Page 1 of 2
#1
Hopefully I haven't unleashed hell on UG
Whats better ? The Mac? Or the PC?
Anyways just curious have fun arguing
#2
I haven't used a Mac since Grade School, I use PC and like it better but who knows. Maybe these new Mac's are better. Gotta get me some time on one of those.
#5
yjere both pretty good really, they both have there advantages and disadvantages, so it all comes down to personal choice really
#7
Quote by mr barnicals
haha funny vid. um i dont know, but screw you aqua, computer froik


Why? Because I have one of each?
#8
PC = 2 letters
Mac = 3 letters

So obviously, Mac > PC.
Although often times less is more so PC > Mac.
It really is hard to say.
#9
I use Macs at college sometimes, and I love using Reason and Cubase on them, but not on the PCs they have there Apart from that though, I prefer PCs.
#10
Quote by sadistic_monkey
I use Macs at college sometimes, and I love using Reason and Cubase on them, but not on the PCs they have there Apart from that though, I prefer PCs.

i have reason on pc and had cubase... works fine for me.
Quote by Karl Sanders
its like a four finger, diminished thingy
#11
depends what you use it for i guess

i wanna get a mac but dont have the money
plus i dono anything about them, just think theyre cool
#12
i gotta go with pc. although i do like itunes and the ipods. Other than that i can't stand macs. they don't let the user do enough
#13
MAC USERS PREFER MACS.
PC USERS PREFER PCS.
NEITHER WOULD WORK WITHOUT LINUX.

/thread.
Thus sayeth the Lord.

<//////>~
#14
Macs are more fun if you know how to use a computer, they're also much more reliable seeing as they're virus proof virtually and the hardware lasts longer because Apple makes everything in them whereas Windows does not.

But, if you like an easier to use computer, it's all about Windows.
Last edited by Bmm386 at Oct 19, 2007,
#15
Quote by Bmm386
Macs are more fun if you know how to use a computer, they're also much more reliable seeing as they're virus proof virtually and te hardware lasts longer because Apple makes everything in them whereas Windows does not.

But, if you like an easier to use computer, it's all about Windows.


Having never owned a Mac, I can't say for sure, but isn't it common knowledge that Macs are designed for complete idiots? Don't they walk you through each slight process? It may not be true, but I've heard that many, many times.

Also, the fact that Apple make all the parts for their Macs not only hikes up the price, but also doesn't allow you to upgrade. That's ridiculous.

Well, I suppose it's not too bad if you don't play games, or run any top-of-the-line demanding apps. Third party is what it's all about. If Microsoft can integrate so seamlessly with third parties, why are Apple having such a hard time?
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#16
Quote by Bmm386
much more reliable seeing as they're virus proof virtually and te hardware lasts longer


Biggest. Load. Of. Bollocks. Ever.

MACs are not virus proof atall, it's just MAC propaganda.

MACs may have "less viruses written for them" because they make a fairly small percentage of computers world wide (less than 10%?), compared to PCs. (which must be for a reason...)

Furthermore, WHAT!? "hardware lasts longer" :|...MACs use the same damn hardware as a computer. Intel processer, a normal hard drive, normal ram, etc etc. :|

Same reason Norton isn't really the "safest" anti virus, it's one of the biggest, therfore, most viruses will be "tested" and made to defeat Norton, compared to a brand with a smaller net share, AVG, Avast.
Last edited by CraigKing at Oct 19, 2007,
#17
Quote by Smokey Amp
Having never owned a Mac, I can't say for sure, but isn't it common knowledge that Macs are designed for complete idiots? Don't they walk you through each slight process? It may not be true, but I've heard that many, many times.


Rumour started/circulated by Microsoft fanboys.

Quote by Smokey Amp
Also, the fact that Apple make all the parts for their Macs not only hikes up the price, but also doesn't allow you to upgrade. That's ridiculous.


Actually the reason why Apple gets called more expensive is because the most common PC bought is X companies mid-range model. Since Mac doesn't make a mid-range desktop, the PCs usually get compared to the Mac Pro and Apple's other high-end desktops, which is actually a LOT cheaper than high-end PCs with comparable stats.

Quote by Smokey Amp
Well, I suppose it's not too bad if you don't play games, or run any top-of-the-line demanding apps. Third party is what it's all about. If Microsoft can integrate so seamlessly with third parties, why is Apple having such a hard time?


Actually if you're using an Intel based Mac you can play any game you want. And no, Apple isn't "having a hard time" integrating with 3rd parties, they chose not to. This is one of the reasons why Macs are so secure.

