At home currently I have Server 2003 in both 64 and 32bit, a Linux based router and XP. when I get a round tuit I wil be installing x64 Win 7 on my main desktop and x86 win7 on my work laptop. One of these days I'll grab a cheap 2nd hand Mac book so I can see what all these macfags have been crowing about for years.
Sold my iMac last year; been on W7 since beta and it worked so well, I upgraded both my laptops to W7 x64 (Ultimate and Pro).
As an aside, there was nothing wrong with Vista (I was running Vista Business Pro for 2 years and never had a problem. You just have to tweak it a little.)
There was also nothing wrong with OSX, as long as you like to write Applescript. Reminded me too much of freshman year Computer Science, though.
Mac 10.6 for my desktop (and my wife - 10.5), Windows 7 x64 for a gaming PC, XP on a netbook, Vista for the HTPC, and Linux in the closet for the file server.
My day job is support for a Windows environment, so that pays the bills.
There are things about each of them that I both love and despise.
I'm running Vista Home Premium 64 bit on this machine, but Linux on my server and MacOS on a couple of older boxes. I suppose I like Windows the most because I'm used to it.
The thing I can't really understand is the feelings people have for an operating system and how people can somehow feel loyalty for one or another. Years ago, there was a fairly large difference between them, but today, there's almost no difference. Let's look at it for a moment.
What is an operating system? It really is nothing but a glorified Stack meant to open applications and keep track of your files. That's it. Mac's OS is a version of UNIX with a Mach kernel. Windows NT - Vista was designed and based on SCO UNIX. Very little difference. Linux is a UNIX look alike based on the LINUX kernel and GNU OS with various shells by KDE, Gnome, and others.
Apple Macs and all the Windows machines are all x86 architecture computers since Apple moved to Intel processors. They dropped all their native Cocoa code for the older Motorolla CPUs. Now they are no different than any other Windows/Intel based machine. I can't imagine paying a dime extra for one over say an HP. Once you use the operating system to open an application, you're really not using an operating system so much as you're using the application. There are some negligible differences, but not enough that I'd pay extra. Some of those differences are actual negatives like poor implementation of second buttons on the mouse.
Some myths are things like Mac OS is somehow more secure. The only possible reason is that it is not as targeted. If they increase market share, believe me, they would be targeted and the Mac OS has a lot of holes in it.
Another myth is that it is inherently more stable. Again, that’s not true at all. The reason it appears true is that Apple has been fairly draconian over the years allowing little access to their software. That’s one reason there is not as much hardware for a Mac. That’s changing, of course. Apple has not been willing to be very backwards compatible either. One the other hand, Microsoft is expected to be extremely backwards compatible, all the way back to the beginning. Companies and private individuals expect their HP 500C printer purchased in the mid-1980s to work flawlessly with their new Windows computer. They expect their DOS based accounting software to run without issue. Apple will tell you to blow it out your whatever.
Somewhere around 97% of all Windows crashes are not OS based. Its 3rd party soft and hardware based. So, when your Mac can only use new hardware and freshly updated software, it’s not a real advantage or a fair comparison. I promise you can’t run software natively written for a Apple Lisa or IIgs on a new Mac. Try plugging an Apple ImageWriter into your Mac. You can run most DOS based applications on a new PC. You just have to understand it might not be as stable.
Notice that advertisement about the new cords that pull out if you trip on them for the Mac. Guess what? You can’t plug 99% of the new monitors into them without an adaptor, and I’m not sure that works. You must purchase an Apple brand.
I’m just saying. There’s really no difference and what there is is pretty silly to argue about.
Guidenet, OS X is more secure. It is not because it is less targeted. Its very reputation for being more secure should have been a major enticement for various hackers over the years, and virtually nothing has come of that.
People have had almost four years to exploit Intel-based Macs with OS X in them, but it simply has not materialized. Further, Apple has a huge market share advantage if you look at computers that cost 1K and up. That's where the money is, and one would think that those computers and their users make inviting targets for hackers. Again, nothing has happened with it.
The "loyalty" has to do with the community factor, I think, and for Mac users, dates back to a time when there really weren't a lot of Mac users around. Now there are many more, of course, but between old software and hardware differences and a different approach between Apple and other companies, I think you get some of the loyalty you see. Also, it helps that Apple has put out a lot of great products with substance to them. All the hype and advertisements in the world won't help you if you put out nothing but garbage products.
Notice that advertisement about the new cords that pull out if you trip on them for the Mac. Guess what? You can’t plug 99% of the new monitors into them without an adaptor, and I’m not sure that works. You must purchase an Apple brand.
