Assuming Vista is a major flop...
- Thread starter Mystic
- Start date
- Status
May I ask what the heck that means?
I won't for a minute tell anyone that there's as much support in the micro-computer world for LINUX/Mac OS as there is for Windows, but that may or may not matter - depending on what one expects from a computer...
My personal opinion is that you can'y go too wrong with a Mac. Especially now that more hardware seems to be supported than in the past and you can run Windows XP on the Mac anyway. If you have some sort of software or hardware that you need and you can't get it to run on the Mac it will run in Windows XP, right?
The Mac OS X has much better support for hardware like printers and scanners than Linux OSs.
We have to wait and see what Windows Vista will be like. It could be great or it could be a dud. One thing for sure, it looks like Vista will require a powerful computer (unless they can make Vista more efficient). If you need a very powerful computer to run Vista that sort of shorts out the argument that Macintosh Computers are too expensive.
There are real concerns with Vista about software/hardware compatibility. You can bet the older stuff probably will not be updated. Mac OS X may have more software/hardware compatibility than Vista when Vista first comes out. As far as I have been able to find out there are issues with Vista when it comes to Photoshop Elements 4, Photoshop CS2, various antivirus programs and antispyware programs, some Epson scanners, etc. You may have to buy new software and hardware designed especially for Vista.
Better hope you don't need to reinstall Vista too often. I think right now you can do exactly one reinstall, unless that has been changed.
We really will not know if security in Vista is better until after the product comes out. There are some indications that security will not be that much greater than Windows XP.
So, in conclusion, if Vista requires a very powerful computer that Mac suddenly does not seem so expensive. And the Mac already has good security. And the Mac may have better compatibility with software/hardware. After all, you can run Windows XP on the Mac!
A Mac would make most people happy except for heavy duty gamers. And they can buy a game console.
The Mac OS X has much better support for hardware like printers and scanners than Linux OSs.
We have to wait and see what Windows Vista will be like. It could be great or it could be a dud. One thing for sure, it looks like Vista will require a powerful computer (unless they can make Vista more efficient). If you need a very powerful computer to run Vista that sort of shorts out the argument that Macintosh Computers are too expensive.
There are real concerns with Vista about software/hardware compatibility. You can bet the older stuff probably will not be updated. Mac OS X may have more software/hardware compatibility than Vista when Vista first comes out. As far as I have been able to find out there are issues with Vista when it comes to Photoshop Elements 4, Photoshop CS2, various antivirus programs and antispyware programs, some Epson scanners, etc. You may have to buy new software and hardware designed especially for Vista.
Better hope you don't need to reinstall Vista too often. I think right now you can do exactly one reinstall, unless that has been changed.
We really will not know if security in Vista is better until after the product comes out. There are some indications that security will not be that much greater than Windows XP.
So, in conclusion, if Vista requires a very powerful computer that Mac suddenly does not seem so expensive. And the Mac already has good security. And the Mac may have better compatibility with software/hardware. After all, you can run Windows XP on the Mac!
A Mac would make most people happy except for heavy duty gamers. And they can buy a game console.
Things are so insane on the internet today it would not be a bad idea to go to the Red Computer/Black Computer concept used by the government. You could have a Mac Mini or cheap Windows computer hooked up to the internet. The Windows computer that you use for your work is unplugged from the internet. Nobody can get to it unless they break into your house. If you transfer any files between computers you make sure you use a floppy or a CD-R or DVD-R and you check out the disk carefully for any viruses or anything.
With this kind of setup you could use your old Windows XP computer for years until it completely died. And you could use your old software/hardware indefinitely. The computer used for the internet can easily have its OS reinstalled if anything bad happens. Nobody can easily reach any important files you have like banking files, etc.
You could wait years until Vista finally was a good OS and computers that could run Vista were affordable.
With this kind of setup you could use your old Windows XP computer for years until it completely died. And you could use your old software/hardware indefinitely. The computer used for the internet can easily have its OS reinstalled if anything bad happens. Nobody can easily reach any important files you have like banking files, etc.