Edit: Actually I should probably elaborate on that. Macs have plenty of 3rd party support, it's just highly regulated. Those who wish to develop for Mac have certain rules that they must follow, and Apple provides them with customized development kits. Thanks to it, all programs work correctly in relation to all others (none of that "illegal operation" stuff), as well as keeping the OS secure.

Quote by CraigKing
Biggest. Load. Of. Bollocks. Ever.

MACs are not virus proof atall, it's just MAC propaganda.

MACs may have "less viruses written for them" because they make a fairly small percentage of computers, compared to PCs. (which must be for a reason...)

Same reason Norton isn't really the "safest" anti virus, it's one of the biggest, therfore, most viruses will be "tested" on norton, compared to a brandwith a smaller net share, AVG, avast.


Um...no. The reason why you won't ever get a virus for a Mac is the same reason why you won't get one for Linux (or any other Unix-based system): To facilitate system administrators jobs on PCs, simple programs can install themselves and make themselves executable. Hardware access is also allowed. This keeps the door open for malicious software. Unix/Linux systems don't have that. Add to that the fact that Apple builds a hardware firewall into all their computers and you have a computer that's virtually virus-proof.
Thus sayeth the Lord.

<//////>~
Last edited by musicianamedave at Oct 19, 2007,
#18
^ I once read part of a book that mentioned that, totally forgot about it.
Quote by Smokey Amp
Having never owned a Mac, I can't say for sure, but isn't it common knowledge that Macs are designed for complete idiots? Don't they walk you through each slight process? It may not be true, but I've heard that many, many times.

Not at all. I've yet to have a "wizard" for anything. It's simple do-it-yourself computing.
#19
Quote by musicianamedave
Rumour started/circulated by Microsoft fanboys.


Fair enough.

Actually the reason why Apple gets called more expensive is because the most common PC bought is X companies mid-range model. Since Mac doesn't make a mid-range desktop, the PCs usually get compared to the Mac Pro and Apple's other high-end desktops, which is actually a LOT cheaper than high-end PCs with comparable stats.


They're segmenting their audience if they don't make mid-range desktops. Also, I really can't see how it is fiscally cheaper for a company to produce and distribute all hardware than a company who utilises third party support.
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#20
Quote by Smokey Amp
Fair enough.


They're segmenting their audience if they don't make mid-range desktops. Also, I really can't see how it is fiscally cheaper for a company to produce and distribute all hardware than a company who utilises third party support.

This i am not sure of, but it does make for a more reliable computer.
#22
in short PCs are better for games.
Macs are better for everything else because they arent virus magnets which implode if you do something wrong. Also they are easier to use. Also my SDD (software design development) teacher knows all these computer nerds who prefer macs
Quote by hug a llama
Dude, if a title read "penis pics, come on in" I think about 93% of UG would still click on it.


Quote by Burpin'Worm
Nonsense. I'm telling you, nothing makes the fairer sex swoon like an extensive knowledge of siege weaponry and medieval battle tactics.
#23
Quote by Bmm386
^ I once read part of a book that mentioned that, totally forgot about it.

Not at all. I've yet to have a "wizard" for anything. It's simple do-it-yourself computing.


The thing is, BSD Unix is what runs OSX. It's been out (in open-source form) for nearly 20 years, and is arguably the most secure system out there. Now, if you're running OS9 or earlier (heaven forbid), then yes it is possible to get a virus, although even then the OS was more secure than windows 95/98. When Apple switched from OS9 to OSX, they were very careful to make sure that were moving their user-base to a more secure system.

Microsoft had the chance to beat Apple to the punch and make a giant leap back in 1997 or so, killing off the existing Win32 platform in favor of an NT-based client and server that did not have to run legacy applications natively. They didn't, and PC users are still paying the price for it today. All of this in favor of Win32 backwards compatibility. And while Microsoft was reaping the rewards of said backwards compatibility, Apple was taking it's time moving it's entire user base to BSD Unix.

I don't remember who said it, but I came across a great quote a while back on the subject: "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."

Quote by Smokey Amp
Fair enough.

They're segmenting their audience if they don't make mid-range desktops. Also, I really can't see how it is fiscally cheaper for a company to produce and distribute all hardware than a company who utilises third party support.


Not exactly. That's what the iMac is for. It's not a Desktop, and it's not a Laptop, but it's stats are comparable to mid-range PCs. So yes, Mac users do have a mid-range option to choose from, it's just not a desktop per se and often gets overlooked when people are comparing Macs and PCs.

