Buying Advice For Mac?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mihir

VIP Member
I said that in my post. If you want a cheap piece of crap made by the cheapest bid of parts to just surf the web, then do so. What I am saying is that a Mac spec for spec is actually decently priced. People here on the forums typically go like this:

"Oh Macs are teh suck and I can get 50x the machine for half the price and I can like you know play video games and run exe files..."

(slightly sarcastic)

When in reality their ignorance on the comparison is so much that they just assume people who like to buy Macs are stupid. It is really ironic since they claim superiority but lack the deduction skills to break down the worth and costs of a PC versus a Mac.

I agree with you that if you want a cheap PC then build one and IPS screens really aren't meant for gaming. Their refresh rates are slightly slower than regular TFT LED LCDs. However, the color and picture quality on an IPS screen is top notch, and that is why they are so expensive.

Apple's business model is to keep it simple. They have three versions of every computer they sell. Entry, midgrade, and higher end. So, they tend to keep the hardware upgrades to a minimum.

Plus in reality you cannot even compare that desktop I built to an iMac because an iMac is an all-in-one computer. However, that is the closest thing I can use for a comparison.

I never said people are stupid for buying macs.I personally love MACs and am in love with their Display Panels.
You won't believe me but whenever I see a MAC(which are rare in India)
everytime I am stunned by the beauty of the panel,and the show the OS puts up.And atleast explain the specs of the panel to 10 people standing arround me critiquing the mac for being expensive.
I don't have mac because it is not suitable for my purpose that is it.
I need a TN panel in matte for gaming with High refresh rates.
I do know the excellence of IPS panels may it be e-IPS.
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
I never said people are stupid for buying macs.I personally love MACs and am in love with their Display Panels.
You won't believe me but whenever I see a MAC(which are rare in India)
everytime I am stunned by the beauty of the panel,and the show the OS puts up.And atleast explain the specs of the panel to 10 people standing arround me critiquing the mac for being expensive.
I don't have mac because it is not suitable for my purpose that is it.
I need a TN panel in matte for gaming with High refresh rates.
I do know the excellence of IPS panels may it be e-IPS.

Wasn't referring to you specifically but just a general comment is all.
 

Aastii

VIP Member
*sigh*......3 times the price? That would infer that Macs have the same hardware at triple the costs....Also, where is your proof on this? I said spec for spec, not the cheapest POS you can find and give to someone.....I guess I will do this for the, I dunno, 500th billion time on this forum.

For the upgrades... *looks at post #94* that would be 3 times the cost of a component should you buy it yourself rather than from apple ;)

=EDIT=

actually, if you look at that post, I made a mistake - I thought I was on the UK site, when in fact it is US, so in $, which would make it, when compared to a decent 2 x 2GB set of memory...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179

near 5 times more expensive for the 4GB upgrade
 
Last edited:

tlarkin

VIP Member
For the upgrades... *looks at post #94* that would be 3 times the cost of a component should you buy it yourself rather than from apple ;)

=EDIT=

actually, if you look at that post, I made a mistake - I thought I was on the UK site, when in fact it is US, so in $, which would make it, when compared to a decent 2 x 2GB set of memory...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179

near 5 times more expensive for the 4GB upgrade

I also pointed out that harping on the RAM costs is a moot point, because every manufacturer does it. Dell will charge you $60 for a 2gig upgrade. You can buy RAM third party and it will work fine cheaper than buying it form a vendor. That is how it has always worked, and Dell is one of the cheaper ones.
 

Doctor Varney

New Member
I don't think arguing which costs more is really helping very much. As I've said - what price can you put on consistent performance and reliability? What does it cost a professional to have his tools fail at a crucial moment?

The price difference could be neglible, compared with the cost of a catastrophic failure at an inappropriate time. It has happened to me.

I don't think it's so much about what hardware is in there but how that hardware is matched when the machine is built. From what I'm hearing, Apple take care of that during the design stage. Building a PC entails a lot of troubleshooting and screaming on forums when it doesn't go right. I admire the patience of the PC home builders, I really do!

