posted
I sincerely doubt any motivation to deceive on the difference between single g5's and high end dual g4's, yet which doesn't extend to the difference between dual g5's and dual g4's.
Plus, in many benchmarks the dual g4 does take a knee to even a single g5 (opengl anyone?), this is just an example of an exception.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my mind, because he has the funds to purchase a system that would natively give the security and peace of mind that a Windows computer never could he should do so. There is a whole lot to be said about having a safe, useable, and clean computer you can trust to stay clean and be secure. Maybe I'm just gilded and have played tech guy to other people too often, but I honestly see the extra uptime a clean computer keeps worth a few hundred dollars more. I just think that a computer using more sick days than people is completely unacceptable. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread bears some resemblance to the vaccination thread. The more people that use Mac OS X (or Linux, for that matter), the more likely hackers and virus-writers will be attracted to the platform. More targets plus less reason to target Microsoft.
quote:I sincerely doubt any motivation to deceive on the difference between single g5's and high end dual g4's, yet which doesn't extend to the difference between dual g5's and dual g4's.
Except I would swear that digitavlideoediting.com did similar comparisons and, lo and behold, they were quite different than those.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
edit to add: Dag, while that is true, the most important part is that Windows inherantly as a worse security model than any other operating system. Even if people did try to hack them (which many have), it's much harder when the operating system has security inherent. Satyagraha
posted
I don't have the link in my favorites, and I saw it late last year. you can try searching www.digitalvideoediting.com for the shootout, but I don't have it on disk.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There should be a law, like Godwin's Law with the Nazis, about using Barefeats tests in a discussion for the purposes of comparing PCs to Macs. Not posting complete PC system specs == immediate disqualification.
Besides which, not a single one of those tests has the slightest bit of relevance to the use Noah intends to make of his computer. Here are some Xlr8 tests that are more relevant (for example, the iMovie benchmark). As you can see, the dual G4 does occasionally edge out the single 1.6GHz G5, but the conclusions are telling:
quote:With the price of a comparably equipped G5 1.6 now equal to a G4 Dual 1.25, even the base G5 systems are getting more attractive. In the majority of testing, both G5 systems were faster, and looking to the future they will only improve further. This is because more and more applications are being optimized to run faster on the G5 CPU. Most of Apple's Pro Apps have already been updated with G5 optimized versions that make the most of the advances in the G5 systems. If you use Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro, the answer is the G5 without question, ideally one of the G5 Dual models. A look at the next generation of Apple Pro Apps show some very high requirements for a "Recommended System", for example Motion lists a G5 Dual 2.0 with 2GB of RAM or more.
The tests also show that for the more consumer-oriented tasks like the iLife Apps, the benefit of the G5 systems are still there although not as large as one might expect. Low level benchmark tests show that there is indeed great potential in the G5 systems, once software is further optimized to exploit the new hardware. The initial intro of the G4 systems was similar, new faster systems with few applications that were optimized for the G4. Almost a year into the G5, things are looking up at least in professional applications.
The G4s were a bad deal two years ago as far as bang : buck is concerned. You should only buy one if you absolutely must have a Mac and aren't planning to use it for anything too intensive.
quote:In my mind, because he has the funds to purchase a system that would natively give the security and peace of mind that a Windows computer never could he should do so.
This argument simply doesn't wash with me. Dag is absolutely right: the only reason there aren't more virsuses for OS X is that hardly anyone uses OS X. "Viruses and spyware" aren't even close to being a good enough reason to buy a Mac in that price range when you could build or buy a vastly more powerful PC for considerably less money.
Besides which, OS X's UNIXness is utterly irrelevant to a fairly typical consumer like Noah who basically wants to surf the 'net, check his email, play the occasional game... and, sometimes, edit video.
As much as I hate to say it... dude, get a Dell.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Besides which, OS X's UNIXness is utterly irrelevant to a fairly typical consumer like Noah who basically wants to surf the 'net, check his email, play the occasional game... and, sometimes, edit video.
Not completely true, because of OSX's FreeBSD base, it is more secure than Windows, there's a reason BSD is used for the most secure servers on the interweb, it's the most secure operating system. Satyagraha
posted
Wow, that was just like it's said in the advertisements!
