You really think paying $130 and upgrading to the latest operating system is going to stop your mom from having problems with her computer?
I've been led to believe that the first two or three revisions of OS X had many more problems than current iterations. I'd either examine that in more detail or suggest a new device if I was making an actual suggestion.
I'd say it's better to just wait until she actually needs a new computer. Upgrading may or may not solve the problem -- all we can be sure of is that it will cost over a hundred dollars. And frankly, Leopard has its own share of issues so even if the problem does go away it will just be replaced with a half-dozen new ones.
My dad is 71 and despite using windows for 10 years I got him to buy a macbook. I still get calls, but a good deal less than when he used windows, despite him having to learn things again, because they're done in a more intuitive manner. When he can't figure something out, I just use ichat to remotely access his desktop, rather than having to go round.
Buying a Macbook was the worst thing I ever told my dad to do, and he's a photographer. Hates the thing. Part of it is that he doesn't like laptops in general, but he also despises Apple software and would sooner wait for his old single-core Athlon desktop to choke down 12MP RAWs than have to deal with OS X.
If Apple had used a good display or a faster chip, it might have worked out. But this is the original Core Duo Macbook we're talking about. It was a poor choice.
I don't understand why OS X is said to be objectively more intuitive than Windows or Linux. I've heard all the usual anecdotal stuff, but you guys are generally a classier lot than all that; any links, books, or articles you can refer me to?
I found it helps to have a mouse with like 8 buttons because Macs are great when it comes to customized hot-keys for navigation. Though thats really because visually a lot of the navigation buttons arent on the damn screen like they are on windows. Still, its good stuff.
Prohass on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I don't understand why OS X is said to be objectively more intuitive than Windows or Linux. I've heard all the usual anecdotal stuff, but you guys are generally a classier lot than all that; any links, books, or articles you can refer me to?
The only thing that has some kind of statistical improvement over windows is the menu bar at the top of the screen, as opposed to being bound to the window. Something like a fivefold increase in the amount of time needed to do menu bar mouseclicks on windows than osx, even amongst people proficient on both.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I don't understand why OS X is said to be objectively more intuitive than Windows or Linux. I've heard all the usual anecdotal stuff, but you guys are generally a classier lot than all that; any links, books, or articles you can refer me to?
Has to do with third party software. Apple (and Mac programmers) are much more zealously aware of user interface conventions than Microsoft. I would actually venture so far as to say Windows makes more sense at first (document-centric takes a little while to get the hang of for a non-computer person), but since every fucking program (including Microsoft's) is totally different it hardly matters. Whereas with a new program in OS X there's a whole boat load of stuff that I start off knowing about it, and if that's not the case the users tend to tell the developer to fuck off.
OS X and its API's also do a better job of supporting some powerful user experience technologies than windows (and especially Linux) which can really have some very pleasing results. For example, drag and drop in OS X is way beyond any other platform. But because people don't really expect it to work, they don't often try it out. (Try it! There are some nice surprises here and there.)
Other minor things, like program installation/uninstallation simplicity, or lack of a registry and apps constantly installing themselves to run at startup without saying anything, help keep my blood pressure down too.
But, it needs to be said that iPhoto is a piece of shit.
If you install a program in Windows its like "Me, me, me me me me me me me me." Shortcut to the desktop, shortcut to the start menu groups (with the Enterprise as folder name of course), and then most likely an applet in the taskbar info window, which runs at startup. If it comes to interface most programers cast the UI conventions right out the window (sorry bad word phun not intended, but even Windows has some I believe, at least they have a several page guide for their icons) along with the common sense. I would like to see one third party program which doesn't include a re-skinned standard element.
No saying that OSX doesn't have its quirks - Apple also ignores some of its UI conventions (Hi Mr. pdf button in print dialogue which call up a menu; or the different styles of pro apps). At least they routed the different styles out in 10.5 (Good, finally the classic brushed metal shit is gone). - The best thing about OSX is that most apps, or the OS itself don't bury important options several layers deep. I just configured my Parallels install of Windows XP and its often following hair pulling process: option - new window - click on new option - new window - click on other option - window at top of this wind + dialog box. Sometimes you have to drill like 4 levels deep and insanely clutter your screen in the process (I am looking at you Network and Connection settings).