I've also read that upgrading from an old Mac OS to a new one is a matter of something like £30 quid or so. When (or if) I want to upgrade to Windows 7, it's going to cost me over £100. Then eventually they will stop the support when they want everyone on the new OS. Microsoft has you by the balls in that respect.

What looks economical at first blush might not be, in the long run.

I can understand the Apple costing a little more from the outset, because the Apple Macintosh is a product, whereas a PC is nearly always a kit.

Dr. V
 
Last edited:

Demilich

New Member
No, it is a fact. Look at how many hacks/exploits and so forth are available to Windows based machines. Now look at how many viruses are in the wild for Unix based ones. The difference is proof enough that the Unix POSIX model has not only been around a lot longer than Windows, it has also be tested more and found to be more secure over time. By nature it is more secure, that is a fact. However, the end user is the largest security hole, and if the end user doesn't understand certain concepts and safe guards no matter how secure your OS is, the end user can easily bypass all the security by just executing bad practices.

Sorry, but stating that a Mac is safer than a PC is an opinion.

Fact: A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. Look for clues such as: "I believe...", "It's obvious...", or "They should..."

http://www.mrsdell.org/gr2/factopinion.html

There is no way to test that Mac's are safer than PC's without bias. To prove that a Mac is safer, each Mac in the world would need to be tested for this issue to be a fact. Stating Mac's are safer because they are not as popular is an opinion. Stating the end user itself can cause security issues with the Mac or PC is an opinion, and basically just proved your Mac theory incorrect. Stating a Mac is safer "by nature" is an opinion. Stating that one OS has been out longer than another, and this is the reason why the other OS is safer, is an OPINION. Just because there are more viruses out for one OS than the other, does not make one OS safer than the other. The fact is, one OS being better than another is an opinion, one OS being safer than the other, is an opinion. If there are tests, as you say, post these tests that prove Mac's are safer than PC's.
 
Last edited:

tlarkin

VIP Member
Sorry, but stating that a Mac is safer than a PC is an opinion.

Fact: A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. Look for clues such as: "I believe...", "It's obvious...", or "They should..."


There is no way to test that Mac's are safer than PC's without bias. To prove that a Mac is safer, each Mac in the world would need to be tested for this issue to be a fact. Stating Mac's are safer because they are not as popular is an opinion. Stating the end user itself can cause security issues with the Mac or PC is an opinion, and basically just proved your Mac theory incorrect. Stating a Mac is safer "by nature" is an opinion. Stating that one OS has been out longer than another, and this is the reason why the other OS is safer, is an OPINION. Just because there are more viruses out for one OS than the other, does not make one OS safer than the other. The fact is, one OS being better than another is an opinion, one OS being safer than the other, is an opinion. If there are tests, as you say, post these tests that prove Mac's are safer than PC's.

Uh, yeah it is a fact, no matter how many pretty colors you use in your post. Unix is a far more proven stable and more secure OS, and has proven to be so over time.

How many viruses are out in the wild that work on Unix based OSes?

How many botnets are ran by Unix based OSes?

POSIX has been proven to be more secure and safer to use in large scale secure environments. Why do you think the backbone of the Internet, let alone the whole Internet is run by Linux machines? Everything how all non Unix based systems work, even down the inode level, is more secure by design.

Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible. As long as things like drivers get access to the kernel via kernel hooks hackers will use that to exploit the OS using the same APIs developers use for legit purposes. The simple fact that whenever you use any Unix based OS, and you have to access or execute anything outside your user's home folder you are required to authenticate as admin to do so. This ensures the fact that programs, apps, and scripts cannot run by themselves and Unix has been doing this for decades. It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period.
 

Demilich

New Member
Uh, yeah it is a fact, no matter how many pretty colors you use in your post. Unix is a far more proven stable and more secure OS, and has proven to be so over time.

How many viruses are out in the wild that work on Unix based OSes?

How many botnets are ran by Unix based OSes?

