Mac VS Windows

Is mac better then windows or what is different about it? Appreciate the help. ?

They're completely different. Each is better for different uses.

Mac's 100 percent better. Windows is useless.

This message brought to you by a 100 percent admitted Mac zealot and should be construed as such.

+1 to the above comment.

I spend countless hours these behind a Windows XP computer...

and I can't stand it.

Mac OS X wins hands down. Better OS, better software, better hardware, more flexible, extendable, useful. Just all around better.

The only positive I can say about XP, is that it makes me love OS X even more.

I also spend countless hours behind a XP PC. I have no problems with it at all.

J@ack@l, if anyone tells you one or the other is hands-down better, no contest, you're hearing a biased, and as so incorrect, opinion.

There are several pros and cons on either side other than "Mac rules!" or "Windows is #1!"

[quote65e5fd6649="joelseph"]I also spend countless hours behind a XP PC. I have no problems with it at all.

J@ack@l, if anyone tells you one or the other is hands-down better, no contest, you're hearing a biased, and as so incorrect, opinion.

There are several pros and cons on either side other than "Mac rules!" or "Windows is #1!"[/quote65e5fd6649]

Speaking as a Mac fan.. I agree 100%. The only time I would say Windows or Mac completely stinks - would be Windows 95 and the Classic Mac OS. liwhistles innocentlyli

[quote279e12536c="DIGITALgimpus"]+1 to the above comment.

I spend countless hours these behind a Windows XP computer...

and I can't stand it.

Mac OS X wins hands down. Better OS, better software, [b279e12536c]better hardware[/b279e12536c], [b279e12536c]more flexible, extendable, useful[/b279e12536c]. Just all around better.

The only positive I can say about XP, is that it makes me love OS X even more.[/quote279e12536c]

That's funny because because i guess the fact that most software isn't written for mac's doesnt mean a thing. And as more flexible and extend-able? Well mac's arent know for being very upgradable considering their proprietary.

I don't care which OS is better, because it's comparing the proverbial apples to oranges. But as far as better hardware, that's PC hands down. Look at how many more features you can get. More third party developers and more hardware.

I'm not buying into a marketing company, I'm buying a computer.

Eat it mac addicts.

[quote2a9e4347b0="dameetch"]That's funny because because i guess the fact that most software isn't written for mac's doesnt mean a thing. And as more flexible and extend-able? Well mac's arent know for being very upgradable considering their proprietary.

I don't care which OS is better, because it's comparing the proverbial apples to oranges. But as far as better hardware, that's PC hands down. Look at how many more features you can get. More third party developers and more hardware.

I'm not buying into a marketing company, I'm buying a computer.

Eat it mac addicts.[/quote2a9e4347b0]

Sure you have less options, especially internally. But most external hardware works fine on both systems. If you get a PowerMac you're free to upgrade pretty much anything yourself. Sure most software is for Windows but with Mac OS X you get Classic Mac OS apps, linix apps, and of course your Mac OS X apps. That leaves you with quite a bit of software and you can typically find an equivilant for most anything. With a Mac you get a slick integrated feel that's hard to come by on other platforms and a lot of people just happen to like it.

Note, that's not to say Windows or any other OS is bad, hardly. Everything's got it's pros and cons. It's being able to recognize that that separates an addict from an intelligent person. Likewise a broken record and an intelligent person. roll

In short, it's primarily about opinion and what works good for you, not which is simply better. There's not much else that can be said without degenerating into a flame war.

neowolf also forgot Virtual PC, which lets you run Windows XP (well..any Windows version actually) on mac.

But flame war is so much more fun.

[quote4aaf403232="dameetch"]But flame war is so much more fun.[/quote4aaf403232]

Well it would be a nice distraction while I wait on my mini. lol

[quote1c94c05b7c="techdude05"]neowolf also forgot Virtual PC, which lets you run Windows XP (well..any Windows version actually) on mac.[/quote1c94c05b7c]

To be fair, I emulate OSX on my XP machine, as well.

