PDA

View Full Version : Mac vs Windows [Merged]


Pages : 1 [2]

theagassiman
04-02-2009, 02:25 AM
Come on.....you're telling me Windows ME and 2000 were jewels?

...let's not forget Vista

No but they were better than a Mac OS 9!

Gugafan_Redux
04-02-2009, 09:55 AM
The biggest joke about Macs is the price. Go to apple.com and price out an iMac. You want more memory and a slightly bigger hard drive, that's $300 more! The same increase in parts capacity would be about $30 tops at my local PC supply store. Take the top of the line iMac specs, and you can build a PC with those specs for well less than half the $2,200. Closer to $800 total.

Fedfan4life
04-02-2009, 12:59 PM
Well, from the way people on this thread are talking, they just think I'm just some guy who just wants to pick on macs just cos I have nothing to do and want to be annoying.

Well let me tell you this.
I had to spend 6 years in a high school full of Mac OS 9s and they were the crappiest, worst computers I have ever used in my entire life. So there you go Fedfan4life, for those 6 years I had no life, cos I just sat there for 10 minutes each time I wanted to use the damn computer, because the stupid thing took so long to load.

Now you may understand why I hate macs so much.
From what I have expeirenced with the new OS X, Macs have improved dramatically since then, but I'm sorry to say that beacuse of that
stupid OS 9, I will hate macs forever.

You meant 4 years in High School right? Anyway, just because OS 9 ruined the mac experience for you doesn't mean that you have to hate apple products forever. But then again you have your own opinion.

For instance, I bought a $600 dell inspiron last year with Vista premium. I experienced so much blue screen of death on that thing that I finally bought a unibody macbook. I upgraded the HD and Ram, now I'm completely happy with my purchase. I have windows 7 running on bootcamp for work stuff. Vista ruined the experience for me but I'm completely happy with Windows 7, its so stable running on my macbook. BTW, on the windows 7 rating scale it gave me a solid 5.0.

Fedfan4life
04-02-2009, 01:01 PM
Come on.....you're telling me Windows ME and 2000 were jewels?

...let's not forget Vista

Windows 2000 is still running very well. We have several pcs at work running 2000 and its completely stable. Windows ME on the other hand.... meh!!!

topspin
04-02-2009, 01:55 PM
^ I agree. Win2000 was very stable. I'd still upgrade to XP. Windows ME was a joke. I never installed it for any of my clients.

aeu10
04-02-2009, 02:04 PM
love the mac. on a mac right now

boredone3456
04-02-2009, 02:07 PM
I see why macs get so much love. They are a lot safer than most other computers because very few virus's are targeted at their primary operating system. Overall I am not a fan of that operating system, its really a matter of what you prefer, I just prefer Dell to Macs overall. As for using one model of Macs to say all Macs are awful, that would be like saying Windows Vista makes every dell historically awful. Granted I hate Vista...but thats another discussion. One piece of Technology doesn't mean the whole brand is terrible. Macs have their advantages, it just comes down to what you prefer.

LuckyR
04-02-2009, 02:33 PM
as you see it.

It's nice that you're offering your own opinion, but how about empirical evidence. You're not convincing anyone.

Here's what I prefer each system for:
PC - games, web browsing, some software
Mac - academics, audio/video editing/recording/watching/listening, aesthetics, reliability, more basic built-in functions

I think there is a slight speed difference in favor of the PC when it comes to opening/closing programs and boot up speed, but that's not enough for me to switch teams.

Best post in the thread...

saremile
04-02-2009, 06:22 PM
What's with the fascination with Mac? I don't get it. I find window based pc's just as simple to use. If it's security, i don't believe Mac's are more reliable over windows. It's it's viruses, i don't get any. I have kaspersky and wireless router.

To some, Mac's are very pleasant to look at. Not to me however. I find Lenovo laptops very beautiful. I don't know. That's just me.\

Price wise, Mac's are damn too expensive. Why would anyone spend the higher premium? Unless you need for work. But other than that, why would you buy a Mac?

i have not read all the replies. But my question is, if other than work related, why do people spend the premium for a Mac?

Roy Hobbs
04-03-2009, 08:28 AM
What's with the fascination with Mac? I don't get it. I find window based pc's just as simple to use. If it's security, i don't believe Mac's are more reliable over windows. It's it's viruses, i don't get any. I have kaspersky and wireless router.