POSIX has been proven to be more secure and safer to use in large scale secure environments. Why do you think the backbone of the Internet, let alone the whole Internet is run by Linux machines? Everything how all non Unix based systems work, even down the inode level, is more secure by design.

Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible. As long as things like drivers get access to the kernel via kernel hooks hackers will use that to exploit the OS using the same APIs developers use for legit purposes. The simple fact that whenever you use any Unix based OS, and you have to access or execute anything outside your user's home folder you are required to authenticate as admin to do so. This ensures the fact that programs, apps, and scripts cannot run by themselves and Unix has been doing this for decades. It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period.

I'm trying my best not to be rude here, but you're definitely making it more difficult to do so. Sure, it's probably true that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. PROVE IT. Stating that is still an OPINION, until you can PROVE that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. Also, as my buddy here pointed out, doing a Mac to PC comparison is basically the same as comparing the Chinese population to the Lebanese in terms of which country is smarter, or sicker, etc. Chinese population: 1,331,460,000 Lebanese population: 4,224,000. Also, as brought up by my buddy, the computers in the Department of Defense use PC's. Now, as we know the Department of Defense has some pretty fantastic firewalls. Will they get viruses? Probably not. That's not to say they wont. But without the firewall, would a Mac working at the Defense be attacked as much as a PC? Use your imagination. You're comparing a mountain to a hill, and then stating an opinion that the hill is safer, with no evidence. "Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible"....blah blah blah. That's an opinion. Opinion. "It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period." OPINION. Dude, you need to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, seriously.
 
Last edited:

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Tlarkin, 90% of what you say is rubbish, however macs by far have less viruses, because virus and malware authors want the virus to spread, and when you have less than 8% of the market, you don't spend much time on it.

The cost of hardware is not a moot point, because unlike a mac, i can upgrade my pc anytime for around 1/5 the cost of a mac where possible.

Also, what we are talking about here is the OS. That is all. You can crap on about hardware till the cows come home, but hardware is hardware. Period.

The choice is between OS's. And, with little or no support, limited software support, large learning curve and an inability to upgrade to match increasingly higher hardware requirements - macs are a poor choice.

Go ahead, buy a mac for 3 grand, that you can get for 600 bucks that does 1/20th of the tasks. Wow, that sounds smart. The virus debate is stupid too, i have never, repeat never lost anything due to malware. Its an overstated issue.

Get Win 7, install and set it up properly and learn how to maintain your computer. Period.
 

Aastii

VIP Member
Dell may very well charge over the odds for components the same as Apple does, but it is a PC, you can do it yourself for off-the-shelf prices, which you can't do with a mac because of form factors and because of their "quality control", which is just money grabbing, as there are plenty of quality alternatives that are missed out, and they don't use premium parts everywhere.

As bigfella says, hardware is not a moot point, because of upgrades in the future, and also because it is much easier to customise a PC.

Macs come with a lot of useless stuff for the average user, and most of that stuff can be got, or an equivalent can be got, for Windows, because of the massive amount of support. To claim as well that Mac's aren't overpriced:

27" iMac:

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC511LL/A?mco=MTg1ODA4MDM#hardware

$2000

Equal spec system running Windows:

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115067

Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157211

Memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179

Hard Drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185

GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102865

PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371035

Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146061

DVD RW: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151192

Monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009276

+ Copy of Windows

Total - $1062

That doesn't include mouse + keyboard, but a mouse + keyboard for $900?

You can get all of the other software for free or much cheaper as well, because the Windows alternatives appeal to a much greater number of people.

As for moot points, the virus point is a moot point. The majority of virus' on a PC are got from user stupidity, not the Windows OS itself. Yes, it exploits the OS, but it is so easy to avoid them. Not one of the system's in my house house has ever had a virus and all are running Windows, and it is down to proper maintenence and the user's having common sense. Why would you go and click a big, flashy advert saying "click here and win and iPod!!!", or go on sketchy websites? If you do, you are asking for trouble, and you are going to get a virus, that is the user, not the OS.