And as for it being cheaper to make and distribute everything, I'm not an expert on the subject, and I don't know how they operate exactly, but Apple seems to be making plenty of money from it so I guess it works for them.
Thus sayeth the Lord.

<//////>~
Last edited by musicianamedave at Oct 19, 2007,
#24
In relation to musiciannamedamedave's point about the iMac there's also the Mac minis which is like all the main stuff (processor, graphics card, hard drive etc.) all in one tiny unit ( about the size of a sheet of A5 paper and an inch thick, then you plug in a monitor, keyboard and mouse. I'm not sure of the price on them, but their specs are pretty average so I can imagine they're cheap.

I use a Mac at home myself and I really love it, I only have basics need (music, word processing and the internet) and it does all of them flawlessly. There is third party software out there for Macs, it's just not that easy to find. It's generally great when you find it though.

I don't really see what people mean when they say Macs lead you through the most basic of things, as when I got mine there weren't really any wizards etc. (although the help section is massive and incredibly useful).

On the whole I do prefer Macs although if you're a hardcore PC gamer, I wouldn't get a Mac. But to be fair games are starting to come onto Macs. There's Halo and Unreal Tournament 2004 available now. and EA are working on bringing Battlefield (one of the newer ones but I can't remember which one) to Mac.
Looking to buy a Fender Jagstang, u sellin?
#25
A lot of people. like myself will be biased because they've use one of the other for longer and got used to it.

Pretty much explains my situation... i use a PC.
#26
Quote by musicianamedave

Um...no. The reason why you won't ever get a virus for a Mac is the same reason why you won't get one for Linux (or any other Unix-based system): To facilitate system administrators jobs on PCs, simple programs can install themselves and make themselves executable. Hardware access is also allowed. This keeps the door open for malicious software. Unix/Linux systems don't have that. Add to that the fact that Apple builds a hardware firewall into all their computers and you have a computer that's virtually virus-proof.


You can get a virus on linux...Spyware definatly, which is let in through ze web browser.
#27
Having used both (XP, OSX, but not Vista), I can definitely say I prefer Macs. Somethings I wont justify because it's my opinion:

-Installing/uninstalling programs is much easier. People who have macs know what I mean. To uninstall a program, simply delete it from the applications menu, and you can easily search for debris the program created (if there is any left).
-Automatic Disc Defragmentation. No need to ever schedule it because it's done in real time.
-Built-in Firewall. Easily customizable port settings.
-My basic MacBook takes 22 seconds to start up. Better MacBooks are obviously even faster.
-Better browsing interface (Finder is better than Explorer)
-Better overall speed.

Here's a big one: opening files from the internets. With OSX files you "open", say zip files or mpegs, they go to your desktop by default. With XP they go to your temp folder. When you are done looking at the file, with OSX it is easy to find the file and delete it: it's right on the desktop. With XP it's a little harder to clean up debris because it's in the temp files.

-No viruses (basically).

Cons: Usually, Office is not preinstalled. It's not a good platform for games. Usually PC's will have better specs for the same amount of money.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
Last edited by yoshixxx7 at Oct 20, 2007,
#28
Quote by CraigKing
You can get a virus on linux...Spyware definatly, which is let in through ze web browser.


Technically yes it is possible to get spyware on linux...you just have to be a complete idiot to get one with that much security.
Thus sayeth the Lord.

<//////>~
#29
Quote by Smokey Amp


Also, the fact that Apple make all the parts for their Macs not only hikes up the price, but also doesn't allow you to upgrade. That's ridiculous.


False....
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
#30
Quote by CraigKing


MACs may have "less viruses written for them" because they make a fairly small percentage of computers world wide (less than 10%?), compared to PCs. (which must be for a reason...)


Actually, it's 2.5% world wide. Basically no one writes viruses, especially spyware for macs.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
#31
Quote by musicianamedave
NEITHER WOULD WORK WITHOUT LINUX.

/thread.


No.

Quote by musicianamedave
Actually the reason why Apple gets called more expensive is because the most common PC bought is X companies mid-range model. Since Mac doesn't make a mid-range desktop, the PCs usually get compared to the Mac Pro and Apple's other high-end desktops, which is actually a LOT cheaper than high-end PCs with comparable stats.


No, they aren't. Maybe a mass-built PC, but if you build your own system, you will get better components for a lot less than you will if you order a Mac.