To some, Mac's are very pleasant to look at. Not to me however. I find Lenovo laptops very beautiful. I don't know. That's just me.\

Price wise, Mac's are damn too expensive. Why would anyone spend the higher premium? Unless you need for work. But other than that, why would you buy a Mac?

i have not read all the replies. But my question is, if other than work related, why do people spend the premium for a Mac?

Apple is marketing a lifestyle, creating a desire. Like Nike or Mercedes. No one needs $120 basketball shoes or $100,000 cars either.

albino smurf
04-03-2009, 08:58 AM
I just configured the highest end G5 with the following specs:
Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon32GB (8x4GB)Mac Pro RAID Card1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s4x NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MBTwo 18x SuperDrivesApple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)Apple Wireless Mighty MouseApple Wireless Keyboard (English) and User's GuideAirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11nQuad-channel 4Gb Fibre Channel PCI Express cardiWork '09 preinstalledFinal Cut Express preinstalledAperture preinstalledLogic Express preinstalledFileMaker Pro 10 preinstalledApple Mini DisplayPort to DVI AdapterMini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI AdapterApple Mini DisplayPort to VGA Adapter1-year subscriptionAppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll

Yours for just $20,367.95. Enjoy.

goober
04-03-2009, 09:45 AM
I just configured the highest end G5 with the following specs:
Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon32GB (8x4GB)Mac Pro RAID Card1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s4x NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MBTwo 18x SuperDrivesApple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)Apple Wireless Mighty MouseApple Wireless Keyboard (English) and User's GuideAirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11nQuad-channel 4Gb Fibre Channel PCI Express cardiWork '09 preinstalledFinal Cut Express preinstalledAperture preinstalledLogic Express preinstalledFileMaker Pro 10 preinstalledApple Mini DisplayPort to DVI AdapterMini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI AdapterApple Mini DisplayPort to VGA Adapter1-year subscriptionAppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll

Yours for just $20,367.95. Enjoy.


:shock::shock::shock:

I think would just go out and buy a car and get my similarly configured PC for less that 1/4 of that price.:)

mucat
04-03-2009, 11:51 AM
Apple is marketing a lifestyle, creating a desire. Like Nike or Mercedes. No one needs $120 basketball shoes or $100,000 cars either.

I have to disagree. Mercedes do make better cars in most cases. Apple products are debatable at best. While I don't need a $100,000 car, I can understant the engineering went into it. Macs??? What engineering? It is a freaking PC inside.

BorisBeckerFan
04-03-2009, 03:02 PM
Macs are pretty much the standard for the audio/video industry.

Although somebody actually in the industry could tell you better than I could. I think macs are equal to PCs in everyday usage. I primarily use my computer for gaming, so PC is better for me. :D

Despite The obvious Steve Jobs Pixar connection to apple those 3-D animation movies they have made have been done on windows and linux/unix based machines. Eventhough Maya works on a mac. Despite Final Cut Pro and Adobe Premiere Pro taking a huge market share away from Avid, most of the oscar winning movies are still being edited on Avid. Most of the high end avid suites are currently running on windows based machines despite them being available on macs. I love my mac but it is in no way shape or form the industry standard. There's a lot of good work being done on both the mac and the windows based systems.

Roy Hobbs
04-03-2009, 03:15 PM
I have to disagree. Mercedes do make better cars in most cases. Apple products are debatable at best. While I don't need a $100,000 car, I can understant the engineering went into it. Macs??? What engineering? It is a freaking PC inside.

You have to disagree that these companies are marketing lifestyle? You can disagree that that's all they're marketing, but to dispute that they're doing it at all would be naive.

I think that many here are overlooking one point. Consumers don't only purchase products for utility. Otherwise we'd all wear the same, most durable, least expensive brand of jeans, etc. Individual taste, personal style, symbols of status, and one's self-image play huge roles. "I drive luxury car X because I've earned it and I'm at a certain place in my life and it commands respect and I like refined things and I can afford it and it's what business execs like me drive." Or "I smoke cigarette brand Y because it's what hipsters smoke and it's from France and I'm sophisticted and I studied in Paris when I was in college and it was the best time of life and chicks dig my obscure, expensive choices, and it makes me feel cool."

