Avid6eek said:
How do security exploits make it a hastle? Windows automatically downloads updates...all you have to do is click the update button in the lower right to have them installed. Unless your running a server with some valuable information on it...nobody is trying to hack into your system.
There are security exploits that Microsoft knows about, and that everybody knows about - and yet they aren't fixed. Windows Messenger, (not MSN, but thats a different story) ActiveX, Outlook/Express. Just last week my brother (who is a resonably competent computer user) finished updating his XP system, rebooted it - and found that a virus had gotten on his system. A week before that, it was a trojan that infected Microsoft's Java implementation (he deleted it and went to Sun Java afterwards.) Point is, Microsoft's security record is bleak, and they keep proving it again and again to me by not FIXING anything.
Avid6eek said:
Apple may have had it first, but they obviously didn't know what to do with it. The primary function of a business is to make money. MS and Intel appear to have capitalized on this one.
Apple did know what do to. They were the superior product. Windows 1.0 flopped. (even though it was copied directly from Macintosh, leading to a furious legal battle down the road, but anyway.) Microsoft eventually coerced all the computer manufacturers into adopting their software, and it worked. They aren't a business, they're the schoolyard bully for christ's sake.
Avid6eek said:
So...stupid man buys a PC, downloads virus/spyware...ignorant Mac fan claims PCs have security threats. That seems to be the trend in this thread.
When my father surfs on the internet on his Windows box, within a week its full of malware. When my father uses my mother's iMac, or my Linux laptop - it stays clean. No spyware, no trojans, no viruses. He surfs the same exact websites, checks his email, and logs off. Both machines are pretty well maintained. Yeah, I'd say PCs have security threats....
Avid6eek said:
So your saying if you buy a Chevy, it will be flawless? Think again my friend. Like many other people have said, each system has their own pros and cons. In the end, a Ford is just as good as a Chevy. Pound for pound, a Mac is no better than a PC. It's all up to personal preference.
I'm saying that there are other, better products with less problems on the market. The car analogy was a tad off (probably because I refuse to drive, and I take the bus or ride a bike) - but I got the point across. There are better ways to work, and given the choice between Windows and Mac - I'll take a Mac.
Avid6eek said:
if Apple wants to do anything serious, they must make a product that will actually draw attention.
What do you call the first Mac? Or the PowerBook? Or the iMac, or the iPod? Were those attention-drawing enough? Apparently not, because the Dell Precison-whatchamacalit 394t40XPF system sold twice as many systems as the iMac.
Apple has been innovating. I know that's a marketing buzzword, but thats what they really do. Compare it with all the "innovating" that Microsoft, HP, and Intel *claim* they do.
Avid6eek said:
They got close with the new Mini. That's what got me here....but only because I am computer savy. Your average "stupid user" may buy a new Mac Mini...it looks cute, and it doesn't cost very much. They are going to buy the standard one with 256MB of RAM, and find that OS X is a dog with only 256MB of RAM. They'll go back to their faster PC with 256MB of RAM. Fundamentaly, I think apple would do better in the future if the bit the bullet and truly made the Mini a functional system.
People wanted a cheap Mac, we GAVE them a cheap Mac - and yet they still claim it's too expensive! We can throw in as much RAM as it needs, give it a 200GB hard drive, and bundle it with software to end the Palestine-Israel conflict but people will still hate it! Why? Because it's a Mac. We can never satisfy the PC people, so why should we try to?