# does anyone has a reason to use Windows(pc) and not mac?



## alexandergre

does anyone has a reason to use Windows(pc) and not mac?


I read a lot of articels about mac and windows.(im doing a research for school).but i didnt find any reason which says use windows and not mac?


----------



## apj101

gaming would be one, Macs are not known for there gaming


----------



## PC eye

Sorry if I don't like "Big MACs"! I'm really not into "Junk Foods"!


----------



## alexandergre

just gaming???? LOL. 
so there is nothing that windows has and not mac?
but there is gameconsoles such as xbox and .... u can buy them


----------



## alexandergre

PC eye said:


> Sorry if I don't like "Big MACs"! I'm really not into "Junk Foods"!



LOL. who said this qoute first?


----------



## kof2000

mac cosst alot especially the laptops. then theres this really limited things to do for a pc user who just switched and nowdays the mac osx can run on a pc.


----------



## alexandergre

i answer my question :
in windows there is lot of programs and free programs, but not in mac.for example :in mac there is 1 program for video editng (Finla cut studio) which is the best video editor in the world. but in windows we have maybe more than 1000 video editor such as. so its difficult for windows users to choose the right application. and they have to download or buy many programs and spent a lot of time to see the demos of program and staff like that.


----------



## Archangel

alexandergre said:


> just gaming???? LOL.
> so there is nothing that windows has and not mac?
> but there is gameconsoles such as xbox and .... u can buy them



Hardware compartibillity, Software comartibillity,..   Different user interface.
Windows supports MUCH more hardware then Mac OS,  about no games run under Mac OS ( look at my pc, and then tell me its not build for gaming..  )

also, the argument of consoles..   make a list of all games that are out for the pc, and then make a list for pc games, besides that, you would have to buy at least 8 consoles to play about all console games.. wich isnt really an option i gues.
Also Online gaming..   for consoles you have to pay monthly to play online (if its even possible)  or its rather crappy.   either of them,.. for me not really an option.

Edit:  Btw..  by reading all your posts... i merely see you trying to advertise how great mac OS is.    well, it may be good, but windows is too..


----------



## Cromewell

Your answer is pretty much my answer, I'd use a Mac but the application base is way too small. Now that Macs are running a Unix based OS it's getting bigger, I think they still cost too much though.


----------



## PC eye

alexandergre said:


> LOL. who said this qoute first?


 
 You just heard it from who else but little ole me naturally of course!   



Cromewell said:


> Your answer is pretty much my answer, I'd use a Mac but the application base is way too small. Now that Macs are running a Unix based OS it's getting bigger, I think they still cost too much though.


 
 MAC had to do something otherwise Linux would have walked right over them! Even Linux will now run many Windows related programs. And likewise you will now find more support for running Linux in a virtual enviroment on a Windows based system.


----------



## tlarkin

First off, its Mac, as in Macintosh, not MAC.  MAC is an acronym for something else.

Yes, it is a closed platform, and yes the selection of applications is less than windows based platform.  However, I digress, it has industry leading applications for professional environments.  Adobe, Logic, and of course Final Cut Studio (which now offers audio rendering).  Having a closed platform allows for less quantity of applications, but the ones that are available are of high quality.  Thus, you don't have the copious amounts of incompatibilities and hardware/software conflicts you have with an open platform, ie x86.

Now, that Apple has entered the x86 platform there are more applications available to it with things like virtualization and cross over (which is a set of APIs that allow windows apps to run natively on OS X).

Also, go price out two PCs, a Dell versus a Mac Pro, and use the newest hardware (woodcrest) and you will see that the mac pro is actually around $300 to $400 cheaper.  Not to mention look at their licensing costs.  5 User license for Tiger OS X is $199.00, Unlimited seat license for OS X Server, is $1,000.  The money you save in mere software licenses is astonishing compared to other companies.  Win2k3 server is around $4,000 for an enterprise license.

Both have their merit, and the low end macs tend to be more expensive compared to low end PC counterparts, but their high end machines are very comparable, to even custom build systems in price.  Saying they are over priced is just not true anymore.

What OS X has done over Linux, is made a very intuitive UI with the solid background of Unix which makes it easy for non unix people to make the jump into a Unix OS.  

Also, saying it is not compatible is also just an ignorant statement.  With things like Parallels, Cross over, CUPS, LDAP support, GIMP Print, and even support for the windows AD environment (even though right now it sucks, but it can only get better) make the Mac platform a formidable opponent for market share.  I think with the release of Leopard, and the features it offers to end users will make it even better.


----------



## alexandergre

very very nice answers. i gonna get an A för my research.im sure.
is there any question you wonder about mac and pc?, please be gentle and write your questions and commnets here.
Check this:  http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
and then comment them.
veryvery nice ads.


----------



## PC eye

tlarkin said:


> First off, its Mac, as in Macintosh, not MAC. MAC is an acronym for something else.{/quote]
> 
> We already knew that!
> 
> 
> 
> tarkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a closed platform, and yes the selection of applications is less than windows based platform. However, I digress, it has industry leading applications for professional environments. Adobe, Logic, and of course Final Cut Studio (which now offers audio rendering). Having a closed platform allows for less quantity of applications,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's for sure!
> 
> 
> 
> tarkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, you don't have the copious amounts of incompatibilities and hardware/software conflicts you have with an open platform, ie x86.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never have software conflicts on an Apple/Macintosh system?
> http://www.macminute.com/2001/08/13/08131905
> You can read through a thread at http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/611734.html
> Ouick reference to known incompatabilities http://web.mit.edu/macdev/Development/Documentation/www/macos-info/macos_7.6_trouble.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tarkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that Apple has entered the x86 platform there are more applications available to it with things like virtualization and cross over (which is a set of APIs that allow windows apps to run natively on OS X).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had to expand to survive. Apple/MAC has generally been known for use in schools while the internet boom saw PC and Linux grow in popularity even with the student population.
> 
> 
> 
> tarkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What OS X has done over Linux, is made a very intuitive UI with the solid background of Unix which makes it easy for non unix people to make the jump into a Unix OS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you will find that newer Linux distros have taken the step to become more user friendly with "newbies" with the updated installers now seen as well as more support for pc applications. Linux is the one that is the more open sourced of any.
Click to expand...


