PC vs. MAC - Vista

[vsrdan]

Click here (http://www.apple.com/getamac/) and click on "security" ad.

[MattWeb]

Dumb, I hate those commercials. Dont MACs have a similar feature?

[cmputrnrd4lif]

Macs will prompt you for credentials anytime you attempt to install software. And to prevent unauthorized changes to system controls you can lock the window the controls are located in. When you want to use a feature in a specific window, you unlock it by click a lock icon, which will prompt you for your credentials. It would be like allowing you to view Vista's control panel, but not change any settings until you offer administrative credentials to unlock the control panel.

I honestly prefer Apple's implementation, but I give MS some credit for at least trying. I only wish User Account Control was not so in your face.

[sc3252]

'You will probably need to upgrade your computer to install vista, so why don't you just buy a brad new $1500 computer from apple'. I love this, its not like apple is any better with software upgrades, hell don't you need to buy the new osX version to use allot of new software coming out of apple and its third party software companies? I don't like the fact that Microsoft didn't back port directx10 to windows xp, but a year old os from apple wont work with allot of the new applications because apple wants you to pay $150 for the new version.

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/02/list-of-leopard-only-apps-is-growing/
this is a website i found that talked about the Leopard only applications, happy upgrading mac users.

[Grentz]

And MS was thinking about DX10 on XP but found that they needed the new kernal to use DX10 properly thus focused all efforts on DX10 and Vista.

Its been 5 years, sheesh, we can afford to buy a new OS. As said Apple makes you buy a new one everytime they feel their stock going down :p

And as for UAC, OSX has that as well and it is far more annoying IMO. UAC rarely asks me when installing programs/doing normal tasks. When using OSX I find it asks me CONSTANTLY.

[six_storm]

The commercial is sad, but true.

[GORANKAR]

Nope, just sad..

[MrGuvernment]

http://www.our-picks.com/archives/2007/02/05/the-pc-vs-mac-ads-return-now-from-the-pcs-perspective/

[Godofdestrcution]

^ LOL

[wopsang]

Who cares really? They both get theirs jobs done in their own way. Jeez.

[JVC]

mac only looks cool. too late for the macs. windows won!

[Scream And Fly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vci_9yaOZe4

[WicKeDcHilD]

i luv that frustrated mac user ad Lol

[Black Morty Rackham]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vci_9yaOZe4
Ugh, I hate that video. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some easily offended Mac fanatic. I love a good rant as much as the next guy (probably more, in fact), but there are just so many factual errors in that one. He keeps bitching about things that were typical OS 9 stuff (like the computer crashing at the drop of a hat), yet he's obviously talking about OS X. What the hell? It's like making a video bitching about how Vista needs to reboot every time you change your network settings.

If you're gonna rant about something, make sure you know your shit first.



The difference between that one and Apple's advertisements, is that Apple's stuff aren't rants. They're just humor and advertising, basically. That means they can get away with all the factual errors in them. A rant that isn't true isn't funny. A joke that isn't true can still be funny. See the difference?




Edit: Also, platform fanatics of either side are stupid. "MACs" do not suck, and neither do "Windoze" machines. At least not more so than the other.

[bbz_Ghost]

That video is pretty old, actually, and appeared just before OSX hit the market. And who better than a Mac owner to actually bitch and rant about how crappy they are, right? :)

[Black Morty Rackham]

That video is pretty old, actually, and appeared just before OSX hit the market. And who better than a Mac owner to actually bitch and rant about how crappy they are, right? :)
He's talking about the software updater jumping up and down in the Dock. It's OS X, albeit an old version.

[mctwin2kman]

If the user on the PC is not in the Admin Group then UAC does ask for credentials. So it is a moot point if the PC is setup properly for the users of the PC. Granted Vista still puts the first user to setup the PC in the Admin group so the user does need to actually setup user accounts properly to have the added security.

[griffinhart]

UAC isn't nearly as bad as the ad makes it out to be. Sure, it crops up every other second when you are installing and setting up your system, but once you're past that it only pops up rarely. I just turned it off when I installed and configured then turned it back on when I was finished.

[Black Morty Rackham]

UAC isn't nearly as bad as the ad makes it out to be.
Of course not. It's an advertisement.

[tskiller]

People bitch that XP is insecure, Vista is too secure. Make up your minds. You want added security, leave the feature on. You know what you are doing and dont want the extra layer of "oops" prevention, turn it off.

[jtzako]

I dont hate macs, but I think those comercials are stupid. If you cant sell your product based soley on its "strong points" you have problems. You shouldnt need to bash the competitor.