Actually if you're using an Intel based Mac you can play any game you want. And no, Apple isn't "having a hard time" integrating with 3rd parties, they chose not to. This is one of the reasons why Macs are so secure.


This is where you go downhill. First off, the reason there aren't games for Macs is because most games are written specifically for Windows using Windows APIs, the game developers would have to completely rewrite portions of their software to be compatible with a Mac or completely change the development cycle, it is expensive and how well would it pay off? Considering the portion of the market is significantly smaller than that of Windows, they wouldn't turn a profit on it. Now with parallels (although fusion is better from what I'm told) and bootcamp, what is the purpose? This has nothing to do with Apple either, this is the game devs, although Apple could 'push' them to develop games on the Mac.

It has nothing to do with security either. OS X is a completely different operating system with a completely different set of APIs, memory management, and executable format, expecting a binary from another operating system to function on it is unrealistic without emulation.

Edit: Actually I should probably elaborate on that. Macs have plenty of 3rd party support, it's just highly regulated. Those who wish to develop for Mac have certain rules that they must follow, and Apple provides them with customized development kits. Thanks to it, all programs work correctly in relation to all others (none of that "illegal operation" stuff), as well as keeping the OS secure.


Uh, the Apple SDKs are freely available to everyone. There aren't any 'rules' they have to follow.


Um...no. The reason why you won't ever get a virus for a Mac is the same reason why you won't get one for Linux (or any other Unix-based system): To facilitate system administrators jobs on PCs, simple programs can install themselves and make themselves executable. Hardware access is also allowed. This keeps the door open for malicious software. Unix/Linux systems don't have that. Add to that the fact that Apple builds a hardware firewall into all their computers and you have a computer that's virtually virus-proof.


Not this again. NO!

First off, Apple doesn't build a 'hardware firewall' into their computers, even if they did, it wouldn't do anything. The purpose of a hardware firewall is to block incoming traffic, they aren't very effective against malware since most malware these days is spread via client side exploits or social engineering schemes. They might limit the use of self replicating worms, but most home users have NAT devices anyway, so it wouldn't make a difference.

And Linux/BSD/OS X is no more secure than Windows (actually to the contrary). OMG! I must be an idiot....No...I've spent a long time researching this subject and I know in the head of a fanboy its hard to grasp, but I suggest you actually look into this subject aside from Linux/Apple/BSD forums and talk to people who are educated on the matter. For one, software is software, it doesn't matter what processor it is on, what operating system it runs, or who is using it, its going to be vulnerable. You can do everything you can to find bugs, but the truth is that they will always exist.

Having said that, you CAN limit the attack surface. So far, Microsoft has been the first to implement (short of OpenBSD) a lot of security features that reduce the attack surface of certain vulnerabilities. They implemented address randomization, non-executable memory, stack/heap canaries, process segregation, download tagging, should I keep going? As of right now, Apple ONLY has non-executable memory locations, which is, well, worthless (Leopard will have ASLR and a lot of the others however). Also, Microsoft started the Microsoft Security Research Center in the past few years, which performs independent research on all sorts of security related subjects. They also were one of the first (still may be the only) vendor to implement a secure development lifecycle. Again, Apple hasn't done that. Apple also has a very bad habit of not fixing vulnerabilities in a timely manner or pushing out critical patches to their customers (e.g. it took them 10 months to push out updates to the open source Samba code). Not to mention mDNSResponder is regarded as just generally broken (aka Bonjour), it is a miracle that a worm or virus hasn't spread through its numerous vulnerabilities.

I could go on forever and Linux is no different, however BSD is a different story and depends on which variant you pick. As of right now, OpenBSD is hailed as one of the most secure operating systems available for use. Their claim of 2 vulnerabilities in 10 years isn't true, but the number is still significantly lower than others and they have, historically, been the first to adopt various security concepts. Unfortunately, it doesn't really carry over into the other variants. One great thing about the OpenBSD team is that they perform their own security audits of third party code, which brings me to this...

The problem you face with Linux and BSD is that while you have the Linux and BSD OS code, you to install a large number of libraries and 3rd party applications (X Windows, KDE, libpng, libtiff, php, sendmail, etc) which introduces a number of other flaws. Since Linux offers very little resident memory protection (the same with most of the BSD variants), the vulnerabilities in 3rd party products can have a very high impact on Linux/BSD systems, regardless of the security of the operating system. And no, before you tell me you need to have the root password to get root, any process running as root (ps aux | grep root) that is owned will give the user root privileges, but even if someone gets a lower privileged shell, there are more privilege escalations in Linux than anyone could possibly find in a lifetime. Anyway, the point is, there is so much 3rd party code that goes into a base Linux install, you open yourself up to a wide range of problems that you won't run into if you use OS X or Windows.