----------



## tlarkin

look once you actually learn how to use a mac then maybe I'd value your input.  The article you linked was for OS X 10.0.  which is like 6 years old.  10.4 is leagues leagues better, and a completely different OS.

Sure they have their problems, but if that is what this conversation is boiling down to, Ill just list a bunch of random links of every single windows based platform problem I can google.  I am sure my googling will out number yours.  That wouldn't be very productive though.

The bottom line is they are different but really they are the same.  It comes down to a preference and it comes down to what the user's needs.  Does someone need a mac pro to play games or surf the net?  No, who builds gaming rigs with dual xeon processors?  That is a waste of hardware.

However, if someone wanted to they could, but macs do run windows now natively.


----------



## Cromewell

> Sure they have their problems, but if that is what this conversation is boiling down to, Ill just list a bunch of random links of every single windows based platform problem I can google. I am sure my googling will out number yours. That wouldn't be very productive though.


you know why google has more results for windows problems than mac problems? It's because so few people use macs. Unix, Mac OS, and Windows all have tons of problems.


----------



## PC eye

The main reason you see people having more problems with Windows over Apple/MAC is not only due to the obvious larger number of Windows users but how the systems are used. People get themselves into headaches when they either try to install and run too much or simply ignore maintaining a system.


----------



## pip22

I have never owned a mac as I prefer to have as much software as possible to choose from - which obviously means the Windows PC. However, I can well see this increasingly restrictive Product Activation requirement pushing more Windows users over to the MacOS or Linux, even if it means them having to start a whole new learning curve and having less software to choose from.  

Heck, I'm even toying with the idea myself when XP ceases to be supported by Microsoft, because no way do I want Vista after all the negative stuff I've read about it.


----------



## PC eye

Welll the bulk of complaints heard about Vista have been from those rushed into the beta releases of an unfinished OS. When trying beta versions for both IE 7 and FireFox's RC2 there was nothing but problems seen. Now with both finished versions released both are running well here on a dual OSed system. Beta means "nothing much to offer". Betas are simply stripped down basic versions still in development with only marginal support.


----------



## tlarkin

I agree, but I think a lot of people who are posting on this thread do not even use a mac let alone know the ins and outs of the OS.  They are just spouting off random information they are googling.  Saying things like they are over priced, when truth be told comparing their high end stuff to any other company it is very similiar if not cheaper in some cases.

Obviously, my google comment was sarcastic, I wasn't about to post links from all the windows platform problems I googled.

For the record last I read apple had like an 11% market share, and it keeps growing.  Now that macs can run windows, I think you may see a larger increase in that market share.


----------



## Cromewell

Macs were/are overpriced, as are other OEM manufacturers. Apple used to be one of the highest although now that they are all Intel they are probably getting good discounts.


----------



## tlarkin

even when apple was PPC based hardware they were still cheaper than the IBM counter parts or the sun spark stations that used PPC hardware.  In all honesty, it was not really fair to compare back in the day.

However, I am talking about right now, as in 2006 model Macs.  They are cheaper than the same spec'd Dells for the same exact hardware.


----------



## PC eye

Don't forget the prices on a new system have dropped "tremendously" over the last 20yrs. or so. An IBM or DEC was a budget system compared to what SUN came out with. The average price for a full workstation was only $10,000 in those days. Now you can buy a cheapo prebuilt system for what? under $400 in some cases and even that will do far more.


----------



## diroga

mac cost too much money. the real reason to use a mac is for video editing. if you are not using a mac for its specific feature i dont know why you are. $300 can get a good PC for a family that just useds the interenet and word processing. $300 gets you an iPod.


----------



## PC eye

I would go a little bit higher on good low cost system then just $300 unless you plan to buy something off of EBay.   no way!  Just the price of a cpu alone for your own build would run close to $200 on an S939 board to stay at the bare minimum for just a 2 to 3 year period of time. Since most want to run at least the occasional game the 1gb of ram and a half way decent video card will add to that will climb over that amount before the board, case, supply, and monitor are totaled. A low end prebuilt will start around $400 and go up from there with just the bare minimum of 256-512mb.


----------



## jp198780

i never used Mac before, always used PC, never will use Mac..

only time i used a Mac was about 7 yrs. ago in 4th grade lol, forget what it was, old as hell though...


----------



## leetkyle

Macs are generally better systems in my opinions. Very reliable, and some of the new G5s can hold up to 16GB of RAM ;drool.

As for Apple and Linux, the Linux creator WORKED for Apple (and still does I think).

PCs are better for gaming, although they are making a comeback with Bootcamp - it allows you to boot into Windows from a mac, and I think one person here on the forums owns a very sexy 24" iMac that plays most of his games on some pretty nice settings.

I've owned both, and the only reason I have a PC is because of the upgradability and when I got it, bootcamp was but only released ;P


----------



## StrangleHold

tlarkin said:


> For the record last I read apple had like an 11% market share, and it keeps growing. Now that macs can run windows, I think you may see a larger increase in that market share.


 
If you count the ones in schools it might, mabe come close to that. But in public I think its closer to 3%


----------



## tlarkin

StrangleHold said:


> If you count the ones in schools it might, mabe come close to that. But in public I think its closer to 3%




Actually, that is correct its about 3.5% (they are ranked 6th) in the private sector.  They don't keep track of public sector sales I think, but am not sure.  We have about an 7% mac population at my work.


----------



## PC eye

Apple/Mac has always been seen in public schools far more then in the home environment due the cost factor. With opening up of the internet where now everyone was then in a rush to get online the increase of home pcs grew to the point where competition was seen in lower pricing. The IBM platform and having an IBM compatible "pc" became the winning ticket. Eventually the Apple team had to start looking where the X86 trend was going. They waited far too long and lost the lead there.