Vista is a great security upgrade from XP, and has other strong points. Windows users are not used to "security" and the things that entails (unless perhaps they have used Domain based computers) so they complain about UAC.

If I count the number of times I get a UAC prompt in a day its maybe 1 or less for normal use and several times if I'm doing software installs etc. Once the system is up and running its a non-issue.

[bbz_Ghost]

People bitch that XP is insecure, Vista is too secure. Make up your minds. You want added security, leave the feature on. You know what you are doing and dont want the extra layer of "oops" prevention, turn it off.

Computer users? Knowing what they're doing? Oh get real... :p Vista is designed to keep itself "protected" from us, even if we do know what we're doing. Besides, disabling UAC is just an inherently bad decision across the board, period.

It's not a question of knowing what we're doing since if something compromises the system, we might not even know about it and without UAC, we won't get any alerts whatsover as our systems go down in flames. I never recommend disabling UAC to anyone, for any reason, because sooner or later it'll come back to bite me in the ass, and I really don't like that - but it depends on who's doing the biting I guess. :D

[drizzt81]

Macs will prompt you for credentials anytime you attempt to install software. And to prevent unauthorized changes to system controls you can lock the window the controls are located in. When you want to use a feature in a specific window, you unlock it by click a lock icon, which will prompt you for your credentials. It would be like allowing you to view Vista's control panel, but not change any settings until you offer administrative credentials to unlock the control panel.One can achieve a similar behavior in WinXP by running as a user that does not have administrative rights.

[OregonLAN]

I must admit, the whole UAC thing in Vista is a complete clusterfuck. It seems every time you do anything “system” related (i.e. copying files, changing the system time and date, etc.), it pops up asking for permission. Microsoft was a bit over zealous with its creation. For starters, they shoulda’ made a way to temporarily disable the UAC per session. A little check box in the UAC dialog that says “Use the same account for this session” would have been nice. Ideally, something like this would allow you to temporarily disable the UAC until you logged off or the computer was rebooted. Furthermore, they shoulda’ included some UAC controls in the Control Panel. Maybe something that allows you to select what settings, files and folder are deemed “system” related and protected by the UAC. Furthermore, they should have added a UAC Administrator group to the computer so that an account could be granted UAC free access to the computer without being part of the Administrator’s group. Currently, I find UAC annoying and disable it entirely (as most do). This completely negates its usefulness and the purpose of Windows Vista.

Does this mean I’m gonna’ buy a Macintosh? Fuck No! Not only is the hardware overpriced and over rated, the software for it is basically nonexistent. Yes, I do realize it’s possible to run Windows on Mac. However, due to software/hardware limitation, Windows would be the only operating system that I would ever use on it. Now, if OSX were developed to run on Non Mac hardware, that would be a different story…

[bbz_Ghost]

Now, if OSX were developed to run on Non Mac hardware, that would be a different story…

Ah, the dream of so many, and it ain't never gonna happen... gotta love how ironic it is...

[Black Morty Rackham]

Now, if OSX were developed to run on Non Mac hardware, that would be a different story…
You DO realize that that, in itself, would not solve your problem of software compatibility.



As for Macs being over-priced, I have but one thing to say: Mac Pro. ;) It's bloody cheap, I tell you.

[OregonLAN]

You DO realize that that, in itself, would not solve your problem of software compatibility.



As for Macs being over-priced, I have but one thing to say: Mac Pro. ;) It's bloody cheap, I tell you.

Yes, as I said, that's a different story…

Let’s face it; Apple will not release a non Apple version of OSX because it would literally kill their desktop division (this happened before). Apples desktop division can not compete with companies like Dell and HP who sometimes sell their PCs for less than it costs to make them (using subsidies from advertisements). Not very many people are going to buy an Apple desktop computer if you can buy the exact same hardware (or better) from Dell or HP, which runs the exact same operating system for a lot less money. Granted, Apple’s hardware has become more competitive with the adoption of the x86 architecture. At the present, a generic PC still has the advantage of being more versatile in the hardware department.

If Apple decided to release OSX for generic PCs, what would happen? Well, provided Apple was capable of handling the influx of support, OSX might do well in the generic PC market. There’s definitely a market for it. Given the opportunity, I (and many others) would likely jump ship to OSX . That is, if OSX started receiving more 3rd party hardware and software support...

