What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Windows or Macintosh!

  • Thread starter pasoftim
  • Start date
  • #22
[b said:
Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ June 30 2006,11:04)]You guys don't know the crap we web developers go through to make IE behave like a standards-compliant browser I guess.
smile.gif


Though Safari (the browser that comes with OSX) is pretty awful too. I've heard it's gotten better, but I only have the original version to test in.
Safari works great for me. Blows I.E. away. Of coarse Firefox is great as well.

Tom
 
  • #23
Mac OS X is nice to use and a darn sight more stylish. WindowsXP still has relics of Win95 here and there. You'll notice Windows Vista has some pretty similar features to OS X too!

Anyway, here's what appears to be an objective comparison:

X vs XP
 
  • #24
I'm a Windows user, Macs are alright, but when get around to building my own machine (PCs are for people who don't know how to overclock and blast through data so I don't call what I'm building a PC), it will have both Linux and Windows. Windows will be for gaming while Linux will be for everything else. LOL Personally I'm fine with Windows but it sure would be nice if it didn't have so many security problems. I don't go anywhere on the net except my "regulars" which are not bad and I still get stuff on my computer.... ah well.

I like the customizabilty of Firefox. I have so many extensions and themes. It's GREAT!
 
  • #25
One of my biggest peevs with windows is that most of the folks who go "Oh it's so easy, I never have a problem, yadda yadda" are the folks who get people like me to fix their problems. Believe me, the anguish and pain is there, it's just passed on to another.

As for MACs, I could never bring myself to use a one-buttoned mouse. I... Don't see the point. Is there something more effective in not having a scroll wheel? Am I delivered from evil by not being able to right click? Is dragging a most time efficient process? If use a graphical interface, I want to be able to effectively move through it, and that means using a scroll wheel, directing things to places and performing actions using a right click. If I didn't want to have the ability to right click, I'd go right ahead and use a command line to get my things done (and I will when it's more time effective!) "Style" over efficiency? Not worth the headache.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]PCs are for people who don't know how to overclock and blast through data so I don't call what I'm building a PC

I've come to loathe the term "PC." First off: politcally correct is quite often dumb (offtopic, I know.) But when you think about it, MACs are PCs. If your machine runs windows, it's a PC. IF you run *nix on your machine, it's a PC. That isn't to say that you can't run those things on something that isn't a PC... The bottom line: if you're using it for your personal use, it's a PC. Things are aren't PCs would be things like servers.

I'm generally not anal about terms like this, but every time I see a MAC comercial blasting "PCs," I want to throw my tv out the window. For all I know, I could even be off base in my thinking- but the point is PC = Personal Computer. If it has a microprocessor and is used for personal usage as in a home, school, or work environment, it's probably a PC.

Can no one SEE the madness?!!?!
biggrin.gif
 
  • #26
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Est @ July 01 2006,8:28)]As for MACs, I could never bring myself to use a one-buttoned mouse.  I...  Don't see the point.  Is there something more effective in not having a scroll wheel?  Am I delivered from evil by not being able to right click?  Is dragging a most time efficient process?  If use a graphical interface, I want to be able to effectively move through it, and that means using a scroll wheel, directing things to places and performing actions using a right click.  If I didn't want to have the ability to right click, I'd go right ahead and use a command line to get my things done (and I will when it's more time effective!)  "Style" over efficiency?  Not worth the headache.
Ummm, you do know that you can use ANY mouse with a Mac right? Well except serial mice that is. I use a Logitech scroll wheel optical for instance....

{shrug}

Tom
 
  • #27
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Est @ July 01 2006,2:28)]I've come to loathe the term "PC."  First off: politcally correct is quite often dumb (offtopic, I know.)  But when you think about it, MACs are PCs.
No, MAcs are not PC's, simply because of how the term "PC" is used and understood in the computer world.

"PC" does not mean "personal computer"..
it actually means "a specific type of personal computer that normally runs windows, made by any one of a billion computer makers EXCEPT Apple"

therefore, virtually any personal computer is a PC, unless its a MAC..in which case its not a PC, but instead a MAC.  
smile_m_32.gif


therefore, MACs are not PCs..
everyone understands and accepts this..
and has since the beginning of time.
there is no controversy or confusion.