----------



## tlarkin

OS X 10.5 (codename Leopard) is going to be cool.  I am actually looking forward to it more than Vista.  However, I am not an elitist by any means, I use both, support both, and like both.

I run windows, linux, and os x servers (xserves at work) and they all have their merit.


----------



## PC eye

You are going to find more and more that programs generally run on only one at one time are now seeing support on one or both of the others. You can run some Linux distros on a Windows system just like there are a few programs for running Windows on a Linux machine. Apple/MAC is now seeing more support for MS orientated programs.


----------



## alexandergre

a question : why apples products are so expensiv? 

(my research is almost done)


----------



## alexandergre

another question:
i never installed Mac.
how is it? is it complicated? harder than Windows xp? you insert the dvd and you click install and thats all? or windows xp si easier to install?


----------



## tlarkin

Installing OS X is leagues easier, their installer very basic and straight forward.  No third party drivers to load, no hitting F6 to load a third party driver only off a freaking floppy disk.

Plus they have some unique booting options like netrestore and target mode which make imaging them very easy.  Those features are built into the OS.


----------



## Impr3ssiv3

leetkyle said:


> Macs are generally better systems in my opinions. Very reliable, and some of the new G5s can hold up to 16GB of RAM ;drool.





thats because those are made for being used as mini server


the G5's arent really meant for the average user


----------



## tlarkin

Impr3ssiv3 said:


> thats because those are made for being used as mini server
> 
> 
> the G5's arent really meant for the average user



Wow, this is completely wrong.  G5s and Mac Pros are Professional workstations.  If you are just going to surf the internet and play solitare then, yes, a mac pro is way overkill

That is why they have mac minis, imacs, macbooks, etc.  For average users who just want mac platform.


----------



## Geoff

alexandergre said:


> just gaming???? LOL.
> so there is nothing that windows has and not mac?
> but there is gameconsoles such as xbox and .... u can buy them



I have a Windows PC because im a gamer.  Pretty much every game made is compatible with Windows, however Mac's have a very limited variety of game titles.

Also Mac's are compatible with much less software, and all of the software I use besides Photoshop arent available on the Mac's.

I also don't like the way they are designed, or the GUI of the OS itself.


----------



## PC eye

Both Windows and Linux have been run here with a lot more general support available for either while MAC is kind of a closed community type OS. Basically that means you buy Macware only instead of most software titles sold retail. Meanwhile programmers in the MS and Linux camps are finding ways to make programs easier to run on both the Windows and Linux platforms.


----------



## tlarkin

PC eye said:


> Both Windows and Linux have been run here with a lot more general support available for either while MAC is kind of a closed community type OS. Basically that means you buy Macware only instead of most software titles sold retail. Meanwhile programmers in the MS and Linux camps are finding ways to make programs easier to run on both the Windows and Linux platforms.



Dude, Macs can run windows natively, virtually, and have applications which puts windows APIs on the system you can run windows based software natively.  The Devs that made that software for linux make it for the Mac platform now.

There is also an open source version called Darwine.  Also, next major OS release Apple is throwing the Devs a few bones by giving out source code to the open source community.  Mainly with their graphics stuff.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/coreanimation.html


----------



## PC eye

tlarkin said:


> Dude, Macs can run windows natively, virtually, and have applications which puts windows APIs on the system you can run windows based software natively. The Devs that made that software for linux make it for the Mac platform now.
> 
> There is also an open source version called Darwine. Also, next major OS release Apple is throwing the Devs a few bones by giving out source code to the open source community. Mainly with their graphics stuff.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/coreanimation.html


 

 As a rule you would need a software like Virtual PC For Mac or the older program called Soft Windows. To run Mac programs on your pc you would need a program like SoftMac XP, Gemulator 2000, vMac, Fusion PC, Basilisk II, PearPC, or another type of emulator.


----------



## Bobo

Compatibility
Ease
Customizability


----------



## PC eye

Bobo said:


> Compatibility
> Ease
> Customizability


 
 That calls for Linux there. There's viruses, spyware, adwares for both Windows and Apple/Mac alike. You hear more of it on pc however due to the far large percentage of pc users compared to Mac. More malwares have been written for Windows due to this.


----------



## tlarkin

Again, not true.  There are still zero known viruses for OS X.  There are known exploits, but no viruses.


----------



## tlarkin

PC eye said:


> As a rule you would need a software like Virtual PC For Mac or the older program called Soft Windows. To run Mac programs on your pc you would need a program like SoftMac XP, Gemulator 2000, vMac, Fusion PC, Basilisk II, PearPC, or another type of emulator.



Darwine, is not an emulator.  It is a set of windows APIs that allow you to run windows software natively.  It is just like WINE for linux, which is not emulation.  There is an application you can buy called crossover ( http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/ ) and an open source version called darwine ( http://darwine.opendarwin.org/ ).

Then you have Parallels work station, which again is not emulation.  It is virtualization.  Its a virtual desktop of windows XP.

Vritual PC is no longer needed, and it is only needed to run on older PPC platform based macs.  In fact emulation software is pretty much obsolete these days because it simply took up too much resources.  Virtualization is wehre it is at now.


----------



## Geoff

tlarkin said:


> Again, not true.  There are still zero known viruses for OS X.  There are known exploits, but no viruses.



None huh? http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=102379

And since Mac switched to the x86 architecture, it's much easier for programmers to create viruses for both Mac and PC's.


----------



## tlarkin

[-0MEGA-];479954 said:
			
		

> None huh? http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=102379
> 
> And since Mac switched to the x86 architecture, it's much easier for programmers to create viruses for both Mac and PC's.