If you install a program in Windows its like "Me, me, me me me me me me me me." Shortcut to the desktop
Do you know how many people drag the icon from the start menu to the desktop if the program doesn't create one there? Personally, I love having absolutely nothing on my desktop, but just about every computer I see (working on-site tech support for 1,000s of computers, PC and Mac) that other people use regularly has every one of their programs icons dragged onto the desktop in some sort of ritual arrangement that they have figured out.
But technically, this is all third-party problems that you point out and has nothing to do with Windows other than MS doesn't hold an iron fist over development for Windows. Some programs are very good and don't prompt a UAC in Vista and don't install all this extra stuff or give you the option while installing, others are like their own little virii that love to install themselves EVERYWHERE (I'm looking at YOU, Adobe Acrobat! - did I tell you to install your own little IE bar? NO.).
Personally, and this is probably more due to using Windows for years and having very little experience on OSX, but I find Windows more intuitive, new versions and new software included. Whenever I get on my sister's or brother-in-law's macbooks I generally can never find what I'm looking for unless it's on the Dock. Nothing seems to work the way I would expect it to. But to a user who's never used either, I have no idea. I think it's pretty subjective and to really be able to claim one or the other is better just seems like spin.
Meh, 'Intuitiveness' is overrated. It usually just means you're more familiar with one OS rather than another.
This is why I asked, as I've never really seen it proven otherwise. Human beings being what we are, I've always loosely assumed that app or doc-centric models might offer different benefits to different people.
For my part, I tend to be content with any OS that gives me three or more entirely separate ways to do any given thing. Mouseclicking or taskbar buttons are superior when I'm reclining more and doing passive work like webpages, while hotkeys are, of course, superior when I'm already typing something else. Super-accessible and speedy search does change this, a bit, as I can type the name of a document or program without having to look at what I'm doing. Being able to visually access an object from any given spot is a plus too. And I generally loathe drag and drop *except* when moving or attaching documents.
I hate having stuff on the desktop too, though it tends to build up at work (just like my actual desktop).
Maybe my response gave the wrong impression - usually I don't judge people based how they organize their files on their PC. I also use my desktop as drop-box for files which are work in progress - In my case, all of them land in their respective folders, after the work is done. - I also have no problems putting links etc. on the desktop for apps which are in regularly use.
The problem with Windows is that nearly every fricking install routine in this OS creates a shortcut by default and I am sick and tired cleaning after it. It seems that the only exception are install routines of free apps which allow you skip the creation of start menu items, plus most of them allow the regulation of file associations _during_ the install.
Windows is littered with bad design decisions and most third party applications don't lighten the case. One reason is that average John Blow computer user doesn't give a shit.
One bad example I encountered: Outlook rules and alerts dialog won't even let you move the main window of the program out of the way once its open. No, you have to close the dialog first and then you can interact with window in the background. Want to read the newly arrived email? Nope. Want to enter an entry into the calender because an important issue just popped up? Nope. Finish your goddam rules or skip everything you were doing in this window in order to interact with application.
OSX solves this issue much better - you still cannot interact with the disabled interface elements, but you are still able to move it out of the way at least. Most application have free floating option and toolbar windows because its just stupid to restrict your productivity just because you decided to tweak the application to your preference.
I appreciate the zealot UI design approach in OSX much more, and even the negative reactions the developer get if they ignore it.
Of course, as said OSX isn't without flaws. See the myriad of different UI styles in 10.4 for example.
edit: I rate intuitiveness in the amount of steps/tries I have to do in order to complete something, and if I have to consult a manual/faq etc. etc in order accomplish it.
edit2: corrected spelling and wording so this post makes actually sense
Another thing I would like to point out, in Mac OSX you can move applications while they are running. This is really handy if I download an app and want to try it out before I install it. I can simply run it from the disk image and if I like it I can copy it to the hard drive without exiting and restarting the program.
Another thing I really like is how applications are packaged. Its very easy to backup an app or share with another mac instead of having to download again (assuming the download is still available)
One of the coolest features I discovered is how Quicklook works. If you are browsing through a folder with media/documents or whatever you can instantly preview them by pressing space bar. The really cool part however is that you can move the preview window aside or to another monitor (if you have dual display). When open, it will instantly preview any file you select with the mouse or keyboard, in any folder. This is probably the most productive method of browsing/previewing files that I have ever seen. You can add support for additional video formats with quicktime plugins.