I had a conversation (argument) about this topic here http//forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=6318&highlight=

[quote2839d83a1f="joelseph"][quote2839d83a1f="techdude05"]neowolf also forgot Virtual PC, which lets you run Windows XP (well..any Windows version actually) on mac.[/quote2839d83a1f]

To be fair, I emulate OSX on my XP machine, as well.[/quote2839d83a1f]well you see, the main difference between PearPC (OS X on XP) and Virtual PC (XP on OS X) is that PearPC processes the OS X environment at lower than 10% the actual speed of the processor whereas Virtual PC and process the XP environment in real time.

I have friends that are Macies and they play PC games using Virtual PC without lag. You cant say that about playing an OS X version of a game in PearPC (you would choke it to death), not that you'd want to play an OS X port of the game if theres already a native copy availible on windows...

[quoteb7320acd5b="joelseph"][quoteb7320acd5b="techdude05"]neowolf also forgot Virtual PC, which lets you run Windows XP (well..any Windows version actually) on mac.[/quoteb7320acd5b]

To be fair, I emulate OSX on my XP machine, as well.[/quoteb7320acd5b]

Yeah but to be fair Virtual PC is far more usable. Still not good for anything more than simple office type apps though and maybe extremely old PC games. But I use dosbox for that anyways. wink

i think the true solution (at least in my case anyways) is to use both. i don't mean to try out both and see which one you like, use both all the time.

I've got my my PC laptop, and I've got my ibook, i love em both and don't know what i would do if i lost one of them. I'm a graphic design student so i work on mac's for almost 6 hours everyday, and I've been using PC's for years, they're both great, and do their own shit great.

The biggest thing i hate is everyone who is so in love with a mac always brings up the windows blue screen comeback (i was surprised i didn't hear it in here already) but seriously i don't remember the last time i saw one of those.

I'll say this, mac's slick interface can be a great thing sometimes and it looks nice too, but it can also be a hindrance to working. i hate being able to look through to the background all the time, especially when I'm using photo shop, freehand, flash or anything like that. bugs the hell out of me they just can't put a damn backdrop on it so i don't click a tiny spot and all the sudden I'm not in the background anymore. anyone know how to fix this...

Google "Mac vs Windows," I'm sure you'll find as much as you can digest.

[quoted7dbe5bb27="FreeOffersNow"]Google "Mac vs Windows," I'm sure you'll find as much as you can digest.[/quoted7dbe5bb27]

Probably plenty enough to induce vomiting... lol

In a nutshell, here's why I love my Mac
No viruses
No adware
No spyware
Doesn't crash
Easy to use
Easy to setup
Always works when I need it to
OSX apps integrate beautifully
Apple makes the OS AND the computer so you won't find a better symbiotic relationship.
Lots of third party items available - it's not like it used to be where everything had to be specially made for Mac. Hell, you can use a Microsoft WIndoze mouse on it and all the buttons work.
I spend all my time using my computer, not servicing it and installing "Windows updates."

Macs come standard with a lot more features, than most Windows PCs.
The theory that there's less software for Mac is not entirely accurate. Sure, there's more software titles available for Windows, but look at how much of that is absolute garbage. Mac apps are usually the best of the best. There is probably a software package out there that can do what most users want it to. But out of the box, it has enough to do what most users need.

I'm buying a computer from a company that happens to market wonderfully ... no matter what, Apple makes great products that JUST WORK. The same can't be said of any PC maker. My wife's mothers PC (a Dell) crashed right out of the box. Windows XP never works properly on it.

I've used both and quite frankly, the day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is the day they begin making vacuum cleaners. Windows PCs are the most frustrating, unfun things to use.

Well, that's my 2 cents on it right now.

uhhhh... not quite...
There are mac viruses... just not a lot of them. Since most computers are running Windoz it would be more effective for virus writers to write viruses for windows because it will do alot more damage. Even Linux has the occasional virus or worm...
[quote55be60c5db]Apple makes the OS AND the computer so you won't find a better symbiotic relationship.[/quote55be60c5db]
I have to agree with that. There are just too many different hardware combos in windows that it often times renders a computer useless...
I cant wait to get my new free mac mini b/c i want to try out a new OS. I already have Linux and windows.

[quote5fc3d4ae81="dameetch"]can say about XP, is that it makes me love OS X even more.[/quote5fc3d4ae81]

That's funny because because i guess the fact that most software isn't written for mac's doesnt mean a thing. And as more flexible and extend-able? Well mac's arent know for being very upgradable considering their proprietary.



