Mac or PC ?

[mdwh]

Not really, seeing as how Mac OS can be run on a PC, and Windows and/or any number of linux variants can be run on Macs.

Indeed - the "PC vs Mac" idea made sense 10 years ago, but these days Macs are basically another brand of PC - yes they run a different OS, but then we should also distinguish between Windows and Linux (or whatever else).

The only reason Apple are doing the Mac vs PC thing in their advertising campaign is so they can make misleading statements without being sued.

But even Apple can't even make up their mind - a few years ago, they marketed Macs as PCs (even though that was when they used PowerPC)!

 

[mdwh]

I won't vote as I haven't used an OS X machine (I've used older Macs, which I hated, but they were a completely different platform).

That said, the last Mac I would even consider using myself was the Apple IIe

Which wasn't a Mac (either classic or otherwise)

 

[Asher]

Asher, I shouldn't have mentioned Boot Camp. All I meant was that Macs have a much more advanced virtualisation.

This still makes zero sense. How do Macs have more advanced virtualization? They do not. Parallels is the Apple's chosen application for virtualization, which -- from a technology standpoint -- is less advanced than VirtualPC or vmware.

BTW, may I ask why you seem to have such a hatred of Macs? I wouldn't want one myself, but I respect them - they are in a way our "brother computers" after all. Please don't take offence to that, anyone .

I don't have a hatred for Macs, just a dislike and a hatred of the people who spread misinformation like "Macs = no viruses!" or "Macs = teh inn0vate Windoze = teh copy!!".

Let me throw in one thing about Macs. They have such confusing version numbers. You go to buy some software, and it will have "Requires Mac OS X v10.4.7 or later" or "Mac OS X v10.3.9 or v10.4.4 or later; v 10.4.3 recommended" ... with Windows, all it says is simply "Microsoft Windows 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista", or something similar..

The other thing is while Jobs brags about how there's only one version of MacOS X and it's "cheaper", that's incredibly disingenuous. Yes, there's lots of versions of Windows which means if you don't want, say, Media Centre, you don't need to buy it. MS also offers upgrade editions -- you don't need to buy the whole shebang every time like Apple. Further, Apple has a ~1-1.5 year OS cycle with minor updates, while MS has a ~5 year OS cycle with major updates. Do the math -- one is a lot cheaper than the other.

 

[Zelig]

MS has a ~5 year OS cycle with major updates.

If you look at history, only XP has had such a long life, and MS has stated that they won't ever be repeating that.

 

[mdwh]

- I do have a laught at the Mitchell and Webster videos, but I think Apple are pushing themselves way too far. They always give the message "Macs are cool, PCs belong in dull offices". This is so untrue, I think the range of games for one thing makes PCs all the more suited to 'play'. And, there's is nothing you can do on a Mac that you can't do on a PC.

I agree - the "PCs belong in offices" made sense, ooh, about 15 years ago, but it's laughable now. I'm not sure that insulting potential customers is going to work either.

Image is (sadly) important in marketing, but these ads just seem too blatant.

Let me throw in one thing about Macs. They have such confusing version numbers. You go to buy some software, and it will have "Requires Mac OS X v10.4.7 or later" or "Mac OS X v10.3.9 or v10.4.4 or later; v 10.4.3 recommended" ... with Windows, all it says is simply "Microsoft Windows 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista", or something similar.

I think part of the problem they got themselves into is that "X" was the version number, but "OS X" has also become the brand name.

I'm waiting to see whether we'll get "MacOS X 11", "MacOS XI", "MacOS XI 11", or what...

 

[mdwh]

2. Multi-language, I run OS X in English, my wife still use Dutch. And I know that my children will use Swedish when they become old enough.

Isn't Windows too?

3. No Viruses, Infections, Spy-ware, Trojans and Ad-ware.

Well, see Linux - we are comparing against PCs, right It's true for all non-Windows OSs (and anyway, I've never had a problem with viruses or anything ever on Windows).

4. User Interface, every descent application has the same short-cuts, same layout of the menu etc, etc. If you know that -H means Hide, You can use it everywhere, even in Civilization IV.

All operating systems are pretty consistent really.

5. iChat, videoconference for the rest of us. It's great when you live 1400 km from your family and your parents want to see their grandchildren.

Not at all Mac specific, though...

6. Design, It's a beautiful computer and thanks to that, it's allowed in the living-room, And therefore I'm able to play Civ and take care of my 4 kids.

I take my laptop in the living room too (there are plenty of nice looking PC desktop cases, too).

 

[Asher]

If you look at history, only XP has had such a long life, and MS has stated that they won't ever be repeating that.

That just isn't true. At what date was Windows 98 end-of-life'd?

Windows 98 was supported from June 25, 1998 to June 30, 2006. 8 years.

Windows XP was launched in 2001 and is still supported.

MacOS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 are already unsupported.

I low-balled the 5 year figure...it's 8 years plus.

 

[Quintillus]

2. Multi-language, I run OS X in English, my wife still use Dutch. And I know that my children will use Swedish when they become old enough.

AFAIK, only Vista Ultimate in the Windows world has this feature. Which you'll pay a lot more for than other Windows versions or OSX. It's there, but not worth the cost for most.

Asher, it seems like you're going about this with a "winning is everything" philosophy. Which probably was partly aroused by Speedo's unnecessary attack on your video card, so I can see why you'd be trying a little too hard to a victory. But why not be a little bit more low-key? It's already a widespread problem that tech types want to win every single argument and end up making everyone upset. Correction is good, but I think you've gone beyond that and stirred the bashing.

Objective discussion regarding the platform is only considered bashing by those who have no defense. Which says a lot.

I'm certainly not trying to defend Macs here, and it seems to be bashing. And I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.

And I think it's pretty easy to realize Zelig was referring to the time between releases rather than the actual product support. In which case he is correct. He's looking at it from a keeping-up-with-the-newest OS perspective. Windows certainly wasn't good with this from the '90s until 2001. Looking at OSX from Wikipedia, though, it hasn't been great with that, either.

Whatever. To each his own.

 

[Asher]

Asher, it seems like you're going about this with a "winning is everything" philosophy. Which probably was partly aroused by Speedo's unnecessary attack on your video card, so I can see why you'd be trying a little too hard to a victory. But why not be a little bit more low-key? It's already a widespread problem that tech types want to win every single argument and end up making everyone upset. Correction is good, but I think you've gone beyond that and stirred the bashing.

You see it as bashing, I see it as correction.

If people didn't say false things, they wouldn't need to be corrected. If correcting them is equivalent to bashing, then the easy solution is to simply not say things that are false. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make statements about that.

 

[Zelig]

That just isn't true. At what date was Windows 98 end-of-life'd?

Windows 98 was supported from June 25, 1998 to June 30, 2006. 8 years.

Windows XP was launched in 2001 and is still supported.

MacOS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 are already unsupported.

I low-balled the 5 year figure...it's 8 years plus.

End-of-life, yes, but XP had a 5 year delay before Vista was released, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP all came out within a couple years from each other, and MS plans to keep releasing new operating systems every 2-3 years.

edit: Quintillus got it, he might have even made more sense explaining what I meant than I did.

 

[dutchking]

You see it as bashing, I see it as correction.

If people didn't say false things, they wouldn't need to be corrected. If correcting them is equivalent to bashing, then the easy solution is to simply not say things that are false. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make statements about that.

Oh my god man! Just what are you trying to say?! We (mac users and sympathetic pc users) never said any "false things" or criticized you at all! I don't get you. You are a basher. Stop it. I have never in my whole life heard of a mac getting a virus, therefore I'd say they are virus free, that is not "false" or "in needing of correction". You're in need of correction, but I respect the boundaries of "correction" and insulting. Again, stop it.

Let me throw in one thing about Macs. They have such confusing version numbers. You go to buy some software, and it will have "Requires Mac OS X v10.4.7 or later" or "Mac OS X v10.3.9 or v10.4.4 or later; v 10.4.3 recommended" ... with Windows, all it says is simply "Microsoft Windows 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista", or something similar.

It really isn't that hard. Lets say you have mac OS X with whatever version running on it. Then a new version becomes available for downloading. Software update tells you, and baddabing-baddaboom You've got the most recent version of Mac OS X. The only major difference is if you're running mac OS 9, then you shouldn't try to be playing modern games. It is much easier to run Mac OS X. It is very friendly to people who aren't familiar with computers. It's in English. And if you put your mouse over a button, any button, it tells you what it does in detail. Windows does have little hints here and there, but for me (and I've been using computers since I was four) it's harder. That isn't argumentative, it's just a thought. You know, I'm not saying Windows isn't a great operating system or anything, I just prefer Mac OS X. As a matter of fact, one thing I like about Windows is that there is much more software out there for it than Mac. I've done it, now everybody else list something they like about the opposing OS!

 

[Speedo]

All of you should've voted that. I did, fairly, because I have never used a real pc REALLY. I've used Windows XP, but I never owned a pc. I've used them in school, but I still don't count that as using them. I don't think it's fair all this mac bashing, because I KNOW none of you have never REALLY used a mac. That's what I've got to say...I'm dissapointed in you guys... I was fair with you, and you stabbed me in the back...

What makes you think that no one here has ever really used a Mac?

The simple fact is, Mac's really don't have any claims to being better (and the only people who make these claims usually haven't used PC's in 10 years, or swallow Apple's marketing hook line and sinker), and the only real reason to choose them is personal preference. Nothing wrong with that, but it flies in the face of the elitism that some Mac-o'philes like to have.

 

[Speedo]

I have never in my whole life heard of a mac getting a virus, therefore I'd say they are virus free, that is not "false" or "in needing of correction".

Viruses targetting Macs certainly do exist.

 

[Quintillus]

Asher, as I said correction is good, and you have done some of that. It's the tone of what you're saying that makes it bashing. I'll show some examples with bold.

This is emotional? I'm merely systematically tearing down terribly constructed arguments while I kill time at work.

^That makes people feel great. Perhaps, "I'm merely correcting inaccuracies..."

Asher, I shouldn't have mentioned Boot Camp. All I meant was that Macs have a much more advanced virtualisation.

This still makes zero sense. How do Macs have more advanced virtualization? They do not. Parallels is the Apple's chosen application for virtualization, which -- from a technology standpoint -- is less advanced than VirtualPC or vmware.

^Again, that doesn't make people feel good. And he'd already acknowledged a mistake. Maybe, "I disagree. Parallels is Apple's chosen..."?

You did make a good choice by including "-- from a technology standpoint --". By doing that you acknowledged that ease of use can make things seem more advanced even when they technically aren't, and Parallels may seem more intuitive to him.

Please continue to enlighten us - just don't sound so demeaning when you do. I don't think anyone intends to post incorrect information. And this isn't a "How exactly does this work?" thread, but a "Which do you prefer?" thread, so I really don't see anything wrong with people jumping to conclusions so long as they're willing to learn if a conclusion they jump to (perhaps, "Windows never has any viruses") is wrong.

As a matter of fact, one thing I like about Windows is that there is much more software out there for it than Mac. I've done it, now everybody else list something they like about the opposing OS!

Not having used the "opposing OS" as dutchking puts it, I can't pinpoint something I like about it exactly, but I do like how Apple has very lightweight laptops in the higher-screen-size categories.

 

[Jamesds]

Thanks for being the peace-maker, Quintillus!

Asher, I shouldn't have mentioned Boot Camp. All I meant was that Macs have a much more advanced virtualisation.

This still makes zero sense. How do Macs have more advanced virtualization? They do not. Parallels is the Apple's chosen application for virtualization, which -- from a technology standpoint -- is less advanced than VirtualPC or vmware.

I have read, and experienced better performance in virtualization with a Mac. I have also read that it gives more access to the "inner-system". However, I don't doubt that Virtual PC 2007 is very advanced, I use it and to be able to run an OS in an OS is really quite cool!

...so I really don't see anything wrong with people jumping to conclusions so long as they're willing to learn if a conclusion they jump to (perhaps, "Windows never has any viruses") is wrong.

Did you have to choose such a funny example?

Well, any Mac users excited about the new OS (or upgrade I guess), Leopard? Time-machine seems to be an interesting feature, although I wonder how much HD space that will require...

 

[Asher]

I have read, and experienced better performance in virtualization with a Mac. I have also read that it gives more access to the "inner-system".

The problem is "Macs" and "Windows" don't support virtualization. Virtualization is accomplished by an external application and can be accelerated by support integrated into the CPU (as all Intel Core 2s have). This is why I said this makes "zero sense" before, it's akin to saying Fords can fly longer distances than Toyotas.

Oh my god man! Just what are you trying to say?! We (mac users and sympathetic pc users) never said any "false things" or criticized you at all! I don't get you. You are a basher. Stop it.

This is an amusing example. Right after you say you do not criticize me, you say "You are a basher." It's telling that the only insults and ad hominem attacks here are not coming from me.

And yes, false things have been said in this thread. It's one thing to like an interface for subjective reasons (eg, it's prettier, I'm used to it), it's another thing to make false claims which are objective (eg, Mac's do not have viruses, adware, trojans, etc). I don't care for subjective opinions, everyone has one...but when you enter into the realm of fact, do not get upset when someone who does know about that area steps in to correct you.

I have never in my whole life heard of a mac getting a virus, therefore I'd say they are virus free, that is not "false" or "in needing of correction". You're in need of correction, but I respect the boundaries of "correction" and insulting. Again, stop it.

It is not insulting for me to correct a claim that Macs are "virus free". It is false and in needing of correction, because the #1 problem from a security standpoint of Mac users is the false sense of security. How many Mac users run firewalls? How many Mac users run antivirus? How many Mac users have spyware detection software?

Macs are not immune to these things. In fact, these things do exist on the Mac. In fact, MacOS X 10.4 has more security vulnerabilities known than Windows XP and Windows Vista. The thing is, there's little incentive to exploit those right now as it's a minor platform that's statistically insignificant to an anti-social hacker wanting to wreak havoc.

It really isn't that hard. Lets say you have mac OS X with whatever version running on it. Then a new version becomes available for downloading. Software update tells you, and baddabing-baddaboom You've got the most recent version of Mac OS X. The only major difference is if you're running mac OS 9, then you shouldn't try to be playing modern games. It is much easier to run Mac OS X. It is very friendly to people who aren't familiar with computers. It's in English. And if you put your mouse over a button, any button, it tells you what it does in detail.

This is somewhat fact, somewhat subjective.

Windows also has automatic updates (in fact, it's had these before MacOS has). The tool tip you mentioned was first implemented by Microsoft as well.

The rest about it being easier to use? That's up to you. Usability studies by HCI laboratories found significant issues with MacOS X's usability, including inconsistency and general user unfriendlyness (compare how easy it is to resize in Windows vs MacOS X for instance). But this is a preference -- 93% of people prefer Windows, 5% of people prefer MacOS X. More power to you.

 

[dutchking]

^Alright, I'm too lazy to respond, this guy is crazy, and I don't like this thread. Why do you really hate macs? What did they do to you? Whatever, the platform wars should end.

Not having used the "opposing OS" as dutchking puts it, I can't pinpoint something I like about it exactly, but I do like how Apple has very lightweight laptops in the higher-screen-size categories.

There's a start, lets keep on going. Again:

As a matter of fact, one thing I like about Windows is that there is much more software out there for it than Mac. I've done it, now everybody else list something they like about the opposing OS!

Keep on going people...let's end the platform wars please and just talk about preferences without bashing.

 

[Asher]

^Alright, I'm too lazy to respond, this guy is crazy, and I don't like this thread. Why do you really hate macs? What did they do to you? Whatever, the platform wars should end.

Why is it that you resort to insulting so easily? It's amazing I'm the one considered to be bashing here, while it's not me that's throwing around insults and other personal attacks.

I'm objectively contributing to the Mac vs PC debate. If you don't want to hear it, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm saying.

And I don't hate Macs or hate Apple. I own an iPod, even. There are objective reasons why Macs are a minor player in the market place, and I'm enumerating them...I'm sorry that this visibly upsets you.

 

[LordRahl]

One thing PC users can do that Mac Users can't:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

 

[Asher]

As luck would have it, check out the news today...

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/18/new-os-x-vulnerability-found-worm-released-in-lab/

New OS X vulnerability found: worm released in lab?

Look, we're fine with Apple gloating about the security of OS X in their Mac vs. PC adverts. After all, we have yet to see a large-scale worm released into the Macintosh community. However, the fact that a worm hasn't been released on a Windows-esque scale likely has less to do with Apple's superior coding than the size of their market share, i.e., OS X is a smaller target. That might soon change, however. A vulnerability has reportedly been found and more importantly, exploited by an "independent researcher" known only as "InfoSec Sellout." Apparently, a previously undisclosed vulnerability in the OS X mDNSResponder (which Apple has patched before) allowed Sir Sellout to cobble together a worm dubbed "Rape.osx." InfoSec Sellout claims to have released the worm into a controlled environment thereby infecting a network of about 1,500 OS X systems by nabbing root and dumping a text file as an evidentiary foot print. However, the worm's author claims that it can be broadly weaponised with a payload of choice across both PPC and Intel-class Macs with just a bit more work. InfoSec Sellout will disclose the vulnerability to Apple only after his/her "research is complete" and after an appropriate level of compensation (er, InfoSec Ransom?) received. Dubious as that sounds, for better or worse, it's the way the game's currently played.