mac or windows?, choose one Options

[medic]

I thought Mac was only on Mac made processors. Well considering that Intel will be maken the new Mac processors it now makes sinse......

[medic]

Well Windows is on more of a world wide Demand than Mac, Lnux or FreeBSD. So of course you are going to see Windows just about everywhere.

[*mipadi*]

I thought Mac was only on Mac made processors. Well considering that Intel will be maken the new Mac processors it now makes sinse......

It used to run only on PowerPC processors, which are used in a wide range of applications, not just in Macintoshes; but now, Macs are going to be designed around a Pentium processor.

[medic]

Ya, Intel is going to have it out for them when IBM launches there new motherboards and processors.

[*mipadi*]

Since future Macs will be based on the Intel architecture, it's possible that OS X may one day be released for commodity PC hardware. If that were to happen, would anyone who said they don't like the Macintosh consider running (or at least dual-booting) Mac OS X if it would run on their PC hardware?

[medic]

No.

[*mipadi*]

So what exactly don't you like about the Mac OS/Macintoshes, anyway?

(I thought that actually discussing why, rather than just answering what you prefer, might generate some better discussion.)

[medic]

Well I dont like how the Operating system itself is set up. And how it has almost no software for it, just the basic nice expensive software like Photshop and such. If they come down in price and get some more applications I might consider one. Maybee....

[*mipadi*]

Well I dont like how the Operating system itself is set up. And how it has almost no software for it, just the basic nice expensive software like Photshop and such. If they come down in price and get some more applications I might consider one. Maybee....

They actually have quite a few applications available. The only notable ones that aren't are some games. Most everything else has either a Macintosh version, or a Macintosh counterpart (which is probably better designed, too).

Besides...I'll sacrifice some software compatibility for an enhanced user experience, and a more stable and secure operating system.

[medic]

Secure and Stable ehh, not at all. I have not rebooted me PC in about 3 weeks. So Stable eh, there about the same. XP PRO is stable and will get a error once in a while, so will a Mac. And as for secure, I could give you my IP and you wouldn't even be able to get into my network, let alone my Windows Machines.

[waitwaitwait]

Macs look a lot nicer, but I've never really used one too much, besides at school.

[*mipadi*]

Secure and Stable ehh, not at all. I have not rebooted me PC in about 3 weeks. So Stable eh, there about the same. XP PRO is stable and will get a error once in a while, so will a Mac. And as for secure, I could give you my IP and you wouldn't even be able to get into my network, let alone my Windows Machines.

In terms of security, Windows is much more susceptible to viruses and other malicious hardware--things you don't really have to worry about on a Macintosh. And unlike Windows, OS X doesn't have all its services running by default--in fact, most are off by default--which lowers the security risk immensely.

In terms of stability, I've always found OS X to be much more stable than Windows. My PC suffers frequent crashes, and they usually bring the OS down with them; whereas OS X has protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking, along with a microkernel architecture, so misbehaving applications can just be shut down and restarted, without forcing a reboot of the whole system.

But in the end, I don't have strong feelings either way. Windows has its pros and cons; Mac OS X has its pros and cons. I really am not concerned with what I am using, so long as the job gets done. (I will admit that Windows has more things I don't like about it than OS X, though.)

Personally, I wish Apple would release OS X for commodity PC hardware. It'd be the best of both worlds--I could run a powerful, yet simple and elegant, operating system on cheap, completely customizable hardware.

[medic]

I like mac OS 9 in some ways, but just not a fan of OSX or OSX Tiger.

In terms of stability, I've always found OS X to be much more stable than Windows. My PC suffers frequent crashes, and they usually bring the OS down with them; whereas OS X has protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking, along with a microkernel architecture, so misbehaving applications can just be shut down and restarted, without forcing a reboot of the whole system.

ctrl+alt+deleting it is not the way to stop a windows or application problem. And as for you saying it brings down the whole OS, never once have I had to hard reboot my XP machine.

[*mipadi*]

I'm skeptical that you've never had to hard reboot your Windows machine. Even extremely reliable systems require a hard reboot on occasion.

[*kryogenix*]

Well I dont like how the Operating system itself is set up. And how it has almost no software for it, just the basic nice expensive software like Photshop and such. If they come down in price and get some more applications I might consider one. Maybee....

why would this matter if you're dual booting?

[medic]

why would this matter if you're dual booting?

