Macs

[imtim83]

Do Macs really never have virus, spyware, bugs, etc like pcs do with windows?

Is it possible to build your own mac or is that just more expersive and pointless to do? How upgradable are macs? Are they easy to upgrade?

Can you use most of your current hardware in your computer inside a mac? What parts can't you use?

How stable are macs?

[thephenom]

you can't build ur own mac.... since it's fairly hard to find OEM parts.

Videocard can't be swapped from PC to MAC. Case is different. Errr.....i'll stop there and conclude MAC = POS.:devil

[Tazmanian Devil]

Originally posted by imtim83
Do Macs really never have virus, spyware, bugs, etc like pcs do with windows?

Is it possible to build your own mac or is that just more expersive and pointless to do? How upgradable are macs? Are they easy to upgrade?

Can you use most of your current hardware in your computer inside a mac? What parts can't you use?

How stable are macs?

I was wondering that too.....never known how good/bad they really are.

How come I always see them being used by the music/movie industry etc?

[thephenom]

Originally posted by Tazmanian Devil
I was wondering that too.....never known how good/bad they really are.

How come I always see them being used by the music/movie industry etc?
Cuz that's all they are "good" at.

[tanman_sg]

pc's are so much more fun!

[LordKappa]

Mac's are basically for people who don't want a hassle, or don't know anything about comptuers... they're much more user-friendly but software is harder to get.

Don't even think about gaming on one.
http://www.redvsblue.com/appleswitch.shtml

**EDIT**
oh, and about mac's crashing. Every mac I've ever worked with crashed just as often as PCs (often more-so :-\).

[Artcwolf]

Originally posted by Tazmanian Devil
I was wondering that too.....never known how good/bad they really are.

How come I always see them being used by the music/movie industry etc?

Mac's excel in graphics. That is their strong point and is why you see them in movie/newspaper/magazine industry's.

You can't build one.

They are as stable as a well built pc. The reason some believe that Mac's are more stable than pc is since Mac's are so proprietary and so few are licensed to manufacture parts for them, their stability is consistant. Where as the pc can be assembled with an almost unlimited number of parts, stability can vary greatly. Some pc parts being compatible, some not.

Unfortunately, that is also what makes Mac's more expensive to manufacture than pc's.

Most virus/worm/TH's/etc are written for Windows based pc's. This does not mean that Mac's, Linux, FreeBSD, or Unix is more secure. It simply means that if I'm going to sit down and compose a virus and I want it to have a smash-bang effect, I'm not going to waste time writing it for an O.S. that only loaded on 5% of the worlds computers.

The only true, secure computer is one that does not have a network, phone, or wireless card attached to it.

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Mac's are pretty cool. Unfortunately, no, you cannot build one because alot is different and you have to buy special parts either from Mac or from companies such as ATI. Heck... I don't think there are Nvidia cards for Mac's. lol

They are fairly different from PC's and they take some getting used to. They look very pretty. They are pretty secure since underneath the beauty is UNIX. Not as many viri are written for it and you can get them. You can get spy ware on a mac because the program that is written to be installed for a mac that has extra software with it is coded for a mac. It is harder to crash sometimes but it can be done. I've crashed a palm pilot on purpose and they that isn't supposed to happen.

They are expensive but they are pretty nice and they aren't that loud at all.

[eire1274]

Originally posted by Artcwolf
Most virus/worm/TH's/etc are written for Windows based pc's. This does not mean that Mac's, Linux, FreeBSD, or Unix is more secure. It simply means that if I'm going to sit down and compose a virus and I want it to have a smash-bang effect, I'm not going to waste time writing it for an O.S. that only loaded on 5% of the worlds computers.
Back in "the day" Macs had every bit of problem with virii that "IBM compatible" machines had. Because of the hardware differences, Mac virii had to be written for the hardware.

Another thing to note is that, way back when, before Microshaft had written all of these convenient program-callable scripts into their OS offers, virus programmers had to write programs that operated at the machine level, affecting RAM contents, master boot records, etc., and could affect any compatible hardware regardless of OS selection. Yes, folks, the geniuses at Microsoft have made virus programmers lazy, so now the bulk of virii affect only Windows-based programs, and are essentially self-replicating scripts, which 10 years ago were the crudest of the crude virus code compared to RAM resident, boot sector munching, file hopping, polymorphic code.

[xanarax]

Originally posted by thephenom
Cuz that's all they are "good" at.

Apple has a very low share within the computer industry (something like 5%), but they have dominated certain markets - such as education, desktop publishing, and music and video editing. ILM uses a lot of Macintoshes for their special effects in movies, a lot of music artists use the Macintosh for editing music tracks professionally, Time Warner uses them for desktop publishing for their magazines (not to mention a lot of major newspapers out there), etc. And in practically every elementary school you'll find Macintosh computers. Apple doesn't have a choice but to stick within its niche and cater to their loyalists.

