simply made because IBM was planning to stop making power pcs.
that was the best i could do while drunk :D
had i been sober id have actually double checked my facts.
-
You can assemble a high-end PC for $2000 quite easily. MacBook Pro's start at $2000. A PC laptop with the same basic usage and functionality can be had for as little as $1200.
For $1200, I can just about get any PC (custom built by myself, of course, reduces the price a lot), provided the part's aren't on the highest 15% of the performance spectrum. From 0-100 on the performance spectrum, once you reach 85, you're at the best value for performance ratio IMO (TECHNICALLY this would be 60%, but I don't settle for garbage like I had done for the majority of my life). From 85 to 100 comes a tripling of price, likewise from 85-30 comes a price cut in thirds. Not exactly a fair curve, is it?
I guess the point of this is to say that Macs are overpriced but the OS isn't. For $1250 I can get a pretty fast quad core, tri-sli compatable motherboard, 4gb of ram, 640gb hard drive, 2x 9800GTX video cards, a computer case, and 750W power supply. That's pretty damn high end because it smoothly "Very High's" Crysis at a reasonable resolution and antialiasing factor. For $1250, I can get... a Mac Mini.