Scot
 
  • #28
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"PC" does not mean "personal computer"..
it actually means "a specific type of personal computer that normally runs windows, made by any one of a billion computer makers EXCEPT Apple"

therefore, virtually any personal computer is a PC, unless its a MAC..in which case its not a PC, but instead a MAC.
smile_m_32.gif

It's not a technical matter- I work with computers. Saying MACs aren't PCs is a marketing ploy. It's an easy way for MAC to try to say "we're not a PC because PC = windows, so PC = bad!" They can talk crap about windows without saying "windows." There is no technical or mechanical feature differentiating a MAC preventing it from falling under the category of PC. Your points support mine- "the only reason a MAC aint a PC is because it's a MAC". I know we're sort of arguing semantics here, but I probably have too much time on my hands.
biggrin.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Ummm, you do know that you can use ANY mouse with a Mac right? Well except serial mice that is. I use a Logitech scroll wheel optical for instance....

I know, that's why every time I've been required to use a MAC I swipe the nearest real mouse I can get.
laugh.gif
The worst are MAC mice and those little nubs that some laptops have in the middle of their keyboard- peripherals from hell!!
laugh.gif
 
  • #29
Oh hell.  I have to chime in again.  I agree PC= personal computer in my mind.  Therefor Sony play-station, Xbox, Windows based machine, and even macs are in my mind PCs.  I can't help it that this world of ours has to classify everything and change the meaning to every word from its intended use.  The original phrase PC = personal computer period.

Now as far as windows vs. Mac OS.  I love windows.  I can't figure out why people like the Mac os.  Personally I have had more trouble with Macs than I have with PCs.  True I have never owned a mac and never will.  I have had to fix Macs a lot in high school though.  The network was always going down in the computer lab that was Mac based.  Of course this was years ago back when win 3.1 and win 95 were out.  The problem with windows is people do not clear out caches and things like that to keep their computer running smooth.  They do not defragment files and things causing corrupted files that crash computers.  Mac must do a lot of this without the person even knowing.  I find that really hardware related rather than software.  Cheaply insulated Hard drives can cause fragmented files when a magnetic field comes close.  Not to mention most windows computer cases are metal cases.  A lot of macs are built inside a plastic housing.  

I also use IE and have tried fire fox, but found many sites don't like it.  Also if your using the appropriate software on your computer your not going to get the spy ware and ad-ware. You will also be protected from most viruses.  The reason Macs have less viruses is because the system is not that widely used yet in the personal realm.  Not like Windows based machines are anyway.  Why is someone going to devote time to developing a virus when its not going to have a big impact.  Most companies use windows so why not devote time to a virus that will have an impact.  Don't think for one minute that Macs are immune.  They are not.  No one has devoted the time to infect them yet.

Now we also have to look at another thing.  Who is envious of who?  I do not recall seeing a traditional windows OS computer maker offering to make computer with the chip sets to run Mac OS, but I have seen that Macs are now coming with Intel chip sets to run Windows on a Mac.  Kinda makes you think huh??
 
  • #30
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JB_OrchidGuy @ July 02 2006,1:32)]I also use IE and have tried fire fox, but found many sites don't like it.
That's because web developers are still forced to bend to the silly coding Internet Explorer often requires because IE is still used by 60% of the internet (vs. around 25% with Firefox). Firefox is by far the most standards-compliant browser out there, and it can sometimes be somewhat tough on bad code because of that fact. And that's a good thing. Enabling bad code in the past is part of why there are browser issues at all today. A site that works in IE but not Firefox was built by someone who probably won't have a job a few years from now.

I'm not going to go into why web standards are crucial to the future of innovation on the internet, but guys, trust me, in the world where people know how the web works behind the scenes, there is no debate whatsoever. Microsoft screwed up.

The people developing IE7 are finally starting to understand that proprietary loses to standards every time (which is very un-Microsoft-like of them) and that browser should be a good step toward a web that works right. A web we should have had all along.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The reason Macs have less viruses is because the system is not that widely used yet in the personal realm.
That really just isn't accurate. Usually a virus is technically an exploit of a bug or a bad methodology employed in an OS. Microsoft's methodology and bloated coding just invites the slew of viruses out there.

