Because I work, I need a windowing system. Dedicating the screen to a single windows would obliterate my productivity. I need to be able to see my browser, my editors, my debugger, etc. Perhaps a single-app display is fine for the few who like to use tablets, but it's not fine for those of us to have to produce. The iPad is an example of a niche product. You're better served using those functions in a phone, whereas the iPad is a toy, plain and simple. It will only replace casual browsing and casual computing, which isn't the ONLY type of computing people do.
There's no need to argue with the OSX guys. About the only thing OSX really offers over windows is the fact that it's a unix (albeit a poor one...). Other than that, security is in both Linux and Windows courts, as OSX has always been going down first. Perhaps that will change with 10.7 so at least OSX will last as long for once.
This is why I tick the "build my system for me". I choose the parts, they assemble the system and sell it to me. It's all good in terms of the agreement.
Granted, I often take much the system apart to redo the cabling etc., depending on the place I order from, but it is in every way a custom build.
I used 2000 when it came out, as a consumer OS. It absolutely worked just like a consumer OS. They eventually candied it up into XP to call it 'consumer', but to me XP was already old news. I ran 2000 until support was dropped, and then I very reluctantly changed to XP. 2000 was the best Windows created, until 7.
In the video, we saw reversi from Windows 3.1 (and windows 2?) - circa 1992 or so - running on Windows 7. It was launched just like any other app. Perhaps there was virtualization involved, I'm not sure - it would have been transparently integrated if so. What is the OSX equivalent?
I found the fact that he actually *could* upgrade all the way to Win7 and have applications still work utterly amazing. What other OSes can do that? Maybe linux (or maybe not...), definitely not OSX.
Exactly, I run my systems into the ground - if I can. I actually end up running them for 6-7 years, then maybe donate them because I want something newer. Aside from battery packs, they continue to run like champs. I think only idiots beat up on their systems enough to make them break.
>Apple made a wise move by basing OSX on BSD Unix. They won't end up reinventing Unix that way and they are starting with a mature codebase that has already experienced a great number of security attacks. Of course that isn't and won't be perfect, but it would be worse still if they started from scratch.
But the world is evolving. Even windows now has a mature code-base that was NT (which further contains significant bits of OS/2). The problems encountered and solved 10 years ago don't apply today. Technology changes and old threats lose relevance in favor of new ones. Besides, OSX itself isn't open source, so we don't have any idea if it's security is moving in the right direction or not anymore.
What is really telling is that there are now social engineering attacks to get access to people's windows machines. People actually cold call saying how they are from "Microsoft Tech Support" and try to get you to (a) pay for 'warranty' and (b) give them access to your machine using logmein123.com. I've actually had to fix a system because the person just did what he was told to do. Unbelievable. You can't secure a system from it's own administrator, so if the administrator is an idiot, his box is as good as owned.
>Face it dude, the Apple products are better than what you use.
You apple products may be, but my Apple products have been mediocre which is why I unloaded them. I also didn't get a great price in the end, either. I have no need to cry anymore, I'm free of OSX.
To me, OSX isn't worth a premium. Linux is technologically superior and both Gnome and KDE offer superior UIs. In fact, I consider Windows to have a superior UI to OSX, mainly because it scales better with resolution and in mutli-monitor situations by keeping all applications functions close together. Aluminium bodies are available on some ASUS laptops, but I'd prefer the aluminium and bamboo case in terms of styling - it's far nicer than anything else out there.
What MBP has one combination of feature available that are winning, but overpriced for what they are: long battery life and a high resolution (WUXGA) screen option. I would *almost* consider getting the MBP for that reason alone. However, considering I could get the above-mentioned ASUS and a large monitor for the same cost, why exactly would I want an MBP?
The fact you have to go over to your friend's house to help him shows how dated your information is.
And FYI, I end up 'fixing' macs as much I do PCs for some reason, even though fewer of my friends own them. Apple has some nice polish, but they sure don't make anything resembling a solid OS. Last week one friend Mac Pro was slow as fuck and would just grind the HDD, even just opening Finder. The solution ultimately was to reinstall OSX. The problem was gone after that.
The effort required is so minimal that it's worth more than the $500 you save for equivalent hardware. I can have a linux system up and running in an hour, which includes the time it takes to buy the system. I certainly don't make $500/hr.
There is a lot more out than than just unix packages. Hell, I've been compiling or using pretty much every unix package I've needed on Windows using Cygwin (and to a lesser extent MSYS). I've found I have all my bases covered by using both linux and windows thanks to virtualization. Besides, I've used OSX extensively. There is very little commercial software out there for it (compared to windows), and I find I spend a lot of time fighting the interface which cannot be customized. Windows has a similar affliction with the interface but at least it's much more usable out of the box. Linux, of course, trounces both of them.
Why can't you buy and off-the-shelf laptop and install linux? You would still get more for your money, and Ubuntu linux is very good for consumer use. Since the laptop would come with a windows license, you could always just virtualize a copy and you'll have access to a big software ecosystem.
