Mac laptops: what's the fuss?

[paulsterio]

To everyone who still claims that either Mac or Windows is better than eachother, you have a bias! seriously!

I've used both, they were both good.

- I have never gotten a virus on my Windows, I use the free ZoneAlarm Firewall and free Antivirus, done.
- I don't have any "bloatware" because I keep my machines well tuned and maintained.
- I have no problems with the way Windows looks, Mac OS might be more fancy, but it doesn't mean it looks any better, it's what you're used to.
- Macs don't necessarily look better than notebooks, that's a stereotype and that's subjective. I know heaps of good looking non-Apple computers.
- With Macs, you pay for two things, first, you pay for the Apple brand, it's a fashion statement, just like you pay more for a short at Roger David. Secondly, you're paying for it's style (if you prefer that).

In regards to the Mac security though, if we go technical, then unfortunately Mac (and Linux) does have a security advantage. This is why:

This goes back a long time in the history of computing. There was a time when the UNIX platform was much more popular than it is now. These days, it's usually used as servers and that's about all. But back in their heyday, they were the powerful machine of choice for power computing. When Mac OS was first developed, it was like any other operating system, but it had major flaws with memory management and speed. After Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple, he started a company called NeXT, which specialised in producing machines for research organisations. NeXT never really suceeded, however Jobs was able to successfully develop the software for NeXT, which was based on a UNIX kernel. UNIX is far superior to anything else in terms of security, because of the way it was designed. Hence, when Jobs came back to Apple, he was able to build the next version of Mac OS on the NeXT platform. The new Kernel for Mac OS, known as Darwin, was based on UNIX architecture and hence, is fundamentally more secure than the Windows Kernel, which is based on Windows NT architecture of the 1980s. Other OSes such as Linux, (the Linux Kernel is based on UNIX) is also more secure than Windows. It is a lot harder to hack through the UNIX-based kernel than it is to hack through the Windows NT Kernel.

[iamtom]

If you're going to argue that deep down, then yes, you're right.

You're forgetting the most important things when it comes to OS security though: the users. Tell me, and be honest and unbiased (as I am, I really just prefer Ubuntu over anything); do you think the average OS X user would be more security-savvy than the average Windows 7 user? W7 throws recommendations at you (firewall, network security, passwords, etc) whereas, as far as I know, OS X doesn't make you install a firewall or AV software. I mean, really man, are you really trying to tell me that, comparing average installation of Windows vs. OS X, the latter is more secure? Linux is another kettle of fish to analyse, btw.

(Also, I wouldn't argue subjectivity and bias when some of your first few lines are subjective and bias)

[paulsterio]

No I admit, you're right, but that's not really Mac OSX's fault though, maybe just due to the reminders in Windows, but moreso the user's ignorance I think
I was just saying that technically Mac is more secure, but you're defs on the ball, because how secure the system is isn't as important as the user's own awareness and their steps to protect themselves.


Hahah, oh my, all of us can be easily biased then right?

[iamtom]

No I admit, you're right, but that's not really Mac OSX's fault though, maybe just due to the reminders in Windows, but moreso the user's ignorance I think
I was just saying that technically Mac is more secure, but you're defs on the ball, because how secure the system is isn't as important as the user's own awareness and their steps to protect themselves.


Hahah, oh my, all of us can be easily biased then right?

I'm going to actually argue that it IS Apple's fault; they do nothing to stem the rumours they're more secure, in-fact they lavish in it and, like I said before, they deny and hide security vulnerabilities from their consumers to keep this image.

And everyone is biased, even if they say they're not Even me!

But you're right, I would prefer to hack a raw copy of Windows than OS X.

[paulsterio]

You might know, because I don't, but does OSX have a built in firewall the way Windows does?

And yes, I know, we all have some sort of bias, even trying to be unbiased is kinda biased, because we tend to defend the attacked

[iamtom]

No, they don't, AirPort Extreme apparently has a built-in router though.

[burbs]

- With Macs, you pay for two things, first, you pay for the Apple brand, it's a fashion statement, just like you pay more for a short at Roger David. Secondly, you're paying for it's style (if you prefer that).

lol




i agree with the other stuff generally though.

[iamtom]

- With Macs, you pay for two things, first, you pay for the Apple brand, it's a fashion statement, just like you pay more for a short at Roger David. Secondly, you're paying for it's style (if you prefer that).

lol




i agree with the other stuff generally though.

Trust you to highlight that.

[Mao]

If you're going to argue that deep down, then yes, you're right.

You're forgetting the most important things when it comes to OS security though: the users. Tell me, and be honest and unbiased (as I am, I really just prefer Ubuntu over anything); do you think the average OS X user would be more security-savvy than the average Windows 7 user? W7 throws recommendations at you (firewall, network security, passwords, etc) whereas, as far as I know, OS X doesn't make you install a firewall or AV software. I mean, really man, are you really trying to tell me that, comparing average installation of Windows vs. OS X, the latter is more secure? Linux is another kettle of fish to analyse, btw.

