Options
As the Mac turns 20, has the PC caught up?
[link=http://zdnet.com.com]Zdnet[/link] has posted an interesting article looking at the development paths of both the 'MAC' and the 'PC'.
[blockquote]At the time, Windows version 1 was still a year away, and overlapping windows and icons on the PC would not appear for another three years, in the form of Windows 2--later to be renamed Windows 286. And of course all those early versions of Windows ran on top of the DOS command-line operating system.
[/blockquote]
[link=http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5145165.html]Read more[/link]
[blockquote]At the time, Windows version 1 was still a year away, and overlapping windows and icons on the PC would not appear for another three years, in the form of Windows 2--later to be renamed Windows 286. And of course all those early versions of Windows ran on top of the DOS command-line operating system.
[/blockquote]
[link=http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5145165.html]Read more[/link]
0
Comments
A very elegant way to put it, and a nice little article.
Dexter...
Case in point: The one button mouse. What, Apple, you don't trust us enough to let us right-click? What next, are you going to sell use a person to click the mouse on our behalf with the next Mac?
The Macintosh always reminded me of a story I read years ago, called "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson. I'm not going to give away the plot, but anyone that reads the story will see what I mean.
I can see it all now:
Geeky1: "James! Bring up Short-Media.com."
James: "Yes, sir."
I LIKE that idea... hmm...
The computer elite can't use a one button mouse?
/me shakes his head....
How can you call yourself elite if you cannot figure out a simple one button mouse???
It's called "click and hold". They've had it for years. A 2 button mouse default does not make a PC any better.
You can use a 2 button mouse on a Mac. Or a 3 button. Or a 6 button. Or a trackball. Or a graphics tablet. Or whatever you want. I used to draw graphics and design animations on a Wacom graphics tablet on a Mac. The stylus had a one-tap click, a two tap double click, and a tap-and-hold to use in place of the mouse's click-and-hold. It also had a button which you could program to either be a double-click, or a click and hold, or whatever else you wanted. The other "computer elite" people I worked with could all operate that, too.
Right now, we have an Imac in our office with a Logitech 3-button plus scroll wheel cordless optical mouse. We have 4 "computer elite" individuals, including myself. Any of us can operate that Mac. Any of us can also run the G4 with the 2-button mouse, or the old 9600 with the single button mouse. And any of us can run any of the dozen or so PC's in the office too.
Knocking a Mac for the one button mouse is silly, when you can easily change what mouse you have. When you buy an off-the-shelf PC, you get whatever mouse they give you. If you don't like it, you buy your own and plug it in. Same deal with the Mac. You buy it off the shelf, you get the one button mouse. If you don't like it, you buy a different one and plug it in. Sorry, I can't see that as a legitmate drawback, just an "oh, they do something differently" kind of thing. Apple has long said, Think Different.
I also believe that the one button mouse is more ergonomically correct than a two button, as the two button forces your wrist to turn more than the one button mouse does, hastening muscle tension and carpal tunnel syndrome.
Dexter...
Also note that while you can't really do anything hardware-wise, you can still be proficient at programs to the same degree as you can on a PC. The lack of ability to screw with its hardware makes it better for some tasks and more restrictive for others. Classic apples and oranges. Classic hackneyed debate.
I always liked oranges better than apples. In fruit and in computers. :thumbup
I have modified this quote to be more accurate.
"Twenty years on then, it looks as though the PC has finally grown up: the Mac will forever remain a child."
I will tell you one thing though, that was a very good article, and despite it pointing out the previous down-fall of PCs, I would have to give the writer much credit until I read this line:
Everyone feels the need to get in a jab about how viruses run amok in our Windows world. And everyone knows the reason for it.
ABC corporation opens 100 bank locations. XYZ Corporation opens 10. Both implement equivalent security measures in terms of locks, cameras, and other kinds of safety.
After 5 years of being open, ABC corporation has reported 6 bank robberies at it's various location. XYZ Corp has reported 2. Customers of XYZ Corp. point to the 6 robberies at ABC banks and claim their safety is because of their tighter security, but neglect the fact that their bank owns 1/10th the number of facilities. Long story short as everyone knows; when you own more buildings you're gonna have more break-ins, translates directly to the computer world.
Stop right there. You have invalidated your ability to debate this topic by the statement "equivalent security measures."
Mac's have far fewer OS security holes, especially if one were to compare OS X with Windows XP. Mac OS X, which is based on Unix, is more secure because of the way the operating system handles rights. User rights are separate from "root," or "administrator," rights, which helps limit the damage a hacker might do to a system. Core functions governed by administrator rights would not be accessible to the user whose account had been broached. Windows, by contrast, grants administrator rights that can expose the whole operating system when there is a single user hack.
Additionally, OS X ships with many of it's vulnerable services turned off by default, allowing computer savvy users to turn them on as they need them. XP ships with the opposite philosophy: most services are turned on whether a user needs them or not. This allows inept computer users to be violated at will by malicious individuals. Only with XP SP2 and Server 2003 did MS finally see the folly of this philosophy.
