What are the real elements that separate a MAC from a PC? (1 Viewer)

[JeremyErwin]

What is this business of yours, Ronald?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Jeremy,

You need to ask?

(You are on it right now)

 

[Jassen M. West]

I've heard rumors of Apple releasing OSX for the PC.

 

[Todd H]

That rumor has been around for a LONG time. Not going to happen, since Apple is a hardware company.

I recently bought my first Mac. It's a 20" 2GHZ iMac Core Duo. I have XP installed using Boot Camp. I only installed XP to run a few games, as well as for my wife who was a bit scared to learn Mac OS X. We're both finding that we rarely use XP any longer. After almost a year of use, I don't think we could ever go back to a PC.

Ron, all I can tell you is bite the bullet and give the Mac a try. You may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Christian Behrens]

Considering that this week is MacWorld, you'll hear the latest information about the Apple OS in Steve Jobs' keynote tomorrow (which will show up on the Apple website probably later in the day).

Leopard (10.5) has been previewed last year at their developers' conference and gave some insight into what it will entail. I recommend watching the QT movie about it and definitely following tomorrow morning's keynote (9am Pacific).

http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.ne...ent/index.html

-Christian

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

True for now, but this is starting to change. If Apple continues to gain market share, they're going to become a more and more attractive target. A couple hackers are currently in the middle of a Month of Apple Bugs, in which they intend to expose a new bug or vulnerability every day.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Thus, the month of patches

 

[Christ Reynolds]

such a tired argument. so, why do macs have such a low number of spyware/virus instances for every percent market share compared to windows? is it impossible that the mac os is technically superior to windows?

CJ

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Because 2.3 percent market share or 2.4 percent market share, it's still too small to give a shit. Let them get up to 25 or 30 percent and we'll see what happens.

 

[JeremyErwin]

But there shouldn't be vulnerabilities. Bugs should be fixed promptly. If the corporate infrastructure makes fixing bugs difficult, change the corporate infrastructure.

For a more secure alternative, consider OpenBSD.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Certainly, I am on the outside looking in, but I highly doubt
that any operating system is "unhackable." From everything
I have heard over the years about the Mac OS, it hasn't been
the subject of attacks merely because it falls under the radar
compared to Windows.

To answer Adam's question, it's very difficult for me to sit and
experiment with program installs to see what might be the problem.
I have two jobs that include this forum, and once I format my
computer I need to get everything installed as quickly as possible.
Right now, Velocity Micro is testing my desktop with the
program that they "claim" is the problem child.

Another very interesting point....


This is the very problem that keeps pulling me away from
going with Macintosh.

Cost is not a factor. Surprisingly, the cost of a Mac Pro desktop
and a top-of-the-line PC is about the same ($3,000-$3400). Also,
I run a good antivirus and network security so I rarely get attacked.

Here's the problem...

My entire computer existence revolves around Windows programs.
Though I'd use Parallels rather than dual-boot into bootcamp,
I would still be using a Macintosh to run Windows. So why do it?

I can list close to two dozen Windows programs that I use every
day or week. I'd be using a Macintosh simply to open a smaller
window that runs my Windows programs.

Also, unless I missed it, I noticed that the Mac doesn't have
the Creative X-FI cards.

I don't mean to go on and on here. You guys have been a great
help and the best advice to date was to just go out and buy a
Mac to see if I like it. Still, it's good to stay involved in this
conversation as the input here has been quite fascinating.

 

[SethH]

It's really kind of a combination of the two. Mac's are a less desirable target because of their market share. I don't think there is any doubt about that. However, OS X is built on UNIX which has been around for over 40 years. Windows has been around for less than half that time. Therfore, UNIX has had more of its bugs caugt and fixed just because of the number of years it's been around.

It's still not a perfect system though. If any variant of UNIX ever grows to 85% market share we'll likely find more exploits in UNIX, but I would be surprised if there are ever as many found in UNIX as there are in Windows.