Look, I am not going to argue a bunch over this but that is hardly an exploit.  First off if you understand anything about Unix permissions this is simply avoided by not running an administrator account.  Since OS X uses the /etc/sudoers method of giving a user root access the root user account never needs to be enabled because admins can have root privlidges via /etc/sudoers  

Now, any smart user can simply set up an admin account, and a basic user account.  Use the basic user account for everything, using the computer, running apps, playing games, surf the net, burn dvds, etc.  Then anytime software needs to be installed or something needs root level access you can simply authenticate with the admin account you already created or do a sudo command via terminal.app in the CLI.

Also, that is more of an exploit and has already been fixed via OS X 10.4.8 update, and it required the user to do a lot of things and required them to unzip the file.  This is more about the user than the system.  The same thing can be said about email attachments.  

However, I digress, anything that needs access the /System Folder directory in OS X requires root level access.  Not logging in as an administrator does not give you access to it.  Therefore any app trying to access those directories can not do so due to insufficient permissions.

This is what makes OS X so intuitive, with admins having root privlidges via /etc/sudoers and the easy to use UI of aqua.  

OS X has its issues right now, mainly with rosetta, but that will all go away when Leopard is released.

As far as making it easier for viruses to be developed because of its x86 based platform I am not totally sure of, mainly because I am not a software developer.  I know pretty much know next to nothing about programming except for a few basic concepts of how it works.  So, unless you can back that statement up with fact, I am going to say you are probably wrong.  

What MS needs to do, is drop the stupid registry, go over to self contained applications, and a unix like permission system.  Making everything more secure by file permissions alone.  Windows has so many loop holes and security holes in it.  It is almost nearly impossible to lock down a windows system completely because of how it is set up.


----------



## Geoff

I didn't read about that trojan, I just did a search for Mac OS X viruses and that popped up, so I just showed it to you.

I find it very hard to believe there has not been at least 1 virus made for Mac OS X.


----------



## tlarkin

I have 700 macs at my work, we run zero virus protection on them and have never ever had a virus.  In my 7 years of working IT, I have never once seen  a mac with a virus.  I am not saying they don't exist, I am saying it is extremely rare.

I know once apple gets a higher market share they will probably start getting things like viruses but as of now, I have yet to see a bonofied real virus on OS X.


----------



## Geoff

tlarkin said:


> I have 700 macs at my work, we run zero virus protection on them and have never ever had a virus.  In my 7 years of working IT, I have never once seen  a mac with a virus.  I am not saying they don't exist, I am saying it is extremely rare.
> 
> I know once apple gets a higher market share they will probably start getting things like viruses but as of now, I have yet to see a bonofied real virus on OS X.


So instead of saying:


tlarkin said:


> There are still zero known viruses for OS X.


You should have said that during your 7 years of working with 700 Mac's, I have yet to seen a Mac with a virus.


----------



## tlarkin

I was referring to old Mac OSes, like OS 7 and OS 8 there were a few known viruses but I never saw one.

OS X, currently has none.  Sorry if maybe you misunderstood me.  Hopefuly that clears it up.


----------



## PC eye

Mac OS X faces worms while no mention of file infections is as common;ly heard of as pc infections are. But if you keep going online eventually you will get hit with something. There is no OS that is ever 100% fool proof. The OSX.Leap.A was a worm. That spread from machine to machine. How about the first Mac OS X virus? http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060216005401.shtml

 Anyone for the OSX  Macarena virus? "Macarena Virus Targets Macs" http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/193501710


----------



## MyCattMaxx

I use a PC because I think Mac sucks!! I will go back to my VIC20 before a MAC!!


----------



## tlarkin

PC eye said:


> Mac OS X faces worms while no mention of file infections is as common;ly heard of as pc infections are. But if you keep going online eventually you will get hit with something. There is no OS that is ever 100% fool proof. The OSX.Leap.A was a worm. That spread from machine to machine. How about the first Mac OS X virus? http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060216005401.shtml



Well, I am not trying to be an ass here, but if you actually knew what you were talking about you would have seen me and Omega already discuss this exploit.  It is more of a social engineering exploit, rather than a trojan.  However, it is classified as a trojan.  This not only required user interaction, it required the user to unzip and execute the contents of the file.  Not only that, but it only effected users running as administrator.  If the user was running as a managed user (apple calls them simple users) then the exploit would have no effect.  Not to mention this exploit was fixed with the very next security update from apple.



> Anyone for the OSX  Macarena virus? "Macarena Virus Targets Macs" http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/193501710



This sounds iffy.  None gives any technical detail of how it effects the system, here is the official how to on symantec...

http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-110217-1331-99&tabid=3

To quote symantec, this is what they call it.



> OSX.Macarena is a proof of concept virus that infects files in the current folder on the compromised computer.



They say it has to be executed, and then it just attaches itself to every file in the directory it is saved/executed in reguardless of file extension.

I would not call this a virus at all, this must be explained in greater detail exactly what it does.  Not to mention when symantec first released info about the virus they were telling users to disable system restore in windows XP, LMAO!.  It is assumed that since the infection rate is so low this also requires user interaction.  However, obviously we must wait for more details first.

http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/80500

Here is another good link on it.  Overall, if that is the extent to malware/viruses in OS X, then compare it to windows, I would say there are still pretty much NO known viruses for the Mac platform.  This could very well be propaganda.

I digress though, apple does definitely need to up their security efforts and start planing ahead when it comes to these things.  It may hit them sooner than they think if they start getting a much larger market share.



> I use a PC because I think Mac sucks!! I will go back to my VIC20 before a MAC!!
> Today 06:47 PM



That is fine, but that is a matter of opinion, and I am going to go out on a limb here and assume you have pretty much never used  a mac extensively.


----------



## Cromewell

> If the user was running as a managed user (apple calls them simple users) then the exploit would have no effect.


To be fair, if everyone didn't use their XP machine logged in as an Administrator all the time a lot of the viri wouldn't work either.