I do agree. While I do like the design of apple MacBook Pro laptops, I find OSX is actually quite slow. iTunes is the nastiest joke Apple has ever played (I refuse to install it now), and QuickTime is a primary web-based infection vector - I'm sure deliberately so.
On top of that, the sensitivity of Apple owners is pretty substantial. They sure do take offense easily when you point out reality. The iPad really, truely is a joke. I've used one. $800 to check email, browse, and watch web video? I have an Android phone that does all that already. I also carry a laptop, which the iPad can't hope to replace. The iPad is a toy, and it's one that has entertained me for a 48 hour period before my desire to even use it vanished. I'm glad I didn't buy one.
Ever heard of MS Security Essentials? Rated very high, free, fast. What is the equivalent free product for OSX again?
The OSX version is called "not getting viruses in the first place". Works great!
I get a kick out of that response every time I see it.
I know quite a few whitehat guys. From Vista to 7, they've found that Windows is a harder nut to crack. Macs are protected from viruses by their 6% market share. Should that change, Apple users will be in for a world of hurt. MS is used to being on the front lines on this. Apple, not so much.
Macs aren't the only systems with good fit and finish. I opted for, of all things, an AlienWare m17x. For the hardware I received, I paid less than the equivalently equipped macbook pro ~ about $300 less. Not only that, but I don't need a 'mini display port to dual DVI' cable just to connect it to a monitor or two, which saved me another $100.
I don't think people realize this, but when you buy a Macbook, you have to buy $50-$150 worth of extra bits to make it usable.
Sure, it's a gaming laptop, but for $400 (+$100 because I don't need extra bits) less than the macbook pro, it's faster, has better video, more RAM, and 2 500 GD HDDs in RAID 1. It complies my code faster (VS 2010 vs xcode ~ may not be apples to apples but still...), it runs games, and it actually looks quite sharp.
I can also replace the battery.
For the record, I have a macbook pro development target as well, but it never goes out of my office. I understand why people like the Mac, I just can't understand why they actually think it's good value.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I work, I need a windowing system. Dedicating the screen to a single windows would obliterate my productivity. I need to be able to see my browser, my editors, my debugger, etc. Perhaps a single-app display is fine for the few who like to use tablets, but it's not fine for those of us to have to produce. The iPad is an example of a niche product. You're better served using those functions in a phone, whereas the iPad is a toy, plain and simple. It will only replace casual browsing and casual computing, which isn't the ONLY type of computing people do.
So does Chrome, as does IE w/Live Mesh.
There's no need to argue with the OSX guys. About the only thing OSX really offers over windows is the fact that it's a unix (albeit a poor one...). Other than that, security is in both Linux and Windows courts, as OSX has always been going down first. Perhaps that will change with 10.7 so at least OSX will last as long for once.
What state was linux in when Win3.1 was out?
You can install a full copy from the upgrade disk.
This is why I tick the "build my system for me". I choose the parts, they assemble the system and sell it to me. It's all good in terms of the agreement.
Granted, I often take much the system apart to redo the cabling etc., depending on the place I order from, but it is in every way a custom build.
I used 2000 when it came out, as a consumer OS. It absolutely worked just like a consumer OS. They eventually candied it up into XP to call it 'consumer', but to me XP was already old news. I ran 2000 until support was dropped, and then I very reluctantly changed to XP. 2000 was the best Windows created, until 7.
In the video, we saw reversi from Windows 3.1 (and windows 2?) - circa 1992 or so - running on Windows 7. It was launched just like any other app. Perhaps there was virtualization involved, I'm not sure - it would have been transparently integrated if so. What is the OSX equivalent?
It's a compound word.
I found the fact that he actually *could* upgrade all the way to Win7 and have applications still work utterly amazing. What other OSes can do that? Maybe linux (or maybe not...), definitely not OSX.
Exactly, I run my systems into the ground - if I can. I actually end up running them for 6-7 years, then maybe donate them because I want something newer. Aside from battery packs, they continue to run like champs. I think only idiots beat up on their systems enough to make them break.
I disagree. They are the same, which is too many.
>Apple made a wise move by basing OSX on BSD Unix. They won't end up reinventing Unix that way and they are starting with a mature codebase that has already experienced a great number of security attacks. Of course that isn't and won't be perfect, but it would be worse still if they started from scratch.
But the world is evolving. Even windows now has a mature code-base that was NT (which further contains significant bits of OS/2). The problems encountered and solved 10 years ago don't apply today. Technology changes and old threats lose relevance in favor of new ones. Besides, OSX itself isn't open source, so we don't have any idea if it's security is moving in the right direction or not anymore.
