One question about Apple computers now....

[weskurtz81]

Do you have the latest download? My friend has his hackintosh up and running with just about every feature on the mobo working.... and it's dual core AMD.

wes

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

I have the JaS 10.4.8, but it's still acting weird... oh well, Debian runs fine so I'll just get all my emulators and skins for now. I've got that Dual-woodcrest machine coming in soon though... so I'll try it on that once I get Vista.

 

[KTev]

How many reviews have you seen on workstations or mainframes on this sight?

For a long time mac hardware is closer to workstations then pcs. Even today the mac pros run a dual slot xeon board. Within reason it is a little like comparing mac truck to a sports car. Even though the truck has twice the horsepower even when you drop the load the sports car blow away the truck in every respect that counts to most drivers.

Unlike macs, pcs draw from a wide array of hardware and sites like this help sort out the top level equipment. Keeping a consistent os eliminates a lot of variables from the equation.

The only situation I have seen that compared mac os to xp on the same hardware was shortly after they could dual boot the intel macs. With photoshop, the result was that the macs ran xp better then osx. Considering that photoshop has always been an app known to be better optimized on mac os then windows the results were quite unexpected. Personally, I think that it showed that apple had problems getting osx to run properly on x86 hardware. I hope by now that they have fixed part of this issue but until they scrap osx and do a total ground up rewrite I don't expect great things.

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

Oh yeah, I haven't seen too much here. Mostly on Anandtech. But still, I know what you're talking about. My problem is that OS X just wouldn't install on my AMD machine (my friend gave it to me...) and my other friend steve got OS X running on his AMD machine... but it's ungodly slow. I get what you're saying though, I mean I know the difference between a PC and Workstation... I'm not much of a gamer... maybe The Sims here and there but that's it. Mostly like content creation and whatnot. I was just saying that my copy of OS X just wouldn't even install. So I'm going to get something a little closer to a real Mac and see if that works... if not I always have linux until Vista comes out.

 

[roblob]

oh woops my bad, i read an article about that when the macintels came out but i didnt think it would go mainstream (enthusiast mainstream).

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

Do I detect some sarcasm in your typing? Sadly I can't tell... either way, they are going somewhat mainstream. I actually want to see how Apple handles this... so many people... they might as well just sell it to us with the ability to put it on a PC. Lots of competition for MS.

 

[roblob]

yea sadly sarcasm cant really be shown on a forum unless its really sarcastic, but no, that was not meant to be sarcastic really. I actually am thinking about now about trying out a hackintosh just to see what it isthat these mac fanboys love

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

Well, what people like about macs, myself included, is the super-easy interface. It's very easy to work with, especially if you use photoshop a lot (go figure, this is why I love macs). Although I'm not biased when it comes to which platform I prefer. Amazingly, even I'm surprised to see that hackintoshes are catching on so fast.

 

[KTev]

I don't know about supper easy interface. I started with apples and macs but when they went to osx I didn't care for the gui change. I felt the same way with xp and set it back to classic.

As a former desktop publish the difference between mac and pc for any of the adobe programs or quark is minimal. Your preference for the mac is more likely just what you are more use to.

 

[Doughbuy]

GUI wise it's all preference, I like Windows, I like the tweaking ability and I'm used to its quirks, kind of like being a cat lover for a long time, so you don't care much about dogs... (I like cats, don't know why... dog's are too annoying)

However, like I say time and time again, once you start saying which one is better stability/virus wise, then you're showing bigotry by saying Mac doens't have issues, nor as many issues as Windows. Both have holes you can fly a Death Star through, both of them can be hacked by any aspiring hacker, targed by anyone who really cares.

Hardware wise, same thing now, Apple just charges a premium on looks. Perfectly understandable, which is why I don't buy them. Inside counts more than outside.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2266

Of the twenty two vulnerabilities fixed by the updated --which is labeled Security Update 2006-007 -- twelve are related to flaws that could lead to arbitrary code execution.

For example, the update addresses an issue where a heap buffer overflow may be triggered when the Mac OS X Finder is used to browse a directory containing a corrupt ".DS_Store" file. The system file may be included in archives, on disk images, and on network file systems.