Want to take a screen shot from a video? Drag a frame from whatever video you have open in Quicklook and drop it into word/open office or photo shop.
Good point. Better rely on ancient Microsoft vulnerabilities and specious arguments about the profitability of writing malware for 10% of all systems.
Count the number of unpatched Windows XP vulnerabilities and count the number of unpatched OS X 10.1 vulnerabilities, and compare the average time from exploit to patch.
And the argument that OS X is safer isn't just relevant to the unlikelihood of someone wanting to code against it, it's related solely to the difficulty inherent in doing so in an effective manner (and the ability for the code to propagate itself, or propagate rapidly IS part of being an effective piece of malware).
Oh you mean like in this paper? Or this comparison? Oh hey look, Vista has fewer unpatched vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk.
And yes, I agree that if you're running an unpopular OS, of course you're going to be safer from malware. But my point is that OSX isn't coded any better security-wise than Windows; it only benefits from being obscure.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Good point. Better rely on ancient Microsoft vulnerabilities and specious arguments about the profitability of writing malware for 10% of all systems.
Count the number of unpatched Windows XP vulnerabilities and count the number of unpatched OS X 10.1 vulnerabilities, and compare the average time from exploit to patch.
And the argument that OS X is safer isn't just relevant to the unlikelihood of someone wanting to code against it, it's related solely to the difficulty inherent in doing so in an effective manner (and the ability for the code to propagate itself, or propagate rapidly IS part of being an effective piece of malware).
Oh you mean like in this paper? Or this comparison? Oh hey look, Vista has fewer unpatched vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk.
And yes, I agree that if you're running an unpopular OS, of course you're going to be safer from malware. But my point is that OSX isn't coded any better security-wise than Windows; it only benefits from being obscure.
That is an amazingly stupid position. If you knew anything at all about the subject you would not be making such asinine comments which says you me you know jack shit about computer security or programming and Jack just left town. As I pointed out long ago Windows XP had a number of horrible design decisions which led to it being easily compromised by malware. These vulnerabilities are germane to discussions of Windows 7 and Vista because the vulnerabilities weren't entirely the result of bugs but design decisions from Microsoft. When the architecture of a system is insecure you're fighting with one arm tied behind your back.
Vista's better security track record is the result of Microsoft learning from XP's problems and an active attempt to reduce the attack surface of the OS in general. One of the biggest changes they made was not making the default user synonymous with the administrator. Vista actually creates a real user account during the installation process where XP simply had you set a password for the system administrator account. This one change has eliminated an attack vector for a number of different worms that need administrator privileges to alter system files. Like XPSP1 it also shipped with the firewall enabled by default removing the opportunity for promiscuous network worms to infect systems. Neither of these two features resolved any underlying design issues, they are simply common sense security measures that Windows 2000 should have had when it was released. Instead it took six years and five Windows releases to figure out, much to the chagrin of millions of Windows users.
MacOS X since March 2001 has created a non-root user account during the initial setup. This user is in the administrator group and can install applications and mess with the /System folder but these sorts of things pop up an authentication dialog. This user is also not given full root access which means they can't run apps that open ports below 1024 and can't mess with system files without authorization. Also since March 2001 the system has shipped out of the box with no daemons listening on external network ports. Some systems listen on localhost but not on the public IP of the machine. This means even without a firewall enabled by default there's no services to connect to and exploit out of the box. Neither of these features have anything at all to do with the OS' popularity, they're design decisions that have been around since the NeXTStep days. Mail has never executed files sent in e-mail messages just by clicking on them. In Leopard Mail and Safari flag downloaded files with a file system attribute. When that file is opened that attribute is checked and if the file is executable or contains an executable a warning is generated telling you it came from the internet.
If you're going to keep banging the obscurity drum you need to know it makes you look like a complete buffoon.
Regardless of all the bickering in this thread, when you buy computer hardware, you need to shop for just that, hardware. Mac hardware, despite being the same intel/nvidia hardware as PCs have, costs TWICE AS MUCH!
algorythym on
Someone let me algorhythm (steve_0990) into the PA Steam group
While I agree that it's "overpriced", it's already been brought up and Mac's do come with a lot of extra software and depending on what software you need to use, may be necessary. Plus it has things you don't usually find in the cheaper PC market, like LED backlighting and multitouch touchpads.
