Printable View
I'm curious, does anyone here use a Mac? I'm sure I could find threads elsewhere, but figured I'd look for more of a personal response. I've never used a Mac and don't really expect to. I know of a few disadvantages of using a Mac, but I figured I'd ask to see.
So basically... why should anyone choose a Mac over a PC?
I'm sure Ninja will be in with a firey statement very soon. Probably involving something about security and grapical interfaces. Personally, my oppinion is that if I'm gonna use a unix based OS I'll use a free one.
Use either Windows or Linux (though I would hold off on the switch for another few years). Windows, by far, is the most convenient (despite the greater security risk, which can be countered by a good antivirus (AVG, Avast, etc,) and at least three anti-malwares (CCleaner, Ad-Aware, Spybot Search and Destroy, etc.)). Most programs require a more difficult setup for Mac and Linux, and many programs refuse to work at all. I would recommend sticking with Windows for another few years, until Linux becomes a big enough player to consider switching. If security is an absolute must, though, you might as well switch now. Speaking from experience, though, I have never had a major problem with Windows; the system is familiar and easy enough for me to use. :D
*note: @ Ninja's upcoming and inevitable retaliation: HAVE MERCY! :)
I've used a Mac before (Mac OS X or something, it's what our school uses) and I'm not quite fond of some of the Mac programs it has.
For starters, iMovie isn't that great, and quite confusing imo. I've tried both the newest version (or atleast my teacher said it was the newest, she also said reviewers didn't like the new iMovie upgrade) and whatever old version we have now (which is what I'm using in school).
Windows Movie Maker, to me, is a lot easier to understand imo.
Something else that bothered me (again, I'm using a Mac OS X here) is the windows when you're using a program, mainly photoshop.
I'll have to write more later, bed time for now. I'll even show some pictures.
Also, games. Good games.
I have owned a PC for my whole life.
Any "virus" problems I have had I have easily dealt with. Updating the PC is a dream. Oh yeah, the games are incredibly better (how many games on the Mac again?).
You really do not need all the anti-malware shit that people talk about for Windows as long as you know something about it. It's easy.
As I understand it, Mac's are better for music and graphic lovers, and people who are stupid. I mean that seriously.. the advertising for Mac's are always about how "easy" they are.. I mean seriously.. the one had a guy talking about how he didn't know how to turn it on.. come on.
+ The above is not a parody or spoof.. these are real Mac ads.
~
I'm interested in why you say thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
I mean, there's some exciting stuff going on in X, which will take a couple of years to stabilise and be picked up by the downstream distros, but it's not particularly user-facing
Just wondering what makes you say wait a couple of years
As Linux becomes more and more popular, it will become easier to use and more programs will become available for it. As of now, though, most programs are tailored for the Windows audience, though many open-source programs are gaining in popularity (I believe).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Doesn't really matter, just use what fits your preferences best and does what you need it to. I don't really care what OS other people use.
Don't we already have a bunch of threads for this?
I only took a quick look, but I couldn't find any. Or at least none that defended Macs in any way.
Search for a thread called "What OS are you using", or something along those lines.
Macs are UNIX - very stable, secure, and advanced operating system. Better for programming, graphics, and common users. They are more expensive, but top of the line.
Windows is a dll hell, fragmented memory, and aggressive page swapping memory hog. Better for gaming, Microsoft Office.
People always say that they're overprices, but they just have a different business model. The hardware is more expensive (but not by much compared to PCs of the same hardware specs,) but the OS is $50, iWork is $79... Whereas PC hardware is slightly cheaper, but the OS is $300, Office is $400...
What O'nus is saying is very true. The thing that turns me off the most about macs is not so much the technology, as it is the douchebaggery of the company. They really do market it in a way that is WAY condescending to the users. I'm enough of an optimist to assume the majority of mac users aren't as dumb as apple would like us to think... and if they are, then god help them! Owning a Mac won't save their pathetic asses, cause they sound like they couldn't operate a doorknob if their lives depended on it. There's also a holier-than-thou, "we're better than you, and we're a community" mentality that I just can't fucking stand.
And while it's true that Office is $400, I don't think I've ever paid for it in my life... but that's another thread hehehe.
