I noticed when a mac was mentioned in the thread about an infected site, the thread was locked?
ok so is MAC vs PC considered religious or political?
- Thread starter Not the Autorx Frank
- Start date
- Status
Linux
they get hot
Really not either. The poster requested it be closed to prevent a PC war.
We are innocent for once.
We are innocent for once.
Politically Correct.
Statements like "Macs are immune to viruses" start wars for me.
Macs are immune to viruses. Not true if there were as many Macs out there as there are PC's the creators of viruses amd malware would attack them too.
I have used both Macs and PCs. I also have a very limited amount of experience with Linux and the main frame computers we use at work I think are Unix-they use special software for the user interface.
There are good and bad points about both Macs and PCs. Microsoft Windows is the most common operating system so you can find software and hardware that works easily for Windows computers. And Windows computers tend to be cheaper then Macs. Macs however tend to be very durable-they usually last a long time. Right now Macs seem considerably more secure then PCs. This could change in the future.
The number one thing I like about Windows is that scanners, photo printers, and other hardware and software are usually compatible with Windows. This used to be true about Macs back in the days of the Classic operating systems but now it seems like you can often have serious problems finding scanners and even photo printers that are 100% compatible with Mac OS X.
All of the viruses, Trojan Horse programs, worms, adware, spyware, keyloggers, exploits, whatever, can drive you crazy with a Windows computer. But I do not think that Macs and Linux computers are invincible. To me it seems like Apple is heading in the direction of less security and Microsoft is heading in the direction of more security. Just to give a couple of examples-it is now much easier for somebody to write Apple Scripts with Automator and hostile widgits can be made available at web sites. My guess is that if people really wanted to produce malware for a Mac or a Linux computer they would be able to do so. Most people producing malware are going to target Windows since Windows is 90-95% of the market.
The real problem? Computer users. How many people have not upgraded to Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) which is more secure? How many people do not keep their antivirus program upgraded? How many people do not even have an antivirus program? How many people use at least the Windows firewall to protect their computers? Heck, you can still get firewalls and antivirus programs and anti-adware/spyware for free! What is the excuse?
If everybody made at least basic efforts to secure their computers my gues is that 95-98% of the security problems would go away. And the major offenders on the internet need for the authorities to go after them. The major offenders could be identified by the use of honeypots and at least those offenders in this country could be taken to court. The offnerd overseas could have their web sites blocked from being available to citizens of this country.
Even without any input from the government probably 90% of this security problem could be overcome. Everybody who uses Windows XP can get a free firewall. Just get Service Pack from Microsoft. It is free and they will ship it for free. How much does an antivirus cost? How much does a anti-adware/spyware program cost? For about $100.00 or so you can have a reasonable amount of protection. It will not stop the National Security Agency but if the NSA is interested in you then you have serious problems. If you have DSL or broadband get a NAT hardware router. You cannot stop the really top attackers but the top attackers are probably not interested in you.
If the world was different and 90% of all computers were Macs we would probably be having this same security discussion. Maybe it would be somewhat different but security would be necessary no doubt for the Macs.
Individual people can make a difference. Even if the government does nothing.
There are good and bad points about both Macs and PCs. Microsoft Windows is the most common operating system so you can find software and hardware that works easily for Windows computers. And Windows computers tend to be cheaper then Macs. Macs however tend to be very durable-they usually last a long time. Right now Macs seem considerably more secure then PCs. This could change in the future.
The number one thing I like about Windows is that scanners, photo printers, and other hardware and software are usually compatible with Windows. This used to be true about Macs back in the days of the Classic operating systems but now it seems like you can often have serious problems finding scanners and even photo printers that are 100% compatible with Mac OS X.
All of the viruses, Trojan Horse programs, worms, adware, spyware, keyloggers, exploits, whatever, can drive you crazy with a Windows computer. But I do not think that Macs and Linux computers are invincible. To me it seems like Apple is heading in the direction of less security and Microsoft is heading in the direction of more security. Just to give a couple of examples-it is now much easier for somebody to write Apple Scripts with Automator and hostile widgits can be made available at web sites. My guess is that if people really wanted to produce malware for a Mac or a Linux computer they would be able to do so. Most people producing malware are going to target Windows since Windows is 90-95% of the market.
The real problem? Computer users. How many people have not upgraded to Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) which is more secure? How many people do not keep their antivirus program upgraded? How many people do not even have an antivirus program? How many people use at least the Windows firewall to protect their computers? Heck, you can still get firewalls and antivirus programs and anti-adware/spyware for free! What is the excuse?
If everybody made at least basic efforts to secure their computers my gues is that 95-98% of the security problems would go away. And the major offenders on the internet need for the authorities to go after them. The major offenders could be identified by the use of honeypots and at least those offenders in this country could be taken to court. The offnerd overseas could have their web sites blocked from being available to citizens of this country.
