One question about Apple computers now....

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
deuce, you are throwing your pearls before swine here.
Click to expand...

Always good to endear yourself to your audience before commencing your rant :)
Yep, because if you piss them off by sounding like an elitist bitch it will color everything you say in a negative light!
 
deuce, you are throwing your pearls before swine here.
Click to expand...

Always good to endear yourself to your audience before commencing your rant :)
Yep, because if you piss them off by sounding like an elitist bitch it will color everything you say in a negative light!

I wasn't trying to sound like an Apple elitist. I simply want to see some numbers where Mac and Windows are fairly compared side by side. I have seen the virtues of both OS's and just want to see which one will work better, that is all.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I like OS X as well, and I might even try to dual-boot it on my PC. I just don't like people who think that owning a Mac is some sort of religious experience, then make invalid arguments for why Steve Jobs is actually an angel in the flesh. 😉

Anyway, a Vista/OS X/Linux PC would be rad. I think that with the advent of multi-core CPUs and virtual machine technology (which has been around but is now becoming really really mainstream), we will probably soon change the way we think about OSes anyway. Instead of dual-booting, we'll just have simultaneously running OSes and the "base OS" won't matter as much. Know what I mean?
 
That's exactly what I'm doing. Vista/Linux VM and then OS X on its own. With a 36GB 15k rpm swap file!

Edit: Also, I do get annoyed by those who think that owning a Mac is like chic or something. IT'S A FREAKING COMPUTER! A mac works and a PC works, end of story. It guess it's just a matter of whether or not you like the cool OS X interface. Either that or I'll just get linux and all its emulators.
 
deuce, you are throwing your pearls before swine here.
Click to expand...

Always good to endear yourself to your audience before commencing your rant :)
Yep, because if you piss them off by sounding like an elitist bitch it will color everything you say in a negative light!

I wasn't trying to sound like an Apple elitist. I simply want to see some numbers where Mac and Windows are fairly compared side by side. I have seen the virtues of both OS's and just want to see which one will work better, that is all.
Fair enough, man. Sorry you kind of got some aggro replies for asking an innocent enough question 😀. My beef wasn't with the OP so much as what it devolved into (the whole "mac religion vs PC religion" thing).
 
Hmmmm... lots of comments against Apple, and not a single instance of a real problem w/ their platform. Not enough buttons on the mouse, don't like their tech support, and don't like proprietary systems.

Look, Macs work fine. They have pleanty of power and they're easy to use.

PCs are fine too. They have a bit more power (depending on the application) and they're easy to use too (since WinXP).

PCs have the larger share of the market, so there is more software and support, but exploits are found quicker too.

Any gripes you have against the Mac are your own fanboy issues.
 
That's exactly what I'm doing. Vista/Linux VM and then OS X on its own. With a 36GB 15k rpm swap file!

Edit: Also, I do get annoyed by those who think that owning a Mac is like chic or something. IT'S A FREAKING COMPUTER! A mac works and a PC works, end of story. It guess it's just a matter of whether or not you like the cool OS X interface. Either that or I'll just get linux and all its emulators.
Click to expand...

Friggin' A, man. Friggin' A. I have a 15K RPM HDD running my OS and it is great.
 
It seems as if you haven't read the entire thread. *sigh*.

Anyway, blah blah blah, everybody's happy now so don't post something with the word "fanboy" in it please. It will only whip everybody into a frenzy again! 😀

Oh, and for the record, I have no problem with OSX. I just have a problem with people supporting everything Apple with the zealot-like steadfastness of religious fanatics and the RIAA 😉. ESPECIALLY when they have no clue what they are talking about!

If you like Macs and they work great for you, I'm happy for you and I won't bother you. But don't try to convince me that Macs are the best computers on the planet based on BS that marketing teams are spoon-feeding you on the TV (and I'm not even saying that they're not the greatest computers on the planet, I'm just saying that it pisses me off when people don't base things on fact).
 
