Apple Mac vs PC

Apple products and Mac operating systems. Including discussions on Virtual PC for Mac, Parallels Desktop for Mac, all Apple hardware and everything relating to Apple and Mac!
(MacCentre701)

Postby Antony » Sun 14 Dec, 2003 7:16 pm

Earlier Mandrake posted following about the upgrading cost of operating systems.
Mandrake wrote:Yes, OS X was out before Windows XP. But Microsoft did not rush XP like Apple did with OS X - leaving out key features such as DVD and CD Writing, this is totally unacceptable IMO. Windows XP was all ready to go when launched, could run virtually any DOS or Windows application. Then, as for pricing: an upgrade version of XP Home is merely $99, compared to $129 for Panther. Then we consider that Apple releases updates virtually every year and each of these usually costs $129. Lets look at two scenarios: Joe Blow owns a Mac, he upgraded from OS 9 to OS X, and he will upgrade to every time Apple releases an update. Bob Jones owns a PC, he has Me, and upgraded to XP Home, then he will update to Longhorn Home Edition when it is released in 2005.

So, Joe Blow upgrades from OS 9 to OS X, to 10.1 (Free) to 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 (2004?) to 10.5 (2005?) - this means, if he pays $129 each time, he would have paid $645 to keep his Macintosh OS up to date.

Now Bob Jones upgrades to XP from Me, costs him $99. Then he upgrades to Longhorn Home in 2005 when it is released, it costs him another $99 - $645 compared to $198 to keep the OS up to date!.
Firstly, you don't need to have the latest versions of whichever software. The latest isn't always the best.
    Now, let's take a closer look,
  • From Windows 95 to Windows 98 :arrow: not cheap,
    what you get? strong intergration of Internet Explorer with Windows Update feature.
  • From Windows 98 to Windows 98 SE :arrow: not free and certainly not cheap.
    What you get? more multimedia, and more plug-n-play support (still not really playing after you plug in). ActiveDesktop.
  • From Windows 98SE to Windows Me :arrow: definitely not free.
    What you get? system restoration.
  • from Windows 98Se to Windows 2000 or from Windows NT to Windows 2000 :arrow: an expensive upgrade.
    what you get? (in later SPs) a really working Windows operating system, finally more stable.
  • Windows 2000 to Windows XP :arrow: an very expensive upgrade
    what you get? pretty look user interface, clearly borrowed from Apple's Aqua interface with strong Microsoft style.

You not just paid a lot very the years but also regular patch this, update that jobs very frequent. And occasionally you need to download 100MB+ of Service Packs.

Mac OS X?
security updates are free.
10.2 free updates all the way up to 10.2.8, not just this, and new versions of software releases, you also get to update them for free, or even new softwares. (including iPhoto, iCal, Safari, ... etc)
And Panther, you pay for a solid and proven UNIX based and easiest to use operating system, as well as more than 150 stunning new features.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Sun 14 Dec, 2003 8:21 pm

Firstly, you don't need to have the latest versions of whichever software. The latest isn't always the best.


I agree with that, e.g. Windows 98 and ME were, IMO, not as good as Windows 95 OSR2.

From Windows 95 - 98 was a small upgrade, I didn't bother with the update, although many people did. Windows 98 was avalible as a normal upgrade to Windows 95 users, or for $20 for Windows 98 users, or for free download as Service Pack!

98 to Me was not free, but it contained more than just System Restore.

What do you get with Windows 2000 over NT4 or Me? File encryption, high security file system, full direct-x hardware support, IntelliMirror, most stable version of Windows ever. Notice how I didn't include new Mac OS features like colour schemes and pointless effects?

What do you get in Windows XP? The merging of the Windows consumer and buisiness product lines. Home users get the stability and reliability of the NT kernel and the NTFS file system. Not much for corporate users, that was in Win2k.

Also Windows 2000 and XP WORK! Not like Apple who releases OS 10.0, leaves out features like cd-burning, but it was SO SLOW and BUGGY! Then they release 10.1 which fixes this rubbish OS into something usable, and they have the audacity to make you pay another $129 US just to make your Mac work properly!

Mac OS needs WAY MORE updates than Windows XP or 2000. Listen to what Paul Thurrot had to install on his five month old Mac when he did a clean install of 10.2.6 in preperation for Jaguar.