What is really telling is that there are now social engineering attacks to get access to people's windows machines. People actually cold call saying how they are from "Microsoft Tech Support" and try to get you to (a) pay for 'warranty' and (b) give them access to your machine using logmein123.com. I've actually had to fix a system because the person just did what he was told to do. Unbelievable. You can't secure a system from it's own administrator, so if the administrator is an idiot, his box is as good as owned.
>Face it dude, the Apple products are better than what you use.
You apple products may be, but my Apple products have been mediocre which is why I unloaded them. I also didn't get a great price in the end, either. I have no need to cry anymore, I'm free of OSX.
To me, OSX isn't worth a premium. Linux is technologically superior and both Gnome and KDE offer superior UIs. In fact, I consider Windows to have a superior UI to OSX, mainly because it scales better with resolution and in mutli-monitor situations by keeping all applications functions close together. Aluminium bodies are available on some ASUS laptops, but I'd prefer the aluminium and bamboo case in terms of styling - it's far nicer than anything else out there.
What MBP has one combination of feature available that are winning, but overpriced for what they are: long battery life and a high resolution (WUXGA) screen option. I would *almost* consider getting the MBP for that reason alone. However, considering I could get the above-mentioned ASUS and a large monitor for the same cost, why exactly would I want an MBP?
The fact you have to go over to your friend's house to help him shows how dated your information is.
And FYI, I end up 'fixing' macs as much I do PCs for some reason, even though fewer of my friends own them. Apple has some nice polish, but they sure don't make anything resembling a solid OS. Last week one friend Mac Pro was slow as fuck and would just grind the HDD, even just opening Finder. The solution ultimately was to reinstall OSX. The problem was gone after that.
The effort required is so minimal that it's worth more than the $500 you save for equivalent hardware. I can have a linux system up and running in an hour, which includes the time it takes to buy the system. I certainly don't make $500/hr.
There is a lot more out than than just unix packages. Hell, I've been compiling or using pretty much every unix package I've needed on Windows using Cygwin (and to a lesser extent MSYS). I've found I have all my bases covered by using both linux and windows thanks to virtualization. Besides, I've used OSX extensively. There is very little commercial software out there for it (compared to windows), and I find I spend a lot of time fighting the interface which cannot be customized. Windows has a similar affliction with the interface but at least it's much more usable out of the box. Linux, of course, trounces both of them.
Why can't you buy and off-the-shelf laptop and install linux? You would still get more for your money, and Ubuntu linux is very good for consumer use. Since the laptop would come with a windows license, you could always just virtualize a copy and you'll have access to a big software ecosystem.
However OSX isn't open-source. Why bother using a closed source *nix?
i7 980x @ 4.4 Ghz, Win7 Pro.
The test only uses 1 CPU it seems, so I never went above 7% cpu usage:
Score: 15349
828 / 123 / 9816
I wish the JS compilers took advantage of parallel processing. Flash has for years now.
I do agree. While I do like the design of apple MacBook Pro laptops, I find OSX is actually quite slow. iTunes is the nastiest joke Apple has ever played (I refuse to install it now), and QuickTime is a primary web-based infection vector - I'm sure deliberately so.
On top of that, the sensitivity of Apple owners is pretty substantial. They sure do take offense easily when you point out reality. The iPad really, truely is a joke. I've used one. $800 to check email, browse, and watch web video? I have an Android phone that does all that already. I also carry a laptop, which the iPad can't hope to replace. The iPad is a toy, and it's one that has entertained me for a 48 hour period before my desire to even use it vanished. I'm glad I didn't buy one.
Ever heard of MS Security Essentials? Rated very high, free, fast. What is the equivalent free product for OSX again?
The OSX version is called "not getting viruses in the first place". Works great!
I get a kick out of that response every time I see it.
I know quite a few whitehat guys. From Vista to 7, they've found that Windows is a harder nut to crack. Macs are protected from viruses by their 6% market share. Should that change, Apple users will be in for a world of hurt. MS is used to being on the front lines on this. Apple, not so much.
Macs aren't the only systems with good fit and finish. I opted for, of all things, an AlienWare m17x. For the hardware I received, I paid less than the equivalently equipped macbook pro ~ about $300 less. Not only that, but I don't need a 'mini display port to dual DVI' cable just to connect it to a monitor or two, which saved me another $100.
I don't think people realize this, but when you buy a Macbook, you have to buy $50-$150 worth of extra bits to make it usable.
Sure, it's a gaming laptop, but for $400 (+$100 because I don't need extra bits) less than the macbook pro, it's faster, has better video, more RAM, and 2 500 GD HDDs in RAID 1. It complies my code faster (VS 2010 vs xcode ~ may not be apples to apples but still...), it runs games, and it actually looks quite sharp.
I can also replace the battery.
For the record, I have a macbook pro development target as well, but it never goes out of my office. I understand why people like the Mac, I just can't understand why they actually think it's good value.
> It's easy in WIndows if you know what software to download
I just checked. I have Win7 Pro and it brings up the disc burning interface when I open an ISO. I haven't installed any software to do this.