"By enticing a user to browse a directory containing a maliciously-crafted ".DS_Store" file, an attacker may be able to trigger the overflow," Apple explained. "This could lead to an application crash or arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the user running Finder."

Yeah.. target windows software my ass, since when does Windows use Mac OS X Finder...

 

[duece1981]

However, like I say time and time again, once you start saying which one is better stability/virus wise, then you're showing bigotry by saying Mac doens't have issues, nor as many issues as Windows. Both have holes you can fly a Death Star through, both of them can be hacked by any aspiring hacker, targed by anyone who really cares.

The poof of concept Mac OS X virus, which was discovered late last week and dubbed Macarena, includes comments in the code that indicate the author had a difficult time creating the malware. In the source there is a comment where the author says "so many problems for so little code!"

http://software.silicon.com/malware/0,3800003100,39156946,00.htm

(Go here for more information on the "serious" malware threat to OSX.)

If you want to debate OS X security versus Windows security, you will lose EVERY time. If you look at how many viruses are out there for Windows, OVER 1 MILLION of them, you have to ask why there are so many. It is not just simple market share, but poor encoding from a rushed process to get to market fast enough to make money. Also, Apple issues Security updates so rarely I cut my hair more often than that. If I cut my hair every time Microsoft issued a security update or virus warning I'd be bald.

People have been trying to write viruses for OSX but have only been marginally successful. So far to date the most "effective" virus for OSX has not been a virus at all, but simply spyware you could use to see what I looked at on the web. (scary.)

So to date, still no viruses or major security lapses in OSX, while hundreds continue for Windows XP, and Vista will likely be no different. (If Vista is I will eat my words, however only time will tell.)

 

[dean7]

Homemade Macs is not an oxymoron. Now that OS X can run on x86 architecture it is very possible, and has been done on many occasions. (Refer to previous posts for websites that show this being done.)

Now onto security. There have been viruses written for Mac, I will give it that. Specifically designed to run on OS X, but they are designed to run on Windows based software, like Enourage and Word. (Office files.) Also, you never hear of people running Macs around their office that protect critical files having hacking problems to access that info.

Anyhow, I was a PC fan myself, remember that. However, I have only one piece of security software on my mac, and that is Norton Antivirus. (Better safe than sorry, years of Windows use has made me paranoid.)

First, he was referring to the fact that if something is homemade, it is by definition not a Mac. So, it is an oxymoron. It's like saying "a homemade Dell".

Second, hilarious that you blame "Windows based" software (wrong again... "software developed by Microsoft" would be more accurate) for Mac viruses. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Read some of the information on these pages:

http://www.macvirus.org/
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Destructive_OS_X_malware_spies_on_Apple_users/0,130061744,139164062,00.htm
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
http://zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac_community_must_wake_up_to_security/0,130061744,139210762,00.htm
http://apple.slashdot.org/

Borrie told ZDNet Australia that although the Mac is generally a safer operating system environment than Windows -- because it is attacked less often-- it still contains vulnerabilities that at some point will be exploited by malware authors.

Borrie admits to being a Macintosh fan and claims to have used one 'since the day they were launched', but he said the problem with loyal communities like Macintosh users is that when it comes to security, the conversation is usually 'religious' rather than constructive.

Secure by design or secure by accident?
"I don't care what operating system I use. The issues are the same but unfortunately people do not agree. It becomes a religious argument and I really try and avoid that," said Borrie.

I'm not saying that there are a ton of viruses out for Macs. There aren't. But, OS X has security holes just like Windows does. The main difference is that not enough people use Macs to make them a target. The underlying kernel is secure, but once you tack on all of the GUI-related stuff to a secure kernel you introduce security issues. Even with Linux I remember an issue where you could connect to a non-secure share, change a config file, and gain root access to the machine (it was so easy there were "how-to guides" on the Internet). So, even if you have a secure kernel you can easily F it up with a higher-level aspect of the OS.

We could have intelligent discussions about this, but as "Borrie" noted, these discussions always turn into religious arguments. I'm not trying to get you to hate Macs. I'm not trying to stop you from buying Macs.