Apple did explore the possibility of allowing third party manufacturers to clone the Macintosh, but they quickly put a stop to those plans. There are third party manufacturers that will upgrade certain components within the Macintosh, but you're limited to what components you can get.

There are software developers that write virii for the Mac OS environment. The existence of Norton Antivirus, Virex, etc for the Macintosh is a prime example of this. These viruses may not be as prevalent or as well known as those that affect the PC environment (which is 94+% percent of all computers owned out there), but they do exist.

If Steve Jobs didn't come back to the helm of Apple, I doubt that the company would be successful today. The introduction of the iPod and the iTunes music store alone are saving Apple's bottom line.

[Artcwolf]

Originally posted by eire1274
Back in "the day" Macs had every bit of problem with virii that "IBM compatible" machines had. Because of the hardware differences, Mac virii had to be written for the hardware.

Another thing to note is that, way back when, before Microshaft had written all of these convenient program-callable scripts into their OS offers, virus programmers had to write programs that operated at the machine level, affecting RAM contents, master boot records, etc., and could affect any compatible hardware regardless of OS selection. Yes, folks, the geniuses at Microsoft have made virus programmers lazy, so now the bulk of virii affect only Windows-based programs, and are essentially self-replicating scripts, which 10 years ago were the crudest of the crude virus code compared to RAM resident, boot sector munching, file hopping, polymorphic code.

True and some good history! :KICK ASS

I was not addressing old school, though (in my defense :) ).

[Tazmanian Devil]

Originally posted by Artcwolf
Mac's excel in graphics. That is their strong point and is why you see them in movie/newspaper/magazine industry's.


What makes them excel over PCs in this area?
Software available? Hardware?

[xanarax]

I don't think it's as much an issue of functionality or capability as it is an issue of perception. Xerox initially had the GUI technology (i.e. "Windows") and invited Apple and Microsoft over to look at it. Eventually, Steve Jobs was sold on it and used it for their OS. Bill Gates decided to pass on it. Because Apple was first in the GUI environment, I think they were able to capture a niche in the graphics-based industries (i.e. picture editing, movie editing, desktop publishing). This also made it easier for them to appeal to the education market, because it was easier to develop software that children could learn from using a GUI environment rather than in a DOS environment. Windows caught onto the GUI craze and used it in THEIR new "Windows" environment; ironically, Macintosh operating systems environment have always been "Windows". (The latest version of their OS, "Panther", i.e. 10.3, is now driven via Linux)

[Tazmanian Devil]

xanarax, If Panther is their latest OS, what's Jaguar?

And is Aqua just a general term used to describe the look of Apple's GUIs?

[splashtech]

Originally posted by Tazmanian Devil
xanarax, If Panther is their latest OS, what's Jaguar?

And is Aqua just a general term used to describe the look of Apple's GUIs?

Panther: 10.3
Jaguar: 10.2

And it is unix-based, not linux.

And yeah, 'aqua' is the interface style - look and feel etc. 'luna' is the Windows XP style.

[xanarax]

Originally posted by Tazmanian Devil
xanarax, If Panther is their latest OS, what's Jaguar?

And is Aqua just a general term used to describe the look of Apple's GUIs?

Apple's been naming later releases of their operating systems after cats. Go figure. Jaguar is 10.2.x. Panther is 10.3.x.

Aqua is what Apple calls their New Mac OS X user interface, utilizing what they call "non-trivial animation" to create a high technological look and feel to it.

[thephenom]

Originally posted by LordKappa
Mac's are basically for people who don't want a hassle, or don't know anything about comptuers... they're much more user-friendly but software is harder to get.

Don't even think about gaming on one.
http://www.redvsblue.com/appleswitch.shtml

**EDIT**
oh, and about mac's crashing. Every mac I've ever worked with crashed just as often as PCs (often more-so :-\).
XP don't crash....everytime the kernel crashes..... another one is started.....:lmao :rofl2

[imtim83]

I have a mac here but haven't played with it much. I hate the mouse lol. Its ugly and strange to use but anyway I shouldn't be complaining because we got it for free. Not sure what we should us it for though.

[imtim83]

Windows 2000 is the only MS OS that made my jaw drop because of how smooth, stable, and nice it ran. I still think windows 2000 is the best and most stable MS os in history! I know windows xp uses the same kernel as windows 2000 but windows xp is a ram hog.

[xanarax]

Originally posted by splashtech
Panther: 10.3
Jaguar: 10.2

And it is unix-based, not linux.

