I've got no agenda of my own, I'm only here to do the best job I can possibly do in the best interest of the readers. That being said, I'm wondering if a good way of tackling the price issue is to do a month with an iMac G5?
That could provide an interesting way to incorporate many of the things I didn't talk about in the first Mac article that I would have liked to have touched on. Just a thought.
That could provide an interesting way to incorporate many of the things I didn't talk about in the first Mac article that I would have liked to have touched on. Just a thought.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
ENOUGH - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Shut up with all this Mac talk, it's giving me a headache and money seems to be magically disappearing out of my wallet.Anonymous - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#41 Exactly my point and apparently yours. Well said.#43
...don't you mean comparing Apples to Lemons???...and Macintosh isn't really niche...nor is it mainstream...eMac, iMac and iBook are meant for consumers as an alternative to PCs...PowerMac and PowerBook are meant for professionals who would rather WORK than REPAIR...
That's pretty clever. However, that pretty much sums up what a lot of Mac users think. They have the love of the Mac so engrained in their psyche that everything else computer related is bunk. Yet of course many of those same people need to use a PC for stuff because they can't do it on a Mac. I was right there with you until I realized I'd go months without seeing a post for Mac related work in the paper.
You assumption that Macs are for people who would rather "WORK than Repair" is bunk and clearly illustrates that you have a lot of understanding when it comes to the PC platform. Perhaps you're speaking more from experience than stating a fact.
"I own PCs and Macs...my personal preference is my PowerMac FW800...but I have an AthlonXP for Flight Sims and Visual Studio...my Server (aka FrankenBox) runs OS/2 (NOT Windows)...and has had roughly 1 hour downtime (other than power outages caused by recent Tropical Storms/Hurricanes) in the past 4 years...it's slow...but it's stable...nothing like my Win2000 Server that was down 2-3 times a week for about a year...BUT...I run Virex on my Mac for the purpose of protecting the two Win2k...four WinXP Home and one WinXP Pro boxes on my network...seeing that OS/2 hasn't had a virus written for it since the mid-90's...I'm not worried there..."
Nothing wrong with having a personal preference but your preference doesn't prove a point related to anything stated in my first post (there are now several). Your comparison of OS/2 and Windows 2K Server speaks more of your comfort level with OS/2 over the windows platform. That's fine but to say your 2K server was "down 2-3 times a week for about a year" tells me that perhaps the issue was more related to configuration than the OS being a "lemon". It doesn't really prove anything other than you having a higher comfort level with certain products.
There seems to be some kind of common theme you share with the previous poster about the Mac being able to protect PCs from viruses. The Mac OS is doing nothing other than providing the platform OS that the AV program runs on. You're providing no higher level of security than a PC running AV software. I hope there is AV software on your PCs and you're not solely relying on the Mac.
I'm all for AV makers to provide this functionality. With the lack of viruses on the Mac why the hell buy Norton every year for $49? They've got to included additional functionality in there to keep the profits coming. That's a great feature but no testament to the vastly improved security of OS X.
As far as #46 goes:
There are about 25 million Mac users out there using various versions of the OS (about 10 million using OS X) - Witty's target was 12,000. You're going to have to come up with another explanation.
Look at the target number. You posted a link in relation to a secuirty flaw of a specific product not the OS. So of course that vulnerability is only going to infect the install base running the program(s) not patched. All your post proves is that a program had a vulnerability and someone exploited it.
"Witty only attacked computers running unpatched versions of BlackICE firewalls."
So what's my point? No one said that the smaller Mac user base was the *only* reason it had so few viruses or vulnerabilities. My point was (and always has been) that the Mac cannot be touted as some superior, more secure platform to windows. The only way to test this would be to open up the flood gates and the amount of users and see how the OS responds to a myriad of threats. That hasn't happened and probably won't.
PS. I love Macs and I want to marry one.
Shawn Morel - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
I think it might be a very good idea to look at both the new iMac and laptop offerings. They are much cheaper than the top of line G5 and you might be surprised at the results. I use a similar set of applications as what you described (plus some other development tools). My experience with my laptop is actually quite similar to what you described in your month with a G5 review. Keep in mind that my laptop is only a G4 667MHz with nothing more than an ATI 7500 mobility (32MB vram). Things still run as smoothly when it comes to interface responsiveness; this even when I am dual monitoring with the built in 15" lcd and a 19" crt. What does slow down is cpu intensive background tasks like compiling large java apps or rendering video. But I still find myself browsing the web, checking email, using exposé etc. with these tasks running in the background with no major drop in usability.On another note, I work for RIM and I can fully understand how you couldn't live without your blackberry on your primary machine :)
Doc - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Current SlashDot thought on Cherry OS is that it is a fraud:http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/10/12/1622247.s...