Anyway, I could go on for ages on this very subject, because there are a lot of misconceptions floating around. No, I'm not a MS fanboy. No, I don't hate Apple. Yes, I use Linux regularly (although imo its a bastardization of Unix).

EDIT:
Quote by musicianamedave
Technically yes it is possible to get spyware on linux...you just have to be a complete idiot to get one with that much security.


There are a large number of worms, virii, and rootkits available for Linux. Just because you haven't seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't used.

Oh, and I meant to bring this up earlier. You go into any enterprise environment and you'll find the majority of the servers aren't Unix, but Windows (you mentioned administration earlier) and they work just fine. The only way someone could forcibly install and run something on a Windows system (from an administration perspective) is via active directory, which means the person doing so has to have special privileges on the network and the systems have to be configured to use AD. This isn't a trivial process and would be difficult depending on the network configuration (if possible).

I don't remember who said it, but I came across a great quote a while back on the subject: "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."


That quote is as old as me
Last edited by LordSephiroth at Oct 20, 2007,
#33
**** me Spehiroth, wall of text or what?

Anyway. PCs are best to me, because I'm a huge gamer, and most games are developed for windows.

That doesn't mean to say that other OSes aren't better for others, E.G Linux for web servers etc, Macs for pretentious fags who like white stuff... (Joking, ok?)

It's just personal preference. I really don't see why people must see it as Mac vs. PC, or PSTriple vs. XBox 360, coke vs. ****ing pepsi.

It's just sad.
#34
Quote by Vermintide
**** me Spehiroth, wall of text or what?

Anyway. PCs are best to me, because I'm a huge gamer, and most games are developed for windows.

That doesn't mean to say that other OSes aren't better for others, E.G Linux for web servers etc, Macs for pretentious fags who like white stuff... (Joking, ok?)

It's just personal preference. I really don't see why people must see it as Mac vs. PC, or PSTriple vs. XBox 360, coke vs. ****ing pepsi.

It's just sad.


heh, sorry

mmm, Coke.
#35
Quote by Aqua Dementia
I have both. I win.


This Means I Win Too?
All Aboard The Phail Boat

Quote by fatwanker
I find you calling me a fat wanker offensive



Quote by gallagher2006
I thought this was gonna be a "I didn't mean to get my sister pregnant! Is she just overreacting after I raped her?" thread
#36
Quote by LordSephiroth
No.


No, they aren't. Maybe a mass-built PC, but if you build your own system, you will get better components for a lot less than you will if you order a Mac.


This is where you go downhill. First off, the reason there aren't games for Macs is because most games are written specifically for Windows using Windows APIs, the game developers would have to completely rewrite portions of their software to be compatible with a Mac or completely change the development cycle, it is expensive and how well would it pay off? Considering the portion of the market is significantly smaller than that of Windows, they wouldn't turn a profit on it. Now with parallels (although fusion is better from what I'm told) and bootcamp, what is the purpose? This has nothing to do with Apple either, this is the game devs, although Apple could 'push' them to develop games on the Mac.

It has nothing to do with security either. OS X is a completely different operating system with a completely different set of APIs, memory management, and executable format, expecting a binary from another operating system to function on it is unrealistic without emulation.


Uh, the Apple SDKs are freely available to everyone. There aren't any 'rules' they have to follow.


Not this again. NO!

First off, Apple doesn't build a 'hardware firewall' into their computers, even if they did, it wouldn't do anything. The purpose of a hardware firewall is to block incoming traffic, they aren't very effective against malware since most malware these days is spread via client side exploits or social engineering schemes. They might limit the use of self replicating worms, but most home users have NAT devices anyway, so it wouldn't make a difference.

And Linux/BSD/OS X is no more secure than Windows (actually to the contrary). OMG! I must be an idiot....No...I've spent a long time researching this subject and I know in the head of a fanboy its hard to grasp, but I suggest you actually look into this subject aside from Linux/Apple/BSD forums and talk to people who are educated on the matter. For one, software is software, it doesn't matter what processor it is on, what operating system it runs, or who is using it, its going to be vulnerable. You can do everything you can to find bugs, but the truth is that they will always exist.