Anyway, a Vista/OS X/Linux PC would be rad. I think that with the advent of multi-core CPUs and virtual machine technology (which has been around but is now becoming really really mainstream), we will probably soon change the way we think about OSes anyway. Instead of dual-booting, we'll just have simultaneously running OSes and the "base OS" won't matter as much. Know what I mean?
Click to expand...
Well ever since "The People vs. Microsoft" debacle, the governments of the world took it upon themselves to decide what is and what isn't an Opperating System, what is and isn't an application, and proclamed the good and proper realtionship between the two.

So I agree that it's time to re-define the nature of Opperating Systems, if for nothing else, to render these court decisions obsolete. Just let them try make their laws keep up w/ technology. It's a fools errend.
 
Edit of my post:
It seems as if you haven't read the entire thread. *sigh*.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, I just realized that this thread is 6 pages long and growing. I only read the first page and the last.

Sorry to offend anybody's sensibilities, and please let your happiness continue!
 
I think people can say what ever they want.....they have a right to, as Voltaire said...
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."-Voltaire

so people can defend their os, but must be able to. its not a fool errand. mac's are good. they have a nice os. Windows is good. they have a nice os. If you say one is better than the other.....defend it.
 
Question: Are you asking to look at difference in hardware or the OS? Either way I don't think we can have a truly objective analysis until osx can install and run ungimped on any x86 system. It was to my understanding that the xp installs on macs were also gimped in some fashion.


To hit some quick issues:
Macbooks are comparable in price to other notebooks, but the notebook industry still has a high markup, unlike the cut throat pc market.

The current security that macs enjoy is in part from the hell of a time unix had to and still does deal with hackers, not so much viruses. Macs also benefit from the fact that most people don't use them for mission critical information (your experience may vary.) Most places I have had to deal with macs most if not all of the files were sored on a either a pc or unix share. Heck most of the time the macs didn't even have access to the billing database. Hack my mac I could careless, hack my unix server and you could ruin my company.

I think the 30" dell also use the same glass as the apple, but it might be a different back light and controller.


The comment about us being moders was a great one. Lack of upgradablity/modification is the reason I dislike all notebooks, iMacs (or other all in one solutions), slimline (ie mini-mac), or just prefab systems in general. I like to see what top of the line systems from Voodoo or Northwest, but would never by one. They give me a mark to hit, and make me feel good when I hit the same numbers for quarter the cost.

Both mac os and windows suck. OS2 and MVS rule!
 
Linux sucks too. Makes windows 3.11 seem user friendly.

True geeks have an IBM 390 running MVS.

Real men program in assembler and read hex dumps in the morning.
 
Linux sucks too. Makes windows 3.11 seem user friendly.

True geeks have an IBM 390 running MVS.

Real men program in assembler and read hex dumps in the morning.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHHHAHAH wow..ive never heard that before.....well..in that context...
 
KTev wrote:
Linux sucks too. Makes windows 3.11 seem user friendly.

True geeks have an IBM 390 running MVS.

Real men program in assembler and read hex dumps in the morning.
Click to expand...

Come on man, I'm only 17, I don't have much experience outside of Linux and Windows 3.11
 
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.
Click to expand...


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!"
Click to expand...

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.)

I know people replyed to this and i read some of them but they were to long and i just woke up.

You are not correct my man ammount of viruses actualy goes up tramendusly with the market share and popularity of a product no matter what it is. The more used and populer a piece of software is the more viruses that wll be wrote for it. Not to mention almost all those viruses for any piece of software that makes updates dont even work. There is no secure software anywhere not windows not linux not mac os not IE not firefox not opera not anything.
 
You are not correct my man ammount of viruses actualy goes up tramendusly with the market share and popularity of a product no matter what it is. The more used and populer a piece of software is the more viruses that wll be wrote for it. Not to mention almost all those viruses for any piece of software that makes updates dont even work. There is no secure software anywhere not windows not linux not mac os not IE not firefox not opera not anything.
Click to expand...

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac_virus_author_admits_coding_difficulties/0,130061744,339272051,00.htm


Refer to this link about the most sucessful "virus" writer to attack OSX. He simply stated:"So much code to do so little."

This illustrated the fruitless effort he undwent to accomplish nothing malicious. This just shows the strength and stability of OSX. If it were this difficult to write a virus for Windows would there be 144,000 of them?

I will admit that I run Norton Antivirus for Mac, but not to protect myself. I run it to protect Windows systems connected to me. (That is what Norton Antivirus is recommended to Mac users for.)
 
