Love these commercials

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Mac

Are MACs really that much better?

The one with the computer cart is my favorite.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I like this one: http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/ap...ts_480x376.mov

They're funny, but not very convincing.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Lemur]

Are MACs really that much better?

As the family's (and heaven help me, the neighborhood's) "computer guy," I steer people to Macs for one of two reasons:

1. They have serious security needs, or
2. 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.

[Xiahou]

As the family's (and heaven help me, the neighborhood's) "computer guy," I steer people to Macs for one of two reasons:

1. They have serious security needs, or
2. 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."

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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

[Lemur]

I'm not sure about point 1, especially with the FBI statement afterwards. What do you mean by "security"?

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.

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!

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

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

"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 .

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.

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

Maybe so, but you should still at least have some sort of rudimentary virus scanner, even on Linux.

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?

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.

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?

[Lemur]

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.

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.

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.

Do we need to discuss shutting off unnecessary services now? How in-depth do we want to get?

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.

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.

Mac mini huh? How much did the monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers cost?

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.

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)).

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.

Can it run application 'x'?
No.
Oh, well I want a PC then.
or
Why is PC 'x' so much cheaper?

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.

[Lemur]

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.

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?

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.

[TevashSzat]

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"?

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.

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