Also, because OS X always asks the user to type an administrator password before modifying anything in the system, attempts to install malware or alter system files immediately would be flagged. Windows XP has no such protections.
Even a fundamental thing such as automatically enabling any script in e-mail differs from Windows to Mac. No Mac e-mail client allows this by default. Up until Outlook 6, Windows always did. It took a little something called SoBig to change MS's mind on that one.
The argument that Windows is more widely distrubuted is just smoke and mirrors. Think about this: If Mac's were equally or less secure than Windows, then legions of Mac-Hating PC-enthusiast script-kiddies would be out there writing their worst codes, to bring the hated Mac world to it's knees. The reality is that writing viruses for Macs is hard. Hard enough that most virus writers forget it, and go back to writing something much easier.
It is like the car thief cruising the parking lot at the mall. Sure, the Mercedes looks like a nice target, but the club on the wheel, the little blinking LED on the dash, and the immobilizer sticker on the window change the thief's mind pretty quickly. They cruise on, and soon find the Chevy with its' Windows open and the key under the mat.
Dexter...
Then why did you say this??
You have invalidated your ability to have me form any sort of respectful opinion about you by unneccessarily disrespecting my words and knowledge with such a brash statement.
Your logic is flawed and your argument is just weak. Script kiddies do what they do for attention. You're never going to see world wide news venues carrying news of some major "virus outbreak" or worm on Macs because of the limited outreach of Macintosh systems. Besides, how many hackers...or even script kiddies do you know that own Macs? Didn't think so.
And I'm sure Geeky1 will agree with me in being insulted by your direct comparison of a Mac to a Mercedes. Because last time I checked Mercedes is one of the brands that most would consider "on top" of the automotive industry, that's why they can charge so much for their product and people will pay it. I bet you'll find alot more Benz's on the road than you will find Mac's in the office or home. You actually have to have a reason to charge a lot for your product, Apple needs to figure this out.
Fact is that what PC lack in software security is more than made up for in their price/performance, peripheral options, software selection, upgradeability, customizations (both software and hardware) plus numerous other factors...the market has continually chosen PCs, because overall they are a better product.
Well, if I was worried about that, I'd be worried about that....
Do you know the names of the writers of every virus on a PC? How much attention did the writer of the virus XYZ.5685 get? Script kiddies do not want attention, because that means law enforcement knocking on their doors, court dates, jail terms, 5 year computer use bans, etc. Script kiddies want to see their work widely distributed. Yes, Windows OS is more widely distributed than Mac OS, therefore it makes some sense to target Windows more. But if Windows was secure...they would fail. Windows is not secure. Therefore they succeed.
Script kiddies do not exist on Macs, because you have to be a much more advanced coder to find exploits on Macs, then be able to write code that will: (a) exploit the security problem; and (b) spread. Because Macs are much more secure, there are fewer holes to begin with. Because Macs are much smarter in their implementation of vulnerable system resources, and even about the ability for malicious code to be run on the system, it is that much harder for malicious code to spread.
There are far fewer viruses for Linux for the same reasons: being Unix based (like Mac OS) means that it is infinitely more difficult to exploit it without system root-level permissions being expressly granted by the user.
Therefore, my statment stands: your use of the phrase "equivalent security measures" in your analogy shows a lack of understanding of the issue. If you are going to make statements like that, at least know what you are talking about first. You have given analogies and opinions. Let's see some facts next.
I say again, if Macs were even anywhere nearly equal to Windows in terms of holes and exploits, then there would be infinitely more Mac viruses written by PC fanboys who would just love to be the ones to brag to their friends that they wrote the code that brought OS X toppling down. Why aren't all those script-kiddie PC fanboys doing it, making a name for themselves by being the one who showed those Mac users once and for all who the king is? Because they can't. They just can't.
Do a Google on the phrase "are macs more secure" Check out how many tech / geek sites have articles on that topic in the first few pages of results. Read some of them. Here is a great one, from which I used a few quotes in my last post:
http://www.sunspot.net/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac082803,0,1353478.column?coll=bal-business-indepth
Well, we've seen this discussion before.
Peripheral options: what peripheral hardware can you use on your PC that you cannot find an equivalent peripheral for on the Mac? Obviously you cannot be referring to printers, scanners, mice, speakers, CD or DVD drives or burners, Zip drives, webcams, joysticks, gamepads or memory card readers, because there are such peripherals for Macs...in fact Macs had most of those peripherals long before PC's did. So what peripherals are you talking about?
Software: pretty much any type of software to perfrom a specific function on a PC, you can find a similar, or even the exact same software on a Mac. If it is games that you want, there can be a case made there, as there are more games for PC than for Mac...but there are still a heck of a lot of Mac games available, many of them new titles.