Human nature isn't always logical or driven by the best value for a buck.

Roy Hobbs
04-03-2009, 03:18 PM
And why this obsession with OS 9? Someone had a bad experience with it several years ago? Ancient history. My Model T sucks. I'm now anti-Ford. Being anti-cool is as much of a pose as acting cool.

mucat
04-03-2009, 04:03 PM
You have to disagree that these companies are marketing lifestyle? You can disagree that that's all they're marketing, but to dispute that they're doing it at all would be naive.

I think that many here are overlooking one point. Consumers don't only purchase products for utility. Otherwise we'd all wear the same, most durable, least expensive brand of jeans, etc. Individual taste, personal style, symbols of status, and one's self-image play huge roles. "I drive luxury car X because I've earned it and I'm at a certain place in my life and it commands respect and I like refined things and I can afford it and it's what business execs like me drive." Or "I smoke cigarette brand Y because it's what hipsters smoke and it's from France and I'm sophisticted and I studied in Paris when I was in college and it was the best time of life and chicks dig my obscure, expensive choices, and it makes me feel cool."

Human nature isn't always logical or driven by the best value for a buck.

I just disagree with comparing Macs to Mercedes. It is an insult to Mercedes I think. :)

Kaptain Karl
04-04-2009, 08:23 AM
I owned both for years. Operated my business "dual platform" until OSX got through the Intro Phase. I've been doing everything on my MacBook ever since.

I abuse this thing and it keeps on trucking. For me the advantages are: reliability ... FAR fewer viruses, bots and pop-ups (and fewer worries about constantly upgrading all the defenses) ... I don't have to put up with MS software "helping" me by anticipating what I'm trying to write (in Word, PPT or Excel). I know how to write. That last thing is a "14" on the Annoying Scale of 10.

Because I do a bunch of public speaking and training I pretty much MUST use PPT a lot. I still laugh at how many steps it takes to do just about *anything* with PPT. What I can do in Draw on Mac in (say) three steps invariably requires five or six steps on PPT. Multiply that by 40 slides and I've wasted a lot of time.

Excel *is* superior to Apple's spreadsheet. It seems the guys who developed Apple's spreadsheet tool must not have ever actually used a spreadsheet. I can make Excel do *tricks*. I spent hours trying to figure out how to make Apples tool do the same kind of stuff ... to no avail.

... I can't see any major advantages to MACs for home use other than they don't have as many viruses and worms. Curious, that you "toss this off" as such an inconsequential thing. This is HUGE!!!

The fact that a Mac can also be a Windows machine, AND is almost completely immune to viruses out of the box, AND has a smoother interface than PC's (that last bit is just my personal opinion), to me makes them worth the extra cost. It's a closed system that works well for me....I'm not as much of a tinkerer as I used to be, I just want the damned thing to work without me tweaking a million things. Macs do that perfectly.Yes. I get a kick out of how my Win friends tell me, "Oh, Windows will do that too. You just have to ..." [A bunch of techno-talk which makes no sense to me.]

I don't want to have to TELL my computer how to do "x" for me. I just want to Click and have it done. (Reminds me of the complaint, "Don't tell me how to build a watch when I just want to know what time it is.")

I own a pc and a mac. I like them both. the main difference is the viruses. the pc requires bulky security measures and a lot more general babysitting to keep the OS fast.

You meant 4 years in High School right? Hmm. I have a sense theagassiman probably did need 6 years to complete High School....

- KK

topspin
04-04-2009, 09:59 AM
One of the major disadvantages of a mac over pc is the fact that you can't even map a network drive. I researched this problem and there was no easy way to this simple yet important and useful task. I gave up on mac right there and then. It may be fine as a standalone graphic-oriented pc, but for serious network users, I would not recommend it.

king of swing
04-04-2009, 10:17 AM
whatever guys. Ubuntu PWNS YOU ALL!!!!!!! :D

http://i42.tinypic.com/23u8r5s.png

Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope FTW

http://i42.tinypic.com/2819av5.jpg

movdqa
04-04-2009, 11:46 AM
Macs are nice for x86 Software Engineering if you're used to a Unix environment. They also have the advantage of security by obscurity. Microsoft has had several years in the security wilderness with problem after problem after problem. I have a 17 inch MacBook Pro and it's a very nice system. I run Mac OSX on it about 98% of the time and it works quite well in my work environment. I also have a Dell XPS M1330 with Vista x64. It has a 2.0 Ghz processor and it runs like a dog - I expected better from a 2.0 Ghz Merom processor. I also have a Dell Studio XPS which has a 2.66 Ghz Core i7 processor (quad core with hyperthreading so 8 threads). The Core i7 processor runs Vista x64 very, very well and I'm happy with Vista on this system. Unfortunately Core i7 systems are very expensive and it's a bit sad to require a supercomputer to run Vista well. On laptops, I still prefer Mac OSX.