[nigerian_businessman]

People bitch that XP is insecure, Vista is too secure. Make up your minds. You want added security, leave the feature on. You know what you are doing and dont want the extra layer of "oops" prevention, turn it off.

last time I checked, popping up a bunch of notifications and questions that people will just click right through anyway (or turn off) is not security. it's just annoying.

xp isn't too insecure, people are just too lazy to learn how to properly secure it and want it all done for them. microsoft's answer is to replace viruses, spyware and adware with their own annoying popups and drm.

[bbz_Ghost]

I haven't seen one case or story so far of any legitimate nature about the so-called DRM hassles in Vista.

If someone would love to be the first to provide tangible evidence or proof of such "hassles" it would go a long long way to either proving the incessant bitching about the hypothetical DRM hassles, or it'll let the people making these ridiculous statements know to be quiet.

"Put up or shut up..." is my take on this DRM hassles bullshit. Everyone loves that DRM +++++++++ document that keeps getting posted, but not one story has surfaced that I'm aware of (and I do a ton of research on all things Vista daily) where someone has legitimately proven the so-called DRM in Vista has prevented them from doing something they're trying to do.

So, if anyone is up to the task, let's hear about it... or let it die...

A wee bit off-topic but, I had to get that out once and for all.

</off_topic_rant>

[Black Morty Rackham]

Ah, the dream of so many, and it ain't never gonna happen... gotta love how ironic it is...
Keep in mind that people like us are few and far apart, compared to Joe Schmoe who buys shitty Dells for two hundred quid. They're sure as hell not going to start installing Mac OS X on their machines.

[bbz_Ghost]

I'd tell you a story about OSx86 and how it started but...

/me feels the breath of a Mod on his neck...

I can PM it sometime if you're interested. :D

[Igedit]

...

For starters, they shoulda’ made a way to temporarily disable the UAC per session. A little check box in the UAC dialog that says “Use the same account for this session” would have been nice. Ideally, something like this would allow you to temporarily disable the UAC until you logged off or the computer was rebooted.
…


Actually there is an easy way to do this (In Vista Business anyway).

Just run secpol.msc then local polices > security options > user account control

and change the behaviour of the elevation prompt to "elevate without prompting"

I'm not sure if this works in the Home versions or not.

[bbz_Ghost]

Just in Business and Ultimate (and Enterprise too, of course). The Home versions don't have access to the console stuff from what I've seen, not even from an Admin account. Learned that the hard way recently when I kept trying to use gpedit.msc for some stuff and kept hitting a brick wall. :D

[mctwin2kman]

I think the commercial is making fun of UAC for being so easy to just click continue and not need any credentials what so ever. I mean the average user will just click continue anyhow and that will not stop stuff from being installed that should not be. But as I said, if you are not a member of the Admin Group then it will ask for Credentials of an Admin before proceeding.

[Black Morty Rackham]

A couple of years ago, my girlfriend's mom wanted to show me something funny on some website. Some ActiveX thing popped up, and she clicked "ok" so fast that I didn't even have time to read the first paragraph. :rolleyes:

It's not faulty software that makes a machine unsecure; it's faulty users. I don't see how this will change with Vista.

[MrGuvernment]

UAC isn't nearly as bad as the ad makes it out to be. Sure, it crops up every other second when you are installing and setting up your system, but once you're past that it only pops up rarely. I just turned it off when I installed and configured then turned it back on when I was finished.


OSX has annoyed me more then enough with it "please enter your admin password" for installing applications, about as much as Vista Rc2 did for me when first installed, so OSX is just as bad, to me, as windows is.

[MrGuvernment]

Ah, the dream of so many, and it ain't never gonna happen... gotta love how ironic it is...

Umm it can be done, and non mac hardware? it is all intel now anyways......

just right now it takes some linux, and alot of emulation to make it run on non certified apple hardware.

[MrGuvernment]

If Apple decided to release OSX for generic PCs, what would happen? Well, provided Apple was capable of handling the influx of support, OSX might do well in the generic PC market. There’s definitely a market for it. Given the opportunity, I (and many others) would likely jump ship to OSX . That is, if OSX started receiving more 3rd party hardware and software support...


And as soon as that happens, opening up to 3rd party, OSX = Windows , as now they have to open up their OS to be more accepting and compatible = more problems = more exploits.

i would love to see it happen, and then love to see Apple excuses when they become the hackers dream to rip apart.

[Black Morty Rackham]

And as soon as that happens, opening up to 3rd party, OSX = Windows , as now they have to open up their OS to be more accepting and compatible = more problems = more exploits.

i would love to see it happen, and then love to see Apple excuses when they become the hackers dream to rip apart.
Where's the logic in that? Are you saying Windows is being "ripped apart"? I disagree with that statement.