To hasten the process, you should download Linux so that the popularity increases (and consequently the motivation for coders to code increases).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Ubuntu 9.10 here.
Lol people pay for software?
I mean.. Yeah. Good on you.
~
The new Microsoft Office sucks. :P Plus, you gotta pay (or use bitripper, etc). I just use Open Office. Similar, easy to use, free. :boogie:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well, I'll say just this: If Apple can't even create an iPod that can last for more than a couple years before crapping out completely, what makes anyone think their computers are worthy of my attention? Yeah, I'm well aware that none of the same principles apply between the operation of a computer and that of an MP3 player, but...well, some proverb about "apples" and "not falling far from trees" comes to mind.
Personally, I've never had any true problems with my PCs. I wasn't aware that so many Mac-users used "security flaws" as an argument against PCs. Probably because anyone with half a brain can download a reliable anti-malware program, thereby making such flaws virtually nonexistent (I, for one, have only experienced one security threat that could be considered "severe", and even then, it wasn't anything a simple reformat couldn't fix).
...And better gaming experience equates to a better computer, IMHO.
I'd love to know how you knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Lëzen
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=60
For me it's not the security (yeah, that's part of it,) but the speed. Windows slows down after time, even with good maintenance, because of the registry and disk fragmentation. *nix system don't slow down over time, because it doesn't suffer from either of those problems.
With good maintenance, those aren't really problems. You can easily defragment your disk, or use a program like CCleaner to clean the registry.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
This is astoundingQuote:
Originally Posted by Demon Parasite
Computers are tools to get work done
You should not have to spend a disproportionate amount of time maintaining a tool so it continues to function properly
If you had a hammer, whose head fell off randomly while bashing in nails, you'd get a better hammer
"Oh no, with the right maintenance it's a good hammer, really - you just have to glue the head back on occasionally"
I want to use my machine for useful stuff,
not fight with it to keep it from constantly falling over
Yeah, an end user should NEVER have to do maintenance, or install security systems, the computer should do it for you.
The only issues I've ever had with any of my PCs have been hardware malfunctions. In one case, my video card died and in the other case it was my RAM. Both of which happened no earlier than having the computer for 2 years. I've never had any other significant problems.
So when I hear "Macs don't break down as often." I think "Wow! They must last a lifetime then... wait that's impossible..." Meanwhile the hardware for Macs is more expensive, regardless of whether or not it lasts longer.
As for Macs being better for graphics and/or music, is there a particular reason why? Don't you use photoshop on both? How is it any different?
Macs have long lifespans because their operating system doesn't slow down like Windows. The average PC lifespan is 2 years because Windows slows down beyond use, not because of it's hardware. Mac's average livespan is 6 years and they're just as fast when they're gotten rid of as when they started.
Hardware breaking is going to happen with any computer, regardless of Apple or not, Apple doesn't make RAM or CPUs or graphics cards, they use the same manufacturers as every other company.
Macs are better for graphics for multiple reasons, their DVI output means that they can support much high resolution monitors than most PCs and their system preferences have built in settings for resolutions that Windows doesn't. 1080p has been standard resolution for years now, yet Windows doesn't have an option for it natively :? They also have some Apple-built hardware specific to graphics, which makes them much faster. OpenCL and integrated OpenGL makes Macs much faster in most cases, although you can get equivalent software for PCs if you're willing to spend the money.
They also have better out-of-the-box software like iMovie and iTunes, but it's mostly hardware why graphics designers all use Macs.
Re: defrag: I thought NTFS didn't require defragging.
I've had this PC for 6 years now and I've only had to take it to get repaired once.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
It runs great still, for how old it is.
If you don't it slows down. Windows has no on-the-fly defragmentation like *nix systems do. Take a look at your disk profiler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
I said average.Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer
I'm running Ubuntu, so no need to profile the disk. :)
The one weakness of filesystems like ext3, as I heard, is that while they handle themselves as far as fragmentation goes, if the disk gets pretty full (don't know HOW full - does anyone know?) the defragmentation process breaks down. I don't know if it ever recovers once you delete stuff from it, but you cannot manually defrag an ext3 filesystem without taking some unsupported, hacky risks.