Mac OS is now the Mac GUI on top of a Unix variant running the show. Of course this isn't virus-free, but this variant is open source. Which means, well, I'm sure you know what the implications there are. Fixing an OS bug is like a badge of honor for a programmer... bugs are constantly ferreted out by people who genuinely know what they're doing. This is not how Microsoft works at all. If their OS became open source tomorrow, within a month thousands of bug fixes would have been submitted, maybe more. So it's not just an issue of who's more visible.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Now we also have to look at another thing. Who is envious of who? I do not recall seeing a traditional windows OS computer maker offering to make computer with the chip sets to run Mac OS, but I have seen that Macs are now coming with Intel chip sets to run Windows on a Mac. Kinda makes you think huh??
Building a single computer that runs all of the three major computer OS's in the world. Gee, why would someone who wants to sell computers do such a thing?
smile.gif


And you do know that the company that makes the old Mac chips just couldn't keep up, right? Apple was very unhappy with their progress in developing faster and faster speeds. Moving on to Intel or AMD was a no-brainer.
 
  • #31
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JB_OrchidGuy @ July 02 2006,1:32)]The problem with windows is people do not clear out caches and things like that to keep their computer running smooth. They do not defragment files and things causing corrupted files that crash computers. Mac must do a lot of this without the person even knowing.
I also thought I'd mention that I found this comment interesting.

Can the world even conceive of a computer where these problems were anticipated and solved beforehand? Why do we just assume from the start that these problems exist on any and all computer platforms and will need to be dealt with by the user to avoid dire consequences? Why are we this accepting of failure, when we'd never buy cars or TVs or kitchen appliances that gave the average person the same level of grief?

I'm not saying the Mac is this computer. It's just something to think about...

"Microsoft's biggest and most dangerous contribution to the software industry may be the degree to which it has lowered user expectations."
-ESTHER SCHINDLER, OS/2 Magazine

"Every time you turn on your new car, you're turning on 20 microprocessors. Every time you use an ATM, you're using a computer. Every time I use a settop box or game machine, I'm using a computer. The only computer you don't know how to work is your Microsoft computer, right?"
-SCOTT McNEALY, CEO, Sun Microsystems
 
  • #32
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I also use IE and have tried fire fox, but found many sites don't like it.

i must not surf near as much as i think i do as i really havent run into problems with firefox, guess im not as bad as i thought i was
smile_n_32.gif
 
  • #33
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Can the world even conceive of a computer where these problems were anticipated and solved beforehand? Why do we just assume from the start that these problems exist on any and all computer platforms and will need to be dealt with by the user to avoid dire consequences? Why are we this accepting of failure, when we'd never buy cars or TVs or kitchen appliances that gave the average person the same level of grief?

you must not drive a Ford? i understand windows good enough that i havent needed anyone else to fix my problems. i just cant like Mac's OS but its a personal preferance, ive used windows for so long im lost when put infront of a Mac. could i learn to use a Mac? sure, but i dont see the need to.

as far as "levels of grief" in other mechanical devices. every single category be it TV's vehicles or can openers, some are more problem prone than others. take Ford, their 2002ish style 6 banger mustang is one of the most trouble free cars out there however their Ford trucks of the same period have 4 wheel drive systems designed by retarded monkeys that do not handle even light use very well. i snapped a front shifting fork on a slightly icy gravel road using the 4WD system per the manufacturers directions in the manual. my friends expedition of the same model year is having major problems with hers, another friends dad is having major problems with theirs. ive got a '95 Jeep Cherokee thats been used and abused, torn through the hills, stuck in creeks, and never once did the 4WD system even hiccup and this is a vehicle never ment to retail for 1/3 of the price of the truck. ive had Dodges that had trannys go out after 30,000 miles of just almost exclusivly highway driving. so major problems also occur in other areas that cause major grief, just ask my wife, the 4WD system going out in the truck kept her from getting an elk that year.
 
  • #34
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
you must not drive a Ford? i understand windows good enough that i havent needed anyone else to fix my problems.
I have a 2000 Ford ranger pickup with a 4 cyl. 5 speed. I wish my windows machine was as reliable and dependable as that truck. And that is from a guy who used to say, "I will never own a Ford product."
I also fix my own and other peoples computer problems, that's one of the reasons I don't like windows. I would run Linux if I could get certain applications to run on it. I can always have a dual boot system if I had too.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I also use IE and have tried fire fox, but found many sites don't like it.
I have found a few sites that don't load properly in firefox, mostly windows media player files and certain other streaming video sources. There is a way to fix it, however I have not had the time to mess with it much. Other than that, I have had no real problems with firefox.
Also, mozilla firefox is open source, which means antbody can go in there and modify the source code and refine the software, unlike the source code for IE, which is one of microsoft's closely guarded secrets.
 
