Macs are a lot more than just pretty picture editing boxes...

 

Then explain to me what a Mac can do that a bottom barrel, $500 PC can't do?

 

You can write PERL scripts that you know will work on your servers (UNIX based) without having to worry about the bizzare variations that Windows introduces into the PERL distributions that are available for it. That means that you can concentrate on the logic of the code and can test it on your local machine without fear of having to change large chunks of it once you get it over to the server.

You can compile and install PERL modules right here on the machine, using GCC, and have every expectation that it will behave exactly the same way once you go live on the servers... again, something that Windows does differently.

When you find CGI apps that you think would be useful on the server, you can toss out all the "windows specific" instructions that come with them just so people who insanely use Server 2003 or Win2k can try to keep up with the times. Then you can install those apps right there, locally, to see how they behave and work, and then send them over to the server when you are ready.

There are also a large number of CGI and ACGI apps that specifically do not have any support for windows machines.

This, so far, is all Unix particular benefits, and you COULD make the argument that you could just install Linux on your PC and get the same benefit, except...

You can also, while doing all this, run Office, Internet Explorer, and a huge, huge host of easily accessable mainstream software that just isn't available for Linux. So, if you install Linux on your PC, you are losing a huge functionality of your machine....you wouldn't even be able to run WWII Online.

Oh, but let's stay on the Unix topic for a little longer. Were you aware that the number of applications available for Unix dwarfs that of Windows? I am suspecting you didn't. Read and understand this: Since OS X, the Macintosh has MORE software available for it than Windows PCs do.

Let's talk security for a moment...how about all those RA ports that are open by default on a Windows installation. Let's talk MSBlaster, SobigF, and Code Red.

Let us count up virii on the PC, shall we? What are we up to now....45,000? 55,000?

How many are active on OS X? Zero. Well, there you go...something you can do on your PC that I can't do on my Mac...accidentally collect malicious virii, trojans, and worms.

And don't bother with the STO argument. BSD 4 Unix (which is at the core of OS X) is inherently much much more stable and secure than Windows (especially NT code) mostly because it is much much more mature than Windows. Windows is the newcomer on the block. Code wise, it is a baby, and MS is too busy trying to crank out Longhorn to be bothered with a few thousand buffer overflow potentials in the current Windows iteration.

And a few more things...I plug in my digital card reader for my camera, BANG it just works. The included install CD is for Windows.

I plug in my scanner and BANG it just works. The included install CD is for windows.

I plug in a multi-button mouse (logitech mx900) and BANG it just works. The included install CD is for windows.

When I plugged in a better video card BANG it just works. The included install CD is for windows.

I have a pair of Harmon Kardonn sound sticks...I plugged them in and BANG they just work. The included install CD is for windows.

Now...as far as what you can do on your PC that I can't do on my Mac? Well, you have more games available. WWII OL is the only game I play, though. Wow, that's available on the Mac too! Who'd a thunk it?

You get to download the critical patch of the week from Microsoft. I really feel left out there.

There is some software like Autocad that is not available on the Mac at all. I can't discount the value of those, but at the same time that does not concern me...that isn't what I do.

What I do always centers around the Internet/Design. And when you are on the server side of the Internet, Windows is the red headed stepchild. OS X just makes more sense and provides me with less hassles.

I use both platforms and PCs ARE harder to use, because the OS gets in the way of the work. The interface of all PC programs I've ever used gets in the way, too.

"Harder" doesn't mean arcane or difficult to conceptualize. "Harder" means more effort is required for the same result.

Lots of clicks, lots of silly, I mean IDIOTIC hoops to jump through to get the application program or OS to do what it is supposed to do.

The ONLY think a PC has over a Mac is that there are 20,000 (mostly totally crappy) games out there for it.

But as has been pointed out, the few games I actually do enjoy playing are available for my Mac.

 

Damned, nothing turns me on like a chick who talks tech. j/k

I agree with most of what you say (even though my main computer at home is a Windows 2000 pc, and I have an old computer with Linux installed on it that does more network/server oriented duties). I'm not sure if your argument about virii is necessarily fair, since I'm sure that if more people were to use Macs, more virii will be written for that platform.

I do intend to get a Mac some day, and I'm actually quite happy about the relatively small user base (fewer users, fewer malicious code to worry about). One of my co-workers and I do all the UNIX (Solaris) system administration for our group, and we're both very impressed with OS X.

 

[QUOTE=naomi-sarah,Nov 8 2004, 10:19 AM] You can write PERL scripts that you know will work on your servers (UNIX based) without having to worry about the bizzare variations that Windows introduces into the PERL distributions that are available for it. That means that you can concentrate on the logic of the code and can test it on your local machine without fear of having to change large chunks of it once you get it over to the server.

You can compile and install PERL modules right here on the machine, using GCC, and have every expectation that it will behave exactly the same way once you go live on the servers... again, something that Windows does differently.

When you find CGI apps that you think would be useful on the server, you can toss out all the "windows specific" instructions that come with them just so people who insanely use Server 2003 or Win2k can try to keep up with the times. Then you can install those apps right there, locally, to see how they behave and work, and then send them over to the server when you are ready.

There are also a large number of CGI and ACGI apps that specifically do not have any support for windows machines.

This, so far, is all Unix particular benefits, and you COULD make the argument that you could just install Linux on your PC and get the same benefit, except...

You can also, while doing all this, run Office, Internet Explorer, and a huge, huge host of easily accessable mainstream software that just isn't available for Linux. So, if you install Linux on your PC, you are losing a huge functionality of your machine....you wouldn't even be able to run WWII Online.

Oh, but let's stay on the Unix topic for a little longer. Were you aware that the number of applications available for Unix dwarfs that of Windows? I am suspecting you didn't. Read and understand this: Since OS X, the Macintosh has MORE software available for it than Windows PCs do.

Let's talk security for a moment...how about all those RA ports that are open by default on a Windows installation. Let's talk MSBlaster, SobigF, and Code Red.

Let us count up virii on the PC, shall we? What are we up to now....45,000? 55,000?

How many are active on OS X? Zero. Well, there you go...something you can do on your PC that I can't do on my Mac...accidentally collect malicious virii, trojans, and worms.

And don't bother with the STO argument. BSD 4 Unix (which is at the core of OS X) is inherently much much more stable and secure than Windows (especially NT code) mostly because it is much much more mature than Windows.

 

I agree -- so why are we having this conversation?

 

Oh another thing. With regards to Windows stability. While the Windows NT/2000/XP kernel may be relatively new compared to the UNIXes, I must say that I've been very impressed with Windows Server 2003.

We run Windows Server 2003 on a couple of our servers, and they were both up for about a year before the system administrator rebooted it. And even then, it was questionable if rebooting was necessary (it wasn't doing anything weird, the sys admin just wanted to reboot the boxes for the heck of it).

 

Audio MP3 - Click me

 

Damn, you go to lunch and look what happens. I'm not talking about comparing macs with a $500 PC in regards to the backbone of the internet, I'm asking why sally homemaker should spend $3k on a mac when she can easily go down to circuit city and buy a machine that will be more than fast enough for her for $500.

 

thats what exactly im trying to point out. macs are overprice for the stuff they do. even so, a pc at same price as a mac will outspank it. dont talk about a 2.0ghz g5 vs a p4. thats a joke. the mac is like 3 times more expensive if you compare it that way.

pc=bang for the buck