I think this thread has gone in circles a few times already..
ArcSyn on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited January 2009
I will bet you dollars to donuts that the screen on the acer sucks in comparison, the case is made out of flimsy plastic, the machine sounds like a jet taking off when it is mildly stressed, and the trackpad sucks... and you would have to do a fair bit of pirating / downloading to keep that pricepoint where it is and match the software / security featureset.
Nobody is arguing that a mac laptop is a luxury item (at least I don't THINK they are), but its not as if all of that money goes into the backlit logo on the back of the display... the 17" MBP is the first laptop I have ever owned that is as solid as it was the day I bought it one year in, and I am a bastard to my computers.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I will bet you dollars to donuts that the screen on the acer sucks in comparison, the case is made out of flimsy plastic, the machine sounds like a jet taking off when it is mildly stressed, and the trackpad sucks... and you would have to do a fair bit of pirating / downloading to keep that pricepoint where it is and match the software / security featureset.
Nobody is arguing that a mac laptop is a luxury item (at least I don't THINK they are), but its not as if all of that money goes into the backlit logo on the back of the display... the 17" MBP is the first laptop I have ever owned that is as solid as it was the day I bought it one year in, and I am a bastard to my computers.
I have a similar ASUS (no Acer) and the screen is decent and the trackpad is okay (has scroll-bars and tap-to-click) It is VERY quiet, but obv the macbook is as well, and I haven't paid a cent for programs other than games. Have Open Office 3 suite, Firefox, Songbird, Paint.net, etc...
8-)
algorythym on
Someone let me algorhythm (steve_0990) into the PA Steam group
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited January 2009
"Screen is decent" is a big step away from "screen is so unbelievably bright and vibrant that the highest setting causes melanomas."
There are areas in which said asus (oops on my part) skimps compared tot he MBP. It is an unfair comparison to go purely on stats.... just like it is to compare a 1080p hdtv at wal-mart and a pioneer elite 1080p set at advanced A/V. Sure, they both do 1920x1080 content, but there is a difference beyond that one metric.
edit: but of course, the Asus is a great product in its price range. Price needs to be a factor in any system you buy; weigh against your budget... but if you can afford one of the newer macbook pros and it won't put a hurt on you, get one. They are better machines.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I will bet you dollars to donuts that the screen on the acer sucks in comparison, the case is made out of flimsy plastic, the machine sounds like a jet taking off when it is mildly stressed, and the trackpad sucks... and you would have to do a fair bit of pirating / downloading to keep that pricepoint where it is and match the software / security featureset.
Nobody is arguing that a mac laptop is a luxury item (at least I don't THINK they are), but its not as if all of that money goes into the backlit logo on the back of the display... the 17" MBP is the first laptop I have ever owned that is as solid as it was the day I bought it one year in, and I am a bastard to my computers.
My brother bought an Asus at the same time as I bought my MBP and, well,
number of times MacBook Pro has needed repairs: four
number of times Asus has needed repairs: zero
The MacBook is also significantly noisier than the Asus under load. And in Windows at least, the trackpad is virtually unusable thanks to Apple's horrid Boot Camp drivers.
I use a new alum macbook with drivers loaded off the leopard discs and I have no issues on windows. Of course, I do use a mouse when gaming (though would you really use anything else).
Since when were macbook screens gods gift to mankind? Man, it's always something. I don't know why people argue this point, because they won't argue facts with you. It's ideas, and opinions, and anecdotes, and hyperbole.
I mean led screens are bright, sure. I guess it would be nice to have settings higher then you would ever usually use.
Honestly I think MacOS and Linux screw over Windows from both ends like a horribly misogynistic porno. The Windows argument against Linux is user-friendliness, which Mac trumps, and the Windows argument against Mac is user freedom, which Linux trumps. Honestly the only use for Windows in a home environment (at all) is for gaming and possibly CAD software. Apart from that there is nothing it can do that can't be handled better by the other OSes.
I would be perfectly comfortable recommending Linux netbooks and Ubuntu desktops to any relatively tech-savvy friends and Macbooks to anyone else.
Not really, since that would imply that it does better than either OS at... something that averages it out.