The Mac Pro uses Core i7 server chips and these chips are very expensive as are the motherboards. I had a look at a PowerEdge Server from Dell and a minimally configured system with the same 2.93 Ghz processors is $4,967. I loaded one of these up for fun and it came to $76, 513 - note that I didn't pick all of the options can could have gone a lot higher.

maximo
04-04-2009, 11:48 AM
PC = Windows

Notebook = Mac

movdqa
04-04-2009, 11:57 AM
That's my approach too. I don't like the design or price aspects of Apple's desktop models but their notebooks are attractive and functional.

goober
04-04-2009, 01:16 PM
Curious, that you "toss this off" as such an inconsequential thing. This is HUGE!!!
- KK
It is only huge if you don't update windows and fail to run virus software and downloading things from questionable sites or people you don't know. Almost all the outbreaks are from computers that don't have this done.

If MACS become more popular, it is just a matter of time before they have more virus issues.

movdqa
04-04-2009, 01:30 PM
"It is only huge if you don't update windows and fail to run virus software and downloading things from questionable sites or people you don't know. Almost all the outbreaks are from computers that don't have this done."

Malware is getting better and better. The variety and sophistication of attacks gets trickier and trickier to defend against. One weakness of legitimate websites is banner ads which are typically handled by third-party sites. A security breach there can result in infections at regular news sites.

I run a bunch of security programs on my Windows systems. They present a cost in system performance and time due to downloading updates and running scans. I don't have to do this with my Mac OSX or Linux systems. On my Core i7 system, the hardware is so fast that you don't notice anti-malware costs. But the costs are noticeable with current generation notebook hardware.

WBF
04-04-2009, 02:03 PM
It is only huge if you don't update windows and fail to run virus software and downloading things from questionable sites or people you don't know. Almost all the outbreaks are from computers that don't have this done.

If MACS become more popular, it is just a matter of time before they have more virus issues.

Does Windows update itself by default? I think it does, but I'm not sure. If it doesn't, this should certainly be the default (personally I like to pick and chose, so I have it download and then pick when and which to install).

This, along with a self updating anti-malware program is all you need.

Realistically, if you have common sense, you don't even need the latter.

-Keep all applications up to date, regardless of platform
-No need for software firewalls when your router does it for you
-Surf websites you know. If you don't know one, look it up (not by visiting). Make sure it is legit
-Don't say yes when asked to install something on the web. Several successful attacks revolve around a website like youtube.(somerandomTLD) asking you to download a 'video codec'

etc.

I ran like this through 2006. No anti-virus, no problems whatsoever. Hell, this was even back before I re-considered using illegitimate software, and I still had no malware.

KK: I don't know if you pay attention to the security world, but Macs are actually less secure than Windows PCs. Although to be sure, if you throw an ignorant user into the mix, the Windows PC may be less "safe". A change in this has already started to occur. Macs are getting more attention from attackers, although it is likely they will never see the same attention. Windows. Unix and variants. These platforms are used in the infrastructure of major businesses and often house, transfer, or offer a stepping point to other places with highly prized information. What does a mac do? It gets you access to an individuals computer.

WBF
04-04-2009, 02:04 PM
I run a bunch of security programs on my Windows systems. They present a cost in system performance and time due to downloading updates and running scans.

It's not our fault you aren't too bright. Why would you run a bunch of security programs?

movdqa
04-04-2009, 02:24 PM
"It's not our fault you aren't too bright. Why would you run a bunch of security programs?"