I do not disagree for a second that Windows has a greater number of vulnerabilities, but I do disagree it is these vulnerabilities that are the cause for the amount of virus'. It is because of the size of the user base, so easier to get to more people, and because of more people, much less experienced users exposing themselves to the virus'
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
Tlarkin, 90% of what you say is rubbish, however macs by far have less viruses, because virus and malware authors want the virus to spread, and when you have less than 8% of the market, you don't spend much time on it.

That is simply not true. Almost all malware these days uses browser exploits, which has little to do with the OS itself in some regards. However, there are still zero known viruses in the wild for any Unix based OS. Look it up, it is true.

The cost of hardware is not a moot point, because unlike a mac, i can upgrade my pc anytime for around 1/5 the cost of a mac where possible.
It is not a moot point because every PC person brings it up all the time. They say Macs are over priced, which actually is not true at all. Macs have expensive components in them, and the down side is users don't get a choice to buy a Mac with cheaper components. It is like buying a Volkswagen versus an Audi. Same hardware, way different design, and way different quality of some parts.


The choice is between OS's. And, with little or no support, limited software support, large learning curve and an inability to upgrade to match increasingly higher hardware requirements - macs are a poor choice.

I doubt you have even used a Mac, and I doubt you have had to support them in an enterprise environment. If they are such crap why did Google just switch it's 10,000+ employees to all Macs?

Go ahead, buy a mac for 3 grand, that you can get for 600 bucks that does 1/20th of the tasks. Wow, that sounds smart. The virus debate is stupid too, i have never, repeat never lost anything due to malware. Its an overstated issue.

Get Win 7, install and set it up properly and learn how to maintain your computer. Period.

Malware != a virus. A virus self replicates and automatically installs itself on a computer. Malware almost always has some sort of user interaction with it. Also, hardware does matter. Maybe not to some users, but it does matter when calculating the cost of the computer. Plus Macs hold their resell value and have at least a 5 year life cycle in them. Show me a 5 year old PC that is running Windows 7? I have two 6 year old iMacs (1st gen intel) in my office that are running OS X 10.6 and they run it fast and great. I don't think you are actually reading what I am writing, I am talking about overall cost of ownership here, not just initial costs.

@ Aastii-

Your comparison doesn't hold water, as it is not a comparison to an actual iMac. For one, you are going to pay near $1,000 for a 27inch IPS screen. I am not saying you cannot build a PC to do the same jobs you would on an iMac for cheaper. Obviously if you are only going to use a computer for surfing the web, then getting an iMac may be over kill. However, your comparison is a really bad one from those parts on Newegg.com.

Also, upgrading is actually a moot point. I upgrade my PC about every 3 to 4 years. By the time I am upgrading I have to buy a new motherboard because the sockets changed for the new processors. The new motherboard takes a different type of memory so now I gotta buy new RAM. I don't want to bottleneck my GPU so I gotta buy a new video card. My new video card requires more power to run, so I gotta upgrade my power supply. In reality, I am pretty much building a whole new PC every time I upgrade. For the past 10 years I haven't ever been able to actually upgrade a PC with out rebuilding 80% of it with new parts.

You can get all of the other software for free or much cheaper as well, because the Windows alternatives appeal to a much greater number of people.

wikipedian_protester.png


As for moot points, the virus point is a moot point. The majority of virus' on a PC are got from user stupidity, not the Windows OS itself. Yes, it exploits the OS, but it is so easy to avoid them. Not one of the system's in my house house has ever had a virus and all are running Windows, and it is down to proper maintenence and the user's having common sense. Why would you go and click a big, flashy advert saying "click here and win and iPod!!!", or go on sketchy websites? If you do, you are asking for trouble, and you are going to get a virus, that is the user, not the OS.

I do not disagree for a second that Windows has a greater number of vulnerabilities, but I do disagree it is these vulnerabilities that are the cause for the amount of virus'. It is because of the size of the user base, so easier to get to more people, and because of more people, much less experienced users exposing themselves to the virus'

You are missing the point. The whole point of what I wrote is that Windows has a less secure OS design, and Unix based OSes have a more secure.
 