Having said that, you CAN limit the attack surface. So far, Microsoft has been the first to implement (short of OpenBSD) a lot of security features that reduce the attack surface of certain vulnerabilities. They implemented address randomization, non-executable memory, stack/heap canaries, process segregation, download tagging, should I keep going? As of right now, Apple ONLY has non-executable memory locations, which is, well, worthless (Leopard will have ASLR and a lot of the others however). Also, Microsoft started the Microsoft Security Research Center in the past few years, which performs independent research on all sorts of security related subjects. They also were one of the first (still may be the only) vendor to implement a secure development lifecycle. Again, Apple hasn't done that. Apple also has a very bad habit of not fixing vulnerabilities in a timely manner or pushing out critical patches to their customers (e.g. it took them 10 months to push out updates to the open source Samba code). Not to mention mDNSResponder is regarded as just generally broken (aka Bonjour), it is a miracle that a worm or virus hasn't spread through its numerous vulnerabilities.

I could go on forever and Linux is no different, however BSD is a different story and depends on which variant you pick. As of right now, OpenBSD is hailed as one of the most secure operating systems available for use. Their claim of 2 vulnerabilities in 10 years isn't true, but the number is still significantly lower than others and they have, historically, been the first to adopt various security concepts. Unfortunately, it doesn't really carry over into the other variants. One great thing about the OpenBSD team is that they perform their own security audits of third party code, which brings me to this...

The problem you face with Linux and BSD is that while you have the Linux and BSD OS code, you to install a large number of libraries and 3rd party applications (X Windows, KDE, libpng, libtiff, php, sendmail, etc) which introduces a number of other flaws. Since Linux offers very little resident memory protection (the same with most of the BSD variants), the vulnerabilities in 3rd party products can have a very high impact on Linux/BSD systems, regardless of the security of the operating system. And no, before you tell me you need to have the root password to get root, any process running as root (ps aux | grep root) that is owned will give the user root privileges, but even if someone gets a lower privileged shell, there are more privilege escalations in Linux than anyone could possibly find in a lifetime. Anyway, the point is, there is so much 3rd party code that goes into a base Linux install, you open yourself up to a wide range of problems that you won't run into if you use OS X or Windows.

Anyway, I could go on for ages on this very subject, because there are a lot of misconceptions floating around. No, I'm not a MS fanboy. No, I don't hate Apple. Yes, I use Linux regularly (although imo its a bastardization of Unix).

EDIT:


There are a large number of worms, virii, and rootkits available for Linux. Just because you haven't seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't used.

Oh, and I meant to bring this up earlier. You go into any enterprise environment and you'll find the majority of the servers aren't Unix, but Windows (you mentioned administration earlier) and they work just fine. The only way someone could forcibly install and run something on a Windows system (from an administration perspective) is via active directory, which means the person doing so has to have special privileges on the network and the systems have to be configured to use AD. This isn't a trivial process and would be difficult depending on the network configuration (if possible).


That quote is as old as me


Clearly you know your stuff.

I'll be taking notes for the next time I encounter a stubborn Mac fanboy.
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#37
i prefer pc for most programs and games, but i love the Macs at school for art class
Quote by TDS
You know what would be awsome? A phone that doubled as a fleshlight that recharged power through kinetic motion.

"hold on guys my phone's dying."
*fap*
"Ok we're good."
#38
Quote by LordSephiroth
Wall of Text.


/golfclap

Clearly you know your stuff. I'll reply to some specific points later but currently I'm headed off to Guitar Center.
Thus sayeth the Lord.

<//////>~
#39
Well, I've only ever owned Pc's, but have used mac's, and used to think they were ****, but just the other day, I was reading about them, and all this Boot Camp, and stuff like that lets you "seamlessly switch between any Major OS", hence anything PC can do, mac can do too :P
#40
Quote by CLVPX
Well, I've only ever owned Pc's, but have used mac's, and used to think they were ****, but just the other day, I was reading about them, and all this Boot Camp, and stuff like that lets you "seamlessly switch between any Major OS", hence anything PC can do, mac can do too :P


Only not

A mac's hardware is different to a PC, so just because you can boot into XP doesn't mean you can do everything an XP PC can.

A major disadvantage or Macs is also their biggest advantage. Their hardware is mostly first party, ready assembled. This is why macs "just work", but also why they are extremely limited in application. You can't customise a mac to fit your needs as you can a PC.

Anyway, I'm trying not to get involved here
Page 1 of 2