I'm about to begin studying coding games, and programs, i'm very intelligent in the issue with software makeup and hardware setup, i find PC's to have to have more maintenance than a Mac but a Mac is easier and less frustrating to try to get more graphics and hardware strainging work done, if you're only worrying about gaming and performing less intense opperations on the system, Go for a PC but if you're wanting to start making/coding your own stuff, Mac flows far faster and better to see end results, although PC's Windows OS are VERY easy to hack into it's operating system and customize it to run the way you want it to... but that goes to show you the integrity of them, as to Mac i haven't been too successful with that yet, although that may be because i haven't made myself familiar with it's system.
Sorry i'm rambeling, but basically for speed and highout put without much work on your part choose a Mac, for more options in gaming and low powered operations choose a PC or just take a couple of years and learn about creating your own OS and write it up yourself with your own hardware.... I'm thinking on attempting the last suggestion myself...
ctrl+alt+del shows all running processes, even viruses and malicious software. A swift google search turns up all sorts of data on unknown processes. Never had a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Problem?Quote:
All this usually happens without the owner of the compromised machine even knowing
Really? It's that difficult for you to run CCleaner and defrag your hard drive once a month? :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Mac OS is UNIX, you can customize it to run however you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by MementoMori
Nope, lots of malicious programs replace dlls. These dlls can run in a legitimate process's program space. Ctrl+Alt+Del will not show you these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Hmm, guess i haven't started looking at them enough yet, i just got my Mac book and haven't started dissecting yet, Thanks though, those are words of encouragementQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Also, rootkits can hide malwareQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578Nope, lots of malicious programs replace dlls. These dlls can run in a legitimate process's program space. Ctrl+Alt+Del will not show you these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
A rootkit is (typically) a kernel-level hypervisor that runs your OS on top
Same as a VM cannot detect it's running in a virtualised environment, an OS (and by extension, any program it's running) cannot detect it's running on top of a rootkit
Ain't no way you can detect that without outside help
Can't you just get a piece of antivirus that scans for rootkits? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
I'm sure someone will try to sell you one, but no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
You cannot diagnose rootkits (or other malware "underneath" an OS) on the infected OS itself
Anything you do to combat rootkits has to be done externally to the OS (Ie. another OS)
yep, Then you've got a cyber boot up your ass.... :bang:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Spybot Search and Destroy should be included in with Windows....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit#Detection
Quote:
Rootkit binaries can often be detected by signature or heuristics-based antivirus programs, at least until they're run by a user and are able to attempt to conceal themselves. There are inherent limitations for any program that attempts to detect rootkits while the program is running under the suspect system. Rootkits are suites of programs that modify many of the core system tools and libraries upon which all programs on the system depend. Some rootkits attempt to modify the running operating system via loadable modules on Linux (and some other UNIX varieties), and through VxDs, virtual external device drivers on MS Windows platforms. The fundamental problem with rootkit detection is that if the operating system currently running has been subverted, it cannot be trusted, including to find unauthorized modifications to itself or its components. In other words, actions such as requesting a list of all running processes, or a list of all files in a directory, cannot be trusted to behave as intended by the original designers. Rootkit detectors running on live systems currently only work, because the rootkits they can detect have not yet been developed to hide themselves fully against these detectors. A reasonable analogy would be asking a brainwashed person if they had been brainwashed; obviously their answer could not be trusted.
The best, and most reliable, method for operating system-level rootkit detection is to shut down the computer suspected of infection, and then to check its storage by booting from an alternative trusted medium (e.g. a rescue CD-ROM or USB flash drive)[citation needed]. A non-running rootkit cannot actively hide its presence, and most established antivirus programs will identify rootkits armed via standard OS calls (which are often tampered with by the rootkit) and lower level queries, which ought to remain reliable. If there is a difference, the presence of a rootkit infection should be assumed. Running rootkits attempt to protect themselves by monitoring running processes and suspending their activity until the scanning has finished; this is more difficult if the rootkit is not allowed to run.[citation needed]
Security software vendors have attempted a solution by integrating rootkit detection into traditional antivirus products. Should a rootkit decide to hide during scanning, it will be identified by the stealth detector. If it decides to temporarily unload from the system, the traditional antivirus will find it using fingerprint detection. Since anti-virus products are almost never entirely capable of catching all viruses in public tests, this approach may be doubted on past behavior. But this combined approach may force attackers to implement counter-attack mechanisms (so called retro routines) in their rootkit code that will forcibly remove security software processes from memory, effectively killing the antivirus program. As with computer viruses, the detection and elimination of rootkits will be an ongoing struggle between tool creators on both sides of this conflict.