I'm a software engineer and an expert on computer security.

topspin
04-04-2009, 02:34 PM
Most antivirus softwares these days are streamlined and barely use any of your cpu resources. Check your system resources and look for the processes belonging to your antivirus software. They should take up no more than 3% cpu resouces and not on a continuous basis. Avoid norton & macafee products and you'll be fine.

movdqa
04-04-2009, 03:08 PM
The main cost for antivirus software is updating the virus database. This was trivial several years ago but the quantity of viruses out there means that databases get updated daily. On my home system this results in a longer time after login before the system becomes usable.

Furthermore, I run several other anti-malware programs. Some are resident and some are scanners. These have to be updated (I usually do this every one to two weeks). I usually run scans when I do updates and these can take several hours each to run.

Regarding the comment on automatic updates: the way that Windows handles these is a pain. If you set it for automatic updates, it shuts down your system after providing a warning and then applies updates. This means that you can lose work when one of these things pops up. Windows Update is persistent too. If you decline the automatic update, it pops it up again in about 45 minutes. One trip to the bathroom or kitchen and your work can be toast.

WBF
04-04-2009, 03:24 PM
movdqa: An expert on computer security eh? And you run several other anti-malware programs? You clearly are not an expert on computer security, or you are, but you are a bit crazy.

As for the automatic updates, it could probably be handled better. Far from justifying turning it off.

Hot Sauce
04-04-2009, 03:42 PM
Why is the poll closed? Shouldn't it be ongoing?

movdqa
04-04-2009, 03:52 PM
"An expert on computer security eh? And you run several other anti-malware programs? You clearly are not an expert on computer security, or you are, but you are a bit crazy."

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I have an CIS degree and an MSCS. Though maybe you could have figured that out from my username.

Kaptain Karl
04-04-2009, 03:55 PM
If MACS become more popular, it is just a matter of time before they have more virus issues.No argument. (Except it's "Mac;" not "MAC".)




KK: I don't know if you pay attention to the security world, but Macs are actually less secure than Windows PCs.While this may be "technically" true, it is not practically accurate. (One benefit of functioning with a platform which commands such a small market share.)




Avoid norton & macafee products and you'll be fine.Interesting. So you are advising people who use the largest-market-share platform to avoid the largest-market-share security tools...?



It really doesn't matter to me which platform(s) you use or like. Enjoy!

- KK

movdqa
04-04-2009, 04:09 PM
"Interesting. So you are advising people who use the largest-market-share platform to avoid the largest-market-share security tools...?"

Companies that are monopolies or duopolies can become complacent as you don't have a real choice in alternatives. Microsoft has had this problem in a few of their products in the past.

We had Corporate Norton for many years and performance of the product was terrible for many years. Corporate computers can be quite slow (my last replacement was for a machine that was ten years old).

If you want better obscurity, go with VMS or some other non-Windows and non-Unix OS. VMS is widely used but not by end-users and I'd guess that noone really targets the platform.

Hot Sauce
04-04-2009, 04:17 PM
Yep, Norton and Mcafee are pretty brutal.

topspin
04-04-2009, 09:30 PM
No argument. (Except it's "Mac;" not "MAC".)




While this may be "technically" true, it is not practically accurate. (One benefit of functioning with a platform which commands such a small market share.)




Interesting. So you are advising people who use the largest-market-share platform to avoid the largest-market-share security tools...?



It really doesn't matter to me which platform(s) you use or like. Enjoy!

- KK

I don't have the numbers in front of me regarding antivirus market share. However, just because something is widely used does not mean it is a good product. Do some research on tech support and security forums and you'll find that they recommend Bitdefender and Kaspersky.

To fully remove norton and macafee, you need to download the corresponding uninstall utilities. Simply uninstalling these softwares does not remove all traces of them, causing system instability. I have worked cleaning up viruses and spyware for Verizon clients and have extensive experience in the field.

topspin
04-04-2009, 09:34 PM
The main cost for antivirus software is updating the virus database. This was trivial several years ago but the quantity of viruses out there means that databases get updated daily. On my home system this results in a longer time after login before the system becomes usable.

Furthermore, I run several other anti-malware programs. Some are resident and some are scanners. These have to be updated (I usually do this every one to two weeks). I usually run scans when I do updates and these can take several hours each to run.

Regarding the comment on automatic updates: the way that Windows handles these is a pain. If you set it for automatic updates, it shuts down your system after providing a warning and then applies updates. This means that you can lose work when one of these things pops up. Windows Update is persistent too. If you decline the automatic update, it pops it up again in about 45 minutes. One trip to the bathroom or kitchen and your work can be toast.

