|
tattooed_climber
May 7, 2007, 3:03 AM
Post #1 of 55
(3595 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
just got a new lappy today
with vista....
its a cheap lap top (800 bucks spent) with intel celeron M processor 430 (1.73 GHz)
no WORD (so i need a word processor program that reads .doc files.......free ones out on the net???????)
and slow...all these fucking pop ups asking for confirmations aboot installations...grrr....
had to delete Command and conquer 3 off it the second i loaded it cus i kept crashing the computer.....
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 7, 2007, 3:13 AM
Post #2 of 55
(3589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
eh, i know what you mean... it's taken me a bit of time to get used to the whole thing... almost nothing i know about XP (which is only slightly more than nothing) translated directly, a bunch of older programs won't run on the bastard, and now i'm having trouble with my MSIexec.exe program. something about a program i loaded up has caused it not to work properly.
of course, re-registering the file didn't work either.
i'm sure you'll be able to add to the list shortly.
though if it's any consolation, the windows defender pop-ups become much less noticeable after a short time.
still wish I'd gotten a mac though...
hindsight being 20/20 and all, it probably would have been worth the extra quid.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
May 7, 2007, 3:13 AM
Post #3 of 55
(3589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
tattooed_climber wrote: just got a new lappy today
tattooed_climber wrote: with vista....
tattooed_climber wrote: its a cheap lap top (800 bucks spent)
tattooed_climber wrote: with intel celeron M processor 430 (1.73 GHz)
tattooed_climber wrote: no WORD
tattooed_climber wrote: (so i need a word processor program that reads .doc files.......free ones out on the net???????)
(This post was edited by sbaclimber on May 7, 2007, 3:13 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 7, 2007, 3:57 AM
Post #4 of 55
(3572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
tattooed_climber wrote: just got a new lappy today with vista....
Well there's your problem. Ask around, find somebody with Win XP and a cd key that works. That'll solve your problems.
I wish Microsoft would do their beta testing before they released their products.
|
|
|
|
|
themadmilkman
May 7, 2007, 6:29 AM
Post #5 of 55
(3551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2006
Posts: 510
|
Well, the first thing you do is grab the Vista CD and reinstall it without all the extra crap, assuming that you have one that can. Hopefully it's not some "System Restore" disc, cuz those suck.
After that, things should run significantly better.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 7, 2007, 6:34 AM
Post #6 of 55
(3550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
i'll give it a shot, though it's just one of those POS's of which you speak.
What ever happened to the days when an OS came on a disc, not pre-installed on the HDD?
WTF is one supposed to do when it comes time to install a new HDD?
Durr!
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
May 7, 2007, 7:24 AM
Post #7 of 55
(3548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
i second openoffice. while its calc doesnt really reach excel, its writer is imho actually better than word. a really nice suprise was a floating styles menu (think PS). and thebest option of all... you can export to pdf directly. i use openoffice all the time, just make sure you save into doc when sending stuff to other ppl, while openoffice works with microsoft formats no problem, microsoft progs dont support openoffice files.
im also kindof annoyed with preinstalled OSs. but most have a backup utility that allows you to backup the instalation onto dvds or such, which is imho even better than having an install disc because you dont need to set it up when you reinstall the OS.
|
|
|
|
|
perp
May 7, 2007, 12:49 PM
Post #8 of 55
(3525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2004
Posts: 83
|
I say make sure you save as pdf when sending a document.
.doc should be avoided at all costs!
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
May 7, 2007, 1:35 PM
Post #9 of 55
(3514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
perp wrote: I say make sure you save as pdf when sending a document. .doc should be avoided at all costs!
thats why i love openoffice so much. pdf is just one click away
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 7, 2007, 3:24 PM
Post #10 of 55
(3501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
I agree with first reinstalling the OS. They suck preinstalled.
Open office is probably better, but years ago....I liked star office
http://www.sun.com/...staroffice/index.jsp
Maybe not even compatible. I thought you might like the alternative though.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 7, 2007, 3:28 PM
Post #11 of 55
(3500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
oh I forgot. If you only need to READ the MS office stuff....You can download viewers from their website.