There's a real mistake

1. Only the BIOS is really proprietary. The rest are pretty generic parts
- standard HD's
- Standard RAM
- standard PCI cards

it's unix based, so it's quite easy to get a boatload of unix software to copile on Mac OS X

There are NO Mac virsuses for OS X.
The idea that virus writers target Windows because it affects more people is a myth. The reality is Unix is such a secure OS that it's very hard to do something on it, plus OS X has a lot of security features built in. For example, OS X mail won't just run an executable file attached to an e-mail, while Windows will. OS X system is protected – you can't fiddle with it unless the admin gives permission to do so. Worst case scenario, the User's files are affected, but NOT the OS. That's just not the case with Windows.
The reason there's no viruses - NO VIRUSES - is that Mac OS X is just a hard nut to crack. Not that it can't be done. But as of now, it hasn't.
I repeat, there are NO viruses on Mac OS X. No adware. No spyware. NONE.
All "viruses" are either concept OR not really viruses -- they require user input and permissions. The same can not be said of Windows.

From the New York Times
Mac OS X and Linux are much more secure than Windows XP. For example

- Windows comes with five of its ports open; Mac OS X comes with all of them shut and locked... These ports are precisely what permitted viruses like Blaster to infiltrate millions of PCs. Microsoft says that it won't have an opportunity to close these ports until the next version of Windows, which is a couple of years away.

- When a program tries to install itself in Mac OS X... a dialog box interrupts your work and asks you permission for that installation -- in fact, requires your account password. Windows XP goes ahead and installs it, potentially without your awareness.

- Administrator accounts in Windows (and therefore viruses that exploit it) have access to all areas of the operating system. In Mac OS X, even an administrator can't touch the files that drive the operating system itself. A Mac OS X virus (if there were such a thing) could theoretically wipe out all of your files, but wouldn't be able to access anyone else's stuff -- and couldn't touch the operating system itself.

- No Macintosh e-mail program automatically runs scripts that come attached to incoming messages, as Microsoft Outlook does.

...the conclusion is clear Linux and Mac OS X aren't just more secure because fewer people use them. They're also much harder to crack right out of the box.

An another
"The real reason no viruses exist for Mac OS X has little to do with its low market share... but rather its near-impenetrability," many of David Zeiler's readers pointed out in a barrage of critical email missives responding to Zeiler's inclusion of a quote from an anti-virus software firm's consultant. The quote intimated that Mac OS X has no more inherent security than Windows.

Zeiler reports, "Though many amateurs may be looking for, and finding, holes in Windows, the FreeBSD Unix code that forms the foundation of OS X has been prodded by legions of expert programmers for 30 years. Though a few hardy souls use the Unix offshoot Linux on PCs built for Windows -- they usually wipe Windows off the hard drive -- Unix typically is used in mission-critical roles, powering high-end work stations and file servers."

"And, as mentioned earlier, crackers prefer hitting targets that will cause maximum disruption. 'Many orders of magnitude more people look over the source code for OS X and the related BSDs than have access to Windows source code,' said John Klos, a developer of NetBSD, a flavor of Unix closely related to OS X," Zeiler reports.

"Thus, many of the obvious holes in OS X were closed years ago. That, some suggested, actually makes OS X a more attractive target. 'If I were a fame-driven cracker with solid technical skills, cracking a BSD-based system would be the fastest way to show off my capabilities,' said Rich Morin, a programmer and consultant based in San Bruno, Calif. 'My suspicion, therefore, is that many crackers have tried this challenge and failed,' Morin added. Still, he cautioned 'nobody has any way to know for sure,'" Zeiler reports.

Expandability of the PowerMac G5 can be found here http//www.apple.com/powermac/expansion.html


Minis are not meant to be expandable.

1. Mac OS X would make the ideal machine for a virus to attack, since it has a built in (but disabled) mail server. If a virus were to hijack the computer, it would be quite powerful, and able to send out quite a bit of mail.

2. Mac OS X also has an Apache server by default... perfect for a virus launching a phishing attack.


Expandability of the Mini isn't to bad
1. You can swap out the HD (standard 2.5 inch HD's). A Hitachi 7k60 would provide substantial speed improvements.