I don't mean to question your credentials, but something does not add up here. First of all, updating the virus definitions can be scheduled at a time of your choosing. So there is no reason why the updates should perform at boot up.

I also use a handful of anti-malware softwares. You can set up some of them to scan your system on the fly, that's fine. I prefer just using them to scan my system at a time of my choosing since my antivirus software already has a live malware scanner.

As for automatic updates, they will never reboot your system with unsaved work. But if this worries you, just set it up to ask you before downloading and installing.

movdqa
04-04-2009, 09:57 PM
"First of all, updating the virus definitions can be scheduled at a time of your choosing. So there is no reason why the updates should perform at boot up."

Well, it's a choice between two evils. You may be able to choose (I'm not sure with the av that I use) but then you have to do it manually which means that you're unprotected in the interim. Or you can do it automatically which means at boot time.

"I also use a handful of anti-malware softwares. You can set up some of them to scan your system on the fly, that's fine. I prefer just using them to scan my system at a time of my choosing since my antivirus software already has a live malware scanner."

I have a lot of disks and a huge number of files on my system so any kind of full system scan takes many hours. When it's scanning my system disk, performance using that disk is subpar.

"As for automatic updates, they will never reboot your system with unsaved work. But if this worries you, just set it up to ask you before downloading and installing."

Yes they will. It happens all the time in my office.

You can set it up to ask in general (this might be against office policy) but then you have the problem of doing it manually. Apple's system is rather nice. It tells you that you have updates and asks you if you want to apply them. You can then say yes or no.

Settings may be different on Vista. We use a variety of Windows Operating Systems at work and we're not allowed to use Vista on company-owned desktops. I bought my own Nehalem system that I use in the office and the thing runs so fast that the usual Vista issues are gone.

topspin
04-04-2009, 10:05 PM
^You will not run unprotected by scheduling your antivirus updates to run at a specific time during the day. Actually, if you use Kaspersky, you'll see that it updates using minimum cpu and bandwidth.

Running scans does take time. There is no way to get around that. I schedule my scan when I'm out to dinner or away from my pc for a couple of hours.

The apple update system sounds like what I'm suggesting for you in windows. Just tell it to download and not apply until you choose. That will solve your problem with rebooting. But it is good practice to save your work often and especially when getting up from your pc. Don't go asking for trouble by not saving your work.

goober
04-04-2009, 10:37 PM
No argument. (Except it's "Mac;" not "MAC".)


- KK

Oh sorry, probably playing too much CS and was thinking about this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/MAC10.jpg/300px-MAC10.jpg

movdqa
04-05-2009, 06:04 AM
"Running scans does take time. There is no way to get around that. I schedule my scan when I'm out to dinner or away from my pc for a couple of hours."

I own a total of 15 computers and a total of 18 Windows operating systems (I have a PowerMac G5 and three MacBook Pros). Many of the machines aren't used that often but remembering to run scans on the Windows systems can be a pain in the neck. I don't have that problem with Mac OSX or Linux. I generally like to shut down my systems when they are not in use to reduce power consumption and generated heat.

"The apple update system sounds like what I'm suggesting for you in windows. Just tell it to download and not apply until you choose. That will solve your problem with rebooting. But it is good practice to save your work often and especially when getting up from your pc. Don't go asking for trouble by not saving your work."

I work in an engineering environment and there are days when I get frequently updated or have a lot of impromptu short meetings. Some of my work involves deep thought and concentration or collaboration with a few other people in my office and it's pretty easy to get distracted from a background application on my system. Many applications do save your work but some do not. Even saving your work isn't enough if you lose your context in an application that takes a while to setup.

I still prefer leaving Windows Update as automatic as there are times when updates are fast and furious. We are somewhat paranoid about Microsoft software due to their major SQL Server problem in 2005. That worm shut down a good chunk of our network for several days. It shut down quite a large number of companies around the world too.

The Apple approach is nice in that it asks you but you can afford to take your time with updates because the overall environmental threat level is much, much lower.

topspin
04-05-2009, 12:05 PM
I run a full scan on my pc maybe once a month. There is no substitute for being careful when downloading attachments and avoiding dangerous websites. That said, you still need to run scans regularly. In your case, I would designate a "scan time" at which everyone using the pc's will simply leave the pc on for that night. And schedule the scan at 1am. Problem solved.