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 7, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #12 of 55
(3477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
tattooed_climber wrote: no WORD (so i need a word processor program that reads .doc files.......free ones out on the net???????)
Google has a word processor and you don't even have to download a program, you can do everything on your browser.
Google Docs & Spreadsheets
I think they are about to realease a PowerPoint-like app too.
tattooed_climber wrote: and slow...all these fucking pop ups asking for confirmations aboot installations...grrr.... had to delete Command and conquer 3 off it the second i loaded it cus i kept crashing the computer.....
That's all the crapware PC's come loaded with these days. Just uninstall all that shit.
BTW, Vista on a Celeron? the OS is probably what's eating your computer up. Can you return your computer? Dell (and maybe other manufacturers?) is offering new computers with XP again (talk about a bad start for Vista), maybe you could return your machine and get an XP laptop instead.
(This post was edited by lagr01 on May 7, 2007, 5:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 7, 2007, 5:42 PM
Post #13 of 55
(3469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
lagr01 wrote: tattooed_climber wrote: and slow...all these fucking pop ups asking for confirmations aboot installations...grrr.... had to delete Command and conquer 3 off it the second i loaded it cus i kept crashing the computer..... That's all the crapware PC's come loaded with these days. Just uninstall all that shit.
Actually, what he's complaining about is part and parcell of the new Vista security system. After a while it puts together a database of what it can and can't do, but right out of the box, its pretty irritating. The other trick is that most everything on the market now is incompatible with Vista. Has very little to do with his proc. However, if he's short on ram, that'll figure in. 600mb just for overhead is a little ridiculous.
(This post was edited by petsfed on May 7, 2007, 5:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tattooed_climber
May 8, 2007, 4:17 AM
Post #16 of 55
(3405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
time to state, i would have bought a mac, but the software i'd be running on it for school/work is PC only...and if there is a mac version, i'd have to buy it.....got $$$$$ per program + licensing??????..afew thousand per program
any who, got a new lappy.....the other one was hatched.....this one is a AMD turion 64 mobile (2GHzzzz)....1 Gb ram, 160 HDD, and an ok graphics card
this one is MUCH better....but the USB card still kinda/kinda doesn't work on it, so i just went out and returned it and got a diff brand (old was Sandisk, this one is Memorex)
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 8, 2007, 4:23 AM
Post #17 of 55
(3401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
Macs can run Windows too.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 8, 2007, 5:23 AM
Post #18 of 55
(3391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
lagr01 wrote: Macs can run Windows too.
I'm seriously considering making a return, even though it'd cost me an extra thou to upgrade to the macbook.
especially if it would run all my winderz programs too.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 8, 2007, 10:14 AM
Post #19 of 55
(3385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
macs can be installed on pretty much any computer too.
the comment about macs being able to run windows is because of their new app. The macs now have the ability to let windows run at the same time as their OS. You can switch back and forth on the fly. Windows just tries to disallow all other OSes from even dual booting.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
May 8, 2007, 12:30 PM
Post #20 of 55
(3374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
microbarn wrote: macs can be installed on pretty much any computer too. the comment about macs being able to run windows is because of their new app. The macs now have the ability to let windows run at the same time as their OS. You can switch back and forth on the fly. Windows just tries to disallow all other OSes from even dual booting.
really?? thats really nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 8, 2007, 4:53 PM
Post #22 of 55
(3357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
microbarn wrote: macs can be installed on pretty much any computer too. the comment about macs being able to run windows is because of their new app. The macs now have the ability to let windows run at the same time as their OS. You can switch back and forth on the fly. Windows just tries to disallow all other OSes from even dual booting.
This last part is patently false. Windows insists that it "own" the master boot record, but its still pretty easy to dual boot any machine. If you use Grub that is. LiLo is crap for dual booting windows and Linux (or Linux and freeBSD or Unix or ...).
Macs can now run Windows because they use processors that use Intel chip architecture. Which more or less means that Macs now use the same processors as IBM clones. Until Apple made the switch, the architecture of their chips was such that Windows didn't know how to operate the chip (and OS X, likewise, couldn't operate the chip in a Windows machine). OS X is not currently available legally for installation on non-Mac Intel based systems. However, you can acquire a hacked version that will run on a Dell (for instance) via illegal channels.