2. You can upgrade to 1GB RAM

3. You can add WiFi (when the kit comes out, you'll find them all over the net)

4. You'd be suprised with what companies like Sonnet, et. al come up with for ugprading a system. Even Apple Laptops can get a CPU upgrade (you need to send it to be upgraded).

I wouldn't be suprised if someone figures out better cooling and a G5 upgrade. Would need to send your mini in to get it upgraded.

[quoteef6f39fd44="tyketto"]There are NO Mac virsuses for OS X.
The idea that virus writers target Windows because it affects more people is a myth. The reality is Unix is such a secure OS that it's very hard to do something on it, plus OS X has a lot of security features built in. For example, OS X mail won't just run an executable file attached to an e-mail, while Windows will. OS X system is protected – you can't fiddle with it unless the admin gives permission to do so. Worst case scenario, the User's files are affected, but NOT the OS. That's just not the case with Windows.
The reason there's no viruses - NO VIRUSES - is that Mac OS X is just a hard nut to crack. Not that it can't be done. But as of now, it hasn't.
I repeat, there are NO viruses on Mac OS X. No adware. No spyware. NONE.
All "viruses" are either concept OR not really viruses -- they require user input and permissions. The same can not be said of Windows.[/quoteef6f39fd44]
http//www.sophos.com/virusinfo/articles/renepo.html

I'm surprised nobody in here mentioned Expose yet.

I was using my friend's powerbook last week, and I really grew to like Expose. It's a lot better than alt-tab for switching windows. Just hit the button (or mouse to a corner of the screen) and it'll show you all your windows on the screen at once; choose one, and it puts all the windows back where they were with the one you selected up top.

[quoted01b055785="munga"][quoted01b055785="tyketto"]There are NO Mac virsuses for OS X.
The idea that virus writers target Windows because it affects more people is a myth. The reality is Unix is such a secure OS that it's very hard to do something on it, plus OS X has a lot of security features built in. For example, OS X mail won't just run an executable file attached to an e-mail, while Windows will. OS X system is protected – you can't fiddle with it unless the admin gives permission to do so. Worst case scenario, the User's files are affected, but NOT the OS. That's just not the case with Windows.
The reason there's no viruses - NO VIRUSES - is that Mac OS X is just a hard nut to crack. Not that it can't be done. But as of now, it hasn't.
I repeat, there are NO viruses on Mac OS X. No adware. No spyware. NONE.
All "viruses" are either concept OR not really viruses -- they require user input and permissions. The same can not be said of Windows.[/quoted01b055785]
http//www.sophos.com/virusinfo/articles/renepo.html[/quoted01b055785]

Yep. Viruses can exist. Some do. Though it's worth noting there haven't been any in the wild yet. 8) Personally though, with how a linix system is designed it does help lessen the risk of damage from viruses. It's still not impossible for a virus to do some real damage, but unless it can get root access it's damage is going to be limited to your user account. And I'll point out that's still not full proof as an exploit to get root access is hardly impossible, but at least we do have that extra hurdle. I actually think the first real OS X virus (out and about, not theoretical/lab) will do some serious damage as too many people seem to be under the impression they're completely safe. Same for adware.

Sophos notes that the Renepo virus has not been seen in the wild to date, but can be considered a warning to Macintosh users not to be complacent about the malware threat.

Sophos - a COMPANY TRYING TO SELL ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE.

Here's more about that one
Fortunately, there is no immediate threat posed by this, or any other malicious shell script currently in circulation -- running the "opener" script and allowing it to do any damage requires root authentication, which must be locally entered by a Mac OS X administrator. There is currently no vector for this or any other malicious Mac OS X script, i.e. no way for the script to autonomously take hold of the system or propagate itself to other systems without express administrator permission. In other words, it is not spreading, and cannot spread without a vector that is capable of gaining root access.


YOU NEED TO BE A ROOT USER FOR THIS ... If you don't know what a ROOT user is, do a search for it. It's not like a normal account at all...

Once again, you have to RUN this script to make it work...

Try again.