I'm just trying to get you to think for yourself instead of spouting off "facts" based on some Mac commercial with 2 guys saying "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC". BTW, is a Mac not a PC??? It stands for "Personal Computer". Is there something impersonal about Macs or am I not getting it?

 

[Doughbuy]

MS now releases monthly patches to Windows... but you probably don't know because Steve Job's dong is so far down your mouth it's coming your you're other end... Guess your hair doesn't grow very much.

Whoop-dee-do, there are over 1 million viruses for Windows, prove it to me, I can say there are over 1 trillion viruses for Mac all sitting at home waiting to be unleashed. I post proof, you better post proof also.

Apple doesn't send out security patches just because they don't want to admit their OS has flaws. The Macbook hack?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=326

They just want to cover it up and pretend everything is going fine in their pristine little world, which is waht I can't stand for them.

After all the controversy, it turns out that there really are critical vulnerabilities in Apple's Wi-Fi drivers that affect Intel and PowerPC based Macs described in three separate CVEs. After more than six weeks of Apple's spin that strongly implied there was no Wi-Fi vulnerability and six weeks of conspiracy theories that this whole thing was a fabricated stunt to garner attention for some fake security researchers, Apple released three critical patches before next week's Toorcon event where security researchers David Maynor and Jon Ellch are planning to release details on the Apple Wi-Fi exploit and more.

 

[dean7]

Yes... the only thing duece has proven is that Apple isn't responsive. Sure there might be "OVER 1 MILLION" viruses for Windows, but not very many of them can affect you if you keep Windows up to date. Check this site out:

http://projects.info-pull.com/mokb/

Note how many new security holes are discovered for Mac OS X. Then check how many there are for Windows.

 

[KTev]

No PC stands for IBM Compatible Personal Computer. It defines a standard of hardware: that will ensure a high level of compatibility and run the same software and operating system. Today we only talk about apples and pcs but there were other companies that had similar systems to apple: custom hardware and software (many were typewriter companies.)

 

[dean7]

That makes sense, but it just makes more sense to me to say "Windows PC" and "Mac PC". If it was IBM Compatible Personal Computer why wouldn't it be ICPC? 😉

 

[KTev]

When I think about it the term was "IBM PC" and "IBM PC Compatible."

If you want a history lesson:
It goes back to the mid 80s, the first IBM compatibles used the Intel 286 chip instead of IBM's, as did many of the other venders. The 286 was cheaper and faster then IBM's. To meet demands of the chips Intel licensed to other manufactures like AMD. With the 386 Intel stopped licensing and took over the market. It was with the release of the 386 or the 486 that IBM gave up with producing an x86 processor. shortly there after, the terms compatible IBM were dropped.

 

[triangleman]

This is such a tired argument and it has run out.

I develop games for BOTH the mac and the PC and the fact is both have their issues. If you compare the percentage of users versus the number of viruses you will find that there are more viruses on the PC. The primary reason is PC users like to hack and play with their machines a lot more than Mac users. For the record I have spent way more time talking to support for the PC versus mac for several reasons, most are hardware issues.

If you don't have any issues with your machines (Mac or PC) it is most likely that you don't do very much on them or you are very experienced with your machine.

Here is a test for PC users... How many applications can you add AND remove before your system comes to a screeching halt and you have to use something to clean up the mess. Here are a few more for you... You may know where to get all the latest drivers for your PC but most users don't, so don't count yourselves as the masses. I consider myself a pretty advanced developer and I once spent three days trying to get a video card to work just to find out that the motherboard wouldn't let me bypass the built in video card. Windows is in such bad shape that as soon as you install it you have to install 10 other programs just to make it work properly. Google desktop because the search sucks so bad, virus protector because viruses are so invasive, firewall software for the same reason, and that is not even getting into the countless other apps I need to work. And while I am at it, why are programming environments pre-installed for free on every other operating system but MS makes you pay $600 for theirs? (and yes I know there are free ones out there that are completely unsupported by MS)

And for you Mac users... How many external devices did you have to purchase because there was no way to put it into your machine. The upgrade path on mac is horrible and the latest round of machine is even worse than it has been in the past. Not to mention that there is a lot of hardware out there that you can't even install. I blame most of this on small minded development companies that refuse to take a few extra days and write drivers for the mac. This goes especially for software, and OMG there are so many games I would love to play but I am unable to because they just don't exist. Again, you idiot closed minded developers, we increased our revenues 60% by making games on the Mac. Mac users are willing to pay way more than PC users.