Since you can now dualboot a mac with both OS X and Windows, there really isn't a good argument against Macs, except perhaps that whole single button mouse thing, but that's easily remedied.
/desperately wants a powerbook
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 8, 2007, 5:04 PM
Post #23 of 55
(3353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
Basicly I agree. You are nit-picking details, and I could do the same on yours. But I think we agree in the end.
petsfed wrote: Since you can now dualboot a mac with both OS X and Windows, there really isn't a good argument against Macs, except perhaps that whole single button mouse thing, but that's easily remedied.
This is the one thing I HAVE to reply to. The reasons against macs are still present. Windows is slower running as a mac app. If you are running computation heavy programs, then it will hurt a lot to be running the mac OS at the same time. Secondly, you have to buy 2 operating systems. Why buy 2 OSes when the one suffices?
I am happy to see macs moving along to be more competitive, but I cannot yet consider converting myself to a mac except on a home computer.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 8, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #24 of 55
(3348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
The question, for me, is why would you run computation heavy programs and windows, simultaneously? I mean, dual booting (as opposed to running windows as an app) neatly solves the problem because you only have one OS running at a time (I really don't see the utility of having two operating systems running simultaneously on the same machine, it just multiplies overhead, but not productivity). This coupled with OS X's psuedo-UNIX architecture (I guess its more akin to BSD, but that's splitting hairs unneccesarily) means that most any computations you need to do can be done in OS X. Then when the computations are done, you can restart in Windows and play your games. But not both at the same time. If you need to do that so much, just get a second computer. You won't take any processing hits for it. And anyone who might seriously consider dual booting probably has access to a copy of windows, already payed for.
At such time as I get a laptop for work purposes, it will be a Mac. But like I said, this is because OS X is UNIX-like to a degree that many of the programs I use are already written for it. I don't expect to ever purchase a desktop Mac, but that's because I can't build a Mac from scratch.
That reminds me, I need to dig up my copy of partition magic so I can throw Slack back on the old home computer.
The work computer runs Fedora and I hate it.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 8, 2007, 5:40 PM
Post #25 of 55
(3341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
run a 4 day ansys simulation on your only computer
You will want to use other applications at some point during the 4 days.
Now, pretend my job is to run tons of these simulations all the time. Will I EVER use the mac OS if I have to boot into it? No, and that is the root problem with dual booting. In my experience I eventually got lazy and used the OS I HAD to use rather then the OS I wanted to use every time I set up a dual boot.
So, if I really like and want to use a Mac OS, then the only real possibility would be to use windows as an app option. That option is unrealistic for the above mentioned reasons too.
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 8, 2007, 6:02 PM
Post #26 of 55
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
microbarn wrote: This is the one thing I HAVE to reply to. The reasons against macs are still present. Windows is slower running as a mac app. If you are running computation heavy programs, then it will hurt a lot to be running the mac OS at the same time. Secondly, you have to buy 2 operating systems. Why buy 2 OSes when the one suffices? I am happy to see macs moving along to be more competitive, but I cannot yet consider converting myself to a mac except on a home computer.
I'm not an expert on this topic, but why would you run Windows as a Mac app? with Boot Camp you boot either one of the OS's separately. I used a friend's MacBook running Windows and didn't notice anything weird in terms of speed. In fact it surprised me that it worked flawlessly. But that was only one time, I don't have Windows installed on my MacBook. The point of swithching for me was OS X so installing Windows doesn't make sense. So far I haven't missed Windows at all.
I still have to use a Windows PC at work though, and every morning I start using it I feel like a took a step back from the previous night when I used my Mac at home.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 8, 2007, 6:06 PM
Post #27 of 55
(3495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
lagr01 wrote: I'm not an expert on this topic, but why would you run Windows as a Mac app?
because you need to use a program that doesn't yet run on the mac OS, but you like the mac OS.
So, you HAVE to use windows some, but you would like to avoid windows otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 8, 2007, 6:31 PM
Post #28 of 55
(3488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
microbarn wrote: run a 4 day ansys simulation on your only computer You will want to use other applications at some point during the 4 days.