No offense, but a server is only as safe as the person securing it. Blaming the software is like blaming the tool for poor workmanship.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inherantly secure. No operating system comes with more ports and backdoors open in it's basic install than Microsoft Windows, be it win2k, winxp, or win2k3. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A clean Windows install has six open ports, of which NetBIOS is open exploited over and over. A recent security scan of all servers on campus --i work in our IT department-- showed: our AIX machines (running AIX, which is UNIX) had 3 possible warnings,our BSD machines had none, our Fedora (redhat) and Debian servers had two, and the OSX servers in the biology department had 6, and of the single win2k3 server in the chemistry departments, there were 12 major security holes that needed to be patched. Of these servers, the OSX, Windows, and Linux servers had all default settings, THAT is what I mean by inherently insecure. Satyagraha
posted
Can one secure windows down as much as an OS X system can be secured? Pretty much. Is it as easy out of the box? Not a chance in heck.
Of course, this is assume you don't need, say, Internet Explorer, which routinely gets critical security holes that go unpatched for days/weeks/ an occasionally months.
Or IIS, which while it has nice performance particularly in certain high end setups is a major pain to keep secured due to problematic updates. Similarly for SQL server, which is famous for the update that unupdated an earlier update, letting slammer in.
Of course we're talking about applications that can be considered "in addition" to the OS, but many of the problematic aspects of these apps are symptomatic in windows apps. One has to wonder why that happens.
We could also talk about the OS's kernel structure, that certainly keeps it snappy but allows a lot of things to run in ring zero that really just shouldn't (such as, oh, the GUI).
I mean, just the high rate of exposure of RPC vulnerabilities should convince you the security designed into the system is low. RPC code should always, always, always be reviewed to an extreme degree for bounds checking and such to prevent buffer overflows. There've been several times where an RPC vulnerability a month was being unearthed!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear all this talk of security, but does it really matter? I've been running Windows 98 since, well, 98, and a virus has yet to get past Norton. And I surf as much as the next person.
Sure, some spyware, but it's not malicious. I run AdAware and Spybot once every couple months to stay clean.
Most computer downtime, I'd guess, is because the user is a moron--not what OS he/she uses. If you need the security for some reason, then worry about it. But your average, intelligent user isn't in all that much danger.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rarely chime into these little forays into idocy, but here I go anyway...
I've been running OS X since it came out and have been a Mac user since 1996. Until that time I was working as a Windows specialist for music software integration. After working with a Mac for a few months at a new location I switched and convinced the company to do so too.
Now after years of working for a web/3d/design/video college that has almost nothin but Mac boxes I've purchased an XP box for home to sit along side my G4.
I didn't bother with anti-virus or firewall software in the first couple of weeks, figuring I'd get to it eventually. Turns out I managed to contract two viruses and a trojan within 72 hours of turning my shiny new XP box on.
Compare that to "never" with OS X and that's a fairly compelling argument all by itself.
I'm a strong believer in purchasing a machine for it's purpose - and a Mac doesn't always suit that purpose. But considering the difficulties Noah's had in the past, the ease of use, the video editing angle and the security issues, I'd have to recommend an OS X box.
Most of the arguments against Macs in this latest thread are just tired old dogma that hasn't been true for many years. Try thinking for yourself for a change.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you can tell that Noah wants to get a Mac, and is trying to get us to justify it.
As for security, antivirus programs are cheap, sometimes free. I've never gotten a virus, either, and I run a 98 box. I've countered your compelling argument.
Easy to use? I don't think that's a problem anymore, Troubs. These kids heading to college have been using computers since they've been in school. Pretty long compared to fogeys like you and me.
The video editing angle is the key one, though. But unless he's going to be doing a whole lot of time-sensitive stuff, why spend the extra money? Editing on a G5 is fun, but my Celeron processor isn't terribly far behind in speed, and I built my computer for under $350. If he were building a box dedicated to video editing, I might agree on the Mac. But this is a college computer.
My advice to Noah: Build your own. Your dollar will go a lot further that way. Get an awesome mobo/processor with onboard everything, a speedy hard drive, lots of RAM, and a USB 2.0 card. You'll be set. And it'll be more educational than opening a cardboard box and talking to some tech guy from backwoods Georgia who's asking you if you know where the power button is.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just commenting, since anyone who knows me knows I only have about 4K free RAM. I don't know what you are talking about.
Posts: 125 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