That said, I will hold on to my mac laptop until the very end. For productivity it can't be beat and there is nothing anyone can say to change my mind, I can just get more done because the consistency in all the apps made for mac. I will also hold on to my PC desktop machine just so I can play games and I can mess with the hardware a lot more for cheaper.

So can we please get back to the original question of "One question about Apple computers now...."

I for one would love to see the Macs tested along side the PC. It would be refreshing to hear an unbiased opinion. If you are listening to the owner of a company for his opinion on his hardware you are only going to hear the good. Here is how I always imagined it playing out.

The mac laptops are quite favorable and priced competitively for what is installed in them. The desktop machines are overpriced especially if you are buying extra hardware from Apple's store. Their monitors are outstanding and I have yet to see another companies monitor hold a candle to them but again they are pricey.

 

[dean7]

Well, thanks for the history lesson. I remember the terminology from back then, but I was younger and didn't follow technology as closely so I didn't know the underlying reasoning behind it.

 

[dean7]

So can we please get back to the original question of "One question about Apple computers now...."

Fair enough. 😀

I for one would love to see the Macs tested along side the PC. It would be refreshing to hear an unbiased opinion. If you are listening to the owner of a company for his opinion on his hardware you are only going to hear the good. Here is how I always imagined it playing out.

I have to agree that Mac laptops are pretty competitively priced. Of course, they have some heating issues, but that's another story.

BTW, I'd like to think that I'm pretty unbiased. I've worked on Macs and like them. I just don't like people being elitist freaks when they are in all actuality uneducated and the reasons they think they are so elite are actually incorrect.

Their monitors are outstanding and I have yet to see another companies monitor hold a candle to them but again they are pricey.

Sony SDM-P234:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824006084

They are amazing (they happen to use same LCD panels as Apple does). Just read some reviews (e.g. THG reviews).

Anyway, this is one of the only monitors I have found that compares to Cinema displays (which I do admit totally rock).

 

[Houndsteeth]

deuce, you are throwing your pearls before swine here. Apple doesn't sell a computer that even minutely interests most of these posters. Oh, sure, maybe now and then they will do a double-take, but more often that not, they are much more interested in building their own boxes, tweaking the hell out of them till they break, and then repeating the process.

Those of us who actually have to get work done know that a stable, reliable workhorse is better than a flighty, nervous thoroughbred. Apple makes stable, reliable workhorses (for the most part), not thoroughbreds. I should know...when I want to play games, I fire up that water cooled C2D Crossfire box under my desk...but when I need to get work done, I fire up the Dual G5 i keep there as well.

Apple based their operating system on a proven kernel that has very strong user protection. With all the hype out there right now about the inviability of the OS X operating system, I would imagine there are a large number of malware coders who would love to gain the notoriety of being the first one to bring this OS to it's knees...but it hasn't happened yet. Apple might not have thrown the gauntlet out there, but the challenge has been put forward by many different organizations, including the US Government. Why hasn't anyone seriously taken up the challenge? As you all have said, it shouldn't be that hard to do it, right? Looks like the best I've seen so far still requires someone to have local privileges (as in access to keyboard and mouse) in order to effectively root a Mac.

And don't give me the line about OS exposure...there are enough Macs out there to make it viable to write at least a good two dozen or so viruses that prove to be nearly as detrimental to OS X users as the top two dozen Windows viruses, right? Hey, if they are going to port anything over, make sure it's the best.

Sure, OS X isn't invulnerable, that I will admit. But it sure is a helluva lot more secure than the swiss cheese most people refer to as Windows XP. The same could be said of Linux, as well, though most distros are installed with all ports open and rely on the user to turn things off. I guess the best comparison would be to a secure Linux distro install.

Edit: Yes, some of us actually do make some grammatical and typographical errors. My apologies to the board typo Nazis.