Demilich

New Member
...The whole point of what I wrote is that Windows has a less secure OS design, and Unix based OSes have a more secure.

How is this so? How, in comparing a mountain (Microsoft) to a hill (Unix), is Unix safer, and Windows a less secure design? Please elaborate on how that is true.
 
Last edited:

tlarkin

VIP Member
I'm trying my best not to be rude here, but you're definitely making it more difficult to do so. Sure, it's probably true that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. PROVE IT. Stating that is still an OPINION, until you can PROVE that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. Also, as my buddy here pointed out, doing a Mac to PC comparison is basically the same as comparing the Chinese population to the Lebanese in terms of which country is smarter, or sicker, etc. Chinese population: 1,331,460,000 Lebanese population: 4,224,000. Also, as brought up by my buddy, the computers in the Department of Defense use PC's. Now, as we know the Department of Defense has some pretty fantastic firewalls. Will they get viruses? Probably not. That's not to say they wont. But without the firewall, would a Mac working at the Defense be attacked as much as a PC? Use your imagination. You're comparing a mountain to a hill, and then stating an opinion that the hill is safer, with no evidence. "Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible"....blah blah blah. That's an opinion. Opinion. "It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period." OPINION. Dude, you need to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, seriously.

*sigh*
No dude it is a fact. Do you know and understand what POSIX is? What the OS does to the file system in the inode level? Do you understand how the kernel works with intricate parts of the OS itself? I have clearly explained this, and if you did a little google searching you can verify these facts for yourself. Every security expert in the world will tell you, that Windows is the least secure OS out there. The argument is that it is used the most and therefore targeted the most is not really the whole reason. When you allow a technology, like Active X, directly access the kernel via kernel hooks, with out any form of authentication you are asking for your OS to be rooted, period.

Now, most attacks on OSes these days are web based and usually attack some browser exploit. This is because browsers depend on a lot of different things. Code like php, html, css, and so forth. Frameworks like Java, and proprietary support for things like flash. There is so much code that goes into everything a web browser does there are always security leaks.

As for the DoD using Windows, you are right they do. It is not because Windows is secure either. It is because they are the government,and very bureaucratic and slow to adapt new technologies. Also, each department of hte government does their own thing, there is no unified decision making going on. The Army understands this, and has actually started to purchase and integrate Macs into their environment. Like I said, Microsoft did something or didn't do something which made Google switch over to 100% Macs. I know this because I interviewed with Google for a job to admin the Macs. They told me this in the interview but would not disclose the reason why.

Sources for you to read:

http://techmiso.com/271/dod-has-no-desire-to-mitigate-windows-dependency/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/mac-security-vs-pc-security-a1926

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/windows-inherently-more-vulnerable-malware-attacks-os-x-489

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

http://www.biznix.org/articles/winlinsecure.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ft-map-shows-PCs-botnet-infections-world.html


I will try to explain this again, and yes these are actual facts. Look them up in white papers and read on the inner workings of Windows, Unix, Linux and OS X. First of all, Windows was never really a multiple user platform until Windows Vista. In Vista, they got rid of the Documents and Settings folder, and actually started giving users their own home folder. However, system processes were still spawned under the same users in Vista, and ran as root. In Windows 7, Microsoft is migrating to more of a Unix platform, and yes security did deeply improve. The user SYSTEM in Windows is the equivalent to the root user in *nix OSes. That user can run anything, and has super user privileges, it also has no password. If you can escalate something to SYSTEM, you have immediately full control of the computer with out it ever asking for a password, which is why script kiddies root Windows boxes. This is a fact, and it is well documented.

Linux out of the box is not as secure as one would think. There are tons of things you can do to make your Linux box more secure. Same thing with a Mac. Things like POSIX and ACLs to restrict access to certain parts of the system to specific users and groups. Windows now has this stuff also built in, but it is not fully matured yet. Previously Windows did not have any of this.

Open source code has way more many eyes looking at it. Which means bugs are generally found better and *nix based OSes tend to have less security holes than Windows does. However, I will give Microsoft credit where it is due. They have the best patching and updating system out there. They keep their OS up to date and patch their security holes fairly quickly. After all, they have had plenty of practice doing this.

