Why I hate Macs and coffee shops

[purple_minion]

Wow, imagine a thread with exactly the same arguments I've seen a bazillion times everywhere. You'll never convince anyone about windows, mac, linux, abortion, death penalty, religion, etc. Unless you go through a near death experience to radically change someone's mind set nothing will happen. I like linux, personal choice. I buy into all the hype and have several people that seem to be fine running linux as end users. There are a lot of people running windows, and that's fine too. I don't care for windows myself but it's a "free" country.

I like Honda's and Toyota's as well, and believe they make better cars then american made ones. I believe it's a mindset to build a decent car that works well and lasts. Will I convince anyone to change brands by debating it? No. Brand loyalty is strong in a lot of people. Take hard drives for example. Some people will swear by Seagate, Western Digital, etc. Do you think that anyone has statistically large enough numbers to conclude that one brand is better then another? I would bet that the majority of people see different models from say Seagate and conclude based on that that seagate is good/bad. That's like looking in consumer reports about different vehicle models. One model/year will be rated high, while the next year of the same model will be rated poorly. I believe something along the lines of user reviews such as on newegg about a particular model is much more in line with actual lemons then someone who sees one or two of the same models over their lifetimes. Long term reliability is something not even newegg/reviews can help as no one collects statistics 5 years down the road except the manufacturers, and I doubt they will release that data. About the closest would be the google study, but they are tight lipped.

Anyway, the point being that no one will be convinced of anything by a friendly debate.

 

[hondablaster]

I like Honda's and Toyota's as well, and believe they make better cars then american made ones. I believe it's a mindset to build a decent car that works well and lasts. Will I convince anyone to change brands by debating it? No.

Off topic, Ive been down that road as well. Minion, LOL It gets silly when people get desperate. My family is Hardcore FORD family. "Your car might be better.... But can it tow a boat?....." Its a F***ing Honda Civic, why would I tow a boat with a Honda Civic and how is that even relevant. "See what I mean, it cant then, huh?" LOL

Anyways back to your initial debate.

 

[purple_minion]

@PM,

What flavor(s) of Linux do you run? Just curious.

I have PCLinuxOS installed on my other machine as the new 2009 version I had heard is "simple" for normal end users like Linux Mint. I have my uncle running Ubuntu and my gf's cousin whom lives next door running Linux Mint. I had run Mandriva before on this computer since it was the only major distro to actually run on this one as it was a brand new gaming machine (ironically not used for gaming now, go figure). I have gone from ubuntu, suse, mandriva it seems usually, bouncing around every so often. Currently I have Windows on this since it's a quad core that I use for transcoding my dvd collection and I haven't found a good linux program that will utilize all four cores like MeGUI. With MeGUI I can get a dvd transcoded in 3 hours versus 24 hours with a single core on linux. Otherwise everything else is perfect for me in linux.

 

[gunslinger]

@gunslinger
macs are not more secure and that's a fact.

when will you understand that market share is what makes the difference

Ok, prove it. I can prove that OS X is more secure than Windows, lets see you prove it is not. I personally know two Mac techs as well as have friends who work at the "genius bar". None have ever seen an infected Mac. Most speak of hardware issues and sometimes a kernel panic. But I have yet to hear about a Mac getting the latest virus or being infected with "antivirus2009".

Now, let me ask the PC techs out there: How many machines do you work on per week that are infected with some form of malware? Most? If your shop is anything like mine you will see at least 10-15 badly infected systems per week.

Now the Mac techs see more Macs in a week than I do PCs, yet no infections. Market share? Maybe. but for what ever reason they don't get infected as much and thats a fact.

On another note, gunslinger is a Mac fanboy.

Gunslinger is a computer tech who is not closed minded enough to embrace better technology when it comes along because he thinks he knows everything. I'm also not a fence sitter, when I think a product is garbage I say so, when I think a product is good I say do. I also don't blame the end user for a failed product. Mac fanboy? Well I like Macs and OS X, but I also like Windows XP and Window 7 and own 4 PCs and dual boot my Mac with Windows. I also like Ubuntu. I'm not scared to tell people what products I like.

Shouldn't you be able to surf the web as you please without being scared of getting infected? Can you do that with a naked PC? Why not? You can with a Mac.