No one is dual booting.....

I'm skeptical that you've never had to hard reboot your Windows machine. Even extremely reliable systems require a hard reboot on occasion.

No, I don't hard reboot my PC, unless maybee the power goes out - but I dont cause that. If it has a problem such as freezing I go grab the laptop and give it a few mins. By the time I wan't to get back on it, it has givin me the SEND ERROR REPORT option.

[*kryogenix*]

No one is dual booting.....

Read:

Since future Macs will be based on the Intel architecture, it's possible that OS X may one day be released for commodity PC hardware. If that were to happen, would anyone who said they don't like the Macintosh consider running (or at least dual-booting) Mac OS X if it would run on their PC hardware?

[medic]

[quote=mipadi]Since future Macs will be based on the Intel architecture, it's possible that OS X may one day be released for commodity PC hardware. If that were to happen, would anyone who said they don't like the Macintosh consider running (or at least dual-booting) Mac OS X if it would run on their PC hardware?[/quote]

[/quote]

humm...... I bolded it and made it large for ya....

[*mipadi*]

I know. We know. Trust me--kyrogenix can most definitely read. I was simply asking for a hypothetical response to a hypothetical question.

[medic]

Im sad, it didn't quote him.......

[crashingg]

windows. ive only heard of windows.

[sadolakced acid]

In terms of security, Windows is much more susceptible to viruses and other malicious hardware--things you don't really have to worry about on a Macintosh. And unlike Windows, OS X doesn't have all its services running by default--in fact, most are off by default--which lowers the security risk immensely.

in terms of security- mac is better, simply because it's a smaller target. a few other things, too.

if macs become popular, then it will be just as suseptible. apple and mac users haven't had to deal with viruses or pirate software much on the macs- so when someone finds a security hole in OS X, it'd be a slatewiper.

[*mipadi*]

in terms of security- mac is better, simply because it's a smaller target.  a few other things, too. 

if macs become popular, then it will be just as suseptible.  apple and mac users haven't had to deal with viruses or pirate software much on the macs- so when someone finds a security hole in OS X, it'd be a slatewiper.

A lot of people tend to assert that, but there's little evidence to back up such a claim. There are more security precautions inherent in the operating system that there are in Windows. I'm sure more exploits would be found in Macs, if they were more popular, but I doubt there'd be as many or as widespread vulnerabilities as in Windows. Numerous facts support this, including:

• Windows, by default, has most services running. Macintoshes, on the other hand, have almost no services running by default, which means there is less chance that a hacker would attack via a port or service that the user was unaware of.
• Most people tend to use Windows as an administrator, whereas very few Mac users run their computer as root. Whereas many things on Windows are installed or otherwise happen automatically, a Macintosh prompts a user before allowing an application to gain administrative privileges. This prevents access for many malicious scripts, viruses, trojans, and so forth.

It's certainly possible to open up vulnerabilities in a Macintosh, and partly the security is due to its low profile in the marketplace; but that's not the only reason--it is more secure, by design, than Windows. In the four years since OS X has been released, there have been 0 viruses and 1 (possibly 2) trojan horses released into the wild. Even with its low profile, there'd most likely be some more exploitive code than that in the wild if it was such an insecure operating system.

[medic]

There are virus's for Macs, not many. They make Norton for macs, but you dont need it at all, it has a nice firewall.

[*mipadi*]

There are virus's for Macs, not many. They make Norton for macs, but you dont need it at all, it has a nice firewall.

I don't mean to be argumentative, because it's a minor detail, but there are 0 viruses written for OS that have been released into the wild there are a number written for versions prior to OS X, though). There is at least 1, and possibly 2, trojan horses for OS X that have been released into the wild.

There have been a few malicious shell scripts, modified to run on OS X from Unix systems, but they generally require a) user intervention to run, and b) user intervention to give them root access, and therefore are not much of a security concern to most users.

There is 1 malicious Dashboard widget for Mac OS X 10.4 that can auto-install, but Apple has modified Dashboard so it now requires user authorization to install widgets.

Of course, several security companies have developed "proof-of-concept" viruses and trojan horses for OS X, but none have been released into the wild, and the exploits they rely upon have since been patched.

Norton is available for the Macintosh but it's unnecessary; it's really just a money-making scheme for Symantec.

OS X does have a quite nice firewall, but keep in mind that a firewall won't necessarily stop a virus or trojan horse.