Or that its user friendly while still allowing quite a bit of user freedom. Frankly though, I think you'd be hard pressed to make either point THAT strongly. OSX isn't that much more (if any) user friendly than Windows. At least, after a few months with it now, I haven't seen anything that's really sold me on the OS (Yeah I can run most apps without using an installer, but because theres no installers, deleting an app leaves a trail of user settings files littered about my harddrive). And for a home user, Linux provides way TOO MUCH user freedom (and will let you hang yourself with it if you're not careful).
But if Windows had that shit built-in, hello antitrust.
That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Also Windows does (or did) have that sort of thing built in, it's just that they suck. Outlook Express, Windows Movie Maker etc. But no sane human would ever use them for anything ever.
And no, it's not a bad argument. They got sued for having IE in the OS. If they can't even get away with IE in the OS, you think they could get away with full featured music editors, movie editors, and e-mail clients? I really doubt it, especially with all of the third party software companies that provide their own that would be threatened by it.
But if Windows had that shit built-in, hello antitrust.
That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Also Windows does (or did) have that sort of thing built in, it's just that they suck. Outlook Express, Windows Movie Maker etc. But no sane human would ever use them for anything ever.
Movie Maker is easily as good as iMovie, and Photo Gallery is better than iPhoto, but nobody gives them a chance so you never hear about that.
Posts
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
That's a possibility, though the "mine works just fine and you can fix it when it doesn't" discussion might be a roadblock.
I've been led to believe that the first two or three revisions of OS X had many more problems than current iterations. I'd either examine that in more detail or suggest a new device if I was making an actual suggestion.
If Apple had used a good display or a faster chip, it might have worked out. But this is the original Core Duo Macbook we're talking about. It was a poor choice.
Also, I would not suggest doing photography on a laptop unless you have the Cinema Display or other high quality display to go with it.
The only thing that has some kind of statistical improvement over windows is the menu bar at the top of the screen, as opposed to being bound to the window. Something like a fivefold increase in the amount of time needed to do menu bar mouseclicks on windows than osx, even amongst people proficient on both.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Has to do with third party software. Apple (and Mac programmers) are much more zealously aware of user interface conventions than Microsoft. I would actually venture so far as to say Windows makes more sense at first (document-centric takes a little while to get the hang of for a non-computer person), but since every fucking program (including Microsoft's) is totally different it hardly matters. Whereas with a new program in OS X there's a whole boat load of stuff that I start off knowing about it, and if that's not the case the users tend to tell the developer to fuck off.
OS X and its API's also do a better job of supporting some powerful user experience technologies than windows (and especially Linux) which can really have some very pleasing results. For example, drag and drop in OS X is way beyond any other platform. But because people don't really expect it to work, they don't often try it out. (Try it! There are some nice surprises here and there.)
Other minor things, like program installation/uninstallation simplicity, or lack of a registry and apps constantly installing themselves to run at startup without saying anything, help keep my blood pressure down too.
But, it needs to be said that iPhoto is a piece of shit.
No saying that OSX doesn't have its quirks - Apple also ignores some of its UI conventions (Hi Mr. pdf button in print dialogue which call up a menu; or the different styles of pro apps). At least they routed the different styles out in 10.5 (Good, finally the classic brushed metal shit is gone). - The best thing about OSX is that most apps, or the OS itself don't bury important options several layers deep. I just configured my Parallels install of Windows XP and its often following hair pulling process: option - new window - click on new option - new window - click on other option - window at top of this wind + dialog box. Sometimes you have to drill like 4 levels deep and insanely clutter your screen in the process (I am looking at you Network and Connection settings).
Do you know how many people drag the icon from the start menu to the desktop if the program doesn't create one there? Personally, I love having absolutely nothing on my desktop, but just about every computer I see (working on-site tech support for 1,000s of computers, PC and Mac) that other people use regularly has every one of their programs icons dragged onto the desktop in some sort of ritual arrangement that they have figured out.
But technically, this is all third-party problems that you point out and has nothing to do with Windows other than MS doesn't hold an iron fist over development for Windows. Some programs are very good and don't prompt a UAC in Vista and don't install all this extra stuff or give you the option while installing, others are like their own little virii that love to install themselves EVERYWHERE (I'm looking at YOU, Adobe Acrobat! - did I tell you to install your own little IE bar? NO.).