 

[abe]

Ok, prove it. I can prove that OS X is more secure than Windows, lets see you prove it is not. I personally know two Mac techs as well as have friends who work at the "genius bar". None have ever seen an infected Mac. Most speak of hardware issues and sometimes a kernel panic. But I have yet to hear about a Mac getting the latest virus or being infected with "antivirus2009".

you seem to have missed the point, MARKET SHARE, do you get it now those friends of yours havent seen it because it doesn't pay for malware makers to aim for macs (because they have only 3.2% percent of the market), when it will pay for them to aim for macs you will have the viruses.

and besides if all mac users dual boot XP anyway, they will get infected on there xp.

As for proving it, i'm not a malware writer and will not write malware for you, I can however post a few links.

All successful, and most plausible, malware attacks on Mac OS X have occurred in the last 2 years with the last quarter of 2007 being particularly prolific. Market penetration and overall sales of the Mac OS X system have directly mirrored development of malware, a phenomenon also demonstrated with other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows. Based on this data there is no reason to believe the trend will not continue as Apple continues to increase their market share.

The concept of the economy of scale has historically meant that malware authors have not previously considered the Mac a viable target. This protection is being eroded by the increase in size of the Mac user base.

heres the link again http://www.macforensicslab.com/Produ...roducts_id=174

Helpful Mac OS X worms?
By Robert Vamosi on 06 March 2006
Here's a news flash: All software contains some form of security flaw -- but if you discover a flaw, should you tell the world about it?

If you're a Mac security researcher, apparently the answer is yes. While Apple is pretty good at patching its systems -- in fact, Apple has just released 20 new patches for OS X, including those exploited by the Leap.a virus -- the latest patches do not completely address the concerns of one security researcher. By creating three proof-of-concept worms last week, Kevin Finisterre started a public dialogue over Mac OS X security. But he also opened a Pandora's box, giving script kiddies techniques that could be used in future Mac OS X viruses.

read more here http://www.cnet.com.au/helpful-mac-os-x-worms-240060826.htm

and a nice list here

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm

gunslinger is that enough proof for you, the proof of concept is there its market share thats the reason for you and your friends not seeing it.

As for you (gunslinger) being a fanboy, i think thats simply not true you come across as level headed both on technibble and from the vids i saw on you tube, however when it comes to macs you seem to want to belive anything.

Abe

PS. please dont be stupid and ignore the links i posted, or say that they are not my research so why do i belive it.

oh and i'm gonna send you a pm please read it i think youll enjoy it.

 

[gunslinger]

Let me start by saying that I do think as in the first article the more Apples market share grows the more exploits will be found. No doubt about it. I have also heard about some of the ones listed in the second and third one.

My point is this: I have yet to see any of these in the wild. None of my 50 or so Mac using friends have seen any infections. The two Mac techs I know personally who work on them daily and have for years have yet to see and infected Mac. I myself have yet to see an infection on my Mac.

Are there viruses and worms out there for Macs? Yes. Will these increase with market share? In all likelihood , yes. If you buy a Mac right now are you more secure than I guy who buys a PC? I'd say there is no way you can look at the facts and think otherwise.

I never said Macs could not be infected. I never said that they would not become a greater target for the writers of malware as their market share grew. What I said was that you are safer right now on a Mac than a Windows based PC and I stand by that.

Again, compare the Dell with FreeBSD to a Mac with OS X, again essentially the same thing, which would be a more fair comparison. I don't think you'll find either one getting infected very often.

Why would I do that when what we are really comparing here is Windows ( pick a flavor ) and OS X. You see, by Mac I mean a computer made by Apple running OS X as its OS. By PC I mean I computer not made by Apple running some version of Windows. I'm not talking about FreeBSD, Linux or anything else. I think most people reading this fully understood what I was saying and how I was defining PC and Mac. But for those few who for what ever reason did not, there you go.


And I meant I'm not too closed minded to embrace better technology when it comes along. But I think you knew that.

 

[hondablaster]

Doesn't your argument hinge on the definition of Security. The amount of threats available to windows is FAR greater then that of MAC. Regardless of the quality of security programming.

So without market share being relevant to argument, and just setting a PC next to a MAC with two end users and an objective observer watching, he would probably say MAC is more secure hands down.

If your arguing the premises that the OSes were built on I think that we would need to be a programmer with intimate, equal knowledge of both OSes before we could actually begin to debate no?

Tonight if it became true that computer viruses that infected a computer also infected the person using that computer with "swine flu" I would probably buy a MAC tomorrow. As market share continues to climb im sure Windows and MS are far better "fixers" then MAC are. But until that day comes the "security" portion of debate are hard to fight.

As of 6/14/09 MAC is still far more secure than windows. If the definition of security relies on that amount of available threats.