You could wait years until Vista finally was a good OS and computers that could run Vista were affordable.
I don't have anything against Apple Macs. I used to use them a lot., but the fact is that there aren't that many in use compared to Windows machines. They are pretty safe from attacks and viruses because there aren't enough people using them for hackers to waste there time on. If the market share increased to the point of Windows machines you would start seeing a lot more attacks against Macs
That's a lame copout that's been debunked more than once.
Fact is that UNIX is much more mature and secure.
OS X IS more secure than Windows, period.
Doesn't mean that there's not holes - they get patched all the time, but there have been no real threats that have been exploited and I can dafely say that Windows is a security nightmare in comparison.
The number of Macs in use has no bearing and should have no part in one's decision to buy a computer.
Yes, there have. I got to deal with many customers at my last job who just "couldn't believe" that their dedicated server got hacked into, after all, they thought "Unix is secure".
It got to the point where we started installing kernels without loadable module support to prevent the latest generation of rootkits from hiding themselves.
*I* can keep a Unix machine secure, but the average customer on the end of that phone line could not.
Last edited:
Come on Brian, we weren't talking about servers here.
I get that the average computer user can't rename a folder let alone secure it, but a server is a different thing altogether.
While we're on that topic, earlier this year, two universities put up Mac servers online to offer a prize if they could be hacked - it never happened.
Back to consumer computers...a Mac is a much safer bet than a Windows-based PC - period.
Scott
I get that the average computer user can't rename a folder let alone secure it, but a server is a different thing altogether.
While we're on that topic, earlier this year, two universities put up Mac servers online to offer a prize if they could be hacked - it never happened.
Back to consumer computers...a Mac is a much safer bet than a Windows-based PC - period.
Scott
I am not an expert on servers, but a server is different than a regular desktop computer. Various services HAVE to be on in the case of a server-the server is doing a lot of things including downloading of files, providing various kinds of services for the users of the server, etc. An ordinary Macintosh desktop computer comes from the factory WITH ALL SERVICES OFF. If you need something like file sharing or whatever you have to turn the service on.
Probably there would be more theats to Macs if Macs were more commonplace. I will grant you that. But it is a myth that the only reason a certain type of operating system or a certain type of software or hardware is more secure just because it is less commonplace. You should read 'Phishing,' by Rachael Lininger and Russell Dean Vines. When a security weakness was discovered in a rare kind of firewall it took no time at all for the crackers to discover it and utilize the weakness, even though the kind of firewall was rare compared to other types. And just because Mac users are far fewer in number than Windows users does not mean that there are not a lot of Mac users. There are something like 20 million of them. That is a pretty fair sized target.
You can bet that if Macs were an easy target somebody would be targeting them, even if there are only 20 million users. The people who target computers do not care who they hurt, and they are out to cause damage anyway they can and steal as much as they can. They will target anything-nothing is sacred to them.
Probably there would be more theats to Macs if Macs were more commonplace. I will grant you that. But it is a myth that the only reason a certain type of operating system or a certain type of software or hardware is more secure just because it is less commonplace. You should read 'Phishing,' by Rachael Lininger and Russell Dean Vines. When a security weakness was discovered in a rare kind of firewall it took no time at all for the crackers to discover it and utilize the weakness, even though the kind of firewall was rare compared to other types. And just because Mac users are far fewer in number than Windows users does not mean that there are not a lot of Mac users. There are something like 20 million of them. That is a pretty fair sized target.
You can bet that if Macs were an easy target somebody would be targeting them, even if there are only 20 million users. The people who target computers do not care who they hurt, and they are out to cause damage anyway they can and steal as much as they can. They will target anything-nothing is sacred to them.
The user who installs Unix/Linux and accidentally installs (easy to do) ftpd, qpopper, bind, sendmail, etc. etc. in the process IS RUNNING A SERVER--several of them in fact.