This is where our experiences diverge. I had to run 96 hours of curve fitting a while back and rather than lose 3 extra days letting one computer do the work, I split it 4 ways and took the rest of the day off. But that is I guess my experience vs. yours. For what I do, I should qualify, there's no good argument against getting a mac, especially since IRAF and IDL have Mac compatible versions.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
May 8, 2007, 7:20 PM
Post #29 of 55
(3480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I have a macbook pro and love it. I used to have to carry two laptops, one g4 powerbook for photos and personal stuff, an a POS dell for work apps (network management stuff) that have no mac versions. Now I have one laptop, and most everything windows runs OK on XP inside of parallels, but if that acts up then, I just use boot camp. If your primary app is windows, then it doesn't make sense to have a mac, but if you just need windows every once in awhile, or not at all, then mac are pretty cool. And the whole "they cost way more" isn't really true if you actually compare equal systems.
My sister got an el' cheapo compaq laptop with vista the other day. Not a real fan of it, esp. with all the crap that comes pre-installed, etc. And I know you can run a clean install and all that, but it is just another pain in the ass.
|
|
|
|
|
azmtbkr81
May 9, 2007, 12:41 AM
Post #30 of 55
(3462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2006
Posts: 3
|
Macs are neat but don't think they are without problems. Despite what the commercials would have you believe Macs do freeze up and have problems just like PCs. The difference is Macs give zero error messages instead of the cryptic error messages you get from a PC, at least you can google those and usually find the answer.
By the way you can turn off the annoying warning messages and eye candy in Vista to make it look and feel almost the same as XP.
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 9, 2007, 1:24 AM
Post #31 of 55
(3466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
From my experience with OS X, the apps can freeze sometimes but the OS doesn't. Just Force Quit the app (command+option+Esc) and you are fine, can't say the same about Windows, who's frozen too many times on me. I've never had to reboot my Mac because the OS froze. Also, the fact that you don't need to run any antivirus and antispyware software that makes your computer slower is an advantage OS X has over Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 9, 2007, 2:32 AM
Post #32 of 55
(3454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
lagr01 wrote: From my experience with OS X, the apps can freeze sometimes but the OS doesn't. Just Force Quit the app (command+option+Esc) and you are fine, can't say the same about Windows, who's frozen too many times on me. I've never had to reboot my Mac because the OS froze. Also, the fact that you don't need to run any antivirus and antispyware software that makes your computer slower is an advantage OS X has over Windows.
You know, a solid firewall and some good browsing habits will keep your spy ware and virus exposure to a minimum. The age of the computer virus as such is at an end. I don't run anti-virus software. I scan my computer every few weeks for spy ware. I still have no problems. The reason, of course, is that I'm not connected directly to the internet (my router is my intermediary) and I run a firewall. OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows. Same with Linux. There's just fewer people writing viruses for either. This is why Firefox is, for now, a safer web browser. But it won't be forever.
The stability of OS X is leaps and bounds above Windows though. As I stated earlier in the thread, Microsoft needs to start putting their beta testing phase before they put the product on the shelves. But this is also because OS X is based on a proven stable operating system (BSD, to be precise) and was just given a user friendly interface.
There is a joke about OS X that's quite telling. They say Mac released OS X because making UNIX user friendly is still easier than debugging Windows.
OS X is not bug free. Such a thing is impossible. The program is just too big. What it is is remarkably stable in spite of the bugs. And its also very user friendly. If you're just playing music, surfing the net, and checking your email, a mac is just about perfect. For gaming or professional applications, maybe not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
May 9, 2007, 2:35 AM
Post #33 of 55
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
This is a bit off topic, but seeing as this thread has become a debate about Vista vs Mac anyway, it might well be the best place to bring it up.