LOL

 

[gunslinger]

That is not an equal comparison. That's like saying let's compare an F-16 Fighter jet to a Ferrari and they say the Ferrari sucks because it's not as fast, but citing that they are both vehicles (or OSs in this case.)

No. Its like saying I have a brand X car and you have brand y car, lets race and see who is faster. Both the PC and Mac are computers. The only real difference is the OS, and maybe build quality.

So ALL PCs MUST run Windows? What does my Ubuntu run on? A mainframe? I don't think so. See, limiting PCs to ONE OS (Windows) is pretty closed-minded.

Never said that. What I said was for the sake of this debate I was defining a PC as a Windows based machine and a Mac as a machine made by Apple running OS X. I also made it clear that I was not bringing Linux into it in any way.

Yes... you ARE. The sad part is, as a Mac tech, you should know that. OS X is a very customized FreeBSD, which is a UNIX derivative.

You are making a very poor attempt to get the Linux guys to agree with you. I think most hardcore Linux guys would not like you saying OS X and Linux are the same thing. I'm also pretty sure some of the statements you made in the articles section a while back would call for a public flogging. Such as calling bootcamp a virtual machine.

http://www.technibble.com/resources-for-repairing-apple-macs/

 

[anonymous Mac Tech]

@abe,

The old argument of security-through-obscurity doesn't work. If it did, IIS would be secure and Apache would be infected left and right, however the oppisite appears to happen. It's not about popularity, bur rather about philosophy and design. It's hard to hide things in plain sight. (i.e. - when you can see the source code you can see the flaws).

Great point.

you seem to have missed the point, MARKET SHARE, do you get it now those friends of yours havent seen it because it doesn't pay for malware makers to aim for macs (because they have only 3.2% percent of the market), when it will pay for them to aim for macs you will have the viruses.


heres the link again http://www.macforensicslab.com/Produ...roducts_id=174

and a nice list here

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm

gunslinger is that enough proof for you, the proof of concept is there its market share thats the reason for you and your friends not seeing it.

PS. please dont be stupid and ignore the links i posted, or say that they are not my research so why do i belive it.

oh and i'm gonna send you a pm please read it i think youll enjoy it.

@abe
Congratulations, You just proved you could do a google search and come up with 299,900 conflicting results and then cherry pick the articles you want to believe because they seem to support your cause. There is no need to take jabs at me because I won't accept your links as Gospel because the fact is that the jury is still out. No one is going to know until it actually happens. I am just saying that based on my personal experience with both OSs, I believe that OSX will never see the amount of malware that Windows has seen.

You want to talk about close-minded. To singlehandedly blame low market share for the only reason that Mac OSX isn't vulnerable is just unrealistic. I believe that it is a factor out of many factors, but not and far from the sole reason that OSX is less vulnerable.

Just like many others have pointed out on this thread, there is no point in arguing. If a google search will bring up several thousand conflicting results on the reason OSX is less vulnerable, its not going to get solved here. But if it ever turns out that Mac takes 30-40% of market share and gets as badly infected as Windows due to market share alone, I owe you a beer.

 

[abe]

hey pyramid why you getting all nitty gritty, lets get back to the point, gunslinger made a very valid point in saying that, " The only real difference is the OS, and maybe build quality."

the difference is the OS which as of now is safer from viriie, ( i wouldn't call it more secure, because that would make IT SOUND LIKE ITS HARDER TO HACK) i'd say safer for the common user to use without getting a virus, although the user can still get douped into buying music from some scam site.

Hardwarewise i dont think they are any better the the average pc out there, (if i would get a pc for the price of a mac the pc would probably be better hardware quality).

BUT i still wouldnt tell anyone to get a mac, its too pricey and i would educate them to use an AV and update it, and they will be safe, every single one of the virus cleanings i do is due to the fact that the user didn't update in a month or two.

so for me its a pc that i recommend.

 

[abe]

Great point.



@abe
Congratulations, You just proved you could do a google search and come up with 299,900 conflicting results and then cherry pick the articles you want to believe because they seem to support your cause. There is no need to take jabs at me because I won't accept your links as Gospel because the fact is that the jury is still out. No one is going to know until it actually happens. I am just saying that based on my personal experience with both OSs, I believe that OSX will never see the amount of malware that Windows has seen.

You want to talk about close-minded. To singlehandedly blame low market share for the only reason that Mac OSX isn't vulnerable is just unrealistic. I believe that it is a factor out of many factors, but not and far from the sole reason that OSX is less vulnerable.

