Posted on 02/04/2005 7:54:13 AM PST by SmithL
No, OS X doesn't use NTFS.
Programs aren't written for file systems--thus why programs like Firefox can run on the NTFS-using Windows XP while also running on the FAT32-using Windows 98--they're written for system architectures. Windows is an inherently more corruptible platform, because Microsoft wrote the underlying architecture with the operating assumption that every other computer on the network could be trusted.
You can buy all his stuff as a desktop and it'll be less then he spent.
You've got the theory reversed. OS X's greatest protection is the way it was engineered, with its network protocols assuming that every other computer it connected to could not be trusted. Windows was built in the opposite manner: Microsoft's policy was that every other computer on the network could be trusted.
Programming doctrine counts for a lot more than you're giving credit for. Let's say there's a large bank chain all over a state, and then there's a second bank with just five or ten branches spread over a city and its suburbs. Let's say the smaller bank invested more into securing its money than the larger bank--more advanced locks, more cameras, more security guards, better employee training, everything. Would it be fair to say that the smaller bank is only more secure because it's smaller, and thus there are less potential bank robbers who could try to break in? No, it wouldn't, because the smaller bank has better security policies. Could it still be robbed? Yes, but it would be such a difficult proposition that many potential bank robbers wouldn't even try.
Therein lies the difference between OS X and Windows XP. OS X makes hacking attempts as unattractive as possible. XP, under the banners of such flawed ideas as "trusted computing," does not.
Yes, I did.
Lost the ability to upgrade your computer yourself.
Wrong. I've already upgraded it myself. The CPU itself is a desktop HT CPU--not the puny Mobile M's with less power--and the OS sees it as an SMP machine.
Got a less stable environment. Heat still kills laptops like DDT does bugs. Good luck putting an extra fan in there.
Again, it's built for that--It came with two fans. I will grant that it does run a little warm, but I can live with that. It's never actually on my lap anyway.
I don't think they are worth the money and the lack of flexibility.
OK. That's fine. However, flexibility seems to be defined in the eye of the beholder. I can now compute anywhere I wish. I can plug into any network and be one my machine. I have more desk space, with no loud tower sitting around my feet, no extra keyboard, speakers, or huge CRT taking up desk space. No wires getting all tangled up.
To me, that's flexible.
Rats, you didn't rise to the bait. Absolutely no fun whatsoever.
All that aside, to be honest, my ideal system is a stripped version of XP while running Firefox as a web browser.
:-)
Well, I think part of it has to do with document storage. A lot of small businesses are running peer to peer networks, and don't necessarily have a pure file server that can be mapped to for centralized storage. (we won't discuss the problems with such an arrangement, especially from a catastropic failure standpoint) Plus, since hardware is cheap, no reason not to put enormous drives in the pc's. I agree, no need for this size drive, but they've become standard so, what the hey?
Very true. If you're running Windows. Which, of course was the author's initial point.
It's very amusing to listen to all these people say: All I do is this, this, this, this and this, and my Windows machine is rock solid.
Well, go ahead and waste your time doing that, that, that, that and that. I'll just use my Mac.
First: I wasn't addressing OS X vs MS...I was addressing Firefox v. IE.
Second: You are definitely right that programming doctrine counts. In fact I will say that OS X is more secure than Windows. But you are diminishing the importance of the other motivations of those who right malware. Difficulty is certainly one of the criterion. But a much more significant motivation is the reach of the malware they are writing. Even a 'big' worm in the Mac world is a small worm in the MS world.
To complete your banking analogy, (at least in the IE/firefox) compare those two security systems. Except one of them (doesn't really matter which) is on a low income home and the other is on the gold reserves at Ft. Knox. Which will get robbed then?
snip
MANY PC companies install HUNDREDS of useless, inane or otherwise space-consuming programs that may be linked with your email address or offer ads to your computer BECAUSE THE COMPANY HAS A CONTRACT WITH THEM.
Or just save yourself the time, hassle, grief and frustration and buy a Mac mini for $500.
If the burglar was able to get into the home because the door or window was flawed, you bet I would blame the guy who built to door or window, and so would you.
NO, my point was the original poster said he could do his XP install along with all the software mentioned: Office, Visio, Project in less than 1/2 hour.
My point was he couldn't and neither could anyone install the same variety of software for Linux in under 30 mins.
Need it for mobility.
aww you don't really need to bring work home with ya ;) work is work
and if you need it for work, they should buy it
Poor Marky, my Win2K laptop has none of the problems he describes and is on a T1 at work and on RR at home. I keep firewalls and virus defs up to date and scan regularly for spyware.
If Mac were the dominent PC species, there would be plenty of similar problems as the malcontents focused on the happy Mac.
I haven't owned or used a mac since '98, but seem to recall plenty of Mac viruses. It's worth noting that the 'You can't hack a Mac' contest was pulled years ago.
Finally, this should settle the question of "are Mac's for blue states?"
Isn't it cute how Marky refers to his SO as 'she'? We all know that at Morford Manor, it is Marky who has sand in his vagina.
wasn't my idea dork plus she had serious emotional issues not caused by the porn plus she had multiple affairs so kiss my fuzzy white ass
But I'd be orders of magnitude more p*ssed at the burglar. Just because the door or window was flawed didn't mean he had to come through it.
It all reversed when it comes to computers. Everyone gets ticked only at Microsoft (and they are certainly far from innocent), but I see very little, if any anger against the purveyors of the spyware, malware, etc.
I guess a lot of it is that people are lazy. It's easier to hit the big target (Microsoft) rather than try to find who actually wrote the spyware or who put it on their computer. After all, it's their computer and they shouldn't blindly trust someone else to keep it secure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.