It's fair to note though that the safe from viruses argument fully doesn't hold up. There have been root exploits in the past on OS X and there will be more. No OS is 100% secure. On a unix like system you have the defense of the previlages barrier but once it's breached all bets are off. Not to mention even Apple pushes Virex on it's users that get @mac.com accounts.

Neo,
I'll concede that. The point I'm just trying to make is it's MUCH easier to exploit a Windows PC than Mac OS X.
I stand by my comment that there are NO viruses on Mac OS X. These "proof of concept" things require too much user interaction to work; and I have not yet heard of a way to access Root without user participation as well.
Overall, Mac OS X is much more secure than Windows.
But, that's not to say Mac users don't need to be diligent... just not as diligent as Windows users.

[quote9aee21b203="tyketto"]Neo,
I'll concede that. The point I'm just trying to make is it's MUCH easier to exploit a Windows PC than Mac OS X.
I stand by my comment that there are NO viruses on Mac OS X. These "proof of concept" things require too much user interaction to work; and I have not yet heard of a way to access Root without user participation as well.
Overall, Mac OS X is much more secure than Windows.
But, that's not to say Mac users don't need to be diligent... just not as diligent as Windows users.[/quote9aee21b203]

There alerady have been a few root access exploits. However obviously no viruses appeared to abuse them and since then they've been fixed. (Apple does have to release security updates, it's just a couple every couple months as opposed to a few dozen a month with Windows. Arguably that's because more people are poking and prodding at Windows.) It's foolish to assume there won't be more either. Every OS gets them. That being said though I still stand by my concern that when a virus does hit it'll be bad because too many people are careless. Also, all viruses. I repeat, all viruses need to be run in order to do anything. The problem with Windows was that there have been plenty of ways to install and run things without the user having much involvement. This is one thing largely improved on the Mac side of things.

Wow didn't expect so much people to post. I appreciate the help and i guess its good to have a windows AND a mac computer. Different computers for different needs. I am also very impressed about how as one of you said Mac does not have spyware. One of my computers is totally screwed up because of it. cry How do you guys like the mac mini anyway? ?

I'll let you know when it arrives... but I've read great things about it.

And just an FYI, it's Mac... short for Macintosh, not an acronym like PC. If you get one, hope you enjoy it. ) Any questions, feel free to PM me...

That virus is up there with the hoax "polish virus" (to dumb to create a virus, please delete your own files and crash your own computer).

You need to be root and install it yourself. Considering root is disabled on Mac OS X by default... I'm betting 9/10 don't even know what root is. Much less how to enable it.

Yeah, it's really tough enabling root... good point DIGITAL.

However keep in mind that there's a difference between getting access to the root account and just getting root access. The default admin account can sudo with it's password at any time for root permissions.

Yes,

but again how many know how to do that.


And as I recall, the script needs to be owned by root. Which as I recall means root needs to be an enabled user on OS X (otherwise it has no special bits).

Otherwise, the user would need to

sudo ./evil
password lililililili

to run evil.


Quite stupid IMHO.

It's not really a virus or a trojan.

If it is, you can say Windows fdisk utility is a virus... or system restore, etc. etc.

IMHO utilities misused (Which is what this "virus" does) is just stupidity.

A security hole is a flaw where a user can do something they shouldn't be allowed to do.

That script goes by the books. Doesn't exploit anything it shouldn't do. Doesn't do anything out of wack.

Looks to me like some companies hack to quickly image and config some computers (install VNC, change settings, etc.) just got out into the wild.

Oh it's not a virus or a trojan. But I could forsee someone slipping that into one. Plenty of people download system maintanence tools that ask for your password. Bam, all hell could break lose. Don't get me wrong, this hasn't happened and I'm thankful. My main point is that Mac users shouldn't act like they're immune.

Well, at least we all agree it's not a virus D LOL.

You're right Neo... we do download stuff sometimes without thinking. And since we have to approve every installation, it only takes one with bad intentions to wreak havoc.

BTW, Expose was mentioned above. It's awesome and I don't know how I've lived without it.

Now... just wait until you see Spotlight in OS X Tiger! It's going to be amazing!