Over in Bugs & Error Reports, people have had some trouble with RC.com, while using Opera:
On Vista
and
On OSX
DDT has made some changes that should fix the problem, but needs some beta testers
Any of you, in either the Vista or OSX camp, able to test the site in Opera for him?
|
|
|
|
|
keeper
May 9, 2007, 2:59 AM
Post #34 of 55
(3448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 78
|
lagr01 wrote: From my experience with OS X, the apps can freeze sometimes but the OS doesn't. Just Force Quit the app (command+option+Esc) and you are fine, can't say the same about Windows, who's frozen too many times on me. I've never had to reboot my Mac because the OS froze. Also, the fact that you don't need to run any antivirus and antispyware software that makes your computer slower is an advantage OS X has over Windows.
Ok... I currently do this for a living so I hate to talk work in a place I normally go to avoid working but the "force quit" just pisses me off. At least with Windows (and trust me, I'm not a fan) I get an event log, an error message, something to give me some clue why things went wrong. With Macs... "Force Quit" and that's it... you're done. Its like "nevermind... I didn't want to finish what I started anyhow." How is that better? You have no clue what happened, why it happened, or how to fix it. That sucks... especially when the company Mac monkey happens to be a noisy bastard with no clue how "computer-type things" work. He ALWAYS needs to know 'why'.
/Rant of the week. Sorry... I haven't had a vacation for along time.
(This post was edited by keeper on May 9, 2007, 3:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 9, 2007, 3:47 AM
Post #35 of 55
(3436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
petsfed wrote: OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows. Same with Linux. There's just fewer people writing viruses for either. This is why Firefox is, for now, a safer web browser. But it won't be forever.
I don't know, man. It makes sense that if there is less people using OSX there'll be less people making viruses for it, but don't you think that if it was as vulnerable as Windows someone would have already succeeded in screwing a bunch of Macs? as small as Apple's market share is, I think being the first guy to do so must be a cool thing to achieve.
petsfed wrote: For gaming or professional applications, maybe not so much.
Is it because of the amount of software available or because of OS X's characteristics?
|
|
|
|
|
jonqdoe
May 9, 2007, 10:57 AM
Post #36 of 55
(3424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 128
|
sbaclimber wrote: This is a bit off topic, but seeing as this thread has become a debate about Vista vs Mac anyway, it might well be the best place to bring it up. Over in Bugs & Error Reports, people have had some trouble with RC.com, while using Opera: On Vista and On OSX DDT has made some changes that should fix the problem, but needs some beta testers Any of you, in either the Vista or OSX camp, able to test the site in Opera for him?
It's working fine in Vista now.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 9, 2007, 11:39 AM
Post #37 of 55
(3416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
lagr01 wrote: petsfed wrote: OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows. Same with Linux. There's just fewer people writing viruses for either. This is why Firefox is, for now, a safer web browser. But it won't be forever. I don't know, man. It makes sense that if there is less people using OSX there'll be less people making viruses for it, but don't you think that if it was as vulnerable as Windows someone would have already succeeded in screwing a bunch of Macs? as small as Apple's market share is, I think being the first guy to do so must be a cool thing to achieve. petsfed wrote: For gaming or professional applications, maybe not so much. Is it because of the amount of software available or because of OS X's characteristics?
whoever writes a virus for a mac will not be the first. It has been done, and it still happens. The reason you don't see it more often is that worms often need a continuous string of connections of mac to mac to mac inorder to proliferate. This doesn't happen enough that you see worms often. Other viruses for macs don't proliferate for much of the same reasons.
and to answer the second question....The software is not available on macs. The characteristics of mac OS actually makes it preferable for programs in many cases. The other cases don't necessarily have anything impeding them.
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 9, 2007, 1:46 PM
Post #38 of 55
(3406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
microbarn wrote: whoever writes a virus for a mac will not be the first. It has been done, and it still happens. The reason you don't see it more often is that worms often need a continuous string of connections of mac to mac to mac inorder to proliferate. This doesn't happen enough that you see worms often. Other viruses for macs don't proliferate for much of the same reasons.