Even without any input from the government probably 90% of this security problem could be overcome. Everybody who uses Windows XP can get a free firewall. Just get Service Pack from Microsoft. It is free and they will ship it for free. How much does an antivirus cost? How much does a anti-adware/spyware program cost? For about $100.00 or so you can have a reasonable amount of protection. It will not stop the National Security Agency but if the NSA is interested in you then you have serious problems. If you have DSL or broadband get a NAT hardware router. You cannot stop the really top attackers but the top attackers are probably not interested in you.
If the world was different and 90% of all computers were Macs we would probably be having this same security discussion. Maybe it would be somewhat different but security would be necessary no doubt for the Macs.
Individual people can make a difference. Even if the government does nothing.
But I guess I got off subject somewhat. There are a lot of people who are almost religious in their devotion to the Mac. I like Macs but I think it is silly to get too excited about any computer operating system. 50 years from now all the operating systems we use today will be long gone. The computers and operating systems we will have 50 years from now (assuming the human race does not destroy itself) will probably make the operating systems we use today look as quaint as floppy disks.
Without a doubt there is a certain sense of elitism from Mac owners. All the people I know who have migrated from PC to Mac now think they are smarter/wiser/superior to the lowly PC user. Macs definitely appeal to people who are concerned with image and status and are happy to pay for it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it exists.
As much as I'd like a new MacBook Pro, I can't convince myself to kick down $2000-2500 for what is little more than a fancy electronic toy. The refurbed Dell laptop I'm typing on now cost about half as much and I've spent a whopping $29.95 in the past year on protective software. The arguement that Macs are "safer" doesn't wash when you put finger to calculator.
I still enjoy going to the Apple Store at the mall and playing with their cool toys. If there was a www.applestuffreallycheap.com retailer maybe I'd spring for some of their stuff. All I know is Wall St. has been totally in love with Apple the last couple years. I only wish I bought their stock pre-iPod days.
As much as I'd like a new MacBook Pro, I can't convince myself to kick down $2000-2500 for what is little more than a fancy electronic toy. The refurbed Dell laptop I'm typing on now cost about half as much and I've spent a whopping $29.95 in the past year on protective software. The arguement that Macs are "safer" doesn't wash when you put finger to calculator.
I still enjoy going to the Apple Store at the mall and playing with their cool toys. If there was a www.applestuffreallycheap.com retailer maybe I'd spring for some of their stuff. All I know is Wall St. has been totally in love with Apple the last couple years. I only wish I bought their stock pre-iPod days.
This is a classic article by the author of the 'Name of the Rose':
http://jowett.home.cern.ch/jowett/EcoMACDOS.htm
Umberto Eco on Macintosh vs. DOS
The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counterreformist and has been influenced by the "ratio studiorum" of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach - if not the Kingdom of Heaven - the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.
DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.
You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counterreformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions.....
And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is Talmudic and cabalistic.
From an English translation of Umberto Eco's back-page column, "La bustina di Minerva," in the weekly Espresso (30 September 1994).
http://jowett.home.cern.ch/jowett/EcoMACDOS.htm
Umberto Eco on Macintosh vs. DOS
The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counterreformist and has been influenced by the "ratio studiorum" of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach - if not the Kingdom of Heaven - the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.
DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.
You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counterreformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions.....
And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is Talmudic and cabalistic.
From an English translation of Umberto Eco's back-page column, "La bustina di Minerva," in the weekly Espresso (30 September 1994).
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
In the graphics field, from school to professional work, it's Mac most of the time. And with good reason. PCs, and especially PC monitors and calibration software have gotten better and increasingly suited to graphic applications, though.
Mac software appears to be more expensive than PC software -- likely because 95% of systems out there are PCs. There is less software for Mac, which may or may not be a factor, depending on ones needs. if you're a gamer, forget Mac. I've always been tempted to get a PC laptop in addition to my Mac desktop machine.
Mac is overpriced? I don't think so. The hardware is generally (not always, think bomb-proof Tecra notebooks) built better that that of PCc. Mac software appears to be less buggy than PC software, but maybe that's just my impression, because I use PCs much less and they tend to give me headaches.
Mac is easier to use? For the most casual users this argument doesn't hold true. By now PCs are very userfriendly. I don't see a real advantage to either system there.
Safety? Never got a virus, never got hacked, never got defrauded in 6 years -- and I don't use any anti-spy/hack software or firewall on my Mac. The biggest safety problems are IE and people who still don't know what email attachments not to open.
Elitist Mac users? I'm sure there are those. They don't deter me from buying what suits my needs best.
"I'm too sexy for my Mac!"
Oh ick. Let's lock 'er up.
Mac software appears to be more expensive than PC software -- likely because 95% of systems out there are PCs. There is less software for Mac, which may or may not be a factor, depending on ones needs. if you're a gamer, forget Mac. I've always been tempted to get a PC laptop in addition to my Mac desktop machine.