Personally, and this is probably more due to using Windows for years and having very little experience on OSX, but I find Windows more intuitive, new versions and new software included. Whenever I get on my sister's or brother-in-law's macbooks I generally can never find what I'm looking for unless it's on the Dock. Nothing seems to work the way I would expect it to. But to a user who's never used either, I have no idea. I think it's pretty subjective and to really be able to claim one or the other is better just seems like spin.
This is why I asked, as I've never really seen it proven otherwise. Human beings being what we are, I've always loosely assumed that app or doc-centric models might offer different benefits to different people.
For my part, I tend to be content with any OS that gives me three or more entirely separate ways to do any given thing. Mouseclicking or taskbar buttons are superior when I'm reclining more and doing passive work like webpages, while hotkeys are, of course, superior when I'm already typing something else. Super-accessible and speedy search does change this, a bit, as I can type the name of a document or program without having to look at what I'm doing. Being able to visually access an object from any given spot is a plus too. And I generally loathe drag and drop *except* when moving or attaching documents.
I hate having stuff on the desktop too, though it tends to build up at work (just like my actual desktop).
The problem with Windows is that nearly every fricking install routine in this OS creates a shortcut by default and I am sick and tired cleaning after it. It seems that the only exception are install routines of free apps which allow you skip the creation of start menu items, plus most of them allow the regulation of file associations _during_ the install.
Windows is littered with bad design decisions and most third party applications don't lighten the case. One reason is that average John Blow computer user doesn't give a shit.
One bad example I encountered: Outlook rules and alerts dialog won't even let you move the main window of the program out of the way once its open. No, you have to close the dialog first and then you can interact with window in the background. Want to read the newly arrived email? Nope. Want to enter an entry into the calender because an important issue just popped up? Nope. Finish your goddam rules or skip everything you were doing in this window in order to interact with application.
OSX solves this issue much better - you still cannot interact with the disabled interface elements, but you are still able to move it out of the way at least. Most application have free floating option and toolbar windows because its just stupid to restrict your productivity just because you decided to tweak the application to your preference.
I appreciate the zealot UI design approach in OSX much more, and even the negative reactions the developer get if they ignore it.
Of course, as said OSX isn't without flaws. See the myriad of different UI styles in 10.4 for example.
edit: I rate intuitiveness in the amount of steps/tries I have to do in order to complete something, and if I have to consult a manual/faq etc. etc in order accomplish it.
edit2: corrected spelling and wording so this post makes actually sense
Another thing I really like is how applications are packaged. Its very easy to backup an app or share with another mac instead of having to download again (assuming the download is still available)
One of the coolest features I discovered is how Quicklook works. If you are browsing through a folder with media/documents or whatever you can instantly preview them by pressing space bar. The really cool part however is that you can move the preview window aside or to another monitor (if you have dual display). When open, it will instantly preview any file you select with the mouse or keyboard, in any folder. This is probably the most productive method of browsing/previewing files that I have ever seen. You can add support for additional video formats with quicktime plugins.
Want to take a screen shot from a video? Drag a frame from whatever video you have open in Quicklook and drop it into word/open office or photo shop.
Oh you mean like in this paper? Or this comparison? Oh hey look, Vista has fewer unpatched vulnerabilities and fewer days of risk.
And yes, I agree that if you're running an unpopular OS, of course you're going to be safer from malware. But my point is that OSX isn't coded any better security-wise than Windows; it only benefits from being obscure.
That is an amazingly stupid position. If you knew anything at all about the subject you would not be making such asinine comments which says you me you know jack shit about computer security or programming and Jack just left town. As I pointed out long ago Windows XP had a number of horrible design decisions which led to it being easily compromised by malware. These vulnerabilities are germane to discussions of Windows 7 and Vista because the vulnerabilities weren't entirely the result of bugs but design decisions from Microsoft. When the architecture of a system is insecure you're fighting with one arm tied behind your back.
Vista's better security track record is the result of Microsoft learning from XP's problems and an active attempt to reduce the attack surface of the OS in general. One of the biggest changes they made was not making the default user synonymous with the administrator. Vista actually creates a real user account during the installation process where XP simply had you set a password for the system administrator account. This one change has eliminated an attack vector for a number of different worms that need administrator privileges to alter system files. Like XPSP1 it also shipped with the firewall enabled by default removing the opportunity for promiscuous network worms to infect systems. Neither of these two features resolved any underlying design issues, they are simply common sense security measures that Windows 2000 should have had when it was released. Instead it took six years and five Windows releases to figure out, much to the chagrin of millions of Windows users.