  • #35
Well, I gave firefox a shot, but all my school website require IE to use. Those were the sites I were refuring too.

I like the idea of open source code, but I am no coder and have no clue about writing code. Please enlighten me on why open source is better. I know that you have many many more people looking at it fixxing things, but wouldn't having the source code available also leave it vulnerable to a hackers exploits, or give a hacker the ability to find exploitable areas of code?

I was unaware that the new apple machines cappable of running windows could also run the Mac OS. So it has both chipsets in it, or one chipset that has both routine instuction sets on it?

I agree I would try to avoid anything with known faults, but with things being mass produced there are bound to be faults. NOTHING produced on a full blown mass production scale are without faults. Some have more than others, and some seem to have a flawless record, but trust me there are ones with flaws. Some companies do a better job than others in the QC department. The problem with our system is that many times its cheaper to fix the few faults or accidents that occure from the fausts than it is to fix the faults or do recalls because of the faults.

I second the motion that Ford and some other comapnies have retarded monkeys designing some of their vehicles!!!
 
  • #36
The OS was tweaked in order to run on an Intel chip. Then one can use a program like Boot Camp to just select on OS on boot. Pretty neat.

Here's a couple articles on security and open source:
http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-....ty.html
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6064734.html
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/269

Again, if Windows hypothetically became open source tomorrow, you could probably bet that a lot of the fixes would be submitted by people who were writing viruses the day before. That's the weird psychology of the situation.
smile.gif
 
  • #37
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Again, if Windows hypothetically became open source tomorrow, you could probably bet that a lot of the fixes would be submitted by people who were writing viruses the day before. That's the weird psychology of the situation

Bingo. The mentality of the virus creators is often to expose flaw, especially when it will serve as a message to prove a point. Having warring open source groups sounds like an idea for a sci-fi!
biggrin.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]i must not surf near as much as i think i do as i really havent run into problems with firefox, guess im not as bad as i thought i was

As previously stated, a lot of it is due to coding made specifically for IE (eg Microsoft's website,) poor coding (as found on some school websites among things,) and the Stone Age. More and more sites have no problem with firefox, and unless I'm doing windows updates, I use firefox 100% of the time without problem. I do quite a bit of web surfing.

For examples of excellent open source software check out Open Office (for all of your writing, excell, graph, and power point needs!) and GAIM (use AIM, MSN, and many other messangers all on one simple program.)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also if your using the appropriate software on your computer your not going to get the spy ware and ad-ware.

A) How many folks use any tool to prevent/eliminate spyware? Not enough...
B) There's no catchall for spyware. You best bet is to use programs, a good browser, and manually add anything not blocked, but there's always new stuff coming out!


Windows does crash. So does MAC OS. It happens, and that's life. I've even had linux crash before! But then I just SSH in from another terminal and fix the problem, unlocking the system
smile_n_32.gif
 
  • #38
Thanks for the articles End, and thanks for the explination on the mac OS running on the Intel chip.
 
  • #39
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]2000 Ford ranger pickup with a 4 cyl. 5 speed. I wish my windows machine was as reliable and dependable as that truck. And that is from a guy who used to say, "I will never own a Ford product."

i said the same thing but when the shop decided that they were going to send their buisness to another local dealer and it was Fords turn we bought this truck. i figured it would be a good time for me to approach the brand with an open mind since i wasnt paying for it. within the first 2 weeks the front shifting fork snapped, and im serious it didnt crack, one of the arms of the fork broke off completly. when one of the mechanics showed this fork to me all icould think about was how small it was. the one on my 95 Jeep had 50% more metal and it is a ton lighter than the truck . its an idiotic thing to go wrong on a vehicle with a 4WD system being sold in an area where IT WILL BE USED. add that to the fact that 2 other trucks that friends have within the same model year are having problems with the 4WD units and i have to say it does screw with ones perspective.

as for your ranger either they changed the design since 2000 or they are putting 4WD units designed for the lighter ranger into their full sized trucks.

hopefully i can talk the boss into letting us get one of those Jeep Commanders next
smile_n_32.gif
 
Back
Top