Exposé... when I saw the Panther previews I thought that looked pretty, but not that useful. That was one of the worst predictions in my life. I adore and use it religiously. However I don't care for having it set to the function keys nor do I care about just the application windows one. Right now I have it set to go to the desktop when I move the mouse to the bottom right corner and I have the application switch button on my Logitech MX510 set to show all windows. >

I use the "just the applications" function a bit.... even with tabbed browser I have the habit of having several windows open at once.... very easy to pull it up.

[quote8b12ab19c7="NeoWolf"]Oh it's not a virus or a trojan. But I could forsee someone slipping that into one. Plenty of people download system maintanence tools that ask for your password. Bam, all hell could break lose. Don't get me wrong, this hasn't happened and I'm thankful. My main point is that Mac users shouldn't act like they're immune.[/quote8b12ab19c7]
But that's not a virus. Nor is there anything you can really do.

Remember admin accounts are for admin's. Limited accounts for protection.

A limited user can't do more than Flilili up their own account. That's all they can harm. Hence admin accounts are for admins.

Only download from trusted sources.

A security hole to be worried about is something like a browser hole, where visiting a website allows the website to unleash evil on your system. That's bad. Or a media player, email client, etc.

No software is 100% secure. That's the bottom line.

[quote2bc74d3ac7="tyketto"]BTW, Expose was mentioned above. It's awesome and I don't know how I've lived without it.

Now... just wait until you see Spotlight in OS X Tiger! It's going to be amazing![/quote2bc74d3ac7]

i too enjoy expose but that it is only there to make up for the features that the dock bar doesn't have. the windows task bar is great because i can see all the windows i have open and by just clicking on it, bam there it is. the dock bar doesn't come close to that ease of use. if OSX didn't have the expose feature the dock bar would piss me off even more.

I rather like how the dock handles things. One of the greatest things XP intruduced to the Windows taskbar was the ability to group all of the windows of an app. Granted BeOS was doing that well before. >

I don't mind the dock. Expose works much better in terms of if you have a lot of windows open. I've seen nightmare Windows task bars where you can't tell what you have open.
Dock works well for what it was designed to do – launch apps. And once you have them launched, you can easily scroll through using key commands.
If you're minimizing all of your windows to the dock, I can see how that would be an issue.

This is why expose is great

http//www.mckayness.com/~adenosine/pics/taskbar.jpg[" alt=""/imgce2a682221]

What window is what? You don't know either? This is a good day for my taskbar, sometimes I have to expand it to go to two rows. When each window is nothing more than a small icon, it would be nice to see all my windows at once, especially so I know which Firefox is which (btw, I do use tabbed browsing, but I have forums in one, google searches in one, work sites in one, etc).

[quotec27476b420="adenosine"]This is why expose is great

http//www.mckayness.com/~adenosine/pics/taskbar.jpg[" alt=""/imgc27476b420]

What window is what? You don't know either? This is a good day for my taskbar, sometimes I have to expand it to go to two rows. When each window is nothing more than a small icon, it would be nice to see all my windows at once, especially so I know which Firefox is which (btw, I do use tabbed browsing, but I have forums in one, google searches in one, work sites in one, etc).[/quotec27476b420]boy you must have a lot of RAM...

Only a gig. The boss has been promising new machines for a while now. Last upgrade I got was dual monitors.

It disk thrashes like a mofo once i get visual studio open and start doing major work with the database. Sql server alone will gobble up 700megs of ram.

[quoteac7512f6cb="adenosine"]This is why expose is great

http//www.mckayness.com/~adenosine/pics/taskbar.jpg[" alt=""/imgac7512f6cb]

What window is what? You don't know either? This is a good day for my taskbar, sometimes I have to expand it to go to two rows. When each window is nothing more than a small icon, it would be nice to see all my windows at once, especially so I know which Firefox is which (btw, I do use tabbed browsing, but I have forums in one, google searches in one, work sites in one, etc).[/quoteac7512f6cb]

i always have my task bar locked at 2 rows high, i don't know how people can deal with it any other way. i go and use someone else's computer and i start feeling cramped. with my res i can have 12 windows open and still see the full description of what they are, add that with my tabbed browsing and I've got a lot of space to see what's going on.

i just always feel like the dock bar doesn't tell me enough. it was hard when i got my ibook to get used to it.

The dock tells me what I wanna know, but we probably just have different needs there. I just like having a quick launch bar, launcher menus, and what apps are running all in one.

