ONCE, I got a bugger of a spyware program. That's in eight years of using PCs.
I use my Gateway laptop (I've had it since '02 and I don't want any crap about Gateways. I've had two of them and they haven't failed me yet. So there.) with 1G of RAM for my photo editing. The RAM has made all the difference in the world instead of the actual processor. That's what I've noticed, anyway.
I think folks are right though. Noah probably already has in mind what he wants and is trying to get us to convince him. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No operating system that you can purchase off the shelf is secure. None. Go to bugtraq and search for how many advisories have been posted for each OS since its last commercial release. The relative "ranking" changes weekly, but none is close to 0. Obviously this stat is utterly useless to all but the most clueless fanboys, but if you really want to keep score, I pretty much guarantee that at the time you buy your machine (school starts in 7 weeks?) XP SP2 will be lowest
NetBSD is the most secure OS not because of its kernel (which shares a ton of code with other OS's and in the final analysis is not objectively better than any other modern kernel) but because of its default settings. OS X, being a consumer OS, bears no resemblance at all in terms of configuration. Even at the architectural level, it doesn't even use the semi-exotic features that set some other BSDs apart like obfuscating buffer allocation in the standard C library.
There is a time and place to be a Macfag, but let's get real. $1.5k gets you either:
$350 Dell (P4-2.6 or thereabouts) + big capture drive + bump to 1GB + TWO FP1800's with enough left over for a swank natural keyboard + comfy 5-button mouse. Downside: you must patch it before plugging into the WAN.
$1400 G4 + replacement mouse + whatever display you can scrounge cheap. Upside: you probably don't have to worry about getting compromised so fast that connecting directly to apple.com is unsafe.
Ok so you have a much faster machine with insanely better ergonomics. Then consider the number of choices for affordable video editing software on each platform...I could go on but this is so obvious...
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, if we instead have a list of the exploits exploited by viruses, Windows XP SP2 will be at best tied with the others for 0. And quite possibly ahead with 1 or 2.
Which is pretty much what matters for the everyday user -- the random hacker coming along and writing a custom exploit rate of occurence is quite low.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an article on the insecurities of Internet Explorer that I originally wrote for faculty and staff at my college (with much help from the wonderful Fugu). It gives a really quick summary of why IE is bad, and a quick overview of alternative browsers. I personally use Mozilla, however for normal users I suggest using Firefox.
Once again, along with my normal speel on mozilla, I'm giving a link to my Smart Bookmarks, and don't forget awesome awesome Extensions (here for firfox). One that I find more useful than spreadable butter is Mouse Gestures (here for firefox)! Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I love it. Listen, I'm not going to go into a full-on discussion of security issues over situations that Noah isn't ever going to see, and just like Frisco, I believe the guy is just looking for a reason to justify getting a Mac to begin with. We can go for pages talking about the good and bad parts of any operating system around.
I just wanted to point out that even though OS X was compared to BSD in this thread, OSX != BSD in any way. In fact, the kernel MacOS X is based from is most definitely not the BSD kernel, but the Mach kernel that predates modern BSD kernels. In other words, claiming heritage with current BSD builds is completely inaccurate. So, every comparison to BSD builds are inherently flawed by using an improper comparison to begin with. The OSX kernel does not equal the recent (10+ years) of BSD kernels. They share a common heritage, that's all.
As for open exploitable ports, it all depends on what you are using to exploit them with. With Windows, there are hundreds of (half-usable) scripts out there to take advantage of the equal number of listening ports to Windows versus OS X. Why? Because as has already been said more than once, Windows makes up over 95% of the users out there, making it an easier target to aim at. Otherwise, someone would have to take into account different command structures, file systems, and file locations. Only those who are seriously interested in exploiting listening ports, and who can understand how to manipulate packets, are going to even bother with that difference. Instead, people aim for the lowest common interface, which is (no surprise) the Windows systems.
So, can we please stop equating OS X with any BSD variants and actually talk about the actual subject, not using tangents to try to make a separate point and equate it to something it is not? Why even bother bringing Linux into it? According to Linux servers are attacked more often than Windows servers to begin with. Why? Once again, it has to do with the higher number of available targets out there for those types of exploits, much like the client exploits for Windows.
