Mac
Are MACs really that much better?
The one with the computer cart is my favorite.
Printable View
Mac
Are MACs really that much better?
The one with the computer cart is my favorite.
I like this one: http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/ap...ts_480x376.mov
They're funny, but not very convincing.
Indeed. They can be somewhat funny, but very one-sided and often untrue. But what do you expect? They're commercials. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
As the family's (and heaven help me, the neighborhood's) "computer guy," I steer people to Macs for one of two reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
- They have serious security needs, or
- They are likely to break/infect/ruin a normal computer.
Since all modern Macs are built on BSD Unix, the security part is a no-brainer. As an FBI agent said, "If you're going to commit a crime, you should use a Mac."
Windows is great, but it needs care, grooming, and 3rd party applications to keep it from getting overrun with spyware and malware. And it's still very easy for a n00bish user to hose the system. Macs take skill and dedication to break.
The cost difference isn't much of an issue, either. Macs are no longer priced for sheiks and yuppies. So are Macs better? Define "better." Gaming is a bit of a wasteland on them, although with dual-booting so easy, that's less of an issue than it used to be. They have security, stability and a degree of idiot-proofing that you can't find elsewhere, though.
[edit]
Some of the Linux ads are pretty funny, too.
I can certainly see point 2, but I'm not sure about point 1, especially with the FBI statement afterwards. What do you mean by "security"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Definitely true about Windows, but a tinkerer could easily break a Mac too through incompetence. But, in terms of daily, "normal" use, Macs would be tougher to break. :yes:Quote:
Windows is great, but it needs care, grooming, and 3rd party applications to keep it from getting overrun with spyware and malware. And it's still very easy for a n00bish user to hose the system. Macs take skill and dedication to break.
I still disagree on cost. Compared to a PC preloaded with Windows, Macs are still significantly more expensive for comparable systems. Add to that, the cost of an XP license and the difference is even greater. You can get a mid-high end PC for what a low-end Mac costs. For the cost of a low-end PC, you can get an iPod... maybe. :beam:
Like you say, if someone is completely computer illiterate, but wants to get online to surf, check email, ect.- Macs are a pretty good choice, because they're less likely to pollute it with spyware/viruses. However, if you want to game, need to run a wide variety of applications, or are very budget conscious, they're not such a good choice.
Here's some funnier Linux ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0:laugh4:
Use any metric you like, OS X will come out as more secure than any generation of Windows. Spyware, worms, viruses, hackers, unwarranted governmental interest, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Just Google OS X and security and read 'till your eyeballs pop out. The FBI quote is from an article I read some years ago where specialists from the FBI and Treasury Dept. were interviewed about their computer tools. Unfortunately, my Google-fu was unable to re-find it. If only I had never lived in a world of paper sans internet! Oh, the pain of remembering an article but not finding it again!
What are you basing this on? I set my computer-illiterate aunt up with a Mac for $600. It came pre-loaded with every app she'll ever use. You're suggesting that this is "significantly" more expensive than a windows boxen I could have gotten her?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Likewise, I have a friend who doesn't have much disposable income, and she set herself up with a Mac laptop for $1,100. There's a good, functional Windows laptop that is massively cheaper? And this isn't even getting into rebated gear, this is new stuff in a box. As for the cost of a Windows license, that depends on whether or not the person you're helping out wants to dual-boot. I would never, ever encourage a n00b to do so, so it's not really an issue for them. Someday, when they're more comfortable with the keyboard, mouse and internets, sure, they might want to do so. But once someone's thinking about dual-booting, they don't really need my help anymore.
Due to the lower amount of Macs that are used, most viruses and spyware and things like that do not bother to have different versions for every type of operating system that is non Windows allowing Macs to be generally more virus and spyware resistant than Windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The best operating system for being relatively immune to viruses is Linux due to the fact that it is open source allowing it to quickly adapt to any new viruses, but the effort needed to get Linux on a computer is usually high enough that most normal people without significant knowledge of computers will not want to try to get Linux
I still don't understand the "governmental interests" part. It's as if you're implying that Macs are somehow "untraceable"- that's not the case. Additionally, no one will rationally argue that Windows isn't more susceptible to viruses, spyware, ect, but that isn't the same as being hacker proof. The only way to keep people out of your computer (whatever OS it's running) is to keep them from getting accessed in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I remember reading where some dope setup a challenge to hackers by putting a OSX Mac online without a firewall. Within 30mins a hacker had gained root-level access. edit: Here's a link
I would say Linux is probably the most hardened consumer OS, but even still, I have no doubt your average Linux desktop could be cracked easily by a determined attacker if left exposed.Quote:
"It probably took about 20 or 30 minutes to get root on the box. Initially I tried looking around the box for certain mis-configurations and other obvious things but then I decided to use some unpublished exploits -- of which there are a lot for Mac OS X," gwerdna told ZDNet Australia .
