PC vs Mac

[Boblobla]

Ahhhhhh, PC vs Mac

[CubicleGeek]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

My problem with PC's is the crashes and the fear of virus's ect..

Viruses are a result of poor computer habits (i.e. clicking links you don't know, accessing "shady" sources) more so than the platform.

An interesting read I found was a blog by Zero Day on ZDNet that tallied all the publicly known flaws on Mac OSX vs. Windows XP & Vista combined. There are actually 5x more security flaws on Mac OSX than Windows XP and Vista combined, which counters conventional wisdom.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

I'd take any research with a grain of salt. For example, we don't know if these are incidents discovered by someone actually exploiting the system or if these are publicized as a result of internal testing. Although you would have to think that Windows has a much higher chance of being exploited publicly in the first place given their 90+% market share.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

Viruses are a result of poor computer habits (i.e. clicking links you don't know, accessing "shady" sources) more so than the platform.

An interesting read I found was a blog by Zero Day on ZDNet that tallied all the publicly known flaws on Mac OSX vs. Windows XP & Vista combined. There are actually 5x more security flaws on Mac OSX than Windows XP and Vista combined, which counters conventional wisdom.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

I'd take any research with a grain of salt. For example, we don't know if these are incidents discovered by someone actually exploiting the system or if these are publicized as a result of internal testing. Although you would have to think that Windows has a much higher chance of being exploited publicly in the first place given their 90+% market share.

Not really. All users in a mac environment are secluded from the main areas that viruses can spread and cause havoc.
Windows users almost always ran with administrator rights on their own computer. So if a windows user got a virus, it would propagate all over the computer, and to others as well.

Windows Vista changed all that, forcing users to run in a "secluded" environment, with out much access to the rest of the computer, much like
OS X and Linux. Problem with that is the developers of windows applications didn't change their code to accommodate for that, so you got into all sorts of install, driver etc issues. Which is why people say vista sucks.

If a Mac gets a virus, it can't propagate to other parts of the machine, or across a network. It just trashes the user account, and that's about.
Plus Apple is brutal when it comes issues with their software. They only care how it affects mac users. There was a ZeroDay exploit found for windows users of Safari. Apple basically dismissed it saying it was a problem with Windows, and not Safari, as it wasn't exploitable on a Mac (because of the seclusion of the user account). When in fact it was a gaping whole in the Safari code.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Not really. All users in a mac environment are secluded from the main areas that viruses can spread and cause havoc.
Windows users almost always ran with administrator rights on their own computer. So if a windows user got a virus, it would propagate all over the computer, and to others as well.

Windows Vista changed all that, forcing users to run in a "secluded" environment, with out much access to the rest of the computer, much like
OS X and Linux. Problem with that is the developers of windows applications didn't change their code to accommodate for that, so you got into all sorts of install, driver etc issues. Which is why people say vista sucks.

If a Mac gets a virus, it can't propagate to other parts of the machine, or across a network. It just trashes the user account, and that's about.
Plus Apple is brutal when it comes issues with their software. They only care how it affects mac users. There was a ZeroDay exploit found for windows users of Safari. Apple basically dismissed it saying it was a problem with Windows, and not Safari, as it wasn't exploitable on a Mac (because of the seclusion of the user account). When in fact it was a gaping whole in the Safari code.

Interesting ... I've always wondered how Apple could make that claim, yet I've never bothered to look into it.

[Buff]

Well there would be about 3 people who are interested in getting a mac, at least right now, that I would have to support. I don't answer the help desk unless I'm covering for breaks/site visits/holidays/sickness etc. However I am on the on-call rotation, but we have an on-call policy that limits what I would actually have to support during the on-call hours. My main area of focus is network admin. Not sure if it has all the tools but supposedly I can remote desktop onto a server or have the Mac dual boot into a windows environment if Mac's OS doesn't let me do what I want.

I think I've decided to get a Mac. If I'm not happy with it, I don't mind the hardware and I could easy boot it into Windows. We're also investigating a program called parallels. I'm not sure what it is exactly but the guy who is pushing for Macs is playing around with it right now. It is supposed to eliminate the need for dual booting I guess?

[Shawnski]

Not sure how big your company is Buff, but I would strongly suggest pick one or the other, not both.

And custom apps will need significantly more work in designing and testing to ensure they work on both platforms (look at while PCs dominate the gaming industry).

The more standards you have (platform, version of OS, product suites, etc) the less problems you ultimately have to deal with.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by Buff

We're also investigating a program called parallels. I'm not sure what it is exactly but the guy who is pushing for Macs is playing around with it right now. It is supposed to eliminate the need for dual booting I guess?

Parallels allows you to run Windows programs (e.g. Outlook) directly from within Leopard -- I have heard that it is a really neat solution...

[Bobblehead]

I agree with Shawnski - support of both will add to your complexity by quite a bit.

Unless there is a compelling business reason for adding some Macs to your site you must ask why there is the push to make the support role much more difficult. Not impossible, but is it worth the extra headaches?

[Buff]

I think it is a matter of the IT Manager deciding to try out a Mac, liking it, and therefore deciding that eventually anybody he ever talks to will be using a Mac. There was no argument that I could think of to get him to change his mind.

Not quite that way, but close enough.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Buff

I think it is a matter of the IT Manager deciding to try out a Mac, liking it, and therefore deciding that eventually anybody he ever talks to will be using a Mac. There was no argument that I could think of to get him to change his mind.

Not quite that way, but close enough.

How large is your company? Are your Windows boxes on a domain?