MacOS X since March 2001 has created a non-root user account during the initial setup. This user is in the administrator group and can install applications and mess with the /System folder but these sorts of things pop up an authentication dialog. This user is also not given full root access which means they can't run apps that open ports below 1024 and can't mess with system files without authorization. Also since March 2001 the system has shipped out of the box with no daemons listening on external network ports. Some systems listen on localhost but not on the public IP of the machine. This means even without a firewall enabled by default there's no services to connect to and exploit out of the box. Neither of these features have anything at all to do with the OS' popularity, they're design decisions that have been around since the NeXTStep days. Mail has never executed files sent in e-mail messages just by clicking on them. In Leopard Mail and Safari flag downloaded files with a file system attribute. When that file is opened that attribute is checked and if the file is executable or contains an executable a warning is generated telling you it came from the internet.
If you're going to keep banging the obscurity drum you need to know it makes you look like a complete buffoon.
Lets build a 15in laptop, with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, a 9xxx Nvidia GPU, 4GBs of RAM, and a 250GB hard drive:
Mac: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=cart&mco=MTE2MjU
$2149.
TWO THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS
(yes the RAM is DDR3, no that does not excuse this price.)
PC:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220461
$1100
Regardless of all the bickering in this thread, when you buy computer hardware, you need to shop for just that, hardware. Mac hardware, despite being the same intel/nvidia hardware as PCs have, costs TWICE AS MUCH!
Someone let me algorhythm (steve_0990) into the PA Steam group
While I agree that it's "overpriced", it's already been brought up and Mac's do come with a lot of extra software and depending on what software you need to use, may be necessary. Plus it has things you don't usually find in the cheaper PC market, like LED backlighting and multitouch touchpads.
I think this thread has gone in circles a few times already..
Nobody is arguing that a mac laptop is a luxury item (at least I don't THINK they are), but its not as if all of that money goes into the backlit logo on the back of the display... the 17" MBP is the first laptop I have ever owned that is as solid as it was the day I bought it one year in, and I am a bastard to my computers.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I have a similar ASUS (no Acer) and the screen is decent and the trackpad is okay (has scroll-bars and tap-to-click) It is VERY quiet, but obv the macbook is as well, and I haven't paid a cent for programs other than games. Have Open Office 3 suite, Firefox, Songbird, Paint.net, etc...
8-)
Someone let me algorhythm (steve_0990) into the PA Steam group
There are areas in which said asus (oops on my part) skimps compared tot he MBP. It is an unfair comparison to go purely on stats.... just like it is to compare a 1080p hdtv at wal-mart and a pioneer elite 1080p set at advanced A/V. Sure, they both do 1920x1080 content, but there is a difference beyond that one metric.
edit: but of course, the Asus is a great product in its price range. Price needs to be a factor in any system you buy; weigh against your budget... but if you can afford one of the newer macbook pros and it won't put a hurt on you, get one. They are better machines.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The MacBook is also significantly noisier than the Asus under load. And in Windows at least, the trackpad is virtually unusable thanks to Apple's horrid Boot Camp drivers.
I use a new alum macbook with drivers loaded off the leopard discs and I have no issues on windows. Of course, I do use a mouse when gaming (though would you really use anything else).
I mean led screens are bright, sure. I guess it would be nice to have settings higher then you would ever usually use.
This is true. I'm so glad I bought a wireless mouse for use with my MBP, cause using the trackpad in windows is frustrating as hell.
I would be perfectly comfortable recommending Linux netbooks and Ubuntu desktops to any relatively tech-savvy friends and Macbooks to anyone else.
So in other words, it achieves a comfortable medium that is adequate for a wide variety of users' needs?
I would argue though that the advantage of OS X isn't just User Friendliness, but the ability to let the more basic users do more with their PCs than they would normally. Software like Garageband, iPhoto, iWeb etc allow people like my Mum to do stuff she never would with Windows, and stuff like Spotlight, Exposé and Bonjour expand what her computer can do a hundred times over. There's no chance she would use Smart Folders, or more than 2 applications at a time, or have a home network with Windows or Linux. No chance at all.
That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Also Windows does (or did) have that sort of thing built in, it's just that they suck. Outlook Express, Windows Movie Maker etc. But no sane human would ever use them for anything ever.