Upgradeability: Macs for many years came with many things in them that were options or upgrades on PC's. You paid more up front, but you got more. PC's have caught up to that in recent years, but note the words "caught up." It is harder to upgrade CPU's in Macs, because they don't like to sell the CPU's on the open market to prevent knock-offs, but I have personally upgraded Mac CPU's, RAM, hard drives, CD/DV drives, modems and ethernet cards.
Customizations: yep. You can customize a PC. But most likely, this is because you are building it from scratch yourself. You need to compare the Mac to off-the-shelf computers, such as Dell or Gateway. You buy it in the store or on the web. It comes with a couple of different coloured cases, and some options for hard drive size, RAM, CPU, etc. So does the Mac.
Price: yep. PC's are cheaper. And that is why the have a bigger market share. Not because they are "better." Because they are cheaper. Because Apple refused to compromise it's engineered quality by allowing hundreds of companies to manufacture cheap knock-off parts which contribute to compatibility problems, hardware failures, etc. Mac experimented with some low-cost clones for a short while, but then closed the license on that when the quality of those clones did not live up to Mac user's expectations.
Performance: of what? Pure CPU speed factor? PC CPU's are faster now. But Mac's bus architecture has long been faster, PC hardware only just caught up again. And if you are buying parts that fast, you are paying as much or more than you would for a Mac. Performance of the system: Macs crash less often. Mac users spend less time removing viruses, spyware and trojans from their systems. The productivity of a Mac user therefore is higher.
Just because more people drive a Chevette than a Corvette does not make the Chevette better. It just makes it more popular.
Dexter...
First, I said what I said about the one button mouse because when I came up with that statement, Macs used their own proprietary mouse connection, PC's used serial or PS2 mice exclusively, and so it was impossible to "upgrade" the mouse on a Mac - as I stated already, before you posted to ask my why I said that.
Mac users are a violently opinionated minority of the computer world. There is no way that I or anyone else is going to change your opinion of what computer is better to use. Nor is there any way you'll change a PC user's mind. Particuarly mine, since I've used both Macs and PCs and I prefer PCs. You seem to prefer Macs. It's all based on the user's particular preferences, no matter which is more stable, which has a faster CPU, or any measurable scientific data.
I suggest we all drop this issue, knock off the changing of slogans and the personal attacks and the deliberately inflammatory remarks, before somebody gets pissed off.
As Rodney King said: "Can't we all just get along?"
Because I don't believe I ever said I wanted to do that, and I'm not some lame script kiddie or "elite hacker" as you described the person who could do such a thing.
I'm tired of all the self important mac elitists who are always right and Mac is always the best. You are obviously a "i'm right no matter what" know it all type. I'm done with you.
I'm a big fan of products that let me change out parts and have a choice over price on what I want to buy. Proprietary equipment is a joke, and that's why Apple has no market share.
The best quote I've heard on Mac users was from the TNT movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" when Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer were standing behind the curtains at an event introducing the Macintosh and people were chanting for Steve Jobs and Ballmer says "geez...when did this stop being a business and start being a religion" Seems every Mac user I've met was on a crusade. Say what you want about PCs, but the market share speaks for itself.
you're kidding right? I have a Mac and two PCs and we must live in totally different worlds. You've seen these points mentioned before, because they are valid. You should really go to work for Steve Jobs; you'd make a great marketing exec. I'm objective enough to admit that Macs have a more secure, easier, more user-friendly OS, better Plug and Play, less virus problems, better compatibility, and even more cutting edge design. Your comments against PCs are subjective, however. PCs, as I mentioned, do have substantial advantages over Macs. The market has already seen this and thus the Mac market share is small. The definition of better must be different for 98% and 2% of us.
That proprietary connection was ADB (Apple Desktop Bus), and it's simplicity helped led to the development of USB. Which was also pioneered by Mac, with the Imac being one of the first computers to offer it standard.
I don't prefer Macs. I use PC's almost all the time these days, as a function of my job, and as a home user who wanted a lower cost option, and one I could build myself. But I have spent a lot of time on Macs in my past as a video editor/graphics artist, so I know more about them than the average PC user who hates Macs.
Nor am I trying to change anyone's opinon. I am simply pointing out several facts about Macs. Many people post incorrect information about Macs and use that as "evidence" of PC's superiority. I have no problem with people having different opinions. But when they state incorrect information to back up that opinion, I like to point out that their information is incorrect. Pehaps my phrasing was off-putting...it would not be the first time
If PC's work better for you for price reasons, or because you like to build them yourself, hey, great for you, me too. But to say that Windows and Mac OS were built with equivalent security considerations is completely incorrect.
I am not a "Mac elitest." I use Mac's less than 5% of my time these days. I am also "not right no matter what." But I do know where to find facts. Your statement was factually incorrect. When you post information that is factually incorrect, be prepared to have it challenged.
And guess what...you have still failed to post any facts to back up your security equivalency statement. You can be "done with me" all you want. That does not change the facts on the security issue. I'm not trying to piss you off, I am just trying to discern opinion from fact in the interests of accuracy.
Dexter...