There are plenty of great reasons to buy a Mac, especially for personal home use, but there are very few good reasons to add a few Macs to a mostly-Windows corporate environment. "Because the IT Manager likes Macs" is most certainly not one of them.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Buff

There was no argument that I could think of to get him to change his mind.

"How much more are you going to budget for additional costs for support?"

"What assurances from inhouse developers have you received that they can code for both platforms?"

"What are the incremental costs of development in developing systems for both platforms? And have you acquired budget to do so?"

"What is the cost to the company if this fails in any way shape or form?"

"What benefit, IF ANY, is there to doing this? i.e. how is the company better financially, productivity wise or in any other way?"

"What risks do YOU see by doing this?"

[llama64]

Wow, this thread is pretty much what I thought it would be. A crap ton of random baseless flaming over who's $2000 machine is better.

To the OP: If you're looking at getting a desktop, going for a PC is probably your best bet. Apple doesn't seem to get the concept of desktop computers very well. However, if you want a laptop, the Macbook pretty much dominates in the $1200-$1400 range. The only drawback being the smaller screen size which bothers some people.

Features of OSX that I use and can't live without:

• Spaces: Virtual Desktops built into the system. You can get this on Vista, but it's buggy as heck and not nearly as nice to use since it's a third party program.
• Spotlight: Think Google search for your desktop. Takes a bit to get used to the paradigm, but once you do you'll find using the Vista search annoying.
• Terminal: I got addicted to using the shell when I operated on AIX terminals at work. Just too convenient to perform large file operations especially if you teach yourself basic skills like SCP/SSH, scripting/PERL, GREP/FGREP and piping. Windows shell routinely confuses me with it's haphazard implementation of basic concepts.
• Application Installation: This is a big deal for me. Was one of the major reasons I chose OSX as my main OS. When you install a Windows App, you have to run an installation script that copies files all over the file tree and inserts a bunch of junk into the Registry. Basically from a security vantage it's a nightmare since most Windows Developers tend to be over zealous about where they think they can run things. On OSX, most apps come packaged in a meta-directory called a DMG file. This is a compressed directory containing all the files necessary to run the program. The only things that get copied elsewhere are the odd preferences placed in your users Library directory. There is no complicated Registry to get corrupted. Just a big directory full of preference files. Easy as heck to maintain comparative to Windows.

OSX has it's share of warts too, but overall it's much more stable and secure then Vista is, and certainly more so then XP. I run all three and prefer OSX out of the bunch. More thought went into the development of the interface which to the user is usually far more important then the underlying tech (which in OSX's case is pretty solid to begin with). I'm not just talking about it being prettier (which is arguable now anyways... Vista is kinda sexy). The interface molds itself to your current task much nicer. Clutter doesn't really exist and window management is a dream.

Key point though. Ditch the stupid mice that Apple includes with their computers. Apple has demonstrated that they have absolutely no idea how to make a good mouse. Ironically I use a Microsoft Mouse on my OSX system...

Edit:
Oh, I should add. OSX to me is like a user friendly, feature rich and nice looking implementation of Linux. I could run entirely with Linux, spending hundreds of hours on setup, troubleshooting and maintenance, or I could just buy a Mac, get all the features I want/need and be done with it.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by ah123

Parallels allows you to run Windows programs (e.g. Outlook) directly from within Leopard -- I have heard that it is a really neat solution...

VMWare Fusion is a much nicer application to do the same thing.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by ah123

Parallels allows you to run Windows programs (e.g. Outlook) directly from within Leopard -- I have heard that it is a really neat solution...

I have it on my Mac and it is very slick, you can even identify folders so that you can easily find and share files whichever OS you are running in...

It can slow the Mac down a bit though...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Buff

This incident actually made me hate Macs as I couldn't figure out the problem and the only support I could find was "It should just work, it is a Mac".

Yup, that's a piss off.

Not really relevant to this thread as it's a work computer (unless it's a "work" computer), but I keep going back to this as my answer.



Bottom line for me is that I have Mac's only work because they everything's locked down. I like to have access to programs, settings etc. and as such, I'm a PC user.

[MelBridgeman]

I have uses for both Mac and PC. Not sure why there is a religious war going on. I guess when you replace one machine with the same problems (PC) and start using another machine with whole new set of issues (Mac), it gives the appearance that all your problems are now gone! Again it is personal choice and PC is still my first choice.

[dissentowner]

I use my PC for gaming, and my Mac for everything else.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yup, that's a piss off.

Bottom line for me is that I have Mac's only work because they everything's locked down. I like to have access to programs, settings etc. and as such, I'm a PC user.

Yes, the terminal is severely limited.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yup, that's a piss off.

Not really relevant to this thread as it's a work computer (unless it's a "work" computer), but I keep going back to this as my answer.



Bottom line for me is that I have Mac's only work because they everything's locked down. I like to have access to programs, settings etc. and as such, I'm a PC user.

I don't quite get the last comment (I've never had problem accessing a program or a setting on a mac), but that picture is hilarious.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by SebC

<snip>
Bottom line for me is that I have Mac's only work because they everything's locked down. I like to have access to programs, settings etc. and as such, I'm a PC user.

You appear to be doing something productive. Allow or Deny. There is a dialogue box asking for your permission, Allow or Deny.

All kidding aside, Mac's give more access to settings and programs then Windows (XP or Vista) ever do. Don't chalk up your own ignorance about the OS as a fault of the system.

I maintain computers from both sides of the OS war. Personally I prefer the OSX style since it's basically a gigantic directory rather then a overly sensitive database (Library vs Registry). Plus, I like being able to restrict where my applications can be run from. No more digging through the System32 directory trying to remove useless DLLs and other such junk.

Plus, it takes all of 2 minutes to learn how to SUDO into an administer.