A lot of what I am talking about may not be applicable these days in security. A lot of what I am talking about doesn't always come into effect when security loop holes are used. Most of today's attacks are done by socially engineering the end user to click on something or install something that looks legit but is really a piece of malware. No OS or platform is safe from a dumb user, period. A lot of attacks don't exploit the OS as they used to, and Windows has gotten a lot more secure over the past 2 releases, and that is because it is adopting a Unix-like file system and starting to limit what a local user can do and require authentication (via the security center, allow, deny) for things to run. However, I still think Windows has a bit to go to catch up.

In retrospect Apple has a bit to go on getting their exploits fixed in a faster motion. The DNS exploit and the ARD Admin bug, were both sitting there un-patched for about 6 months and were widely known throughout all the Internets but Apple has never suffered a major hit from an exploit being used to crash and hack machines.

Microsoft does do well on their server side products. They basically stole NDS from Novell and turned it into their product Active Directory, and it gives system admins robust options for managing users. It is superior in many ways to use it as a platform to manage users. Also, they are smart with marketing and they had stiff competition from Novell, since Novell did it first, but Microsoft basically stole their technologies and then stole their business because Microsoft was way better at business than Novell. Since then, Microsoft has put itself in a permanent place in server infrastructure. Most businesses do run some sort of Windows server with AD. And it does it's job great.

However, more recently companies have been switching over to virtualization systems, with Unix and Linux backbones and giving their users a choice of what client the want, Mac or PC. Universities, some military, NASA, and some major companies are switching to Macs, because for the first time you can integrate a Mac and have it authenticate against an AD server.

Macs, are still by design more secure, period. I have been in IT and working and administering Linux, OS X, and Windows for over a decade now. I have hands on and professional experience with all three platforms. I actually prefer Linux or OS X as my main OS because I think Windows performs the worst and is the most bloated, but I always keep a Windows box in my home to keep up to date, develop code for Windows, and of course to play video games. I have put in my time, and gone through the trials with all of the platforms out there. Linux doesn't necessarily have a higher learning curve than Windows does, it is just different. So many people never take the time to fully understand it. Furthermore, if you want to argue there is a high learning curve learning how to use a Mac, you maybe should get rid of your computer and get an iPad or the Android equivalent because Macs are by far the easiest computer to use, and there are so many similarities to Windows that if you can use Windows you can use a Mac pretty damn quick. I have done my time, and I have lived through virus attacks on PCs, even when a PC was deep frozen.....I have never had to deal with a Mac virus in my 10+ years of working in IT. I have read about them for the old classic OS. I have also never seen a virus for Linux or Unix either, and there are also zero known viruses in the wild for any Unix based OS. Unix based OSes run the Internet, why would they not be targeted by hackers?

If you cannot accept that, then I guess this conversation is over.

That being said, to the OP, buy what you want. It is your money. I recommend the Macs, they are great machines. Yes they are more expensive and no they aren't invulnerable to hardware failure, but they are high quality and their OS is light weight, snappy, and runs for a long time on current and older hardware. The overall cost of ownership of a Mac is cheaper if you take into account everything you get, the resell value, and the life cycle of the Mac.
 

patrickv

Active Member
How is this so? How, in comparing a mountain (Microsoft) to a hill (Unix), is Unix safer, and Windows a less secure design? Please elaborate on how that is true.

LOL, that is the most dumbest question one can ask (I mean assuming you're an IT guy). You do know that unix filesystem is by far more secure that windows. Google is your friend, a little research would really help. ;)
 

Demilich

New Member
*sigh*
No dude it is a fact. Do you know and understand what POSIX is? What the OS does to the file system in the inode level? Do you understand how the kernel works with intricate parts of the OS itself? I have clearly explained this, and if you did a little google searching you can verify these facts for yourself. Every security expert in the world will tell you, that Windows is the least secure OS out there. The argument is that it is used the most and therefore targeted the most is not really the whole reason. When you allow a technology, like Active X, directly access the kernel via kernel hooks, with out any form of authentication you are asking for your OS to be rooted, period.