But wait, there's more...
Maybe I should have held off on my posts about Mac OS X software updates, because after I rebooted the iMac, it came back with two more items:

Java 1.4.1 - 39.7 MB
iSync 1.2.1 - 6.4 MB

That brings the grand total to 223.7 MB of software updates. For a machine that was brand-spanking new in March, just 6 months ago. My goodness, Windows is suddenly svelte, ain't it?

There's still more...
Later in the day, I realized that OS X hadn't installed iDVD for some reason, so I installed it manually from the DVD that came with the iMac. Then I had yet another update to install, iDVD Update 3.0.1, which weighed in at 6.5 MB. This brings the grand total of Apple updates released for the iMac since March to a whopping 229.2 MB. Unbelievable.
posted 12:11 PM

Let me reiterate
170 MB. 170 MB of software updates. My God. That is inconceivable.

Here's how it breaks down:
Mac OS X Update Combined 10.2.8 - 100 MB
Quicktime 6.3 - 20 MB
Safari 1.0 - 6.9 MB
iCal 1.5.1 - 7.6 MB
iMovie 3.0.3 - 14.7 MB
iPod 2.0.1 - 15.6 (the 1.3 version is also available, but I didn't download it at 5.7 MB)
iTunes 4.0.1 - 7.1 MB
Total: 171.9 MB (or 177.6 MB with iPod 1.3)
posted 11:56 AM

And you thought there were too many Windows updates...
In preparation for the release of Panther later this month, I started backing up and reinstalling my two Macs this weekend. The first to go was the 17-inch iMac, which was brand new in March. After backing up all my data, music, pictures, email, Safari bookmarks, and so on, I decided to do a clean install of the OS the machine shipped with, Mac OS X 10.2.6, to see how things had changed since I first got it. Imagine my amusement when, on first boot, I discovered that this base install required a whopping 170 MB of software updates to bring the machine up-to-date. That figures makes the 70-100 MB of software updates a clean Windows XP SP1 install requires seem almost piddly by comparison. In the Windows world, we spend a lot of time complaining about the number of software updates that Microsoft releases, but ... my God. Apple is not only far worse, but consider how new this machine is, and how often Apple releases "major" OS X updates on CD. This is simply unbelievable.
posted 11:52 AM


Compared to what - 20mb of patches, 20mb for WMP and Direct-X, and a few drivers etc. Windows XP has had SP1 intergrated for ages now. When SP2 is released, if you use the express install, it downloads about 40mb of stuff, nothing more.

Are you implying Microsoft charges for patches? All SPs and patches from MS are free for your Operating System. These 10.2.1, 10.2.2 etfc only fix bugs, they don't add features. So if we consider these the equivilant of a Windows SP, they released EIGHT for Jaguar in the year it was around, that is far too many. Then less than two weeks after they release 10.3, they release 10.3.1 which fixes bugs that were in 10.3 when Apple just had to rush it out the door, rather than testing it properly and ironing out bugs before the release of it. 150 stunning features? There probably I'd say maybe 10 real new features, like Fast User Switching. The new colour scheme is not a feature, neither are the 500 new visual effects that will use 50% of your CPU resources.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby DJGM » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 5:27 pm

Here's an interesting Mac OS X vs Windows related article I've found:

[url=http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/34554.html]"Windows-style security hell stalks Mac OS X? Yeah, you wish . . . "
Article written by Richard Forno, and published at TheRegister.co.uk [/url]


Make of that what you will . . .
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031114
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Mandrake » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 6:04 pm

Why, how very strange that I've found a similar article namedEurkea! Macs Are Not Invunerable!. :lol:

Despite this, I've said it once, I'll say in ten thousand times. Windows has around 90-95% of the OS market! Linux, Mac OS, UNIX etc all equal less than 10%! Therefore, even if there was a severe hole that effected, UNIX, OS X and Linux all at the same time, this is nothing compared to a similar Windows hole, less than 10% of people that use a computer would be effected. Of course, on a server side, this isn't true - as Linux has a large market-share, along with Windows, and a shrinking UNIX market-share. But we are discussing desktop Windows here. It just shows that hackers are more interested in writing viruses for Windows and Linux, because in the desktop Windows dominates, and in the server side both Linux and Windows are battling it out. Mac OS is used by 3% of people on the desktop side, and probably even less on the server side! So I don't see people would be too interested in writing viruses for Macs.

Then, when Apple releases something for Windows, iTunes 4.1 - look at all the problems. There were crashes and all sorts on Windows 2000, so they had to release 4.1.1, meaning people had to download another 19mb, on dialup - no thanks. Then, we saw how quickly the protection placed on the songs downloaded from iTunes was cracked.