Just drop it dude. If you read my links that I posted previously you would know that there are malware programs for OS X. Apple does find security holes and patches them. If the OS was rock-solid why would they be issuing security patches? :lol:

Anyway, we have hashed this out earlier in the thread and it's all good. Why can't we all just get along???? :idea:
 
"You cannot sell a blemished apple in the supermarket, but you can sell a tasteless one provided it is shiny, smooth, even, uniform and bright."

Elspeth Huxley
 
Well, we lost two days worth of posts on this thread. (Something went wrong with Tom's servers.) Anyhow, I have found a site that has done some fair comparisons between the two OS's exclusively, excluding hardware.

Http://www.xvsxp.com

Hopefully this site will shed some light on the virtues of both systems versus one another. Now, what I would like to see is a comparison of the systems against each other, head to head, with almost identical if not identical hardware solutions. This isn't as difficult as people want it too sound. I am starting to believe that people are claiming the difficulty in comparing the two because they might be afraid of the results. I'm NOT. If Windows systems do better than OSX systems I will accept that and make buying decisions accordingly. I am just curious as to which system will run better at this point.
 
BTW, I am asking that we take a look at how the hardware operates under a particular software environment. We know that drivers can make all the difference for video cards, if not, why do we update drivers for them so often? Software at this point can aid in making all the difference for hardware, as we all know. Hardware is working together so quickly and efficiently that there is not much more you can do except raise clock speeds of RAM, CPU, GPU and HDD.
Isn't entirely possible even plausible that things may work better under another operating system? I believe so. I have seen some testing side by side of the systems running OSX and XP, but they are being run by fan-boy sites, both being either OSX fans of XP fans. Since Tom's is a HARDWARE site, I am sure that they would like to see hardware performance being either helped or hindered under particular platforms. This would be the case with most people. (Except fanboys of course.) Tom's seems to be as impartial as they come.
 
BTW, I am asking that we take a look at how the hardware operates under a particular software environment. We know that drivers can make all the difference for video cards, if not, why do we update drivers for them so often? Software at this point can aid in making all the difference for hardware, as we all know. Hardware is working together so quickly and efficiently that there is not much more you can do except raise clock speeds of RAM, CPU, GPU and HDD.
Isn't entirely possible even plausible that things may work better under another operating system? I believe so. I have seen some testing side by side of the systems running OSX and XP, but they are being run by fan-boy sites, both being either OSX fans of XP fans. Since Tom's is a HARDWARE site, I am sure that they would like to see hardware performance being either helped or hindered under particular platforms. This would be the case with most people. (Except fanboys of course.) Tom's seems to be as impartial as they come.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call this site impartial: Tom's caters most to xp users, with the occasional thing about Linux. Considering that hardware options for those platforms is far greater then that for macs, it is very understandable for a hardware site.

Toms also caters to gamers above other uses. This is due to the fact that game are one of the few things that truly benefit from a more powerful computer.

Up until Macs went to intel, it was a boring platform.

You keep trying to say how easy it is to try and compare the two OS, but you seem to lack a lot of computer knowledge. On graphics: win uses DX over openGL, macs use only openGL. So now game performance won't be a good measure. For most hardware you won't be able to find drivers for on macs or they will be poorly supported. Other programs can run into the similar problems. A program originally written for one os will likely differ in code to better take advantage of the original os and hardware.

For the most part you end up giving the advantage to macs. A game like quake might run will on both but better openGL support on macs might give it the edge. Games based on DX can't be used because the mac ports suck. With other soft ware you might find itunes runs better on a mac but divX encoding runs better on win. So who wins?

A good example is that sight that someone posted comparing the osx to xp. If you read some of the things on how they compared the two os, most are superficial/pointless (ie they take off points for windows because the menu bar is attached to the window it applies to) and the site makers knowledge of window is lacking. Even so, in then end they only rate osx slightly better then xp.

In a specific application you might find differences. But, when it comes down to it the overall differences on both hardware and software performance for macs and pcs is insignificant and won't be noticed by the average user. The differences people will notice are the general look and feel of the two os and that pcs have a cheaper and wider range of soft/hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom