I would sooner "lose" the thing and have it replaced under property insurance for a $300 deductible, than give Apple more money because their shitty laptop breaks all the time.
I have the iPhone and I can say its fairly durable. It might not fare well if dropped however because of its glass screen so get a good case or protector for it. I have had it in my pocket with a rubber protector on while moving furniture, working on my car, and other rough activities and it has withstood quite a beating. The screen is really resistant to scratching but I have a screen protector just in case. I like it because it has excellent multimedia capabilities and It's really straight forward to use. I can type text on it much faster than a blackberry. Also the battery life has improved quite a bit with software updates. Battery life is not as good as the blackberry. I charge the iPhone about every other day. There are a few things it doesn't do. Basically, there is no one phone that does everything. Just decide what features are most important and go with that.
As for Windows versus Mac OS? They are very different in some ways. I find Mac OS is quite a bit quicker than Vista on the same hardware. This is probably because Mac OS doesn't have to run as much software in the background. Anti-virus software eats up a ton of performance. I have never seen a Virus / Trojan on OSX.
There is lots of great software for both Windows and Mac. Blizzard has a long history of supporting Apple.
Where I think Mac OS really excels is in matters of reliability and ease of use. For example, macs have no MBR, so you don't have to worry about getting into a situation where your computer can't boot because of a bad boot record or corrupt boot loader. No defragging or other maintenance is required. You can partition your hard drive without rebooting (this includes resizing the partition your OS is running on). Reinstalling the OS could not be any easier. There are no drivers to deal with during setup (though some external peripherals require them) and it automatically makes backups of all your files in another folder if your doing a clean install.
I hope starting a new thread for this is ok, I didn't see an obvious one and thought the Mac thread might be biased.
Anyway, my current Windows XP Acer Laptop is 2 years old and due an upgrade, along with my phone contract being up in April therefore the possibility of an iphone over my current Blackberry exists too, so I have been exploring the idea of:
A Macbook (aliminium) with 4g of ram
An iphone 3g on O2
An ipod shuffle (I currently have an old model nano)
The reason I am leaning this way is I can't stand the idea of Vista, a bloated resource hog by all accounts, I hate most laptop design out there right now, chunky plasticy things that they are and my mate just got an iphone and says he is ditching his blackberry for it as he gets a sort of "push email" or whatever via the iphone.
My main uses are:
Random net browsing
Light gaming (WoW on and off, Diablo 3 when it hits)
Amatuer image editing
I am not very tech savvy and hate having to mess about with spybot, avg etc...so the user freindly nature of the mac seems right up my alley, is it worth the extra £300-400? Is the iphone as durable as it looks?
(I realise I am just asking people to justify a decision I have already made in my head...but thats what forums are for is it not?)
My MacBook Pro pulls 4-5 hours on OS X of "light use" (web browsing and music-listening). Under XP it gets 2 hours at best under the same conditions. XP's (can't speak for Vista directly, maybe it's better) battery conservation/optimization is fucking terrible and there's no excuse for that.
Just wanted to address that with some real-world numbers. Again, this is *XP* I'm talking about. Vista may or may not be much better in this regard, but OS X rocks the battery optimization front.
EDIT - I've also clocked it with Warcraft 3. The OS X side routinely spanks XP, although not as badly as the lighter-use scenario. It seems to get closer the more pressure the machine is under, almost as if XP is just terribly optimized for idle performance.
Not to get up in your grill, but Apple's drivers for Bootcamp are absolute shit. If Apple actually wrote optimized drivers for their Bootcamp software, the Windows side of things would perform much better (See: graphics, audio, battery life, the time glitch, etc.).
So while I understand what you're trying to get at, it's really just not a good example.
I'm surprised Apple even supports Bootcamp.. It's just not their usual thing.
I think you could make a good argument that they don't support it since their current set of drivers hasn't been updated since April and they were terrible to begin with.
Honestly, I think their idea was to make the Windows experience on their hardware as miserable as possible so that no one actually wants to dual boot.
Wasn't bootcamp originally an open source hack? Why haven't the guys that made it put out newer versions with better driver support/etc? Were they bought out by apple?
IIRC:
Since the release of the first Intel Mac it was a race to see who could beat windows first. An Open source project was actually the first to do it. But it was a convoluted process and not for the faint-hearted. Then about two days later, Apple released the Bootcamp beta. Now Bootcamp is built into Leopard. Bootcamp itself was never an Open Source hack; it has always been an Apple program. I'm guessing they had it ready when the Intel mac was released but held off until the hackers proved you could boot Windows.
Cameron_Talley on
Switch Friend Code: SW-4598-4278-8875
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
My MacBook Pro pulls 4-5 hours on OS X of "light use" (web browsing and music-listening). Under XP it gets 2 hours at best under the same conditions. XP's (can't speak for Vista directly, maybe it's better) battery conservation/optimization is fucking terrible and there's no excuse for that.
Just wanted to address that with some real-world numbers. Again, this is *XP* I'm talking about. Vista may or may not be much better in this regard, but OS X rocks the battery optimization front.
EDIT - I've also clocked it with Warcraft 3. The OS X side routinely spanks XP, although not as badly as the lighter-use scenario. It seems to get closer the more pressure the machine is under, almost as if XP is just terribly optimized for idle performance.
Not to get up in your grill, but Apple's drivers for Bootcamp are absolute shit. If Apple actually wrote optimized drivers for their Bootcamp software, the Windows side of things would perform much better (See: graphics, audio, battery life, the time glitch, etc.).
So while I understand what you're trying to get at, it's really just not a good example.
I'm surprised Apple even supports Bootcamp.. It's just not their usual thing.
I think you could make a good argument that they don't support it since their current set of drivers hasn't been updated since April and they were terrible to begin with.
Honestly, I think their idea was to make the Windows experience on their hardware as miserable as possible so that no one actually wants to dual boot.
Wasn't bootcamp originally an open source hack? Why haven't the guys that made it put out newer versions with better driver support/etc? Were they bought out by apple?
IIRC:
Since the release of the first Intel Mac it was a race to see who could beat windows first. An Open source project was actually the first to do it. But it was a convoluted process and not for the faint-hearted. Then about two days later, Apple released the Bootcamp beta. Now Bootcamp is built into Leopard. Bootcamp itself was never an Open Source hack; it has always been an Apple program. I'm guessing they had it ready when the Intel mac was released but held off until the hackers proved you could boot Windows.
Ah, I am just remembering watching the guys booting up Windows on it before Apple came out with bootcamp. Fun times, fun times..
ArcSyn on
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
I would sooner "lose" the thing and have it replaced under property insurance for a $300 deductible, than give Apple more money because their shitty laptop breaks all the time.
What are you paying for a policy that covers mysterious disappearances with just a $300 deductible?
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I wouldn't actually do that, I'm just saying I won't pay for an extended warranty on principle
On principle? I don't get that. I mean, Toyota makes reliable cars, but I'm sure as hell making sure my next one is warrantied nicely. I rarely think twice about spending an extra 10% or so to warranty my laptops. That should hold true regardless of the manufacturer. I get that some people can't afford the warranty on top of the cost of a laptop, and if that's your argument, fine. But if you can afford it easily, why not? You're covered from any unforeseen hardware goblins for 3 years, and even if you don't keep the machine that long, having an intact warranty adds a fair bit to the resale value.
The truth of the matter is that all the hardware originates from the same places. It all breaks sometimes, but it all works most of the time. It's just a matter of whether you're willing to gamble that you won't be one of the unlucky few. I don't like gambling, especially on a machine that runs my business AND houses most of my recreation stuff.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I just want to make the point that the lack of viruses/trojans targeting the Mac is not because OSx is in any way "more resilient" than other OSes. It's the simple fact the a virus maker would much rather spend the time on something which targets 99% of computers rather than 1%.
So if the amount of apple computers around the world increases you will see an increase in malware targeting it.
I wouldn't actually do that, I'm just saying I won't pay for an extended warranty on principle
On principle? I don't get that. I mean, Toyota makes reliable cars, but I'm sure as hell making sure my next one is warrantied nicely. I rarely think twice about spending an extra 10% or so to warranty my laptops. That should hold true regardless of the manufacturer. I get that some people can't afford the warranty on top of the cost of a laptop, and if that's your argument, fine. But if you can afford it easily, why not? You're covered from any unforeseen hardware goblins for 3 years, and even if you don't keep the machine that long, having an intact warranty adds a fair bit to the resale value.
The truth of the matter is that all the hardware originates from the same places. It all breaks sometimes, but it all works most of the time. It's just a matter of whether you're willing to gamble that you won't be one of the unlucky few. I don't like gambling, especially on a machine that runs my business AND houses most of my recreation stuff.
It's not really gambling if you just go with the normal warranty. You will know if it's bad hardware the second you try to turn it on. After that if you know how to not spill soda on the thing the extended really isn't necessary. And heck even if you do have vital information on the computer it's really not that hard to remove the harddrive and plug it into a working computer to extricate what you need if it fails later.
I just want to make the point that the lack of viruses/trojans targeting the Mac is not because OSx is in any way "more resilient" than other OSes. It's the simple fact the a virus maker would much rather spend the time on something which targets 99% of computers rather than 1%.
So if the amount of apple computers around the world increases you will see an increase in malware targeting it.
I assumed (probably wrongly) that most people knew that, the OS is probably just as open if not more so, but as you say, it's not seen as a big target
True. The main thing OSX has over Windows on the security department (besides relative obscurity) is the lack of anything like ActiveX to act as a vector for infection. Other than that Apple is making all the same mistakes Microsoft has/does--users run as admin by default, I don't think the firewall is on by default, etc. Further, Apple seems to tarry a bit when releasing security patches. Sure, Microsoft usually does as well but at least they have a set schedule.
I just want to make the point that the lack of viruses/trojans targeting the Mac is not because OSx is in any way "more resilient" than other OSes. It's the simple fact the a virus maker would much rather spend the time on something which targets 99% of computers rather than 1%.
So if the amount of apple computers around the world increases you will see an increase in malware targeting it.
I assumed (probably wrongly) that most people knew that, the OS is probably just as open if not more so, but as you say, it's not seen as a big target
Isn't the problem with the argument that you have to assume that there isn't a single person alive still interested in just being infamous? Writing a virus for OS X just to stick it to the assholes in turtle-necks sitting in starbucks? Unless that's true, then surely there's something more to it than just security through (relative) obscurity.
Umm, not exactly. In OSX as an administrator I have full access to make changes to my files and programs but I still don't have ROOT access. To make a system change I have to type in my password, kinda like SUDO in Debian Linux. Many programs don't even need root access to install or run on OSX. I can also lock my system preferences individually so my password is required to change them, depending on what level of security I want. This way if someone boots up my computer (which is not currently set to require a login password) they can't mess with my user accounts or file sharing, or whatever else I have locked.
I just want to make the point that the lack of viruses/trojans targeting the Mac is not because OSx is in any way "more resilient" than other OSes. It's the simple fact the a virus maker would much rather spend the time on something which targets 99% of computers rather than 1%.
So if the amount of apple computers around the world increases you will see an increase in malware targeting it.
I assumed (probably wrongly) that most people knew that, the OS is probably just as open if not more so, but as you say, it's not seen as a big target
Isn't the problem with the argument that you have to assume that there isn't a single person alive still interested in just being infamous? Writing a virus for OS X just to stick it to the assholes in turtle-necks sitting in starbucks? Unless that's true, then surely there's something more to it than just security through (relative) obscurity.
There are viruses for OSX. There have been many attempts. Very few actually manage to spread though. I don't think any of them have managed to get into root and most of them don't work anymore because a simple security update from Apple stops them from spreading. Most webservers and other important systems are UNIX based just like OSX. If you wanted to create a virus that could cause some real damage those are the computers you would want to infect.
The innards of all notebooks, mac or PC, are made by the same few companies. As I've said before, a person shouldn't expect a mac to have better/more reliable innards just because the machines are expensive. I say this to reinforce Azio's cautionary tale.
Quality of construction and chassis materials is essential though. I have a PC for gaming and heavy-duty tasks, and a MacBook Pro for school work and business - and I must say, working on the Mac is just a whole different experience. I'd do my work on my Mac ANY day over the PC. The look and feel of a Mac, the superior thumbpads and features, and the simplicity and quick accessibility of everything just makes the Mac a superior portable system, no doubt about it.
There are viruses for OSX. There have been many attempts. Very few actually manage to spread though. I don't think any of them have managed to get into root and most of them don't work anymore.
I guess what I'm asking then, is how come there haven't been any successful ones?
There are viruses for OSX. There have been many attempts. Very few actually manage to spread though. I don't think any of them have managed to get into root and most of them don't work anymore.
I guess what I'm asking then, is how come there haven't been any successful ones?
I think anti-virus measures have pretty much reached a point where the important stuff really is blocked from automated attacks. Now, you have to really actively hack a machine or find a user who will grant access to your automated attack in order to gain access because of the controls and blocks put in place by the OS companies. And that's not even figuring in the blocks that an anti-virus program would place in addition.
Back in the 80s and 90s, there were very few blocks and a simple script could really destroy your entire HDD while spreading itself around available network connections with ease. Now? Not so easy.
There are viruses for OSX. There have been many attempts. Very few actually manage to spread though. I don't think any of them have managed to get into root and most of them don't work anymore.
I guess what I'm asking then, is how come there haven't been any successful ones?
In order for a virus to be successful, it needs low level access to your system. This is called ROOT. In windows XP users ran with root access by default, so it was easy to infect something important like explorer or some other important system executable. From there the virus can control parts of the system and dig itself in.
In UNIX, even administrators don't run as root, so the systems files are always read only from the higher level systems, like finder in OSX. I can't browse to my root folders in finder and start messing with files. It wont let me unless I enter my user password. Any program that I execute is subject to the same permissions. In order to access ROOT the virus would need to prompt me for my password.
Also, most of the low level parts of OSX are open source and any serious security flaws would be very obvious and easy to find and fix. Apple's proprietary secrets are all higher level.
Windows is very different, all its low level components are closed source and there is very limited documentation describing how any of it works (because that would make reverse engineering easy)
In order for a virus to be successful, it needs low level access to your system. This is called ROOT. In windows XP users ran with root access by default, so it was easy to infect something important like explorer or some other important system executable. From there the virus can control parts of the system and dig itself in.
This is just bullshit. "Success" has to do with your goals. If a virus wants to shutdown your system and put a big laughing skull on the screen, then maybe root is the way to go. But if they actually want to steal your money/passwords email address list, all of it is freely available whether you're root, admin, or just a regular user.
In order for a virus to be successful, it needs low level access to your system. This is called ROOT. In windows XP users ran with root access by default, so it was easy to infect something important like explorer or some other important system executable. From there the virus can control parts of the system and dig itself in.
This is just bullshit. "Success" has to do with your goals. If a virus wants to shutdown your system and put a big laughing skull on the screen, then maybe root is the way to go. But if they actually want to steal your money/passwords email address list, all of it is freely available whether you're root, admin, or just a regular user.
Not necessarily; a compartmentalized security model of the sort used by (for instance) SELinux wouldn't be able to access files deemed not necessary to the program trying to access them, although that sort of thing is often a pain in the ass to set up.
but OSX doesn't have anything like that anyway so...
In order for a virus to be successful, it needs low level access to your system. This is called ROOT. In windows XP users ran with root access by default, so it was easy to infect something important like explorer or some other important system executable. From there the virus can control parts of the system and dig itself in.
This is just bullshit. "Success" has to do with your goals. If a virus wants to shutdown your system and put a big laughing skull on the screen, then maybe root is the way to go. But if they actually want to steal your money/passwords email address list, all of it is freely available whether you're root, admin, or just a regular user.
If you're perpetuating the myth that Macs are only secure from malware due to their market share you really need to sit down. All you're doing is demonstrating a severe lack of understanding for the subject matter.
The cavalcade of Windows viruses/worms in the first half of the decade can be directly attributed to bad design decisions made by Microsoft.
ILOVEYOU and Sircam exploited the fact the Microsoft thought it was a good idea for Outlook (a PIM application) to run executable files received in e-mail messages.
Blaster exploited a vulnerability in the DCOM RPC service, a service that was foolishly enabled by default just in case a desktop was running in a managed corporate environment where you might need such a service (most people do not).
Sasser exploited a vulnerability in the LSASS component which Windows uses for security policy enforcement. This is not a job that needs to listen to remote requests.
Popups and keyloggers take/took advantage of the fact Internet Explorer foolishly allows full access to ActiveX objects in order to allow early web app developers to do heavy lifting with native client side code.
These worm outbreaks did not need to happen. Microsoft made decisions based on a limited criteria and ignored a good 30 years of timesharing and security engineering. They released Windows 2000 and Windows XP with a number of default services listening on open network connections, didn't take proper security precautions with those services (principle of least privilege), and didn't properly stop their end user applications from doing stupid things. You'll notice many of these "features" have been disabled or restricted with XPSP2 and Vista. They were idiotic designs from the outset and caused all kinds of problems.
None of these sorts of exploits exist on the Mac. Safari's JavaScript engine is not tied to a system level scripting system. There's no open network services on an out of the box Mac. Even services that you can enable are pretty tightly controlled and sandboxed. You can't just magically infect every Mac on the local network like you used to be able to do with Windows. Without boneheaded system services and userland applications getting malware on a Mac is a fairly difficult thing to do. It's not impossible but inherent aspects of the OSX's design make the barrier of entry for malware writers really high.
It's not like the Mac market isn't desirable for malware writers. For information harvesting worms Macs are juicy target since they're more likely to be home machines and thus have more personal information on them. Only one in ten Windows systems is likely to be a home machine where one in ten Macs would be an office machine. In that case a information harvesting bug would be ten times more effective if it successfully infected Macs than Windows PCs. Because there's been few even remotely viable worms or viruses for OSX doesn't mean there's no impetus for people to write them.
None of this is to say Macs are invulnerable or owning a Mac means never having to worry about malware in the future. Contrary to some ridiculous comments there's no need for root access for malware to do damage. Even with restricted user access a info harvester can grab the contents of that users Address Book and Safari/Firefox cookies. An app can also add itself to a user's login items or create a local launchd agent so it will run at login. This would be useful for some sort of botnet worm. None of this however allows for the massive malware infections still seen on Windows systems. Users can do boneheaded things and get infected but as I described above, automatic spreading on Mac malware is an extremely difficult task.
Windows created a perfect storm for malware. It was deployed widely and had a number of bad design decisions. A huge number of home users were installing what was essentially a workstation OS meant to run in large managed environments. As soon as these systems saw direct internet access all hell broke loose. There's tens of millions of Mac users and virtually no worms or viruses in the wild. It is incorrect to think that this is only due to a relatively low market share. The number of Symbian installations is enormous yet there's few if any widely propagating worms for the platform. By the market share logic Symbian devices should be a cesspool of malware. In reality Symbian simply offers a small infection cross section and thus sees few infections. Likewise OSX has a small malware infection cross section and also sees few infections. Vista reduced its cross section by eliminating some of the more ridiculous security faux pas and lo and behold sees fewer malware infections than Windows XP.
Vista is well on it's way to spreading malware itself aparently people have allready mananged to write scripts that can bypass windows defender and run excecutables at the root level. All this can happen simply from visiting a webpage.
The other thing to mention on Unix/Linux (As said before in this thread Apple OS's fall in this category) based systems vs Windows is the fact that Windows security is one giant umbrella where the others use what is referred to as an "onion" system. IE it has a ton of layers, thus even if you are successful at compromising one component in those systems, it's hard to spread because of multiple other layers of security in place on the system.
As far as Mac and don't go back... all I have to say is this: it amazes me how a significant portion of the Apple fans rag on "M$" for how they are greedy bastards and what not, yet Apple is one of the most overpriced companies out there and are just as, if not more, draconian as Microsoft.
If you want the best of both worlds, do a little homework researching how a certain notebook gets along with Linux, buy one and install Linux. Mileage will definitely vary, I have an Asus Laptop that is a great machine, but about half the components do not get along well with Linux (My wired NIC, soundcard, and at first my video card did not work). I'm waiting for SuSE 11 (Entereprise, we are a Novell shop) to be released to see if the new Kernal likes my system better. I do know that HP does REAL well with Linux, and Dell isn't too bad (I would say they do great, but newer Dells are worse than my ASUS). IBM is another great laptop for Linux and are built like tanks (pricey tho I believe).
For what you want Linux will do fine everything OSX will do. Crossover or Wine (if your cheap) enable you to play WoW and other mainstream games on a Linux box. Firefox is a great browser.
As far as Vista goes, I have had hardly any issues with it, outside of my Novell services such as Groupwise and Ifolder who use symias not getting along at all with Vista (The OS on my laptop by default). The only biggies are the networking interface is really different than XP and I've had difficulties hooking up to Wi-Fi networks before. And adding to the whole "how they handle root" thing is they now have the true Admin account hidden, which is fine for true end users, but when I was trying to redo symias it was a pain trying to figure out how to get Root "unhidden".
Apple is one of the most overpriced companies out there and are just as, if not more, draconian as Microsoft.
It depends on what you consider 'draconian'. Consider that OSX has no CD Keys or Activation. There is no software that checks up on you to make sure your a licensed user, and Apple has stated that they will not actively try to stop hacked/pirated copies of OSX through updates. On the other hand Vista has WGA which spies on you to make sure your legit, which is a hassle and waste of system resources.
Never mind the fact that Mac users are generally happy with the product Apple provides and as such are more willing to put up with their transgressions than they are of Microsoft (whose products they tend to despise).
To be fair, though, Apple would be a far worse monopolist than Microsoft has been as of late if their roles were reversed.
Never mind the fact that Mac users are generally happy with the product Apple provides and as such are more willing to put up with their transgressions than they are of Microsoft (whose products they tend to despise).
To be fair, though, Apple would be a far worse monopolist than Microsoft has been as of late if their roles were reversed.
I've found that people who hate Windows just don't get it, and vice versa. When my mac-religious friends watch me do stuff on my PC they soon lose their hatred of such things. And the PC-gaming fanatics who hate mac love using my Macbook for browsing/school work. It's a mutual lack of understanding that perpetuates these stereotypes.
No, I use Windows a whole lot and I still dislike it. There's no misunderstanding, the basic building blocks of its user experience grate on my nerves. Properties boxes holding functionality (not just information like they should), menu bar pinned to the windows, the unwieldy windowing system the encourages maximization, dialogs with buttons labels that are not actions, forcing me to read the message so I know what I'm saying Yes, No, or Cancel to. The tray notifications that you can never seem to turn off entirely. The transgressions go on.
However, I don't go around talking loudly about how it's the worst OS ever, because it's very obviously not. It's stable, it's got tons of games and software, and it runs C# with WPF, arguably the nicest language-API set ever for rapid prototyping.
No, I use Windows a whole lot and I still dislike it. There's no misunderstanding, the basic building blocks of its user experience grate on my nerves. Properties boxes holding functionality (not just information like they should), menu bar pinned to the windows, the unwieldy windowing system the encourages maximization, dialogs with buttons labels that are not actions, forcing me to read the message so I know what I'm saying Yes, No, or Cancel to. The tray notifications that you can never seem to turn off entirely. The transgressions go on.
However, I don't go around talking loudly about how it's the worst OS ever, because it's very obviously not. It's stable, it's got tons of games and software, and it runs C# with WPF, arguably the nicest language-API set ever for rapid prototyping.
Anecdotal dislikes vs. grated-in stereotypes with no experience.
Apple is one of the most overpriced companies out there and are just as, if not more, draconian as Microsoft.
It depends on what you consider 'draconian'. Consider that OSX has no CD Keys or Activation. There is no software that checks up on you to make sure your a licensed user, and Apple has stated that they will not actively try to stop hacked/pirated copies of OSX through updates. On the other hand Vista has WGA which spies on you to make sure your legit, which is a hassle and waste of system resources.
Apple has many times released updates that break custom user interfaces and bricked iPhones that were hacked via update.
Apple is not some saintly company that trusts its consumers, they just don't care about some things(e.g. the most half-assed DRM ever in iTunes), or keep tabs on things in some other way. I mean... how bad of a problem is pirated OSX? People who use OSX are running it on Apple computers.
I mean... how bad of a problem is pirated OSX? People who use OSX are running it on Apple computers.
Until I grew up and had money I got all my OS X upgrades by grabbing somebody else's CD and hitting "copy" in Toast.
I've never had too much trouble with Windows' activation schemes except when attempting to violate the EULA so I'm not inclined to bitch too much, and I don't think WGA is something that runs all the time in the background.
I find Windows' twenty different versions to be far more irritating tbqh.
I find Windows' twenty different versions to be far more irritating tbqh.
Ok, seriously?
We were avoiding stupid generalizations in this thread for a while.. If you shouldn't be running Vista, but want to spend money, you get Home Basic, if you want Vista for your home computer, you get Home Premium. If you have Vista at work, you get Business, and if you want to do media stuff and have everything, you get Ultimate. It really isn't that hard.
If it is really that hard, I hear there's plenty of copies of Vista AIDS..
I find Windows' twenty different versions to be far more irritating tbqh.
Ok, seriously?
We were avoiding stupid generalizations in this thread for a while.. If you shouldn't be running Vista, but want to spend money, you get Home Basic, if you want Vista for your home computer, you get Home Premium. If you have Vista at work, you get Business, and if you want to do media stuff and have everything, you get Ultimate. It really isn't that hard.
Yeah but why do I have to pay $60 extra for a fully functional version of the OS? Some of the shit that you have to pay extra for is even pretty basic stuff that most people would be used to seeing in the OS by now.
OS X not only costs significantly less, but there's really only the one version. If you count OS X Server, well that's fine, but it makes sense that Server is different as it's tailored towards a very specific end and it's not like MS doesn't also offer additional server oriented OSes either.
I'm not sure that adding the ability to fax or scan qualifies as tailoring the OS towards business, it's more like gimping the standard version of the OS, and then charging extra for basic functionality, on top of an already inflated purchase price.
I guess with a development cycle as long as Vista's they need to recoup some of those costs, but it's still kind of a dick move.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
The US and EU would be so far up Microsoft's ass if consumers were forced to purchase stuff like AD connectivity, even if the price was reduced. The editions aren't a choice.
Vista is well on it's way to spreading malware itself aparently people have allready mananged to write scripts that can bypass windows defender and run excecutables at the root level. All this can happen simply from visiting a webpage.
The US and EU would be so far up Microsoft's ass if consumers were forced to purchase stuff like AD connectivity, even if the price was reduced. The editions aren't a choice.
Funny. OSX (and Linux IIRC) can connect to Active Directory out of the box. The ability to connect to a server is nothing like bundling IE. It's not like anyone has forced MS to remove Explorer, anyway.
The US and EU would be so far up Microsoft's ass if consumers were forced to purchase stuff like AD connectivity, even if the price was reduced. The editions aren't a choice.
Vista is well on it's way to spreading malware itself aparently people have allready mananged to write scripts that can bypass windows defender and run excecutables at the root level. All this can happen simply from visiting a webpage.
I hadn't heard about this; links?
There is no fucking way he has a link to back that up.
Posts
As for Windows versus Mac OS? They are very different in some ways. I find Mac OS is quite a bit quicker than Vista on the same hardware. This is probably because Mac OS doesn't have to run as much software in the background. Anti-virus software eats up a ton of performance. I have never seen a Virus / Trojan on OSX.
There is lots of great software for both Windows and Mac. Blizzard has a long history of supporting Apple.
Where I think Mac OS really excels is in matters of reliability and ease of use. For example, macs have no MBR, so you don't have to worry about getting into a situation where your computer can't boot because of a bad boot record or corrupt boot loader. No defragging or other maintenance is required. You can partition your hard drive without rebooting (this includes resizing the partition your OS is running on). Reinstalling the OS could not be any easier. There are no drivers to deal with during setup (though some external peripherals require them) and it automatically makes backups of all your files in another folder if your doing a clean install.
IIRC:
Since the release of the first Intel Mac it was a race to see who could beat windows first. An Open source project was actually the first to do it. But it was a convoluted process and not for the faint-hearted. Then about two days later, Apple released the Bootcamp beta. Now Bootcamp is built into Leopard. Bootcamp itself was never an Open Source hack; it has always been an Apple program. I'm guessing they had it ready when the Intel mac was released but held off until the hackers proved you could boot Windows.
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
Ah, I am just remembering watching the guys booting up Windows on it before Apple came out with bootcamp. Fun times, fun times..
What are you paying for a policy that covers mysterious disappearances with just a $300 deductible?
On principle? I don't get that. I mean, Toyota makes reliable cars, but I'm sure as hell making sure my next one is warrantied nicely. I rarely think twice about spending an extra 10% or so to warranty my laptops. That should hold true regardless of the manufacturer. I get that some people can't afford the warranty on top of the cost of a laptop, and if that's your argument, fine. But if you can afford it easily, why not? You're covered from any unforeseen hardware goblins for 3 years, and even if you don't keep the machine that long, having an intact warranty adds a fair bit to the resale value.
The truth of the matter is that all the hardware originates from the same places. It all breaks sometimes, but it all works most of the time. It's just a matter of whether you're willing to gamble that you won't be one of the unlucky few. I don't like gambling, especially on a machine that runs my business AND houses most of my recreation stuff.
So if the amount of apple computers around the world increases you will see an increase in malware targeting it.
It's not really gambling if you just go with the normal warranty. You will know if it's bad hardware the second you try to turn it on. After that if you know how to not spill soda on the thing the extended really isn't necessary. And heck even if you do have vital information on the computer it's really not that hard to remove the harddrive and plug it into a working computer to extricate what you need if it fails later.
I assumed (probably wrongly) that most people knew that, the OS is probably just as open if not more so, but as you say, it's not seen as a big target
Isn't the problem with the argument that you have to assume that there isn't a single person alive still interested in just being infamous? Writing a virus for OS X just to stick it to the assholes in turtle-necks sitting in starbucks? Unless that's true, then surely there's something more to it than just security through (relative) obscurity.
Umm, not exactly. In OSX as an administrator I have full access to make changes to my files and programs but I still don't have ROOT access. To make a system change I have to type in my password, kinda like SUDO in Debian Linux. Many programs don't even need root access to install or run on OSX. I can also lock my system preferences individually so my password is required to change them, depending on what level of security I want. This way if someone boots up my computer (which is not currently set to require a login password) they can't mess with my user accounts or file sharing, or whatever else I have locked.
There are viruses for OSX. There have been many attempts. Very few actually manage to spread though. I don't think any of them have managed to get into root and most of them don't work anymore because a simple security update from Apple stops them from spreading. Most webservers and other important systems are UNIX based just like OSX. If you wanted to create a virus that could cause some real damage those are the computers you would want to infect.
Quality of construction and chassis materials is essential though. I have a PC for gaming and heavy-duty tasks, and a MacBook Pro for school work and business - and I must say, working on the Mac is just a whole different experience. I'd do my work on my Mac ANY day over the PC. The look and feel of a Mac, the superior thumbpads and features, and the simplicity and quick accessibility of everything just makes the Mac a superior portable system, no doubt about it.
I guess what I'm asking then, is how come there haven't been any successful ones?
I think anti-virus measures have pretty much reached a point where the important stuff really is blocked from automated attacks. Now, you have to really actively hack a machine or find a user who will grant access to your automated attack in order to gain access because of the controls and blocks put in place by the OS companies. And that's not even figuring in the blocks that an anti-virus program would place in addition.
Back in the 80s and 90s, there were very few blocks and a simple script could really destroy your entire HDD while spreading itself around available network connections with ease. Now? Not so easy.
In order for a virus to be successful, it needs low level access to your system. This is called ROOT. In windows XP users ran with root access by default, so it was easy to infect something important like explorer or some other important system executable. From there the virus can control parts of the system and dig itself in.
In UNIX, even administrators don't run as root, so the systems files are always read only from the higher level systems, like finder in OSX. I can't browse to my root folders in finder and start messing with files. It wont let me unless I enter my user password. Any program that I execute is subject to the same permissions. In order to access ROOT the virus would need to prompt me for my password.
Also, most of the low level parts of OSX are open source and any serious security flaws would be very obvious and easy to find and fix. Apple's proprietary secrets are all higher level.
Windows is very different, all its low level components are closed source and there is very limited documentation describing how any of it works (because that would make reverse engineering easy)
Not necessarily; a compartmentalized security model of the sort used by (for instance) SELinux wouldn't be able to access files deemed not necessary to the program trying to access them, although that sort of thing is often a pain in the ass to set up.
but OSX doesn't have anything like that anyway so...
So, why doesn't that happen either?
The cavalcade of Windows viruses/worms in the first half of the decade can be directly attributed to bad design decisions made by Microsoft.
- ILOVEYOU and Sircam exploited the fact the Microsoft thought it was a good idea for Outlook (a PIM application) to run executable files received in e-mail messages.
- Blaster exploited a vulnerability in the DCOM RPC service, a service that was foolishly enabled by default just in case a desktop was running in a managed corporate environment where you might need such a service (most people do not).
- Sasser exploited a vulnerability in the LSASS component which Windows uses for security policy enforcement. This is not a job that needs to listen to remote requests.
- Popups and keyloggers take/took advantage of the fact Internet Explorer foolishly allows full access to ActiveX objects in order to allow early web app developers to do heavy lifting with native client side code.
These worm outbreaks did not need to happen. Microsoft made decisions based on a limited criteria and ignored a good 30 years of timesharing and security engineering. They released Windows 2000 and Windows XP with a number of default services listening on open network connections, didn't take proper security precautions with those services (principle of least privilege), and didn't properly stop their end user applications from doing stupid things. You'll notice many of these "features" have been disabled or restricted with XPSP2 and Vista. They were idiotic designs from the outset and caused all kinds of problems.None of these sorts of exploits exist on the Mac. Safari's JavaScript engine is not tied to a system level scripting system. There's no open network services on an out of the box Mac. Even services that you can enable are pretty tightly controlled and sandboxed. You can't just magically infect every Mac on the local network like you used to be able to do with Windows. Without boneheaded system services and userland applications getting malware on a Mac is a fairly difficult thing to do. It's not impossible but inherent aspects of the OSX's design make the barrier of entry for malware writers really high.
It's not like the Mac market isn't desirable for malware writers. For information harvesting worms Macs are juicy target since they're more likely to be home machines and thus have more personal information on them. Only one in ten Windows systems is likely to be a home machine where one in ten Macs would be an office machine. In that case a information harvesting bug would be ten times more effective if it successfully infected Macs than Windows PCs. Because there's been few even remotely viable worms or viruses for OSX doesn't mean there's no impetus for people to write them.
None of this is to say Macs are invulnerable or owning a Mac means never having to worry about malware in the future. Contrary to some ridiculous comments there's no need for root access for malware to do damage. Even with restricted user access a info harvester can grab the contents of that users Address Book and Safari/Firefox cookies. An app can also add itself to a user's login items or create a local launchd agent so it will run at login. This would be useful for some sort of botnet worm. None of this however allows for the massive malware infections still seen on Windows systems. Users can do boneheaded things and get infected but as I described above, automatic spreading on Mac malware is an extremely difficult task.
Windows created a perfect storm for malware. It was deployed widely and had a number of bad design decisions. A huge number of home users were installing what was essentially a workstation OS meant to run in large managed environments. As soon as these systems saw direct internet access all hell broke loose. There's tens of millions of Mac users and virtually no worms or viruses in the wild. It is incorrect to think that this is only due to a relatively low market share. The number of Symbian installations is enormous yet there's few if any widely propagating worms for the platform. By the market share logic Symbian devices should be a cesspool of malware. In reality Symbian simply offers a small infection cross section and thus sees few infections. Likewise OSX has a small malware infection cross section and also sees few infections. Vista reduced its cross section by eliminating some of the more ridiculous security faux pas and lo and behold sees fewer malware infections than Windows XP.
As far as Mac and don't go back... all I have to say is this: it amazes me how a significant portion of the Apple fans rag on "M$" for how they are greedy bastards and what not, yet Apple is one of the most overpriced companies out there and are just as, if not more, draconian as Microsoft.
If you want the best of both worlds, do a little homework researching how a certain notebook gets along with Linux, buy one and install Linux. Mileage will definitely vary, I have an Asus Laptop that is a great machine, but about half the components do not get along well with Linux (My wired NIC, soundcard, and at first my video card did not work). I'm waiting for SuSE 11 (Entereprise, we are a Novell shop) to be released to see if the new Kernal likes my system better. I do know that HP does REAL well with Linux, and Dell isn't too bad (I would say they do great, but newer Dells are worse than my ASUS). IBM is another great laptop for Linux and are built like tanks (pricey tho I believe).
For what you want Linux will do fine everything OSX will do. Crossover or Wine (if your cheap) enable you to play WoW and other mainstream games on a Linux box. Firefox is a great browser.
As far as Vista goes, I have had hardly any issues with it, outside of my Novell services such as Groupwise and Ifolder who use symias not getting along at all with Vista (The OS on my laptop by default). The only biggies are the networking interface is really different than XP and I've had difficulties hooking up to Wi-Fi networks before. And adding to the whole "how they handle root" thing is they now have the true Admin account hidden, which is fine for true end users, but when I was trying to redo symias it was a pain trying to figure out how to get Root "unhidden".
It depends on what you consider 'draconian'. Consider that OSX has no CD Keys or Activation. There is no software that checks up on you to make sure your a licensed user, and Apple has stated that they will not actively try to stop hacked/pirated copies of OSX through updates. On the other hand Vista has WGA which spies on you to make sure your legit, which is a hassle and waste of system resources.
To be fair, though, Apple would be a far worse monopolist than Microsoft has been as of late if their roles were reversed.
I've found that people who hate Windows just don't get it, and vice versa. When my mac-religious friends watch me do stuff on my PC they soon lose their hatred of such things. And the PC-gaming fanatics who hate mac love using my Macbook for browsing/school work. It's a mutual lack of understanding that perpetuates these stereotypes.
However, I don't go around talking loudly about how it's the worst OS ever, because it's very obviously not. It's stable, it's got tons of games and software, and it runs C# with WPF, arguably the nicest language-API set ever for rapid prototyping.
Anecdotal dislikes vs. grated-in stereotypes with no experience.
Yours are understandable. It's the latter I hate.
Apple has many times released updates that break custom user interfaces and bricked iPhones that were hacked via update.
Apple is not some saintly company that trusts its consumers, they just don't care about some things(e.g. the most half-assed DRM ever in iTunes), or keep tabs on things in some other way. I mean... how bad of a problem is pirated OSX? People who use OSX are running it on Apple computers.
Read it, its not what you think.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_apple
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
Until I grew up and had money I got all my OS X upgrades by grabbing somebody else's CD and hitting "copy" in Toast.
I've never had too much trouble with Windows' activation schemes except when attempting to violate the EULA so I'm not inclined to bitch too much, and I don't think WGA is something that runs all the time in the background.
I find Windows' twenty different versions to be far more irritating tbqh.
Ok, seriously?
We were avoiding stupid generalizations in this thread for a while.. If you shouldn't be running Vista, but want to spend money, you get Home Basic, if you want Vista for your home computer, you get Home Premium. If you have Vista at work, you get Business, and if you want to do media stuff and have everything, you get Ultimate. It really isn't that hard.
If it is really that hard, I hear there's plenty of copies of Vista AIDS..
(I really hope you were being sarcastic)
Yeah but why do I have to pay $60 extra for a fully functional version of the OS? Some of the shit that you have to pay extra for is even pretty basic stuff that most people would be used to seeing in the OS by now.
OS X not only costs significantly less, but there's really only the one version. If you count OS X Server, well that's fine, but it makes sense that Server is different as it's tailored towards a very specific end and it's not like MS doesn't also offer additional server oriented OSes either.
I'm not sure that adding the ability to fax or scan qualifies as tailoring the OS towards business, it's more like gimping the standard version of the OS, and then charging extra for basic functionality, on top of an already inflated purchase price.
I guess with a development cycle as long as Vista's they need to recoup some of those costs, but it's still kind of a dick move.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I hadn't heard about this; links?
Funny. OSX (and Linux IIRC) can connect to Active Directory out of the box. The ability to connect to a server is nothing like bundling IE. It's not like anyone has forced MS to remove Explorer, anyway.
There is no fucking way he has a link to back that up.