> They say it has to be executed


But they don't say how it's executed, it could be user execution at which point it's another socially engineered threat or it could be something that's executed by the crontab after the user runs the 'setup' program for it. Either way a lot of viri work this way on Windows, the user has to be tricked into downloading or running some file. Before we get into some big discussion/arguement on this, I agree with you completely that there are very few threats a Mac user has to worry about right now.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

I just saw on tv where hackers are now going after Mac's!!


----------



## MyCattMaxx

Only idiots get a virus because they did something stupid!!!


----------



## tlarkin

Yes, Cromewell, you are right in a sense.  However, Unix permissions, and Windows permissions work in very different manners.  The windows kernel and the OS X kernel also work in many different manners.  

The windows kernel allows device drvies direct access to it for instruction, where as the OS X kernel is more of a micro kernel and runs those things as high level processes.

Also, since the persmissions are so much different, how the user account works is drastically different.  I can run a simplified user account under OS X, and anytime Admin, or root level access is needed it will prompt me for a password for an admin log in to verify.  This also brings the user some awareness of what is going on.  Users who execute anything and open email attachments are obvivously going to infect themselves reguardless of whatever platform they use.  There is really no cure for that.

Assuming the super low amounts of reported infections I can only guess that it is downloaded, unzipped, then executed just like all the other "proof of virus" for OS X.  

Now, limiting an account in windows is harder, because a lot of things require admin rights.  We ran into this at my work a lot.  So, every student logs in with their student ID, and they are logged in as an administrator in windows, but zen pushes out group policy/permissions to limit their access and power.  This could also be acheived running windows AD, however not every normal user is going to set up an AD Domain in their house, well MS would love every user to for the money they would get from sales, but its not going to happen.

I am not saying windows has nothing better over OS X, I am just saying when it comes to viruses, malware, trojans, etc OS X has beat the crap out of windows in that area.

I will state this again for the record though, Apple does need to take some actions in their developement to plan for such things, because eventually one day it will happen.


----------



## tlarkin

MyCattMaxx said:


> Only idiots get a virus because they did something stupid!!!



Not always true, in the windows world viruses can be imbeded into files, so something that is suppose to be secure may in fact have a virus.  users who run executeables and open attachments with no worry in the world are a security problem themselves.  I agree with you though, people should get some sort of training somehow to learn these basic things to protect themselves.


----------



## PC eye

MyCattMaxx said:


> I just saw on tv where hackers are now going after Mac's!!


 
Hackers are always trying something. That's nothing new. Someone needed something to report on apparently.



MyCattMaxx said:


> Only idiots get a virus because they did something stupid!!!


 
 Run a simple web search sometime and you could be that then. Visit any new web sites lately? Trojan copied to drive! Did you open a file attached to an email from a friend lately? Oop! virus infected machine sends email to you. If you open the virus infected file attached to an email that came in you are now infected(unless by chance you were fortunate enough to be running an email scanner). And most "bugs" don't create registry values since they often simply hide in folders, infect other executables, or download another "bug".


----------



## Geoff

MyCattMaxx said:


> Only idiots get a virus because they did something stupid!!!



As others have said, you can have viruses embedded in images and other files, which may seem harmless.  And not every AV software blocks 100% of all viruses, some will still get through.


----------



## PC eye

If you connect to the internet in any way, shape, or form you could be put in that catagory then. There's simply too crap floating around and too many ways of finding something on your system. The smart user on the other hand learns how to clean infections off of a drive without a need to reformat it. Knowing how to use the tools available plus finding special removers if needed are plus points there. Manually removing infected files along with manual edits of the system registry to remove "strange" values created there is a bonus.


----------



## MyCattMaxx

I was a bit harsh with my statements! Yes I own a MAC have had a couple over the years my first was a Lisa if I remember right. I do not even have any of my Macs hooked up right now. I have never had a virus because I am carefull and run a lot of security apps. I also don't go to strange web sites or download stuff I don't trust. I do not accept mail from people I do not know, I do not use outlook or any bad bill mail apps ex for Hotmail.


----------



## alexandergre

why did Microsoft let Apple to run windwos xp on Apple computers?


----------



## alexandergre

also, microsoft office and Msn Messenger? 
Microsfot could give not the permession to Apple, and everyone should buy a pc and not mac, and then just a few people were Mac users. do you think that Microsoft did wrong or?
hole the world use Microsoft office, (word, excel,powerpoind...). if it wasnt possible to run office on Mac then everyone should buy PC.
i think microsoft did wrong.


----------



## tlarkin

Here is a good read on the "macerena" virus that was posted here a few days ago, which pretty much confirmed what I had guessed.  Its rubbish.

http://www.osxbook.com/blog/2006/11/05/on-mac-os-x-viruses/


----------



## 4W4K3

Mainly gaming. It is ridiculous to tell someone to go and spend MORE money on a seperate machine to game on, when there current machine works just fine. I would definetly be pissed if I had to use a Mac, and because of that ALSO had to go and spend hundreds on an XBOX360. Not to mention console gaming is not something I enjoy, I like the user ability with PC gaming to go and edit my games, make my own levels, use cheats, etc.

You'll also find people (like myself) "grew up" with Windows. We are used to it and we like it. If you are trying to tell me that Windows is a huge security risk and it has a million holes and bla bla bla, etc. Well that's nice, to datte I've never had a problem with that. I keep my computer secure and I leave it running 24/7, I game online and frequently transfer files/data across the internet using IM clients and P2P programs. No viruses or trojans or secuirty risks yet.

Alot of people like Mac due to ease of use and user friendly GUI. Well maybe I'm a super genius...but Windows is easy enough for me to use. In fact I'm quite familiar with it, switching to a Mac interface would be "difficult" for me, I'd have to re-learn alot of things and break old habits.
Mac's also sport great security and supposedly a bullet proof OS. But that doesn't appeal to me. Why? Well, as I said ealier, my Windows machine runs great, no viruses or trojans, I'm not constantly having to fight off hackers etc. And all I have running is a free AV program, nothing else.