That makes sense, but can you name one of those viruses? because anytime I hear this discussion I've never heard anyone naming a virus (or spyware) that affected OS X, and I've never heard of a Mac user that got their computer infected. It should be easy to find one if there are so few of them. I don't mean that OS X is invulnerable, but I just don't think OS X and Windows are equally vulnerable and that it all comes down to quantity.
|
|
|
|
|
jonqdoe
May 9, 2007, 2:25 PM
Post #39 of 55
(3396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 128
|
lagr01 wrote: That makes sense, but can you name one of those viruses? because anytime I hear this discussion I've never heard anyone naming a virus (or spyware) that affected OS X, and I've never heard of a Mac user that got their computer infected. It should be easy to find one if there are so few of them. I don't mean that OS X is invulnerable, but I just don't think OS X and Windows are equally vulnerable and that it all comes down to quantity.
Here's one, from a contest that was held to hack OSX a few weeks ago. It does say they had to relax the rules of the contest to allow this particular hack or something like that, though...
The biggest security advantage OSX had over windows was not running as an admin (root) by default. Most windows users set themselves up to always have admin privledges, and then proceed to click "OK" on any window that pops up, letting any program do what it wants. A computer is only going to be as secure as the person using it.
Here's a pretty funny rant about those obnoxious "I'm a Mac" "I'm a PC" commercials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
keeper
May 9, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #41 of 55
(3385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 78
|
lagr01 wrote: microbarn wrote: whoever writes a virus for a mac will not be the first. It has been done, and it still happens. The reason you don't see it more often is that worms often need a continuous string of connections of mac to mac to mac inorder to proliferate. This doesn't happen enough that you see worms often. Other viruses for macs don't proliferate for much of the same reasons. That makes sense, but can you name one of those viruses? because anytime I hear this discussion I've never heard anyone naming a virus (or spyware) that affected OS X, and I've never heard of a Mac user that got their computer infected. It should be easy to find one if there are so few of them. I don't mean that OS X is invulnerable, but I just don't think OS X and Windows are equally vulnerable and that it all comes down to quantity.
You don't hear about Mac viruses because they impact so few people. Your big corporations... the ones shape define how we communicate and and how commerce ebbs and flows... they aren't building their infrastructure on a Mac.
Windows viruses make the news because they impact people. Communication is impacted, companies loose data, web servers grind to a halt. That makes the news.
Macs are trendy and cute but they haven't made their way into the server rooms and the data centers that drive this world. Why write a virus for them? Its a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have one but am I going to corn out $3000 for the trendy new toy? No. And keeping with the theme of this thread, Vista isn't ready for prime time... let them service pack it before you buy. And if your really daring, scrap it all and get yourself Ubuntu. It's free and it works.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
May 9, 2007, 3:51 PM
Post #42 of 55
(3374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
The reason there have been no in the wild OS X worms (yet!), is that you have to have open ports for a worm to exploit before it can spread. By default, out of the box, os X has no open ports, where windows usually has several (137, 139, 445, etc) though MS has been making changes for the better there. I think if you look, you will see many (most?) worms have used the underling MS file sharing / authentication schemes in one way or another. Much of that code is/was based on the very insecure NetBIOS, and that was just not all that well written, but they kept it in there to maintain backward compatibly.
The other thing, as mentioned is that most windows users set themselves up as admin/root for their account, which can be unlucky.
And for the price, really, Apple boxes are very comparative with a PC that is configured the same. And you cannot put a price on things 'just working" with the Mac, at least that has been my experience over the last 16 years, though I missed the OS 9 and very early OS X times.
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 9, 2007, 4:01 PM
Post #43 of 55
(3371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
jonqdoe wrote: Here's one, from a contest that was held to hack OSX a few weeks ago. It does say they had to relax the rules of the contest to allow this particular hack or something like that, though...
I read about that contest, apparently after a whole day of unsuccessfully trying to hack 2 Macbook Pros, the rules were relaxed, now the contestants culd even ask for help from other people and the way they could hack them was by sending an email with a link in it, then a guy using the Mac had to click on that link so the hacker could take control over the machine. I seems there was a hole in Quicktime that made this possible.
A couple of days after the contest the updater icon on my dock started jumping like a Jack Russel Terrier, it was a Quicktime update correcting that hole.
Yeah, those I'm a Mac and I'm a PC commercials are a bit too cheesy for me. With the whole "I'm a cool laidback Mac guy" and the "PC guys are dull and dorky" thing.