I also find it hilarious how some people complain about the security in Windows, when some of the people that complain have no firewalls, no up to date anti-virus software, and don't install service packs or security updates! Code Red, Blaster worm, all of these flaws in Windows were patched weeks before the viruses came along, yet millions of people are still infected... sheesh!
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031016 K-Meleon/0.8
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby DJGM » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 6:58 pm

Mandrake wrote:Why, how very strange that I've found a similar article namedEurkea! Macs Are Not Invunerable!. :lol:


And that very article is written by the very person named Lance mentioned in TheRegister article
that I linked to above. And judging by that article @ TheRegister, this Lance person seems to be
such a narrow minded pro-Microsoft zealot for whom ignorance is very much bliss, and doesn't
know what the hell he's writing about. Essentially Lance is just as much of a FUD spreader as
was Mike Angelo, the anti-Mozilla moron responsible for the abysmal MozillaQuest.com site.

For TheRegister.co.uk, Richard Forno wrote:More to the point, his article is replete with factual errors. Had he done his homework
instead of rushing to smear the Mac security community and fuel his Windows-based
envy, he'd have known that not only did Apple tell Carrel on November 19, that a
technical fix for the problem would be released in its December Mac OS X update,
but that Apple released easy-to-read guidance (complete with screenshots) for
users to mitigate this problem on November 26. Somehow he missed that.


You cannot sucessfully argue your case against Macs, when you're going to take the feeble
ignorant and stupid pro-MS ramblings of a FUD spreader like Lance Urloff as the gospel truth.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031016 K-Meleon/0.8.1
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Mandrake » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 8:49 pm

I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job of debating against Macs, since I'm virtually the only one arguing against Macs. I agree that guy is is not the godspell truth, but he has made good points. For a non biased view on this, I suggest you check out Paul Thurrot's weblog - InternetNexus.com. He owns two Macs, both running Panther, and uses Windows XP... his view is rather unique, he knows his stuff. Hey, I've agreed to plenty of stuff on the Mac, e.g. that the bundled software coming with a Mac blows away the stuff you get on a clean XP Home/Pro install. Then again, you pay more for a Mac, so you expect better software.

But the final thing I'll say about Windows desktop security vs that of Mac OS X is that OS X should be literally, invunerable to threats. With the vast majority of viruses/virii written for Windows on the desktop/server and Linux on the desktop/server, OS X should have very few security issues. Seeing as how Mac OS X 10.3 includes a "dozen security enchancements" (Security fixes) - this doesn't seem to be true. Microsoft has commited to fixing the security of it's products with W2K3 Server SP1 and WXP SP2, so we'll just have to wait and see.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031016 K-Meleon/0.8
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby ryaxnb » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 9:24 pm

Macs are better, here's my evidence:
http://www.xvsxp.com .
Note: this only compares the OSes. But I think Mac hardware is at least as good, and anyway, when it comes to functionality, UI, and the ease of use factor, Macs are better. If price is important, I'd say Macs are still probably better, but it's more iffy then.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.8 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
Trainable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
ryaxnb
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu 13 Nov, 2003 2:07 am
Location: Felton, CA

Postby ryaxnb » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 9:33 pm

Mandrake wrote:I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job of debating against Macs, since I'm virtually the only one arguing against Macs. I agree that guy is is not the godspell truth, but he has made good points. For a non biased view on this, I suggest you check out Paul Thurrot's weblog - InternetNexus.com. He owns two Macs, both running Panther, and uses Windows XP... his view is rather unique, he knows his stuff. Hey, I've agreed to plenty of stuff on the Mac, e.g. that the bundled software coming with a Mac blows away the stuff you get on a clean XP Home/Pro install. Then again, you pay more for a Mac, so you expect better software.

But the final thing I'll say about Windows desktop security vs that of Mac OS X is that OS X should be literally, invunerable to threats. With the vast majority of viruses/virii written for Windows on the desktop/server and Linux on the desktop/server, OS X should have very few security issues. Seeing as how Mac OS X 10.3 includes a "dozen security enchancements" (Security fixes) - this doesn't seem to be true. Microsoft has commited to fixing the security of it's products with W2K3 Server SP1 and WXP SP2, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Time for a point by point debate (and here I thought I came here to talk about browsers!)
Paul Thurrot is biased as heck. Go to http://www.xvsxp.com and click on 'Rebuttal to Paul Thurrot' and 'Task-based Interfaces.' Mr. Thurrot is biased. I personally think Dan (the Xvsxp guy) is not really biased, but sometimes he is, see his section on bias.