There are several programs available to detect rootkits. On Unix-based systems, three of the most popular are chkrootkit, rkhunter and OSSEC. For Windows, there are many free detection tools such as avast! antivirus, Sophos Anti-Rootkit, F-Secure Blacklight, and Radix. Another Windows detector is RootkitRevealer from Microsoft (formerly Sysinternals) which detects rootkits by comparing results from the OS against expected results obtained by bypassing the operating system and analysing the raw underlying structures in the file system (cross-checking). However, some rootkits started to add RootkitRevealer to a list of files it does not hide from, so in essence, they remove differences between the two listings, and the detector doesn't report them (most notably the commercial rootkit Hacker Defender Antidetection). Rootkit Revealer has apparently fixed this problem as they stated on their official page: "The reason that there is no longer a command-line version is that malware authors have started targeting RootkitRevealer's scan by using its executable name. We've therefore updated RootkitRevealer to execute its scan from a randomly named copy of itself that runs as a Windows service. This type of execution is not conducive to a command-line interface. Note that you can use command-line options to execute an automatic scan with results logged to a file, which is the equivalent of the command-line version's behavior."[18]
Another method is to compare content of binaries present on disk with their copies in operating memory — however some valid differences can be introduced by operating system mechanisms, e.g., memory relocation or shimming, but some can be very likely classified as system call hooks introduced by a running rootkit (System Virginity Verifier). Zeppoo is another software product which detects rootkits under Linux and UNIX systems.
As always, prevention is better than cure, for being certain you have removed a rootkit typically involves re-installation of all software. If the integrity of the system install disks is trusted, cryptography can be used to monitor the integrity of the system. By "fingerprinting" the system files immediately after a fresh system install and then again after any subsequent changes made to the system, e.g., installing new software, the user or administrator will be alerted to any dangerous changes to the system's files. In the fingerprinting process a message digest is used to create a fixed-length "digest" dependent on every bit in the file being fingerprinted. By calculating and comparing message digest values of files at regular intervals, changes in the system can be detected.
Detection in firmware can be achieved by computing a cryptographic hash of firmware and comparing hash values to a whitelist of expected values, or by extending the hash value into TPM (Trusted Platform Module) configuration registers, which are later compared to a whitelist of expected values. Code that performs hash, compare, and/or extend operations must itself not be compromised by the rootkit. The notion of an immutable (by a rootkit) root-of-trust, if implementable, ensures that the rootkit does not compromise the system at its most fundamental layer. A method of rootkit detection using a TPM is described by the Trusted Computing Group.[19]
The antivirus will simply try to detect the installation of the rootkit in the first place, once it's in place, it's like the dll impostor, it's impossible to detect. Microsoft tried to remedy this by introducing UAC, but, most users disable UAC because it's such a pain in the ass. You can't add protection from viruses on top of the operating system with extra programs like microsoft is doing. Anti-virus security systems have to be inherent in the OS itself, like it is with UNIX and Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Mac Wins. Every PC I've ever owned died. The mac I'm using, an iBook G4, is about 4 years old and going strong. I mostly use my computer for graphics and music, and internet. If I want to play a game, I use my PS3. I've owned 4 PCs and a dell laptop, and all of them died from either a virus or just something stupid (blue screen.)
Mac
Christ, what do you people do on your computers, anyway? Holy crap! The last computer I had lasted for 6 long years. Not once was there a noticeable drop in speed, and it only went kaput because the motherboard crapped out. We could've fixed it, but decided an upgrade would be worth it (computer power having tripled by this point). :? No malicious programs, major security threats, etc. Never had a problem.
What the hell kind of virus did you have? And I'm pretty sure you can fix the blue screen thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarboy
People just need to learn how to take care of their computer.