Have you guys read The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs? I think it's pretty funny.
This is one of the posts:
In reply to: So Larry just sent me a note saying when he saw this headline he thought maybe the WWDC had happened early this year. Dick.
This was the headline linked: "Crowd Packs Amphitheater For Man Claiming He's Jesus Christ Reincarnated"
(This post was edited by lagr01 on May 9, 2007, 4:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 9, 2007, 4:09 PM
Post #44 of 55
(3368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
keeper wrote: Macs are trendy and cute but they haven't made their way into the server rooms and the data centers that drive this world. Why write a virus for them? Its a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have one but am I going to corn out $3000 for the trendy new toy? No. And keeping with the theme of this thread, Vista isn't ready for prime time... let them service pack it before you buy. And if your really daring, scrap it all and get yourself Ubuntu. It's free and it works.
Just like the previous poster said, when you compare equivalent specs Macs are very competitively priced, they just don't make computers for the bottom of the maket. And there are several Macs well under $3000.
And about the "trendy toys" comment. Have you checked the new Mac Pro specs lately? Does a machine with 8 core processor (yes, eight, think 24 GHz of processing speed), 16 GB RAM and 4 hard drives sounds like a toy to you? compare it to a PC with similar specs... wait they don't make them, do they?
(This post was edited by lagr01 on May 9, 2007, 4:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
keeper
May 9, 2007, 4:25 PM
Post #45 of 55
(3358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 78
|
lagr01 wrote: And about the "trendy toys" comment. Have you checked the new Mac Pro specs lately? Does a machine with 8 core processor (yes, eight, think 24 GHz of processing speed), 16 GB RAM and 4 hard disks sounds like a toy to you? campare it to a PC... wait they don't make them, do they?
No, I agree... that's sweet. But what do you do with it? iTunes? Make movies? I work with a couple of graphic artists that need that kind of power because the apps they use are resource hogs. But the average guy sitting in his basement doesn't need an 8 core processor to check email or surf porn. And in the business world? I still have yet to see a company based solely on Mac hardware that isn't print, video, or photo media oriented (I know, thats a broad stroke but you get the point).
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 9, 2007, 4:31 PM
Post #46 of 55
(3357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
keeper wrote: lagr01 wrote: And about the "trendy toys" comment. Have you checked the new Mac Pro specs lately? Does a machine with 8 core processor (yes, eight, think 24 GHz of processing speed), 16 GB RAM and 4 hard disks sounds like a toy to you? campare it to a PC... wait they don't make them, do they? No, I agree... that's sweet. But what do you do with it? iTunes? Make movies? I work with a couple of graphic artists that need that kind of power because the apps they use are resource hogs. But the average guy sitting in his basement doesn't need an 8 core processor to check email or surf porn. And in the business world? I still have yet to see a company based solely on Mac hardware that isn't print, video, or photo media oriented (I know, thats a broad stroke but you get the point).
How many people really need a turbo diesel dually truck? Or a two stage turbo engine in their car? The point is not that the sheer processing power is useful, its a status symbol. The only hardware component that always stays just a hair of what is necessary for software are graphics cards designed for games. Processors have always been leaps and bounds ahead of what anybody might need right now.
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 9, 2007, 5:06 PM
Post #47 of 55
(3346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
keeper wrote: No, I agree... that's sweet. But what do you do with it? iTunes? Make movies? I work with a couple of graphic artists that need that kind of power because the apps they use are resource hogs. But the average guy sitting in his basement doesn't need an 8 core processor to check email or surf porn. And in the business world? I still have yet to see a company based solely on Mac hardware that isn't print, video, or photo media oriented (I know, thats a broad stroke but you get the point).
Have you tried watching 2 porn movies at the same time while chatting on flirt4free.com on a slow machine?...umm, not that I have...
|
|
|
|
|
cellardoor
May 9, 2007, 5:39 PM
Post #48 of 55
(3333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 206
|
In reply to: And about the "trendy toys" comment. Have you checked the new Mac Pro specs lately? Does a machine with 8 core processor (yes, eight, think 24 GHz of processing speed), 16 GB RAM and 4 hard drives sounds like a toy to you? compare it to a PC with similar specs... wait they don't make them, do they?
so you just proved the point. What's a Bentley or a Ferrari? Excessive machines that are 'trendy toys'...that's what you just described for a computer.