Maybe if my Windows machine was difficult to use, or it had loads of viruses and malware issues...maybe then I'd consider a Mac. But it runs great, it has no malware issues, so the incentive to switch to Mac is...nothing really.


----------



## tlarkin

4W4k3-

Yup all valid reasons to like windows, and yes I have a windows box too that has not seen a virus or spyware or malware in over 6 years....


I said this from the begining its a preference in the end.  They all have their advantages and disadvantages and the people who are screaming anti mac or anti pc do not fully understand the differences, nor do they understand how each of them fully works.

Things like, macs are over priced and pieces of crap, is just the lamest most ignorant statement you can say.  They are actually competitively priced.  There are numerous articles out there, google them, when comparing prices/performance of mac hardware.

Saying things like they aren't compatible is rubbish as well.  Considering they run windows and windows apps natively now.  So they are incompatable, yet they can run both mac and windows applications????  That doesn't make sense now does it?

Windows does do some things right, and others they do them horribly wrong, same with Apple.  However, a Mac is way easier to lock down over a windows box any day of the week.  The plethora of security holes in that OS is ridiculous.  I can't tell you how many students hack their way through windows and load games and other crap on our computers here.  The macs are locked down, and no one gets to run anything, because anything that requires root level access to run or install requires an administrative log in.

Just a few points to toss out there.


----------



## PC eye

Administrative access? Gee? XP doesn't have "administrative access" and the ability to designate "permissions" to user accounts. Here I have to let a virus go in order to see what it does! That's about the one out of how many viruses out there? Windows also runs Quicktime and ITunes natively.

 You are going to find that they have been bouncing stuff back and forth for years between the two platforms. None of these OSs are 100% fail proof. Why do you think corporations pay top money for network security consultants? To learn about the viruses that do slam Macs check out the article and links seen at http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/


----------



## tlarkin

Ya quicktime and itunes, that is like saying i can run internet explorer on a mac.  those apps ultimately do not make or break a deal when buying a computer.  

There are known loop holes in Windows to map network drives, even when group policy is pushed from either NDS or AD.  It is hard to lock a system down.  i did not say there was no administrative capabilities, I was saying its harder to lock down because of the kernel and the file permissions.

As software, I was referring to final cut studio and logic Pro, two apps you can't run on windows.


----------



## pdc76

besides the truckload of games i play, the main reason i go pc is because i like to build my own computer, and not buy one that's ready out of the box. there's alot more aftermarket parts for pc. that's something that mac should think about because they look like crap imo. if i went over to a buddy's house, and he was using a mac, i'd probably ask him if he drives a vw bug as well. won't catch me on a girly looking computer.

those two dudes on the commercial "i'm a pc and i'm a mac" should be switched around. the pc dude doesn't look like he plays games, he looks like some stuffy office guy that would get totally destroyed 5 seconds into unreal tournament. the mac guy looks like he could hold his own. yeah, i think they should switch them.


----------



## 4W4K3

That was another really big thing for me. I like to custom build my computers, and then decide the OS I want to run. If I wanted to run OSX, custom building would become very limited in terms of hardware and customization. If I want to run Windows or Linux, there is alot more support and flexibility. However if you get into stability...Mac might actualy run overclocked hardware better than Windows. Any experience anyone?


----------



## PC eye

Linux is generally the most versatile OS of any. And the hardware requirements are far less then in either Windows or Mac. Start off 4mb of ram. How far do you think you would get with either Windows or Mac OS X? You wouldn't! Dig out an old IBM 286 and see if you run OS X there. You know Windows won't be able to. But when you start pointing out what Mac programs won't run on Windows try counting the volumes of softwares designed to run on MS Windows that will not run on Apple or Mac.

The actual distance between just what hardwares will run both Windows and Mac is not as large as you might think. The differences have more to do with how the different OSs are configured according to the hardwares available. When you look at an ad for Apple or Mac you are seeing what? the outer case. When you see a Windows ad you usually see HP or Dell. Gee I run two versions of XP in a case that looks like... http://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aeroengine2pp4.jpg (Just remember to add two 120mm blue led fans to the clear side panel.)


----------



## tlarkin

4W4K3 said:


> That was another really big thing for me. I like to custom build my computers, and then decide the OS I want to run. If I wanted to run OSX, custom building would become very limited in terms of hardware and customization. If I want to run Windows or Linux, there is alot more support and flexibility. However if you get into stability...Mac might actualy run overclocked hardware better than Windows. Any experience anyone?



There really is no way to overclock a Mac, plus you really don't need to.  The new Mac Pros with the dual xeon woodcrest chips are smoking fast as is.


----------



## 4W4K3

tlarkin said:


> There really is no way to overclock a Mac, plus you really don't need to.  The new Mac Pros with the dual xeon woodcrest chips are smoking fast as is.



But that's the thing with overclocking, make it better than it already is...even if what you have is plenty fast enough. You could spend as much money as you wanted on a PC, and make it even better by overclocking it. They can make the top dollar CPU's and say they are the best out there...but the second I get my hands on one I'm going to overclock it and see if I can get more speed out of it. It's an addiction


----------



## tlarkin

In all honesty overclocking doesn't really boost real world performance, only in benchmarks and it puts more stress on your hardware.  Ultimately its for bragging rights.


----------



## PC eye

tlarkin said:


> In all honesty overclocking doesn't really boost real world performance, only in benchmarks and it puts more stress on your hardware. Ultimately its for bragging rights.


 
 Now you are getting the idea! I look more at what the stock system will do over a period of time with loads on it rather then cranking things up a few notches just to see a faster frame rate in a game.  

 At one time everything ran so ssssssslowwwwww that you had to crank it up a few notches in order to get anything done. Now you have hardwares going faster then the softwares!    .........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzooom!


----------



## 4W4K3

I take it by "real world" you mean, noticable to the average user? When it comes to gaming, overclocking definetly has benefits. But not on the extreme side of things. If your hardware is already up to par with the software then yah, overclocking is not necessary. Alot of kids here have awesome computers, so they don't even need to worry about system requirements.