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

My advice: get your hands on a cheap Mac. A Mini, for instance. Then run that while still having your main machine untouched. This will give you a chance to ramp up your Mac usage, run the OS, ferret out replacements for the software you use now, get used to how all things Mac work, etc.

In the end we could discuss the topic over and over and enter pros and cons, but bottom line is that until you actually run it yourself you'll still not know if it is for you.

 

[Andrew Pratt]

Ron my advise is stop thinking of running XP on a Mac...if you really want to change then look at what you're doing now on XP and see if there's a version or suitable replacement for OSX. There's always parallels for the odd thing you'll need in XP but if you can't get your daily tasks ported over then there's no sense switching.

As for security OSX is inherently more secure then XP due to the way the users are set up and what permissions they have to the root OS but Vista is closing the gap somewhat in that front as well.

I've found XP to be very stable and if I do get issues its not with the OS but poorly written 3rd party applications or spyware but if you're smart about what you choose to install there's no reason to expect blue screens on a clean XP install.

 

[JeremyErwin]

One of the minor issues highlighted in the review of MS Windows Vista was the fact that there was no one standard interface-- different programs used different widget styles, gui layouts and so on. The differences may have been subtle, but it does suggest that the level of communication among Microsoft's developers was less than optimal. Such barriers to communication, should they exist, interfere with prompt security updates because they unnecessarily prolong the testing process.

If a library has broad security implications, that can be a serious problem. IIRC, the GDI+ jpeg vulnerability proved to be a real hassle-- and the fixes provided were quite cumbersome. But why did a jpeg parser cascade into a system wide breach? Perhaps this was a design problem.

I don't know if Apple makes the same sort of design mistakes. I don't know if the internal bureaucracy allows them to design well, code well, and test well enough to limit security problems. Perhaps the yearly update cycle helps.

The month of apple bugs and the month of kernel bugs, and the month of browser bugs all featured fuzz testing-- the automated injection of random data into a program until something broke. When the program broke, it was analyzed for flaws that could be exploited. Similar programs could be used by developers to look for buggy functions.

There's a essay going around criticizing Microsoft for hobbling Vista with Digital Rights Management schemes that endlessly encrypt, and decrypt, validate and revalidate, all in the vain hope of protecting content. Drivers are ruthlessly scanned for vulnerabilities, and access revoked on whims. This all has the effect of slowing down the system. But Microsoft does it anyway-- it has money riding on this limited vision of security.

But user security? Does it have the security interests of ordinary users at heart? Perhaps not. Does Apple? I have no idea. It updates iTunes and quicktime quite frequently, perhaps to protect the iTunes DRM. I'm not so sure about other aspects of the system.

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

If the essay you are referring to is the one that I read, then it is largely BS. The fact is the that AACS license require protections to be in place for any system that will run their content. This is true for commercial players, as well as computer based DVD players - whether they be PC or Mac. Ultimately it is up to those who write the DVD players (i.e. the ones that sign the AACS agreement) to determine how much protection they require - not MS or Apple (unless MS or Apple write an HD-DVD player or BluRay player).

 

[JeremyErwin]

If the essay you are referring to is the one that I read,

Maybe it is

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Yup, that's the one and it is largely BS (there is some truth to parts of it, however). The problem with content protection is that Hollywood creates a license agreement that all must sign if they want to play that content, and then lawyers argue for years as to what the agreement means. Ultimately, the signers of the agreement must decide for themselves how much protection is required (hint, this is not MS). Does Vista require all of the draconian features reported by the article? No, in fact Vista requires none of them. The 3rd party apps may require them, however, but some apps currently exist (or soon will be available) without using any (or most) of the features discussed in the essay. Such players already exist on XP as well.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I've found with the Windows version (my main MP3 jukebox), the updates tend to be both bug/performance related and DRM related.

 

[Bob_Chase]

Ron,

Don't do it.

If you do, and once you use it, you'll be constantly beating yourself up asking: "Why didn't I do this sooner? Why the HELL didn't I do this SOONER!?!?"

Do you love using your PC? I mean REALLY love using your PC?

No?

That's not the case with a Mac.

You've been warned.