Sources for you to read:...

You know, in your entire last post, you just single handedly solved The Microsoft Problem. We shall soon expect to see the Army, DoD, Microsoft, etc switch to Mac's. Amazing.

I've read most of those articles already; however, most articles can be and will be manipulated in a way to favor one party or the other. Just being realistic. For example, I went to Google, and typed "Are Mac's safer than PC's?" Most of the articles stated that it's "possible" that Mac's are safer than PC's. However, most of the articles stated that many of the "experts" they interviewed told them that the "Mac vs. PC safer" debate is completely ridiculous, and that each OS has their own severe vulnerabilities. So I suppose not every expert, or professional, would agree that a Mac is safer. Just saying.

In retrospect Apple has a bit to go on getting their exploits fixed in a faster motion. The DNS exploit and the ARD Admin bug, were both sitting there un-patched for about 6 months and were widely known throughout all the Internets but Apple has never suffered a major hit from an exploit being used to crash and hack machines.

So this couldn't couldn't possibly be because Mac is in 8% of the market, and the bug was much less reported than a similar Microsoft bug? Seriously?


Microsoft does do well on their server side products. They basically stole NDS from Novell and turned it into their product Active Directory, and it gives system admins robust options for managing users. It is superior in many ways to use it as a platform to manage users. Also, they are smart with marketing and they had stiff competition from Novell, since Novell did it first, but Microsoft basically stole their technologies and then stole their business because Microsoft was way better at business than Novell. Since then, Microsoft has put itself in a permanent place in server infrastructure. Most businesses do run some sort of Windows server with AD. And it does it's job great.

However, more recently companies have been switching over to virtualization systems, with Unix and Linux backbones and giving their users a choice of what client the want, Mac or PC. Universities, some military, NASA, and some major companies are switching to Macs, because for the first time you can integrate a Mac and have it authenticate against an AD server.

Macs, are still by design more secure, period....Unix based OSes run the Internet, why would they not be targeted by hackers?

That's a bit of a bold three paragraph post, wouldn't you agree? To state that Microsoft is a thief? Seems almost like you-know-what. Again, just saying.
 

Demilich

New Member
LOL, that is the most dumbest question one can ask (I mean assuming you're an IT guy). You do know that unix filesystem is by far more secure that windows. Google is your friend, a little research would really help. ;)

Says the guy who's profile and signature is "Mac'd out". I have, just as anybody has, Googled the Mac vs. PC debate, and found nothing that has proven anything. All I find is a ton of arguments against one, or for the other. I've even asked IT guys lolz they give me the answer I figured I would get from an actual educated and experienced IT guy: "You can't compare a mountain to a hill" LOLz, or, "sure, Mac's are "safer", for now, but let the roles of M and M be reversed, and Mac will shine it's true vulnerabilities." Not to say I haven't had an "all Mac" response, but most were MUCH more educated than one is "safer" than the other.
 
Last edited:

tlarkin

VIP Member
You know, in your entire last post, you just single handedly solved The Microsoft Problem. We shall soon expect to see the Army, DoD, Microsoft, etc switch to Mac's. Amazing.

You do realize how government works right? I work for the government, and they make very bad decisions on technology and are generally behind everyone else. Private companies are almost always ahead of the curve. If Windows is so superior why did Google just switch over to Mac? Google is probably one of the few companies that was never platform dependent. They don't run Mac or Windows servers as their backbone. They run Linux, and they write their own tools to do their own work, which means they are not locked into any product. This is rare because most IT departments depend on third party tools to do their job, hardly any of them write their own.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/31...ndows-mostly-to-mac-due-to-security-concerns/

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/google-mac/

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...mpt_google_to_switch_from_windows_to_mac.html

Oh, but wait, Google has biased idiots working in their security department. They must be Mac fan boys. You know, because MS is a mountain and Mac is a hill, which is a totally flawed analogy.