Maybe so, but you should still at least have some sort of rudimentary virus scanner, even on Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Mac mini huh? How much did the monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers cost? I don't even have to shop around to find a cheaper deal- you can get an 'off the rack' Dell for $359 and it even comes with the keyboard/mouse included. Most everyone I know would call 40% more expensive significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Laptops? Again, I won't go any further than Dell (although I'm sure there are cheaper discount retailers out there). Their entry level laptop is $549- or half the cost of an entry level Mac laptop. $1100 is just shy of their "XPS" line of laptops.
Macs aren't bad choices, if the functionality meets the needs- ie: computer illiterates or graphic designers, ect. But they're virtually never the best price. I'd certainly be willing to recommend one for certainly people- if only so I wouldnt be constantly coming back to fix it after they get it infested with spyware. (although you can solve many problems by not allowing incompetent users to have local admin accounts(that applies to any OS really)). There's usually one of these reasons as a deal-breaker in my limited experience:
Can it run application 'x'?
No.
Oh, well I want a PC then.
or
Why is PC 'x' so much cheaper?
I'm terribly sorry if I gave you that impression, for such was not my intent. Had I meant to say that Macs were "untraceable," I would have said so plainly. As for the government side of things, I'm not going to go into that here. Let's just say that Windows is a familiar and useful environment for most investigative branches of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do we need to discuss shutting off unnecessary services now? How in-depth do we want to get?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
A complaint I often hear is that default installs of Linux tend to have way too many services running and open. Don't know if that has been improved in the last couple of years or not. And yes, before you ask, I know the difference between the a default install and a proper configuration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Um, nothing, she had a keyboard, monitor and mouse from her old, destroyed Dell. As for the cheap Dells, all I can do is shrug and say "whatever." If somebody wants a Dell, they're gonna get a Dell. If they insist on leaving the crapware installed, and they browse all over the place with IE, I'm not going to lift a finger to help them when they get infected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
And then you get to field the phone calls when they can't install a driver. Fun. Outside of corporate environments, I've met very few users who will put up with Windows' version of a limited user. Unfortunately, in Windows, the restricted user is too restricted, and Admin functions as Root.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'm certainly not trying to argue that Macs are the be-all and end-all of personal computing, or that a majority of users need or want one. I am saying, however, that for some users they're a great choice, due to security and high-n00b tolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Sorry, it's just when I hear "more secure", "less likely to get viruses" isn't the first thing I think of. If that's all you meant by it, then fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Huh? I'm talking about firewalling. If someone can get direct access to your system, they'll likely be able to hack it if they're determined and talented enough. The best path to "security" is to keep people from gaining access in the first place. If a computer is physically secure and on a secure network, it's far less likely to get hacked- regardless of the OS. Macs are targeted less often, but I don't see that as more secure. I could leave my front door open every night and have no one come in because there's nothing they're interested in. But that doesn't make my house more "secure" than the one next door with locks and alarms that gets robbed because it's stocked full of jewels. :beam:Quote:
Do we need to discuss shutting off unnecessary services now? How in-depth do we want to get?
Again, on all OSes, turning off any background services/apps that you don't need is good practice for performance and security reasons.
I'm not aware of a "default" install. I'm always prompted to select packages on the distros I use- that could vary though.Quote:
A complaint I often hear is that default installs of Linux tend to have way too many services running and open. Don't know if that has been improved in the last couple of years or not. And yes, before you ask, I know the difference between the a default install and a proper configuration.
None of that has anything to do with price- which was my point. I looked at a mini when they came out with the "low price" model. But, by the time I was done picking the extras that it didn't come with, it wasn't low-priced anymore. At which point, I just said screw it, I'll put linux on an old box instead. :shrug:Quote:
Um, nothing, she had a keyboard, monitor and mouse from her old, destroyed Dell. As for the cheap Dells, all I can do is shrug and say "whatever." If somebody wants a Dell, they're gonna get a Dell. If they insist on leaving the crapware installed, and they browse all over the place with IE, I'm not going to lift a finger to help them when they get infected.
I see wireless is standard now on minis, that would've helped some- but the prices of their upgrades are truly outrageous.