Just like many others have pointed out on this thread, there is no point in arguing. If a google search will bring up several thousand conflicting results on the reason OSX is less vulnerable, its not going to get solved here. But if it ever turns out that Mac takes 30-40% of market share and gets as badly infected as Windows due to market share alone, I owe you a beer.

wow, wow, thats all i can say to you, you have experiance with both Os's and can fortell the future without giving a decent reasoning to what your saying. great,

and as for the beer I'd take wine any day, I have some posts in the general chat area about my winemaking hobby.

 

[MrUnknown]

lol, can't believe this thread is still going on. Just wanted to say that both sides have very good points.

 

[gunslinger]

lol, can't believe this thread is still going on. Just wanted to say that both sides have very good points.

Yeah, its always like this. The people who dislike Macs for what ever reason use google and try to dig up any little bit of dirt they can on Macs. Even the people who have never even laid hands on a Mac get in on this because they have a friend who told them Macs suck. I'm not sure but I think most of this comes from fear of the unknown. Of course if you say this to the Mac bashers they will promptly tell you that they have worked on Macs for over 40 years



As for PyramidTechnologies, he seems to be the main Mac basher right now. Almost like he is on some kind of holy war against Macs. The problem is as soon as he sees that he can't really prove his point he changes the argument to something he thinks he can win.



This is a typical tactic of the Mac basher. They start out by making completely false statements and try to back it up with poorly researched info. Then when that fails they start zigzaging.


We are arguing about things that any tech who has ever used a Mac should know. Or anyone open minded enough to do some honest research should know.

 

[gunslinger]

If asking for a fair comparison between operating systems makes me a Mac basher, then so be it

Whats so unfair about comparing two OSs? Why not a straight up fair comparison between Windows and OS X? How is that unfair? You are the one who keeps bring up FreeBSD and Linux. I wont play that game with you. I'm talking Windows (XP, Vista ) and OS X.

I once said that OS X was based off of Unix. They are not the same thing. That would be like saying Windows 95 and Windows 7 are the same because they both have the registry.

 

[gunslinger]

Because like the Ferrari/F-16, the OSX/Windows comparison is equallly unfair. Both vehicles (or OSs) in this case, are designed completely different, operate completely different, written with different philosophies and goals in mind, and so on and so on.

Thanks for proving my point for me. I don't think anything else needs to be said then. You freely admit OS X is a much better OS than Windows. Its not my fault that its an unfair fight. Tell Microsoft about it.

and that is something OS X lacks. THAT, which you just pointed out, is one of many reasons WHY your argument is unfair. It is one of the reasons why Windows is more prone to infections, because of it's very design and inclusion of the registry, which OS X/FreeBSD by it's very design, does NOT have a registry.

Exactly what I have been saying the whole time. Windows is more prone to infections Thank you for admitting this finally.

 

[gunslinger]

You still don't get it. After all this you still just think anyone who likes the Mac or OS X better than the PC or Linux is some kind of brainwashed idiot. Even though I admit to liking Windows XP and Windows 7 as well as Ubuntu.

The fact that Windows is more prone to infections has been my point all along. Its just one more reason that OS X is better than Windows.

 

[angry_geek]

My input to bring a little levity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZGIn9bpALo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2fsubA2-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poREl_EVWXI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL2l_Q1AR_Q&feature=related

 

[purple_minion]

Forgive me if I don't read all 7 pages, but has apple's price and elitist attitude been brought up? I think if Pyramid argued on that he'd get farther. As it stands you can lock down any OS, however you might not be able to do much. Just poking the bear.

 

[gunslinger]

You don't want to compare a Windows based PC to a Mac because you know the Mac is better in terms of OS. I don't care about Linux , Unix or FreeBSD. I'm only talking about Windows and OS X.

but it's not fair to compare a Ferrari to an F-16 Fighter Jet

No, its not. But it is most certainly fair to compare two modern operating systems that compete for the same customer base in the market place. There is nothing unfair about this. You are just upset that Windows can't compare that well. Thats why you keep trying to throw in Linux and freeBSD.

I like Linux and I think it would give OS X a much better challenge than Windows. But again this is not nor has it ever been the issue in this thread. My argument was that OS X is a better OS than Windows and is more secure.

Why did you pull out Windows98?...lol That has nothing to do with anything here.

 

[gunslinger]

We're done here. There is no open communication with fundies.

I agree. You really should use and understand OS X and why people like it as much as they do before you condemn it and the people who use it.

Also when people are arguing Apple and oranges you should not try to chime in with grapes.