Mac is overpriced? I don't think so. The hardware is generally (not always, think bomb-proof Tecra notebooks) built better that that of PCc. Mac software appears to be less buggy than PC software, but maybe that's just my impression, because I use PCs much less and they tend to give me headaches.
Mac is easier to use? For the most casual users this argument doesn't hold true. By now PCs are very userfriendly. I don't see a real advantage to either system there.
Safety? Never got a virus, never got hacked, never got defrauded in 6 years -- and I don't use any anti-spy/hack software or firewall on my Mac. The biggest safety problems are IE and people who still don't know what email attachments not to open.
Elitist Mac users? I'm sure there are those. They don't deter me from buying what suits my needs best.
"I'm too sexy for my Mac!"
Oh ick. Let's lock 'er up.
PCs are still a pretty immature product, where people have been willing to put up with incredibly poor product quality. I was amazed to see people rave about Windows for years, watching systems crash several times a day when used hard. I'd not seen such poor quality since British cars and bikes were popular in the early 70s. Apples, eventually 'MACs', were especially popular in the technical support challenged school systems, and among people who like manipulating images. I really hated having to work with marketing as so many used MACs, and programs and data didn't always convert well.
I was once a rogue Desqview user, which was a DOS multitasker that had a lot better performance and reliability than Windows did at the time. People from IT got complaints about someof the files that I was sharing, and when I told them that I was using a PC they flat out stated that it was impossible to work with files that large on a PC. They just left me alone after I showed them my system. These days though I do like my Windows system, where MS redeemed itself with XP.
We need to be moving towards a concept where PCs are considered products that need servicing, even if it's done online, as it's unrealistic to expect most people to set up hardware/software firewalls, change port settings, find and keep updated an antivirus program along with one or more antispyware programs, check for operating system and application updates and service packs, etc.
I was once a rogue Desqview user, which was a DOS multitasker that had a lot better performance and reliability than Windows did at the time. People from IT got complaints about someof the files that I was sharing, and when I told them that I was using a PC they flat out stated that it was impossible to work with files that large on a PC. They just left me alone after I showed them my system. These days though I do like my Windows system, where MS redeemed itself with XP.
We need to be moving towards a concept where PCs are considered products that need servicing, even if it's done online, as it's unrealistic to expect most people to set up hardware/software firewalls, change port settings, find and keep updated an antivirus program along with one or more antispyware programs, check for operating system and application updates and service packs, etc.
JHZR2
Staff member
Isnt this too true in most evey area though??? This is really an automotive site... if everybody made at least basic efforts to maintain their cars and drive reasonably, Im sure that a huge amount of the nasty polution (oil smoke and whatnot) would go away, 10% less fuel would be used, and the roads would be more safe.
People have demonstrated time and time again their inability to take care of things... 95-98% of people turn their stuff into "ship". When the companies dont care, the people dont care, and its a recipe for trouble.
JMH
why is security the burden of the user? i dont have to install a keyed ignition in my automobile--it came with one. yes i have to lock the doors, but i didnt have to call ford and ask for locks to be installed.
windows relies heavily on security through obscurity. you cant see our source code, so you cant see how to defeat our security. this is wrong think. quite a bit of the software on mac os x is open source. is open source safer? it certainly gets more critical analysis than the occasional internal code review.
windows relies heavily on security through obscurity. you cant see our source code, so you cant see how to defeat our security. this is wrong think. quite a bit of the software on mac os x is open source. is open source safer? it certainly gets more critical analysis than the occasional internal code review.
Yes.
Wow, I just was beaing a smart ***. LOL. Didn't expect to return to so many responses. I just hear you guys talkin all the time about this spyware and that infection and oh yeah I had to reformat and install and yeah I tried 42 different anti virus removers but then It still wouldn't work except if I booted in safe mode. I just have never had any issues w/ my Macs. I don't run Antivirus stuff, Just a simple router/firewall. I actually hope Mac stays around 10-15% so the hackers stay windows oreinted. Blah Blah Blah
Tried it. Felt like I stepped back into NT4. Pathetic driver support. Clunky interface. No thanks.
I would have to agree that Macs now have terrible driver support. Usually you can sooner or later find updated drivers for photo printers (maybe later) whenever they upgrade the OS but there may still be problems like not being able to do borderless prints. Scanners are a total nightmare.I don't know who is to blame. It may be Apple and it may be the scanner manufacturers. Maybe Apple does not believe that anybody today uses film. You could probably get by with an Apple Computer if you used a digital camera, had a compatible photo printer, and if you did any scanning if you could somehow locate a scanner that would work. Linux is worse with driver support.
Windows is much better with driver support and software is everywhere, and you can find a Windows computer for a good price. But the security issues can drive you to jumping out a window.
Windows is much better with driver support and software is everywhere, and you can find a Windows computer for a good price. But the security issues can drive you to jumping out a window.
- Status
Similar threads