The other nice thing about dock is that when you minimize a window, it keeps a thumb of the actual window in the dock. If you're playing movie, it keeps playing the movie; etc.
This is handy for quickly finding windows you've minimized. I don't believe Windows taskbar does that, but I haven't used XP a whole lot, so maybe it does.

[quote8bb2788c02="tyketto"]The other nice thing about dock is that when you minimize a window, it keeps a thumb of the actual window in the dock. If you're playing movie, it keeps playing the movie; etc.
This is handy for quickly finding windows you've minimized. I don't believe Windows taskbar does that, but I haven't used XP a whole lot, so maybe it does.[/quote8bb2788c02]nope it doesnt.

[quotee71c0090fc="tyketto"]The other nice thing about dock is that when you minimize a window, it keeps a thumb of the actual window in the dock. If you're playing movie, it keeps playing the movie; etc.
This is handy for quickly finding windows you've minimized. I don't believe Windows task bar does that, but I haven't used P a whole lot, so maybe it does.[/quotee71c0090fc]

i like the feature of the thumbnail in the dock, but you also have to minimize it for that to occur.

i never understood the fact that movie will keep playing in the thumbnail. that seems completely pointless to me. if i minimize a movie i want it to pause, not keep playing so small you can't even see it...

[quote87a596f6ec="twistrman"][quote87a596f6ec="tyketto"]The other nice thing about dock is that when you minimize a window, it keeps a thumb of the actual window in the dock. If you're playing movie, it keeps playing the movie; etc.
This is handy for quickly finding windows you've minimized. I don't believe Windows task bar does that, but I haven't used P a whole lot, so maybe it does.[/quote87a596f6ec]

i like the feature of the thumbnail in the dock, but you also have to minimize it for that to occur.

i never understood the fact that movie will keep playing in the thumbnail. that seems completely pointless to me. if i minimize a movie i want it to pause, not keep playing so small you can't even see it...[/quote87a596f6ec]

It's just eye candy really. If you wanna pause it - pause it. Last I checked most players in other OSes keep on playing if minimized.

Switch to Linux )

[quote0139308617="twistrman"][quote0139308617="tyketto"]The other nice thing about dock is that when you minimize a window, it keeps a thumb of the actual window in the dock. If you're playing movie, it keeps playing the movie; etc.
This is handy for quickly finding windows you've minimized. I don't believe Windows task bar does that, but I haven't used P a whole lot, so maybe it does.[/quote0139308617]

i like the feature of the thumbnail in the dock, but you also have to minimize it for that to occur.

i never understood the fact that movie will keep playing in the thumbnail. that seems completely pointless to me. if i minimize a movie i want it to pause, not keep playing so small you can't even see it...[/quote0139308617]some people listen to movies while they multitask on something else.

Nor were laptops intended to be upgraded... but people figure it out

http//eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Item.cfm?ID=4728&Item=NWTNPG4P500

I wouldn't be suprised if that happens with the mini.

[quote7ff9d09986="DIGITALgimpus"]Nor were laptops intended to be upgraded... but people figure it out

http//eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Item.cfm?ID=4728&Item=NWTNPG4P500

I wouldn't be suprised if that happens with the mini.[/quote7ff9d09986]thats just stupid...why do you want to go from a 500MHz G3 to a 500MHz G4? at that price, you're 1.4/5 away from an iBook thats way faster.

[quote9f078153d5="techdude05"]thats just stupid...why do you want to go from a 500MHz G3 to a 500MHz G4? at that price, you're 1.4/5 away from an iBook thats way faster.[/quote9f078153d5]

Not really. It's a much better laptop than any current iBook is, despite it's age.

With a G4 processor, things like Photoshop (which can take advantage of AltaVec), you get pretty good performance... for minimal extra cost.

That was a rather expensive laptop when it came out. And that upgrade is a bit old too (think it's been around for well over a year, if not 2).... and you can of course overclock as I've heard people have done with good success.

Apple's powerbooks are nothing like the weaker iBooks. An iBook is not a laptop. A powerbook is.

It's extremely likely for a few hundred, you could upgrade the mini to a 1.8 GHz+ processor. If not more (depending on what FreeScale decides to do with future PowerPC 74xx line aka. the G4).