Here's one of my favorites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc
old i know, but hilarious
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 9, 2007, 5:53 PM
Post #49 of 55
(3327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
cellardoor wrote: In reply to: And about the "trendy toys" comment. Have you checked the new Mac Pro specs lately? Does a machine with 8 core processor (yes, eight, think 24 GHz of processing speed), 16 GB RAM and 4 hard drives sounds like a toy to you? compare it to a PC with similar specs... wait they don't make them, do they? so you just proved the point. What's a Bentley or a Ferrari? Excessive machines that are 'trendy toys'...that's what you just described for a computer. Here's one of my favorites: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc old i know, but hilarious
That is old. Did you see that iMac he was whipping around? Or the old G4 tower?
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
May 9, 2007, 6:09 PM
Post #50 of 55
(3324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
I think it depends on what kind of work you do with your computer actually. According to what I've heard from people who work with video and animation, extra power means a huge amount of time saved on rendering which could take hours on a slow machine. And I think that's the target for such a computer (the fully speced one). The bottom Mac Pros can be priced as low as $2500, I think, depending on RAM, HD space, etc. and they work fine for many professional users.
I think people sometimes are a bit shortsighted when it comes to judging good desing just by aesthetics. That good design also means saving space (iMac and Mac Mini) and easy access to the computer parts (Mac Pro). Just check out this video and tell me if you wouldn't like your computer to be built this way when you open it to replace a component:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtaeM1T4ZRg
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 9, 2007, 6:24 PM
Post #51 of 55
(590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer wiring harnesses when I install new components. It makes it so if I want to swap out the motherboard, I can pick a new one, not just the same one. I'm also curious about airflow on this thing, especially considering how much raw power you can cram into this thing. Heat management, I should think, could be a very severe problem (ala the first rendition of the Mac Mini, which shipped without any kind of cooling fans) in this highly compartmentalized case.
But then again, I can't really afford the dream rig from Apple (its $17,000, give or take a few hundred), so its largely moot.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 10, 2007, 1:26 AM
Post #52 of 55
(564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
My big problem with the mac vs pc commercials is that PC means personal computer. A mac is a PC.
On that note, when you get an 8 processor computer, that is a computer that is made to work and be used. You can get windows machines like that, but you have to look into the server marketing for that. They exist, but they don't market to the people that don't need it. If you want the machine, you can get it independent of the OS.
As for naming mac viruses, I don't even know windows virus names. I am not a name person myself. I don't doubt that other people know the names though. Here are some mac viruses that aren't through relaxed rules:
http://www.macvirus.org/
I don't know why I am posting any more. I should have let this thread go on without me. I think I hit all the points that still haven't been addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
azmtbkr81
May 10, 2007, 9:23 PM
Post #53 of 55
(542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2006
Posts: 3
|
You can buy a PC spec'ed almost identically, check out HP or even Dell's workstations, they are mostly used by engineers for CAD or drafting.
I am a network admin for a publishing/design firm and we have about 50/50 PCs and Macs. I honestly can't say one is better than the other. Our 2 head designers get to pick their computers and one of them has a high end MAC desktop and the other an HP workstation running Windows XP. Both are running the exact same set of applications equally well.
I really think people make too big of a deal out of the differences, both are tools that can get any computing job done equally well. I have 2 computers at work a PC desktop and a Macbook laptop. I love both of them and can do my work equally well on either.
In our office most people are happy working on either type of machine. Really the only people in our company who turn their noses up at PCs are the hipster/emo kids with spikey hair and shiny studded belts but then again they aren't happy about much in life anyways
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
May 12, 2007, 7:31 PM
Post #54 of 55
(521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
http://www.buymacorpc.com/?macorpc=3&video_id=42
>Cam
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
May 14, 2007, 12:16 PM
Post #55 of 55
(500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
now clicky for real instead of pretend underline
|
|
|
|
|
|