However (over on my side of things lol) hardware often times is too expensive to purchase, so you run today's games, on yesterday's technology. This is where overclocking saves you big bucks, and you don't have to play old games. I can take an older ATi 9800 vid card, flash it to an XT and overclock it, and it will run FEAR or Halo 2 ALOT better than at stock settings.

If overclocking were out of the picture, about every 6 months I'd have to go and blow ~$300 or more on a new video card for hte newest games. Or I'd have to spend ALOT (thousands?) with the initial purchase of an awesome computer...and hope it lasts more than 1-2 years before I need to upgrade it.


----------



## PC eye

4W4K3 said:


> However (over on my side of things lol) hardware often times is too expensive to purchase, so you run today's games, on yesterday's technology. This is where overclocking saves you big bucks, and you don't have to play old games. I can take an older ATi 9800 vid card, flash it to an XT and overclock it, and it will run FEAR or Halo 2 ALOT better than at stock settings.
> 
> If overclocking were out of the picture, about every 6 months I'd have to go and blow ~$300 or more on a new video card for hte newest games. Or I'd have to spend ALOT (thousands?) with the initial purchase of an awesome computer...and hope it lasts more than 1-2 years before I need to upgrade it.


 
 Spending $300+ on a new video card every 6 months?   I can run quite a long list of games with one card over a 2 year period. And I spend less then $100 for each card to run just about any game at stock. The MSI Radeon X1300 Pro 256mb card here will run any game out according to the benchmarks seen at http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest


----------



## 4W4K3

I was talking about top performance cards/computers. If you want to have a card that will run the latest games at a high FPS rate, you have got to upgrade about every 6 months, and those top of the line cards are usually $300 or more.

Sure the X1300 Pro will run newer games, probably no AA/AF, low/medium details, small resolution, etc. If you plan to game on that card, I'd bet overclocking would help you alot, in terms of performance AND longevity of the card's ability to play recent games.


----------



## tlarkin

Well, flashing or unlocking pipelines is not really over clocking, its enabling features.  I can flash my router with open source linux firmware which is pretty much the same firmware that Cisco runs on theirs.  I don't consider that to be overclocking.  I consider it enabling features

Over clocking can have its benefits, but ultimately you already answered your own question.  The video card is really the back bone of a gaming system.  I can take two identical hardware spec'd rigs, one with a lesser processor and one with an over clocked processor and you probably won't be able to tell the difference.  Now, I take the same machine, and have a low end video card, and high end video card and most people will be able to tell the difference.

Once you run out of cache, the processor then pages memory, then virtual memory, and not matter what your clock speed is, you can only push the same amount of data limited to your bandwidth.  There is where over clocking can become unstable, and start to send out bad instruction sets.

So, yes if you buy the right hardware that supports over clocking, and all the needed cooling, and other hardware which is used to maintain the system when over clocked, you just spent probably enough money to just build a higher end rig.  Then when you get ready to build your new system, sell your old rig, and since it was higher end to begin with it has more market value, and then you are getting the maximum out of your money spent with the highest return possible on your investment.


----------



## 4W4K3

-Actually this is getting way off topic so I'm not going to continue explaining my opinions lol. No offense to anyone here, I think the reasoning being stated is solid.-


----------



## MagGoT_4_liFE

alexandergre said:


> just gaming???? LOL.
> so there is nothing that windows has and not mac?
> but there is gameconsoles such as xbox and .... u can buy them



Yes, gaming...
Now I'n not dissing Apple, I use them for music editing/producing, and I've been w/ them since I was born (back in the Quadra Days, My FIRST Computer, also a laptop, was a Macintosh Portable, and my second comp, a desktop, was a Quadra 605...I have other, but too may old ones to list...)
My dad is a music teacher, so I guess that's why we've been using them (he's been using them since they came out...what was that, '84?)

BUT recently (past 3 years I think) I have used PC's for gaming. WHY?
    1. Game Library: The Games for windows are LIMITLESS  
    2. Quality: The >MAJORITY< of the game are great, unlike consoles, which they're lucky if 10% have quality gameplay. *EDIT:* Good games 4 console (a few console only games): Any of the Zelda's, Super Smash, Any Mario, (As you can see, Nintendo has the best quality IMO), Final Fantasy (Tho now kinda 4 pc, and A lil overrated if ya ask me), Kindom Hearts 1/2, (hmm lemme think of Xbox games......oh yeah, NONE, at least thats my opinion, please give an example if you have a "good" one...I HATE halo/2, there are WAY better FPS's for PC with better stories, gamplay, and most of all, ONLINE PLAY (XBL is FULL of modders, at least last time I checked....))
    3. Controls: I honestly prefer keyboard+mouse (but originally like controller). I find it's WAY more comfortable, and it has MANY more configurations/possiblities. Have you ever played CS on XBL and then on PC? I can't imagine going back and trying to turn with the control stick, my mouse has SUPER high sensitivity and i can move my hand faster than my thumb...
    4. (Most important IMO) GRAPHICS: If you have a high end PC, the Graphics are in all ways SUPERIOR to and console...but thats imo...(I HATE the way games look on the 360...)
    5. Vent/TS: Obvious....XBL sucks imo for speaking...

That's all I can think of now, but I'm sure I'll think of more GAMING reasons l8r.....


----------



## PC eye

4W4K3 said:


> Sure the X1300 Pro will run newer games, probably no AA/AF, low/medium details, small resolution, etc. If you plan to game on that card, I'd bet overclocking would help you alot, in terms of performance AND longevity of the card's ability to play recent games.


 
 I run all games at the high detail levels without problems. The usual resolution here is 1280x1024 on an lcd. Obviously if I jumped on an X1950XTX I would see some great fps with the latest level of graphics acceleration. But I do far more then gaming on a pc. Instead of OCing cards I try to tweak the entire system to see the best performance there.