It will neve run a G5, but seeing a 2GHz G4 upgrade, or even a little higher, isn't impossible.

lol tyketto, you must work for apple....

anyways, both OS's work perfectly fine.

Mac OS X is "prettier" on default, and is definately less prone to virus attacks, because it is harder to hit, plus, who makes a virus that's only going to effect 2% of computer users?- and that's if EVERY Mac is affected!
It's not like using a Mac is any different from using a windows based PC. It's just as easy, but not really any easier. The included software suite is very nice though, and will satisfy all the basic computing tasks. But are you really getting all that free software, when you're paying all that extra money to have a computer made by Apple? That's the Macs big problem, price. A high end Mac will perform as well, or at least close to a high end PC- but you'll pay MUCH more for it.

Windows XP, it's NEVER crashed on me in the two years I've been using it on my system- so just throw that "crashes all the time" myth out of there. I'd bet most people who claim that had bad experiences with 95/98 and have never really used XP. But, Windows is on every computer made by other (sometimes not very good) manufacters, so your not really guaranteed a well built computer with a Windows system. Which brings me to my next point- YOU CAN BUILD YOUR OWN PC! For about $1000 you can build a rig that will compete head to head with a $2500 PowerMac. But, if you've got the cash, who cares? Well, the Mac's high prices, and in turn, tiny marketshare, means less applications! For instance, there is no 3D Studio Max for the Mac. And then there's gaming.....

Conclusion They're both very good OS's, and i'm thankful that I don't have to use Windows 95/Mac OS 8 anymore. If you want an "all in one", simple setup computer- and are willing to pay extra for that (and you don't play games or need a wide variety of applications) you'll be fine with a Mac. No better off, but you'll be "different", I guess. Otherwise, there's no compelling reason to trade in your PC.

Why are you bringing up this really old thread?

Once again the debate rages on.

Yeah, tell me you can manage windows as well with the windows taskbar as I can with Expose.

What about development? It took me about 5 minutes to write a program on the Mac to speak to me everything I typed into it, and I was high and piss drunk. There's a reason the NSA bought thousands of copies of NeXTStep, and it wasn't because Steve Jobs was butt budies with the president of the IT department.

After seeing some of the supposedly 'object oriented' programming I've seen come from .NETurl==http://=http:///url coders, I've been reconsidering how good it is to use C# for RAD, over objective c and Cocoa.

You know, I wish I did work for Apple D

Actually, I just enjoy using the Mac. Really, I hate Windows and Microsoft SOOoo much. I think they're just awful.

But TimWesterhof, you're wrong - you're dead wrong and misguided. Mac OS X is not hit by virus attacks because of how it's set up, not the low market share. Your number of 2 percent is wrong. That's how many Macs are bought in a year compared to other computer manufacturers. Mac users don't need to upgrade as often as PC users.... Macs are actually about 10 percent of the market.

What does hacking Windows prove for a lowlife virus writer? Just about anyone can do that, right? But cracking OS X ... cracking Unix... now THAT'S an accomplishment. But hey, nobody's been able to do it yet. Over 50,000 known viruses for Windows... not ONE for OS X. That says something.

Your assertion that a high-end Mac compares to a PC is silly. Feature to feature, the Apple's are actually comparable in price OR even lower. The Mac mini is actually cheaper than a bottom of the line Dell Dimension 3000 equipped the same. I know.. .I did the numbers to see and the Dell was over $100 more.

The idea that there's no software is also laughable. Just check Apple's Web site... TONS of GREAT applications. So we don't have the $5 "Create-a-Card" software you can buy at the local Dollar General. Who cares? There's so much crap software available for Windows. There are applications to do just about anything you want on the Mac. Games? Yeah, you can't play the latest and greatest. But the AVERAGE user isn't spending tons of dough on a computer to play games. That's what Gamecube is for.

Tell me, how often do you update your Windows XP patches? How often do you have to update your virus software? Adware checker? Malware checker? Yep, Windows runs ALL the latest, greatest software out there, doesn't it?

I'll go back to hibernation now... but I couldn't pass up commenting...

now, if I can only get Apple to pay me for being an @sshole..... LOL.