As for the automatic updates making you lose work and software setup, I've still yet to see that situation. I'll take your word for it. I personally leave automatic updates OFF at all time except when I'm doing some maintenance manually. I depend on my antivirus software to protect me from viruses/worms. The reason for this is because automatic updates can at times cause your system to slow down with an svchost.ext process taking up almost all cpu resources. It is an annoying glitch that microsoft addressed in both an update and sp3 but it still does occur. I have found a fix for it but it I only apply it if the problem occurs. To avoid this problem, you can turn off automatic updates and set the process for auto updates not to load at bootup.

movdqa
04-05-2009, 12:15 PM
"I run a full scan on my pc maybe once a month. There is no substitute for being careful when downloading attachments and avoiding dangerous websites. That said, you still need to run scans regularly. In your case, I would designate a "scan time" at which everyone using the pc's will simply leave the pc on for that night. And schedule the scan at 1am. Problem solved."

These are all my machines. Some don't get used for months at a time. However you look at it, doing the AV and malware scans is a pain in the neck.

"As for the automatic updates making you lose work and software setup, I've still yet to see that situation. I'll take your word for it. I personally leave automatic updates OFF at all time except when I'm doing some maintenance manually. I depend on my antivirus software to protect me from viruses/worms. The reason for this is because automatic updates can at times cause your system to slow down with an svchost.ext process taking up almost all cpu resources. It is an annoying glitch that microsoft addressed in both an update and sp3 but it still does occur. I have found a fix for it but it I only apply it if the problem occurs. To avoid this problem, you can turn off automatic updates and set the process for auto updates not to load at bootup."

It's a problem on my home desktop but not on my work desktop and it is related to performance. On my work system, it runs so fast that it's not really an issue. My home system is a lot slower. I was thinking of buying another Nehalem system for home and maybe one for my other residence but the place where I found a cheap system can't keep them in stock now. Then again I could just get a few Mac Pros.

goober
04-05-2009, 06:27 PM
Come on.....you're telling me Windows ME and 2000 were jewels?

...let's not forget Vista


Windows 2000 was for servers and business professionals, it was not really a release to the general public for home use. A lot of IT professionals consider windows 2000 Pro to be the best release of Windows OS. Here's one article, but I have seen others comment on this as well. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/classic-tech/?p=104

Vista actually isn't that bad. They made a huge mistake in the release as there were serious driver problems. The initial first impression killed it off for a lot of people. After SP1 release I can say it is definitely stable and working solid. I have never actually had any problems with it. It also has DirectX 10. For gaming Vista > XP with SP3

mucat
04-05-2009, 06:27 PM
Is this thread Mac vs Windows? Or Mac vs PC? It is not the same thing.

movdqa
04-05-2009, 06:35 PM
Vista actually isn't that bad. They made a huge mistake in the release as there were serious driver problems. The initial first impression killed it off for a lot of people. After SP1 release I can say it is definitely stable and working solid. I have never actually had any problems with it. It also has DirectX 10. For gaming Vista > XP with SP3

My new Nehalem system runs Vista quite well. I do get the occasional blue screen of death - maybe that's from running the x64 version and there's one huge headache in that Cisco VPN doesn't run on x64 but it's good enough for client work use.

My main complaint with Vista is performance. I bought a 2.0 Ghz Merom system with Vista and performance is poor - much worse than I'd expect on this class of processor. Vista runs fine on a high-spec quad-core desktop system though.

I get BSODs on my other Vista x64 system too.

Modern Windows has VMS as a base for development. Dave Cutler worked on RSX and VMS at DEC in the Pacific Northwest. Bill Gates recruited him (and a bunch of other people that worked for him) and they went to work on Windows NT. That's about as much as I want to say on that.