Viruses, eh? There are zero viruses for Mac OS X. Nada. None. (Not counting Word macro viruses.) And Panther includes a dozen security updates in 13 months? I bet MS can do that in 5 months, look at the three patches in the 'patch-free' December. There are tens of thousands of viruses for Windows. There are none for Mac OS X v10.3. Note that this does not match the 8-9% Mac using population relative to the roughly 90% Wintel using pop. at all. If it did, Mac OS X would have roughly 5,000 viruses.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.8 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
Trainable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
ryaxnb
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu 13 Nov, 2003 2:07 am
Location: Felton, CA

Postby ryaxnb » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 9:43 pm

Mandrake wrote:Why, how very strange that I've found a similar article namedEurkea! Macs Are Not Invunerable!.

Hmmm. A stinky article. Go to http://bbs.xvsxp.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=1313 . And you'll understand why the article is bad. Also check out http://www.amacsite.com/article.php?id=371

Edited by Admin, shorten URL to avoid horizontal scrolling, also session ID is not nedessary in the link.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.8 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
Trainable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
ryaxnb
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu 13 Nov, 2003 2:07 am
Location: Felton, CA

Postby Mandrake » Tue 16 Dec, 2003 10:16 pm

If Macs are so great, then why are there more Linux users than Mac users? In fact, more people use Windows 95 and Windows NT 4 - ancient operating systems, than people use Macs. In 1995 Apple Computer had revenue of around $11bn US, and over $400m US in profits. Now, Apple only has $6bn in revenue a year, and around $100m in profits a year, they have lost customers big time! Everyone remembers the financial crisis at Apple in 1996/1997 - that makes me believe a Mac is not a good investment. What happens if Apple has another financial crisis? Not very re-assuring to me.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031016 K-Meleon/0.8
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby DJGM » Wed 17 Dec, 2003 12:06 am

Mandrake wrote:If Macs are so great, then why are there more Linux users than Mac users?


Because Linux can be downloaded for free without any laws being broken, while Mac OS cannot.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031114
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Mandrake » Wed 17 Dec, 2003 12:24 am

That is very true, but then, why isn't Linux more popular than Windows? You can't say getting Linux with a machine isn't an option - Dell easily allows people to choose a boxed copy of Linux over Windows.

Also: Just a quick correction, There are more Mac users than Linux, but - we are talking OS X here, more Linux users than OS X users.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031016 K-Meleon/0.8
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 17 Dec, 2003 12:54 am

Mandrake wrote:Also: Just a quick correction, There are more Mac users than Linux, but - we are talking OS X here, more Linux users than OS X users.
It is not hard to guess Linux users are more of computer geeks, and many of them are youngsters, also a large number of them can't live without the latest updates/versions if available (and free).

Old Macs works well! Very well compared to Windows 3.1 or Window 95. As I mentioned in earlier post, old Macintosh LC work well, still. (unlike IBM-compatible XT, AT, 486 ... etc)
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Wed 17 Dec, 2003 3:51 am

Linux users are generally know their stuff, but they aren't neccesarily geeks. A Windows 95 machine can still work fine, although obviously, the newer faster versions of Windows are far superior to Windows 95. My friend still has an old Pentium that is put to good use. It's an old Dual Pentium 120mhz server running Debian Linux with 256mb of ram, it makes for a great firewall and Internet connection machine.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; APC)
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Wed 17 Dec, 2003 4:21 am

Well, those geeks (mostly Linux or UNIX users) with ugly boxes (and messy wires at back) said in the early days, "programmers don't use mouse."

The Mac, both the hardware and software (interface) are well designed. Not just good looking but also so intuitive to use.
Let me tell you a real life situation, my friend received a data-link cable package for her Motorola E365 mobile phone from Telstra Shop. She plugged the USB cable to her mobile and PC. Her Windows XP told her "Found a new hardware." She followed the online instruction, but did not work. Installation failed.
Plugged in, took more than a day to get it working. Her PC was recently bought (P4 2.6GHz). I solved her problem.

What I am saying is that hardwares/softwares designed for PC are so unfriendly. They expect everyone to have great knowledge of computers.
Macs are the computer designed for everyone, from geeks (thinks to its powerful and insdustry standard UNIX) to novices (the easiest to use User Interface back from the old days). Everything is so intuitive. You want to control it by command line? No problem.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15298
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Mac OS and Apple

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]