(Also, I wouldn't argue subjectivity and bias when some of your first few lines are subjective and bias)

A few things:

- OSX comes with a default firewall, just like how Windows comes with Windows firewall.

- OSX 10.7 runs applications in sandboxes. It doesn't need AV because the usual virus poses no harm, it cannot access other processes or modify the system unless you give it explicit permission. Sure, your cc details stored in plain text on the desktop is still vulnerable, but if that's the case you deserve to have your cc details stolen.

- There are only three ways to get a virus. Porn, warez and things that are too good to be true. You simply need to use common sense and not be stupid. I have been surfing the net naked for 5 years now, still virus free. [There is a 4th way, via malware that pretend to be AV, I think this falls in the common sense category]


A few things that I don't think have been mentioned:

- Once you learn how to use Spaces/Expose/Mission-Control/whatever-name with the keyboard or multitouch, you will never go back to Windows. For multitasking, I have never seen anything better.

- A large range of good media tools are available only on Mac (e.g. XLD for music encoding), while there are no comparable Windows equivalent.

- Built-in shell is enormously powerful, unlike Windows, which largely constraints the user to the GUI (CMD is mostly useless, registry is a mess, shell installation is lengthy via cygwin/equivalent). For a programmer, the availability of shell makes life a lot easier, without needing to use heavy IDEs like Windows.

- Their warranty and after-sale services are amazing, and the machine is very reliable. This is highly attractive to institutions (which didn't ask Indian software companies to write them custom software in x86).

The OSX platform has only really matured since Leopard/Snow Leopard (~4 years ago), after the success of the iPod which allowed Apple to put extra cash in developing their desktop OS.

For the low-end user who uses the computer for simple tasks and want an easy-to-maintain and hard-to-accidentally-break computer, Macs are ideal. For the high-end user who spend most of their time working, Macs are also ideal. For the average user who wants to 'own' a computer, be able to modify it, want it to have the potential to do a wide range of functions, and want it for the lowest price possible, Mac is probably the worst choice.

[slothpomba]

Didn't read any actual posts in the tread so im not sure what we're debating exactly...

I'm sure we all know (mac users included) just for the actual hardware, the stuff inside the computer, regardless of whether its windows or mac, its pretty overpriced. I had a look a while back, $2000 mac laptop, the stuff inside it could be found in a laptop hundreds of dollars cheaper (can't remember the exact figure). I think this is because apple has a monopoly on making computers that run MAC OS, apple is the only company that officially makes the laptops that run mac. Whereas with windows laptops you have competition between different manufacturers (ASUS, Acer, ect) and this pushes down price and in theory improves "bang for your buck" and the offerings.

The actual OS? I'm sure it has its upsides and downsides but for what most people want to do mac or windows works just as well i reckon, especially once you get use to how to use it. If you need some specialized software (no guitarpro on mac for instance) or play games (most dont run on mac) then windows is the obvious choice but otherwise, considering most people spend most of their time just browsing the web, listening to music and doing work, they both could work equally as well.

What's the principle and end result of modern marketing?

To get people to buy things they don't need, with money they don't have to show off to people who don't care in situations which don't matter.

In the end, it's just conformity really, before the iPhone and even before the iPod, everyone considered Apple Computers crap, they were expensive, non-upgradable, often underpowered, but all of a sudden, they become popular due to Apple's reputation.

This.

That said you can buy any old regular laptop and install Mac OS on it anyway, just not officially (google "hackingtosh"). Its slightly buggy but it mostly works, so i guess you could get the best of both worlds if you go down this path?

Half the time though i just reckon its to be seen owning a laptop with a big glowing apple logo on it even though i'll admit the build quality is pretty good. Most of the time i've seen people with macs they've either been the artsy type of person or the ridiculously (by my standards anyway) rich kind of person wearing designer clothes with cash to blow and wants to make sure the world knows it.

[s...]

oh, gosh.
I just wanted to know about Macs...
but interesting 'debate' anyway.

anyway: it not good really to have Macs at my school as the school insists on installing programs (or something like that) onto a Mac, which costsabout $500-$600.

@ninwa: I did asks the kids at my school, but they wew like, ''cos she has one'. Asked 'she', and she said, 'dunno' . That's why am asking random people on the Internet.(and also to get a public opinion)

[WhoTookMyUsername]

Macs too expensive. Im not paying $2000 for a 13" laptop with 4 gb of ram and 256 gb hard drive

[Russ]

Macs too expensive. Im not paying $2000 for a 13" laptop with 4 gb of ram and 256 gb hard drive

Are you actually just making this up?

(btw nobody buys an MBA for the specs)

[iamtom]

Macs too expensive. Im not paying $2000 for a 13" laptop with 4 gb of ram and 256 gb hard drive

The fact you called it a hard-drive illuminates just exactly why you won't buy a MBA.

[paulsterio]

hahahah LOL! nobody would buy the MBA for specs, nobody would buy an ultraportable for the specs in general (not just the MBA) - it's the whole performance:size ratio. The smaller the size, generally the more compromises on performance must be made. The MBA is popular (and I like it too) as well as ultrabooks, because it hits a good performance:size ratio.