WBF
04-05-2009, 06:39 PM
Vista actually isn't that bad. They made a huge mistake in the release as there were serious driver problems. The initial first impression killed it off for a lot of people. After SP1 release I can say it is definitely stable and working solid. I have never actually had any problems with it. It also has DirectX 10. For gaming Vista > XP with SP3

At this point, and for a good while, Vista > XP, without qualification. People are just reactionary fools. Nvidia, Creative and several other organizations are to blame for the shoddy driver support, and other organizations like Dell, Lenovo, and Acer pushed for and profited over the whole Vista Capable story (IMHO they are more guilty than MS; MS would have sold Vista anyhow. These companies used the branding to sell PCs).

goober
04-05-2009, 06:46 PM
My new Nehalem system runs Vista quite well. I do get the occasional blue screen of death - maybe that's from running the x64 version and there's one huge headache in that Cisco VPN doesn't run on x64 but it's good enough for client work use.

My main complaint with Vista is performance. I bought a 2.0 Ghz Merom system with Vista and performance is poor - much worse than I'd expect on this class of processor. Vista runs fine on a high-spec quad-core desktop system though.


yes I should qualify is good for a decent/higher end system. For older systems and most laptops, I would probably get XP. Businesses though probably don't have a huge incentive to change over with Windows 7 coming out soon. One rule of thumb I live by is don't upgrade an OS until it has been out for awhile and all the kinks are worked out. So I won't get Windows 7 till probably 2011 :)

movdqa
04-05-2009, 07:00 PM
"yes I should qualify is good for a decent/higher end system. For older systems and most laptops, I would probably get XP. Businesses though probably don't have a huge incentive to change over with Windows 7 coming out soon. One rule of thumb I live by is don't upgrade an OS until it has been out for awhile and all the kinks are worked out. So I won't get Windows 7 till probably 2011"

Businesses don't really have an incentive to switch over to Windows 7 if they want to keep there old hardware. There are lots of businesses that upgrade their systems after five, six, seven, etc. years. The systems that we have (old Pentium 4s with integrated graphics) would probably have problems with Vista Business out of the box. There's also OS validation which can be quite a bit of work for larger organizations.

It is likely that upgrades would result in the holy grail of computer companies and component suppliers: the hardware upgrade cycle. New computers with new operating systems are purchased resulting in lots of money flowing to Intel, Dell, nVidia, AMD, Lenovo, Sony, etc. Will it happen with Windows 7? I don't know. The economy is pretty lousy and companies are pretty stingy. I don't plan to upgrade my Vista systems. The desktop is fine and I can live with my slow laptop - it's just a backup machine for my MacBook Pro.

goober
04-05-2009, 08:21 PM
Businesses don't really have an incentive to switch over to Windows 7 if they want to keep there old hardware. There are lots of businesses that upgrade their systems after five, six, seven, etc. years. The systems that we have (old Pentium 4s with integrated graphics) would probably have problems with Vista Business out of the box. There's also OS validation which can be quite a bit of work for larger organizations.

It is likely that upgrades would result in the holy grail of computer companies and component suppliers: the hardware upgrade cycle. New computers with new operating systems are purchased resulting in lots of money flowing to Intel, Dell, nVidia, AMD, Lenovo, Sony, etc. Will it happen with Windows 7? I don't know. The economy is pretty lousy and companies are pretty stingy. I don't plan to upgrade my Vista systems. The desktop is fine and I can live with my slow laptop - it's just a backup machine for my MacBook Pro.

Yes I certainly didn't mean to imply that everybody in business is going to windows 7. Those that have systems capable or are planning on upgrading soon anyways will have basically little incentive to upgrade Vista when Windows 7 is around the corner.

Where I work they are using XP pro and will probably do so for at least the next 3 years or so.

kimbahpnam
04-05-2009, 09:17 PM
Yay, Mac wins. It's final, Mac > PC by just a slim margin. :)

topspin
04-05-2009, 10:27 PM
The main point to remember in the discussion about win xp vs vista is that they both work fine now, but people are already used to xp and know where to find what they need. There is no need to install vista especially since you will need to upgrade some systems to at least 3gb of ram. Also, a fully installed xp pro system takes about 6gb of hd space. A vista system takes over 20gb. I don't see a need which is why I still install xp for all my clients.

flyinghippos101
08-14-2009, 06:40 PM
PC, I want a computer, not a flashy toy

CyBorg
08-14-2009, 07:37 PM
I have both PC and Mac.

The iMac is my cadillac of computers. It is truly a luxury item.

I still use the PC, because I'm used to it, but the day the lights go out is the day I'm throwing this piece of junk out. There's no chance in hell I'm calling India again for tech support. Screw that.