Ynot compared a PC to a hammer. Bad comparison. Comparing a PC to a car is much better. If your car dies, you won't go out and buy a new car, you would just fix the part(s) that's broken.
And I don't understand how Macs are better for graphics and editing...
iMovie is confusing as hell for editing movies and Photoshop is a lot easier to use on a PC imo.
Photoshop is the same for both o.O I don't use iMovie (final cut and after effects) and I don't feel like spending hundreds of dollars to fix a crappy computer that was slow as shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer
Go to Help > Video Tutorials :P iMove is a lot easier to understand than WMM, and iMovie uses H.264. WMM uses WMV, which nothing other than windows media player understands.
I don't use Mac at home (ever) however, I've used them a lot at school. I've used just about every type of Mac Computer since the old iBooks, and I don't like a single one. I use one of the new Macs for my journalism class ( a G4, maybe ) and it's decent. But I'd take a PC any day. The Macs are good for... well, with Adobe programs on them, they're good for Word Processors with immense learning curves and photo/movie editing that I can essentially get open source for free. On a Mac, it's very easy to create programs and place them in files on your desktop.
I will say, however, that most of the semi-recent Macs I've used run more smoothly than Windows. From the second they start up, there is almost zero lag unless the program encounters a glitch.
I've used PC's since I was 7 (we've still got my original PC, still in working order, and the only thing we've done to it is increased the RAM so my little brother could play Quake 2 on the LAN with us) it works fine. It's slightly slow, and it takes forever to shut down, but for such a long lifespan, I would expect that. I'm perfectly happy with my custom Dell laptop. However, if we ever got the 1 one and a half thousand dollars to buy everyone a Mac, we would buy them, erase the OS, and use it to run Windows or Linux. In fact, I imagine Linux running on a brand-new Mac would be very smooth.
By the way, on Macs, do the Adobe programs come pre-installed, or do you have to buy all of them?
You have to buy the Adobe suite, same as Windows. I think it's $1400.
Linux runs very smoothly on the Mac, I use it. Both Mac (UNIX) and Linux use what's called lazy page swapping, so loading things is very very smooth. Windows uses an aggressive page swapping routine. It's legacy from the days of where there was just enough RAM to load a few programs at a time, it was faster then, now it just causes Windows to lag. Microsoft hasn't figure out how to fix it yet. :P
Blue Is Better Than Red
~
That's not true. If you format your Mac you will notice a speed increase, its just not as great as with windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
If you've got the proper driver installed for your graphics card, then windows supports all the output resolutions the card can display. The only reason Mac can support it "natively" is that they have limited hardware they need to support.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Edit: And what are you people doing with your computers? I've had two laptops and three stationary, the first laptop lasted five years before the hardware limitations became a problem (it still runs fine, it's just that the hardware's not powerful enough to play HD videos or games or anything), the first stationary lasted a good many years before I installed Linux and set it up as a server, and both stationary computers are still in use (the oldest 3 years and counting).
I had the exact same question.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Still awaiting a response. :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Not true, red is a lower intensity light. Because of this, if you look at red light, you can instantly go into a dark area and see because your eyes are already adjusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I'm a developer and a graphics designer, I use my computer hard. Lots of my own software write to the registry, while building software, it often crashes, causing temp files to not be cleaned correctly, memory to not be restored...
Maya and Blender can shoot memory usage up to 16GB and run processors at 100% for weeks at a time. If the computer dies 13 days into a 14 day render, lots of that work has to be redone. Its absolutely imperative that the computer not crash under these extreme conditions, which is why rendering is always done on Mac.
That doesn't mean it is better, noobQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
~
It does from a technical standpoint.
Consider, then, that blue-violet light, because it moves at a higher frequency, is more efficient at maximizing disc space (blu-ray, anyone?). This allows for six times the data storing capacity of a standard red-laser disc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Blue wins.
Become part of the idort master race.
Have all 3.
Linux, Windows and OSX on a massively butchered 2TB HDD
I'm failing to see how anyone that can partition their hard drive to effectively use both Linux and Windows would ever need/want OSX.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
Just because they canQuote:
Originally Posted by Abra
duh.
If I could, I would, just so I could say that I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fableflame
or did.