And yeah, 'aqua' is the interface style - look and feel etc. 'luna' is the Windows XP style.

Yeah I mean to say UNIX-based, not Linux. Sorry - brain fart. :)

[splashtech]

Originally posted by xanarax
Yeah I mean to say UNIX-based, not Linux. Sorry - brain fart. :)

Lol fair enough.

I do that kind of thing occasionally. :D

[splashtech]

Originally posted by imtim83
Windows 2000 is the only MS OS that made my jaw drop because of how smooth, stable, and nice it ran. I still think windows 2000 is the best and most stable MS os in history! I know windows xp uses the same kernel as windows 2000 but windows xp is a ram hog.

Yes, 2000 is good.

Its what powers my web server :)

It has one irritaiting bug though on the computers at college: it doesn't want to let me have my USB memory stick sometimes. It simply won't let me eject it.

The only way round it is to pull it out (and this normally corrupts my briefcase) or log off and remove it.

[Tazmanian Devil]

Thanks xanarax and splashtech:thumb

I really think Microsoft has done a good job with their OSs - I mean what would we use if Windows didn't exist!.....

...but...

They're mega ugly!

:hail Apple

[imtim83]

splashtech the only thing that is terrible is that windows 2000 for some reason would always freeze on me in gaming with both my Athlon XP 1800+ and Geforce ti 4400 video card installed in my computer :( Had to upgrade to windows xp to fix that and I don't get why. I still am mad because I wanted to stay with windows 2000. Pain in the butt because it cost more money just to get it working promptly. I tried for about 1 month to fix the problem in windows 2000 but never did.

[splashtech]

Originally posted by Tazmanian Devil
Thanks xanarax and splashtech:thumb

I really think Microsoft has done a good job with their OSs - I mean what would we use if Windows didn't exist!.....

...but...

They're mega ugly!

:hail Apple

I agree. :Nice

MS really ISN'T as bad as everyone makes out. Windows 2k and Windows XP have served me well.

Its only crappy builds or OEM computers which have problems. My computer running WinXP was built on the first of January, and I am an extremely demanding user. And the worst thing which has ever happened is an explorer crash once.

My Win2k server has been running since late December. Its NEVER crashed at all!

I consider that pretty good.

[imtim83]

I have talked to some people who claim to get windows 98 stable and that it never crashes on them? Is this even possible. I tried doing that about 200 to 500 times by reformating and reinstalling windows 98 more times than you can count in one day.

[Tazmanian Devil]

Originally posted by splashtech
I agree. :Nice

MS really ISN'T as bad as everyone makes out. Windows 2k and Windows XP have served me well.

Its only crappy builds or OEM computers which have problems. My computer running WinXP was built on the first of January, and I am an extremely demanding user. And the worst thing which has ever happened is an explorer crash once.

My Win2k server has been running since late December. Its NEVER crashed at all!

I consider that pretty good.

Mine hasn't crashed either since I installed Win2kPro back in October! so far so good......

[splashtech]

Originally posted by imtim83
I have talked to some people who claim to get windows 98 stable and that it never crashes on them? Is this even possible. I tried doing that about 200 to 500 times by reformating and reinstalling windows 98 more times than you can count in one day.

Windows 98 will run stable on a good computer build of 166MHZ - 350MHZ and associated parts.

I built the best Win98 pc I have ever experienced. It was a P1 166MHz, with 64MB RAM, 2.5GB HDD and an old 8MB graphics card.

I never had it crash, and it was running WMP9 using digital audio for the CD drive, and running office XP when I last knew about it.

I gave it to a family friend a while ago, and I haven't heard of any problems since.

It kept up with me pretty well too... and keeping up with me is hard to do lol. I am pretty hard on most computers. :lmao

[imtim83]

splashtech then you must be a poweruser. I am a poweruser.

[imtim83]

What about windows me hehe?

[splashtech]

Originally posted by imtim83
splashtech then you must be a poweruser. I am a poweruser.

I am... oh yes... I really am!

Originally posted by imtim83
What about windows me hehe?

I had a nice reliable Windows ME Celeron 800 based machine once. I sold that a while ago. Although Windows ME is generally considered the worst Windows ever lol.

[imtim83]

splashtech yep.

Have you ever used the program Go Back ? Its pretty cool but can slow down your hard drive a lot. THe cool thing about is you can go back in time even if someone reformats your hard drive! Now in my opinion is cool and you can set it to how far back you want it to save ! I don't use it because I don't like it slowing down my hard drive but maybe if I used a WD Raptor or SCSI HD I may! Depending on how much hard drive space I had. I would really want just one hard drive for it and even then it may not be worth it because when you go back in time you lose some stuff that you installed, etc :( Though I guess you can get it by someway through the program.