Doc - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
A number of posters mention the Mac is virus free only because of low numbers. Here's a good explanation of why that is simply not correct:http://www.bynkii.com/generic_mac_stuff/archives/2...
"On March 8th, 2004, eEye Digital Security discovered a vulnerability in ISS's BlackICE/RealSecure products. On March 9th, ISS released a patch for the vulnerability. On March 18th, eEye published a high-level description of the vulnerability. 36 hours later, Witty was released into the wild. Within 45 minutes, every vulnerable machine was infected, about 12,000 machines in total."
There are about 25 million Mac users out there using various versions of the OS (about 10 million using OS X) - Witty's target was 12,000. You're going to have to come up with another explanation.
Doc - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#35 : "There is a reason why Mac's still hold their value. Because people selling them have alread spent their paycheck on a new Mac so they have to make some money somewhere. Also, PC's have a much higher turnover rate than Macs. There is always a new PC out there waiting to be bought, however new higher-spec Macs dont come out untill a couple years after the recent one."You've just re-written a central tenant of economic theory: that prices reflect what the market will support. I'm going to move on from here to eBay my old toothbrush for a million bucks - Thanks!
Macs refreshed once every two years? Before you continue may I suggest you download the Windows version of Mactracker here:
http://www.mactracker.ca/
John Q Public - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#42...trust me when I say x86 emulators on the Mac can be just as painful...VirtualPC is better than most...but still ungodly slow...
John Q Public - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#30..."Wow, that sounds exactly like what is posted on Symantec's website. So is this feature of Norton 9.0 for the Mac representative of OS X's superior security? Considerig Symantec makes this product I wouldn't think so. And so what if it does detect PC viruses? Aren't you running AV protection on your PCs? "
...even moreso than in PC land...NEVER mention the "N" word around a serious Mac user...Symantec's line of products can hose a Mac nearly as fast as they can a PC...
"To say the Mac is more secure than windows is comparing apples to oranges as they operate in two different worlds: The niche and the mainstream."
...don't you mean comparing Apples to Lemons???...and Macintosh isn't really niche...nor is it mainstream...eMac, iMac and iBook are meant for consumers as an alternative to PCs...PowerMac and PowerBook are meant for professionals who would rather WORK than REPAIR...
I own PCs and Macs...my personal preference is my PowerMac FW800...but I have an AthlonXP for Flight Sims and Visual Studio...my Server (aka FrankenBox) runs OS/2 (NOT Windows)...and has had roughly 1 hour downtime (other than power outages caused by recent Tropical Storms/Hurricanes) in the past 4 years...it's slow...but it's stable...nothing like my Win2000 Server that was down 2-3 times a week for about a year...BUT...I run Virex on my Mac for the purpose of protecting the two Win2k...four WinXP Home and one WinXP Pro boxes on my network...seeing that OS/2 hasn't had a virus written for it since the mid-90's...I'm not worried there...
Anonymous - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
I wouldn't recommend wasting money on a Mac emulator for Windows. These happen to be extremely slow.Anonymous - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#31 You seem to have very little knowledge of the corporate world to think that adding a Macs into a Windows corporate network would not affect the IT support staff. The number of 3rd party software programs most companies use is significant. Most of these programs are not written for the Mac because it is not cost effective to develop enterprise software for a platform that almost no one uses in the corporate environment (granted, there are a few industries where Macs are found, but only a few). And I hope you're not so clueless as to think that the same people who are paid to support your Windows OS and programs would support other platforms. Companies would have to hire support staff trained for the Mac platform, adding to their already expensive purchase. Considering that most companies spend considerable effort to unify all of their machines under a single platform (and as someone else pointed out, even a single manufacturer), throwing in another platform would not make sense.As for *nix, most companies use these for their own servers, or for development purposes. Throwing a bunch of *nix machines at employees (or even Mac) would result in lost productivity as employees would have to become familiar with the new platform.