I've read most of those articles already; however, most articles can be and will be manipulated in a way to favor one party or the other. Just being realistic. For example, I went to Google, and typed "Are Mac's safer than PC's?" Most of the articles stated that it's "possible" that Mac's are safer than PC's. However, most of the articles stated that many of the "experts" they interviewed told them that the "Mac vs. PC safer" debate is completely ridiculous, and that each OS has their own severe vulnerabilities. So I suppose not every expert, or professional, would agree that a Mac is safer. Just saying.

I have already proven my side, you need to counter it. Prove to me it is less secure or not as secure. I am not talking about some blogs or people's opinion pieces. Look at real security teams. Google has the money to hire the best security consultants in the world, and they made an executive decision to ditch Windows.



So this couldn't couldn't possibly be because Mac is in 8% of the market, and the bug was much less reported than a similar Microsoft bug? Seriously?

Apple just released a patch last month which killed several known bugs, and patched several unknown bugs. Some hackers that sit on bugs for years to use them at hacking conventions to get cash prizes were actually admitted Apple is improving it's patching process. They have only been developing OS X for about 10 years, while Microsoft has had a bit more time perfecting their product.



That's a bit of a bold three paragraph post, wouldn't you agree? To state that Microsoft is a thief? Seems almost like you-know-what. Again, just saying.

Do you even know what you are talking about? It is widely known that Novell pioneered modern management of users and network accounts. NDS came out with zen way before anything else did. Which is why so many government institutions still use Novell. They dumped all their money into one platform years ago and do not want to reinvest their money. Then some years later Microsoft purchased nearly $500 million dollars of intellectual property rights from Novell, why is that?

The bottom line of the enterprise market share is that it is expensive to switch to any platform you did not buy into. However, some places are starting to do it. Apple has had a huge increase in market share over the past 8 years. They now have a 28% consumer market share in the USA. Most IT departments are locked into a product, and/or too lazy or not concerned to work with something else. Plus, not every IT person can work outside of Windows. They don't teach a lot of Unix or Mac in college. Typically they will scratch the surface with Unix, but they never go into depth and they also don't go into teaching how t code in python, perl, ruby, shell, and the like to help automate processes of being a System's Administrator.

I can code in python, shell, perl, and ruby (though I am very noob in some languages) and I am starting to write my own tools and use them in conjunction with my third party my company buys. If my boss were to tell me we were going to scrap everything we got and go to something else, I have enough tools I have written on my own I could probably migrate them to a new product. Since Python and Ruby run on all platforms, it is a good idea to use them. Most IT people never even bother to learn this stuff, and a lot of them cannot even use the command line.

I agree that most attacks these days target the end user, which doesn't matter how safe your OS is, because the end user is the weakest link. However, that does not change the fact that Unix based OSes are by design more secure. Anyone can embed malicious code into a pirated piece of software for any platform and put it out on the web and let suckers download it and root their machines. Heck, I know a guy who's mac got hacked because he downloaded a crappy flash game that was actually malware. It had opened up SSH and created a dummy account and his computer was being tunneled in from someone in China. Of course he had no idea that a simple flash game could do that. This is by no means the fault of the OS, so security is a moot point these days when attacks like that are the most common.

However, on paper, and by design with things like POSIX, and the lack of things like kernel hooks, Unix based OSes are more secure. If you don't understand this, then this conversation is done. You like to argue with me all the time on this subject yet, you never provide any facts, nor do you even always know what exactly you are talking about.
 
Don't argue with Tlarkin. He is a paid fanboy of Apple.

Also to answer thread question my advice is don't buy one. There is no point to spend more then $400 on a windows based PC for the average user.
 

lucasbytegenius

Well-Known Member
Don't argue with Tlarkin. He is a paid fanboy of Apple.

Also to answer thread question my advice is don't buy one. There is no point to spend more then $400 on a windows based PC for the average user.

He's just a philosopher that builds logical structured arguments.

Now, before you start bashing Apple, have you ever used a Mac? Seriously guys, I think quite a lot of people in this thread have never used a Mac and are basing their opinions on what they've heard and mere pictures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top