[Tazmanian Devil]

Originally posted by LordKappa
Mac's are basically for people who don't want a hassle, or don't know anything about comptuers... they're much more user-friendly but software is harder to get.

Don't even think about gaming on one.
http://www.redvsblue.com/appleswitch.shtml

**EDIT**
oh, and about mac's crashing. Every mac I've ever worked with crashed just as often as PCs (often more-so :-\).

What's with him saying "Photoshop"?

Was Photoshop originally for the Mac only or something?

[Artcwolf]

Originally posted by splashtech
Although Windows ME is generally considered the worst Windows ever lol.

I thought that was Bob?

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by Artcwolf
I thought that was Bob?

GAH!!!.... you are not allowed to utter that name. j/k

Win 2k isn't exactly made for gaming and is every bit a ram hog as XP is.... or at least that is the way it has been on all the machines i was maintaining.

/me wants a Mac laptop and a Mac Widescreen LCD for my PC.

[xanarax]

Originally posted by splashtech
I agree. :Nice

MS really ISN'T as bad as everyone makes out. Windows 2k and Windows XP have served me well.

Its only crappy builds or OEM computers which have problems. My computer running WinXP was built on the first of January, and I am an extremely demanding user. And the worst thing which has ever happened is an explorer crash once.

My Win2k server has been running since late December. Its NEVER crashed at all!

I consider that pretty good.

I'm going to be reformatting my hard drive and I've been debating over what OS to use. Currently I'm using Windows 2000 Pro - but it's the same OS that I've been using since 2000. It's very sluggish, doesn't optimize, etc. So I want to do a fresh install. Now I've been thinking that while I'm reformatting my hard drive, I can always put XP Pro on there instead of Windows 2000 Pro. I intend on putting 2000 Server on my new file server... I heard that XP utilizes hyperthreading on the processor better. Any confirmation on this? Should I put XP on my file server then, if that's the case? I don't want to have too much overhead as far as RAM goes... The Remote Desktop Sharing feature in XP appeals to me as well, although I guess I could use something like VNC (which is free) along with Windows 2000 Pro.

Thoughts? Comments?

[splashtech]

For a server, I would go with either Win2k or a server product.

VNC (TightVNC (http://www.tightvnc.com) is the one I use, and its good) is generally better than Remote Desktop.

[[CD.o.S] LukeDG]

i must disagree with you all, windows 3.1 is the most stable version of windows, never had that crash, and you dont even need to shut it down, if it had usb and ICS support id be on 3.1 right now :bounce

[splashtech]

Originally posted by [CD.o.S] LukeDG
i must disagree with you all, windows 3.1 is the most stable version of windows, never had that crash, and you dont even need to shut it down, if it had usb and ICS support id be on 3.1 right now :bounce

I REALLY hope you are joking!

[XxFaeryOnFirexX]

Originally posted by splashtech
I REALLY hope you are joking!

I was thinking the same thing because I have crashed win 3.11 hehehe. Also it doesn't support any new programs and the such plus the limitations of that OS. Imagine tho how fast everything would run.

[[CD.o.S] LukeDG]

no im not joking 3.1 is teh pwn
just had winXP crash on me 5 mins ago, and dont get me started on winME

[xanarax]

Originally posted by splashtech
For a server, I would go with either Win2k or a server product.

VNC (TightVNC (http://www.tightvnc.com) is the one I use, and its good) is generally better than Remote Desktop.

OK let me clarify - I have TWO machines.. my Dell 866MHz with 512MB of RAM is my workstation.

Then there's the file server that I'm going to be building.

For the file server, I'm going to be putting 2000 Server (or 2000 Advanced Server) on there.

I'm trying to decide what OS to use for the workstation. Both would be networked and connected via a hub, using a cable modem for Internet (with Internet Connection Sharing).

What OS would you recommend for the workstation? I'm currently using Windows 2000 pro on it. If anything, I'm thinking on sticking my Audigy 2 in the Dell 866MHz since I don't want to put any more load on the file server than I need to. But besides the Audigy 2, I'd be using the workstation as my gateway server... I wouldn't be playing any intensive games on there or anything (I have a 64MB GeForce GTS video card in there).

[splashtech]

Win3.1 wouldn't be able to handle... well utilise... current memory sizes.

And don't start me on the differences between co-operative and pre-emptive multitasking, and the merits of the latter!

anarax: I'd stick with Win2k tbh... or run WinXP Pro.

[tanman_sg]

windows 3.1 is more of an operating environment than an operating system, it's basically dos with a gui and support for a mouse.