It's stunning to me that no other companies that I can see (I'm sure there must be a few, but I don't know about them) have adopted this. The breakaway power cable is such a no-brainer because it has saved countless laptops from early trips to a landfill, or else major repair jobs. So you need a relatively cheap adapter? I don't see that as a big deal. For most people, it never becomes a factor. Every time you or someone else (or something else, like a pet) trips over the cord and only the cord hits the floor, you think about what could have been. Again, it's so obvious that I don't understand why more companies have not adopted this.
Apple has not been willing to be very backwards compatible either.
That's been a choice that helped OS X be much more streamlined and stable. Apple and Canon have something in common in that they both cut the cord on their old systems and moved on to something that ultimately became hugely profitable, despite being risky at the time. Apple wasn't burning up the market when they kicked out OS 9, and Canon was still trailing Nikon when they embraced autofocus and changed mounts. Both moves worked out great. More companies should be willing to make smart risks like that.
Microsoft chose to drag so many elements of past systems into the future, whereas Apple basically started anew to some extent with OS X, and cut the cord completely with 10.5. Beyond that, 10.6 is several GBs smaller than 10.5. because it didn't include PowerPC components. Again, a choice. Not everyone was or is happy with it, but by and large I think Apple made a smart choice.
As luminosity says, I would not call the security or stability of OS X a myth.
An OS should ideally weather a crashing application without having to reboot the core operating system. OSX from 10.2 has handled this deftly compared to my experience with Windows 95-Vista. Any well written OS should never freeze on it's own, it should also not be brought down by runtime errors in software it's attempting to run. Of course the majority of Windows crashes are not OS based; however, that does not excuse the OS for allowing user software to kill it. It is the purpose of the OS to run software.
This habit of the whole OS locking because of software if fairly unique to Microsoft's OS's and not something you see in the various *nix's or many alternative OS's. It is why so much software development is done in OS's like Linux.
This isn't really even an OSX versus Windows issue, it's a fundamental issue with the way Windows is written and designed.
Windows is meant to be:
1 - Massively compatible.
2 - a platform for Microsoft Office (seriously MS Office has the last say in much of the design of Windows)
Those two things both hurt MS and put massive dollars in their pocket. It's a double edged sword. Hopefully Windows 7 treats everyone very well.
------------------
Over the years I've used D0S 4.0 -> DOS 6 -> Windows 3.1 -> OS 7-9 -> OS2 -> Windows 95 -> Linux -> FreeBSD -> BeOS -> Windows XP -> OSX -> Windows Vista. Having installed and used so many OS's over the years you get a very wide and deep understanding of what is going on and the strength of each one. The only ones I've ever felt any love for are BeOS and OSX.
luminosity wrote:
Guidenet, OS X is more secure. It is not because it is less targeted. Its very reputation for being more secure should have been a major enticement for various hackers over the years, and virtually nothing has come of that.
It IS less targeted. In the IT world it is called security through obscurity. Most hackers are looking to make a name or money, therefore any other platform other than windows is basically a waste of time.
When it is targeted, like say the super bowl of hacking competitions PWN2OWN, OS X falls first before both Vista and Linux for multiple years in a row now. In 2008 it fell in seconds after the competition started.
All current OS's are extremely secure on their own actually. You pretty much need to have a user making stupid mistakes or using a program that has vulnerabilities like most browsers exhibit from time to time.
All 3 choices are great, but the greatest is Apple marketing. They have their users in love with things that aren't even true like it is a religion.
The whole security through obscurity concept is a moot point at this stage of the game, it's an antiquated concept that's not longer relevant in today's landscape. There are more Windows users yes, but there are ~ 75 millions mac users. That is no longer obscure.
Windows is simply easier to write malicious code for, most accounts are logged in as administrator and on many systems, system level changes can be enacted without user intervention one the program is started.
Your comment about all current OS's being secure on their own shows you know the truth behind cracking competitions like PWN2OWN, they are basically chest beating competitions and have very little reality for the vast majority of users.
-----------
On a different note, there is such a market now for virus and firewall software for Windows that in many ways it would be bad for MS to actually secure windows without the need for third party software. Not to mention all the software it would break that expects to be installed with full privileges (I believe I've read of this issue being slightly different in W7?) There is now a whole ecosystem that thrives on the security & core OS issues behind Windows. Companies like Norton and McAfee would go out of business without them, or at least they would need to convince users that such issues still exist, even if they do not.
Reminds me of people selling virus scanners for OSX, if Ubuntu and Linux adoption continues with the trend towards netbooks I'm sure we'll see similar products release for them.