They don't know what those do, they don't need them, but still they're installed and a potential big security vulnerability.
Last edited:
It's pretty easy to install Linux with a bunch of services turned on if you aren't careful.
I always make it a habit to go through /etc/inetd.conf and run nmap (port scanner) against a new Linux machine.
Think the same person who couldn't manage to get XP patched with help from http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com is going to know to do that?
FAT CHANCE.
There is balancing act between security and ease/useability.
http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5042
http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5042
brian1703,when you buy a new Mac all the services are shut off. You can check that in system preferences. Every service is shown in plain English (or probably whatever language you prefer) and they are all shut off unless you need them. For some reason best known to Apple Computer the firewall is off also. You can turn the firewall on in sharing. I don't know a great deal about Linux and Unix but I have heard that it is easy to improperly setup a Linux machine and be exposed to all kinds of stuff.
The Root User or Superuser account is also disabled by default in Mac OS X. And you can use a limited account very easily for the internet if you want.
The Root User or Superuser account is also disabled by default in Mac OS X. And you can use a limited account very easily for the internet if you want.
I'll take your word for it.
It is, especially since some distributions make it easy to install a whole bunch of stuff that you don't need and is a security liability.
You can do the same with Linux/Unix...if you know how
I think Mac OS X is a safer choice for most people. Some of the Linux distributions come with all kinds of stuff which is nice but you have to know what to install. Unless you are going to use a computer as a Linux server you don't need a lot of the stuff. With Linux you need to know how to properly set up the OS. In the book I mentioned above the authors of the book (who are security people) mentioned how a lot of Linux home computers are not set up properly and can actually be very insecure inspite of the Linux reputation for security. Some Linux computers are 'owned' by the bad guys just like a lot of Windows computers.
On the other hand it is possible to make a Windows XP computer very secure. A person needs to know what to do and you need good security software which is kind of a bandaide on an OS that was not really designed for security. But it can be done.
Heck, two Windows XP computers can be as secure as anything else. Use one for the internet and the other is not hooked up to the internet. Any files shared between the two are hand carried from one computer to the other on a floppy or a CD-R or DVD-R which has been scanned very carefully for any malware. Unless somebody breaks into your house nobody can touch the Windows XP computer that is not hooked up to the internet. The computer hooked up to the internet can be some cheap Windows XP computer that has nothing on it except for what is needed for the internet. The OS can be reinstalled if need be.
On the other hand it is possible to make a Windows XP computer very secure. A person needs to know what to do and you need good security software which is kind of a bandaide on an OS that was not really designed for security. But it can be done.
Heck, two Windows XP computers can be as secure as anything else. Use one for the internet and the other is not hooked up to the internet. Any files shared between the two are hand carried from one computer to the other on a floppy or a CD-R or DVD-R which has been scanned very carefully for any malware. Unless somebody breaks into your house nobody can touch the Windows XP computer that is not hooked up to the internet. The computer hooked up to the internet can be some cheap Windows XP computer that has nothing on it except for what is needed for the internet. The OS can be reinstalled if need be.
Even better would be using a Mac computer for the internet and a Windows XP computer that is unplugged from the internet. The Mac is unaffected by most stuff that can affect Windows and files can still be shared between computers. You just have to burn the CD-R or DVD-R so that it can be read by Windows. Many people do not know how easily a Mac can communicate with a Windows computer.
In fact, you now can use one Mac computer for the same thing. After all, you can have BOTH Windows XP and Mac OS X on one computer.
Without ever going to Windows Vista (assuming it is a dud) you could still have good security using some old, cheap Windows XP computer and a Windows XP computer that is never hooked up to the internet (except to register the OS and software).
In fact, you now can use one Mac computer for the same thing. After all, you can have BOTH Windows XP and Mac OS X on one computer.
Without ever going to Windows Vista (assuming it is a dud) you could still have good security using some old, cheap Windows XP computer and a Windows XP computer that is never hooked up to the internet (except to register the OS and software).
- Status