And I agree that they're generally reliable and noob tolerant. They're also less likely to get viruses/spyware- which usually falls under noobism as well.Quote:
I'm certainly not trying to argue that Macs are the be-all and end-all of personal computing, or that a majority of users need or want one. I am saying, however, that for some users they're a great choice, due to security and high-n00b tolerance.
Xiahou, sometimes I just don't understand where you're going with a disputation. Is your contention that Unix's only security advantage over Windows is a resistance to viruses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You guys can go back and forth ALL DAY. It doesn't really matter. Different strokes for different folks. As long as it gets the job done in the end and the user is happy then your job is done.
*grabs flameshield*
Not Unix- OS X. They're not the same. And more accurately, it's not resistance to viruses, it's just that nobody writes them for OS X because it has such a small market share. Unix is more secure than OS X, but nothing is invulnerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
History of Mac OS X
Darwin
Those should give you an idea, if you're interested, on how OS X is different than Unix or Linux.
Which would, in turn, explain why it has so many old security flaws that were fixed under Unix/Linux like 10yrs ago. As you can see, it has plenty of security problems, they're just not exploited because Windows is a much more attractive target for them. OS X has long been separated from Unix and open-source programming and as a result still suffers from many old vulnerabilities that were fixed by the *nix community. Yes, I know Darwin is now open-sourced, be people are staying away from it in droves since it doesn't offer anything by itself....
Let me state one more time before people start putting words in my mouth that I didn't state: Macs can be a good choice for people. I myself have thrown it out as a suggestion on a few occasions- never had any takers though. Also, it is currently less likely to be affected by viruses, spyware, ect. However, that (and Apple propaganda) gives rise to the myth that because it doesn't get viruses as often, that it must be totally "secure". It isn't. See my lame metaphor from my previous post. :beam: Also, pound for pound, the initial cost of a Mac is significantly more than an equivalent PC. You can make TCO arguments if you want, but they're pretty hard to prove and vary wildly by the circumstance.
Back to the original poster:
In a word- NO. As I've said, their commercials are almost pure propaganda- that's what commercials are, aren't they? They try to perpetuate a lot of Apple mythology that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Unfortunately, most of the few Apple personell that I've worked with come off as smug and arrogant as their commercials can. They gleefully ridicule Windows and Windows users, while ignoring that they themselves could have similar problems if any actually took the time to exploit them. :shrug:Quote:
Are MACs really that much better?
It obviously DOES make your house more secure since the other one got robbed despite all the locks.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Only pudgy geeks in poorly fitting suits buy windows. All the cool fashionable young people buy macs. Didn't you know that?Quote:
In a word- NO. As I've said, their commercials are almost pure propaganda- that's what commercials are, aren't they? They try to perpetuate a lot of Apple mythology that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Unfortunately, most of the few Apple personell that I've worked with come off as smug and arrogant as their commercials can. They gleefully ridicule Windows and Windows users, while ignoring that they themselves could have similar problems if any actually took the time to exploit them.
You're absolutely right. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, I know. I was just in denail... ~:mecry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
There is even some truth in that, because even corporate websites are hacked sometimes, I don't think the same hackers would ever bother to hack my home computer to delete my savegames or so.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
(And if some super hacker hacks me now, I'm gonna blame all those who read this thread!:clown: )
It makes his house lucky. ~;) just as 90% of windows users unwittingly browsing the web, downloading stuff and using p2p programs are well, just lucky. The difference with a Linux box is that you're not just lucky, but have better overall security to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
One of the major security flaws in Windows is the simplest one imaginable and that is users running as administrators. This is very widespread. The problem with this is that any malicious code you accidentally execute or enters your system via an exploit / security hole also has the same administrator access. With a Linux based system where you are always running as a user and becoming root is only a temporary state (to install software, reconfigure something) this is much less of an issue. You are pretty much unable to do anything stupid to the system unless you know the root password, and hence any malicious code has the same restrictions. Permissions on a Linux based system can be set at install time, so if the user wants relaxed, strict or paranoid file permissions and security they can have it. Doing this in the mainstream and bastardised WinXP Home, for example, is not as simple, as this OS has the simple file sharing forced enabled and most of the management consoles from Pro omitted. In this state you are basically relying on the Windows Firewall alone for, pretty much, all security. I suppose this is why Linux/Apache is widely used for webservers and Windows (2k and 2k3) rarely is.
Every time I see one of those stupid mac commericals I say outloud:
"Can you play games B*****"
(Asterisks please - LEN)