 Besides the vpu newer games are just a little more memory hungry where 2gb is a good start at times for a gaming system along with "good" sound. But just thing what you would have to put towards a new system if you ran one card for at least 2yrs.? 3x$300 or even more by spending less.


----------



## tlarkin

There is no game to my knowledge that even rquires any DX9C features yet to run on high settings.  I don't think any game takes full advantage of the cell shaders either.

Correct me if I am wrong, and provide a link if you can.


----------



## 4W4K3

Why are they making DX10 cards then? Just getting ahead of the games or something?

http://www.eurogamer.net/game.php?game_id=4408
Supposedly that game, has a MINIMUM requirement of 32MB DX9C compatible card.


----------



## tlarkin

4W4K3 said:


> Why are they making DX10 cards then? Just getting ahead of the games or something?
> 
> http://www.eurogamer.net/game.php?game_id=4408
> Supposedly that game, has a MINIMUM requirement of 32MB DX9C compatible card.



well I said correct me if I am wrong, but I am also saying it takes a while for games to catch up to the hardware technology.  Is that the only game out there that requires DX9c?  That has always been the case.  In fact the only exception in the history of video games is Oblivion, they started developing it several years ago, and they were developing it with DX9 technology, even years ago.  It was like the only video game that at its release date could use the entire features of whatever DX revision card was out at the time.

This is way off topic at this point, so let me try to toss it back on topic.  

If gaming is your only want out of a PC then yeah a PC is probably your best bet, but to say macs aren't for gaming is ignorant.  They can run windows, and thus run any windows app they want to, including games.  I have had HL2 and BF2 on an intel mac pro and it ran faster than tons PC I have seen.  Now, spending the money on a Mac Pro may be a bit ridiculous for gaming.  I mean who runs 2x dual core xeons on a gaming rig?  Games won't even take advantage of that kind of hardware.  So, I agree with you if you are into pure gaming a PC is a better choice, but macs can do it as well.

If you are doing anything professionally (audio, video, etc) then they are almost better systems to have.

No matter how much you argue that I have never had a virus on my PC, macs are still way more secure.  At least they are for now.


----------



## 4W4K3

Do they sell Macs yet with Windows pre-installed?

If not, would you be throwing away your warranty by installing a foreign OS on a Mac? I think for the majority of users, especially after spending that much on a Mac, they would not want to void the warranty just to run Windows and play games.

I do agree though, for alot of audio/video programs, Mac is taking over. At my old highschool the entire photo lab and school TV program labs were Mac based.


----------



## leetkyle

Not with it, but BootCamp is easily downloadable from Apple.


----------



## tlarkin

There is no such thing as a software warranty.  All software for any platform is install at your own risk, and data loss is on you not the company.  Trust me I do warranty work on a variety of systems at my job, and am familar with how warranties work.  They only cover hardware failure.

What installing windows does for the user, is get rid of the OS barrier, and allows them to run both platforms.  Apparently Apple is now working on a dual boot system where you have both OSes running simulatinously, well its rumored.  And apple is super secretive about it, so it could be rumor or it could be truth.  But how awesome would be to, to like fast user switch from one OS to antoher?


----------



## MagGoT_4_liFE

tlarkin said:


> If gaming is your only want out of a PC then yeah a PC is probably your best bet, but to say macs aren't for gaming is ignorant.  They can run windows, and thus run any windows app they want to, including games.



Ya, mabye if you wanna fork out 1200 for a mac where as PC you can do the same in the 800's. Plus, even the HIGH end G5's the video is all superb...and thats gettin into the 3k range.....

AND the old(er) macs, like I have, the g3's and 4's, the games that come with it are OLD, and I have like 16mb onboard video....lol....

Also, (NOT TALKING ABOUT USING BOOTCAMP), MOST games that are MACOSX native come out months to years after they are released on Pc, and are sill list price... (I saw Doom3/Quake4/ect. for 50 for OSX native, where u can get em for XP for 20 bucks...)


----------



## tlarkin

MagGoT_4_liFE said:


> Ya, mabye if you wanna fork out 1200 for a mac where as PC you can do the same in the 800's. Plus, even the HIGH end G5's the video is all superb...and thats gettin into the 3k range.....
> 
> AND the old(er) macs, like I have, the g3's and 4's, the games that come with it are OLD, and I have like 16mb onboard video....lol....
> 
> Also, (NOT TALKING ABOUT USING BOOTCAMP), MOST games that are MACOSX native come out months to years after they are released on Pc, and are sill list price... (I saw Doom3/Quake4/ect. for 50 for OSX native, where u can get em for XP for 20 bucks...)




Yup, I agree, and refer to my comment in a previous post, who in their right mind builds a gaming rig with 2x Dual Core Xeons?  The cost of those processors alone is over $1,000.00 each.  No, you would go buy a core 2 duo instead, much cheaper and it performs nicely.

If you read through many previous posts, there are other ways of running windows software natively with out booting into windows via boot camp.  HL2 will run with cross over on a mac, and you can install the windows version.

It is the begining, and you will only see it get better as time passes.  I wouldn't doubt if you start to see lots of universal binary (dual release) applications now for both mac and PC since they are based on the same hardware architecture.

By the time you add in a 19 inch LCD display, your 800 dollar gaming rig just went up to like 1100 ~ 1300ish range depending on the type of monitor you get.  The downside to the iMac is, you can't upgrade it that much.  Then again people are just buying new systems every two to three years anyways these days.  

What Apple is missing, is an mid range level, fully upgradeable desktop computer.  If you look at their desktops, they only have high end, the mac pro.  Which will blow the pants off any Core 2 duo gaming system you build, but then again, I will repeat myself one more time, who builds gaming rigs with 2x dual core xeons?

ATI now starting releasing both mac and PC video cards that are compatable each way, so the hardware will become the same price, and same availability in the near future.

I am willing to bet if apple made a mid range level desktop with a core 2 duo processor and the ability to toss any video card in there you might see some gamers switch over.


----------