 

[pmr]

I simply asked because I made a move to an iBook and have been very impressed with the stability of the OS vs Windows. I plan on moving to OS X Leopard on my desktop with an Athlon 64 when it comes out. IMO Bill's OS has WAY too many bugs when it comes out and is also extremely virus prone. I don't see these susepibilities is OS X as yet.

Not too mention with Apple going to the x86 architecture and 64 bit via Intel Core Duo and Athlon 64 makes it easier to compare benchmarks versus Windows systems, allowing people to make more informed decisions not based on a fact that, "Well, everyone else uses Windows." I fell into this traap for years, but have found that Mac can now read and run Windows programs, via OS X Tiger and soon Leopard, almost at perfect speed now that they are on Intel and AMD. This is not the case the other way around.

Where did you get the idea that you can run flawlessly OS X in a pc????? :roll:

 

[dean7]

Hound, thanks for this post. Thank you so much. :twisted:

deuce, you are throwing your pearls before swine here. Apple doesn't sell a computer that even minutely interests most of these posters. Oh, sure, maybe now and then they will do a double-take, but more often that not, they are much more interested in building their own boxes, tweaking the hell out of them till they break, and then repeating the process.

Yes, we are called technical people. That's like saying that people who drive cars but don't mod them have a more valid opinion than people who buy cars and are always tearing them apart and modding them. It's the difference between users and enthusiasts.

Thanks for pointing this out because I couldn't have said it better myself!

Those of us who actually have to get work done knows that a stable, reliable workhorse is better than a flighty, nervous thoroughbred. Apple makes stable, reliable workhorses (for the most part), not thoroughbreds. I should know...when I want to play games, I fire up that water cooled C2D Crossfire box under my desk...but when I ned to get work done, I fire up the Dual G5 i keep there as well.

You sound like an upstanding professional. I bet "you knows" a lot about work and the "ned" to get stuff done.

Apple based their operating system on a proven kernel that has very strong user protection. With all the hype out there right now about the inviability of the OS X operating system, I would imagine there are a large number of malware coders who would love to gain the notoriety of being the first one to bring this OS to it's knees...but it hasn't happened yet. Apple might not have thrown the gauntlet out there, but the challenge has been put forward by many different organizations, including the US Government. Why hasn't anyone seriously taken up the challenge? As you all have said, it shouldn't be that hard to do it, right? Looks like the best I've seen so far still requires someone to have local privileges (as in access to keyboard and mouse) in order to effectively root a Mac.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Destructive_OS_X_malware_spies_on_Apple_users/0,130061744,139164062,00.htm
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Ancient_flaws_leave_OS_X_vulnerable_/0,130061744,139234678,00.htm

Once again, you are an uninformed zealot. Read those articles.

And don't give me the line about OS exposure...there are enough Macs out there to make it viable to write at least a good two dozen or so viruses that prove to be nearly as detrimental to OS X users as the top two dozen Windows viruses, right? Hey, if they are going to port anything over, make sure it's the best.

Yep, that's exactly what they would try to do! Port the viruses over! You're a genius.

Sure, OS X isn't invulnerable, that I will admit. But it sure is a helluva lot more secure than the swiss cheese most people refer to as Windows XP. The same could be said of Linux, as well, though most distros are installed with all ports open and rely on the user to turn things off. I guess the best comparison would be to a secure Linux distro install.

The kernel OS X is built on is secure. I'll give it that. But once you tack on GUI/Software you introduce security vulnerabilities. Take, for example, the issue with Safari auto-running "safe" files when downloaded (by default this was enabled). See what I mean?

 

[ethel]

deuce, you are throwing your pearls before swine here.

Always good to endear yourself to your audience before commencing your rant

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

Personally, I like both. I have my individual preferences between the two of them, but it's pretty even. I'm very familiar with Windows but I do admit that I've had a fair amount of time on Macs. My only gripe about a real mac: price, they're so goddamn expensive. That's why I'm building a Vista/OS X dual-boot machine. I get the best of both worlds... what's there to complain about?

I just have to say, all fanboys of either side should just get out of here. I, like others in this thread would like to say that I prefer unbiased opinions and facts.