This is, ultimately, why such arguments are doomed to become repeating loops of the same rhetoric and asssumptive statements. You are fulfilling the prophecy I already made at the beginning of the thread.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:btw, is this the benchmark you were talking about?
No, but if you look at the numbers, they clearly don't mesh with the barefeats AfterEffects numbers. However, the one I saw used Xeon as well as Opteron in the comparison (and P4 and G4).
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you'll look at a reanalysis of the data that was done, which instead of counting every single defacement on hundreds/thousands of different sites run from a single apache server that resulted from a single attack as individual occurences, counted only attacks against unique IPs, linux still edges out windows in attacks, but only just. And considering there are more linux servers out there, that means per server linux is attacked less.
sorry, reanalysis of part of the data (the english isn't so clear). But they're a big host, and the numbers are a good chunk of the study's numbers, so its likely pretty good data.
We have a Dell desktop and laptop. Joe's worried about having to learn a new operating system. Is it really that different?
I've heard that it doesn't crash as much as windows. That appeals to me. The whole coolness factor is calling out to me as well.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Apple better. I put in about a quarter of the effort I put into my old PC to maintain it. That alone makes it worth the extra money.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am currently typing this message on my macbook in Windows.
What does this mean? I like the choice.
I really don't think there should be that much competition between the two in regards to hardware, and when it comes to software I think Apple has its benefits with some pretty nifty development software and a lack of a virus-making market. With Windows you have more software available to you, and it's still decent. So my answer to this question is, can't I do both?
posted
Things have changed substantially. The hardware is now directly comparable -- both Dell and Apple PCs use Intel processors. That makes it much easier than it has ever been before to figure out how much more or less a Mac costs than a comparable Dell.
I haven't done any price comparisons myself lately, though. I'm still using the same dual G5 tower that I owned back when this thread was new, although I've upgraded it fairly significantly.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a long-time PC user who is considering switching to Mac, once the new line of MacBooks comes out in a few months. I use both Macs and PCs regularly at work, and while there are aspects of both MacOS and Windows that I like and dislike, I've been finding that I have less and less tolerance for Windows' tendency to crash at a moment's notice. Plus, I really want to play around with GarageBand. The ability to dual-boot Windows on the new Intel Macs is also a plus.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I've been finding that I have less and less tolerance for Windows' tendency to crash at a moment's notice.
See, that's a major issue for me!
If someone could seriously assure me that the Mac is so much cleaner in the way that it operates, I'd be an easy convert.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I can add to the discussion is to point out that in two years, I have had a few minor issues with my Mac, but it has been 10 times more positive than my previous 3 years with a PC, in which time I came to hate that device with a bloody passion, and curse the name of Microsoft.
I also notice that there is a substantially different response on this board from the former "Mac SUXORS!" crowd, in the last few years. I remember inflamed debates about Macs that seem to have died down as Apple has made consistently solid products over the last 5 years. Microsoft has also been helping the apple cause by producing awful software, and generally playing the fool for the past little while.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither OS X nor Windows XP/Vista is particularly prone to crashing.
Windows is more prone to things being installed on it that cause crashing, and tends to be installed on lower quality hardware (which can lead to crashes).
If you see a lot of crashing on your windows box, you would almost certainly see fewer crashes on a Mac running OS X.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Honestly, I remember being calling Apples "Crapples" when I was younger, because I remembered learning on something called a GS II? I don't remember, but it was before the first CRT iMac came out(the fluorescent/translucent shelled one). I HATED them, they crashed all the time.
In recent years, I've found the same problem with Windows. I've switched to an iMac back in February, and I wonder what I was waiting for. I LOVE my iMac. The software, the "out of the box readiness" was astonishing.
Best of all, if you have a Window's only program, you can have two separate partitions, which I do, and it works seamlessly, though it's a bit odd to see Window's XP on my iMac screen.
From a former Mac hater, I highly recommend them now.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