[MrGuvernment]

Where's the logic in that? Are you saying Windows is being "ripped apart"? I disagree with that statement.


mm, i guess i meant it that OSX is so secure and tight because Apple decides who can do what and what it will allow in or not, leaving it with a considerably smaller base to support for hardware, where as windows... well, you know the almost unlimited possible hardware configurations you can buy / put together.

[Black Morty Rackham]

mm, i guess i meant it that OSX is so secure and tight because Apple decides who can do what and what it will allow in or not, leaving it with a considerably smaller base to support for hardware, where as windows... well, you know the almost unlimited possible hardware configurations you can buy / put together.
The amount of hardware it works with has no real impact on the security of the operating system. They're two different problems. Shoddy drivers and shoddy hardware is indeed one of the primary causes of instability in Windows, but it doesn't mean you get hacked more easily. I'm pretty sure Mac OS X would be a lot more unstable if it had to run on crap hardware, but it wouldn't be less secure.

[markt435]

OSX has been on a closed platform for years. You can add some hardware but it has to have Mac compatable drivers (i.e. Vid cards, Sound cards, etc) or the stuff that generally doesn't need special drivers (i.e. Hard drives, memory). Its not so much crap hardware...Windows is designed to run on millions and millions of combinations of hardware. Then you have OSX which is (still) on a closed platform. I would think if Windows was on a closed platform, we wouldn't have as much bashing as we do. Frankly if you have a software company making an OS that can handle as much hardware as it does (1.5 million drivers alone in Vista), thats an accomplishment in itself.

If you wanna say OSX doesn't crash as much as Windows does...then that better be true. You have hardware that you pick and choose to work with your OS. That means it better fuckin work. There isn't any excuse for crashes. And if thats how you have to advertise your platform being better than the other, it doesn't really make sense.

[Black Morty Rackham]

OSX has been on a closed platform for years. You can add some hardware but it has to have Mac compatable drivers (i.e. Vid cards, Sound cards, etc) or the stuff that generally doesn't need special drivers (i.e. Hard drives, memory). Its not so much crap hardware...Windows is designed to run on millions and millions of combinations of hardware. Then you have OSX which is (still) on a closed platform. I would think if Windows was on a closed platform, we wouldn't have as much bashing as we do. Frankly if you have a software company making an OS that can handle as much hardware as it does (1.5 million drivers alone in Vista), thats an accomplishment in itself.

If you wanna say OSX doesn't crash as much as Windows does...then that better be true. You have hardware that you pick and choose to work with your OS. That means it better fuckin work. There isn't any excuse for crashes. And if thats how you have to advertise your platform being better than the other, it doesn't really make sense.
What? :confused:

You need Windows-compatible drivers for hardware in Windows, just like you need Mac-compatible ones in OS X. The only real difference is that Windows has more drivers available, since there is a bigger market for it.

[bbz_Ghost]

You two are both saying basically the same things, yanno. Just wanted to offer a perspective on it from outside... almost the exact same thing. :p

[Black Morty Rackham]

Well, my point is that Windows wasn't really designed to run on more hardware than any other OS; it's just happened because people write drivers for it.

[Replicant1911]

http://www.our-picks.com/archives/2007/02/05/the-pc-vs-mac-ads-return-now-from-the-pcs-perspective/


LOVE THIS. THX!

[Martyr]

wow, check out the mac zealots on the comments on those vids. crazy people.

[Replicant1911]

A couple of years ago, my girlfriend's mom wanted to show me something funny on some website. Some ActiveX thing popped up, and she clicked "ok" so fast that I didn't even have time to read the first paragraph. :rolleyes:

It's not faulty software that makes a machine unsecure; it's faulty users. I don't see how this will change with Vista.

QFT

[Martyr]

A couple of years ago, my girlfriend's mom wanted to show me something funny on some website. Some ActiveX thing popped up, and she clicked "ok" so fast that I didn't even have time to read the first paragraph. :rolleyes:

It's not faulty software that makes a machine unsecure; it's faulty users. I don't see how this will change with Vista.

maybe you ought to set her up as NOT an admin, eh?

[Black Morty Rackham]

maybe you ought to set her up as NOT an admin, eh?
Eh, it wasn't MY machine, and I didn't need to fix it when it broke down.

[vsrdan]

My girlfriend thinks the security guy behind "PC" is cute :)

[Tutelary]

the general populace is just going to ok everything with uac on like they have been ok'ing it for years every time a dialog pops up in XP. Thinking vista is going to solve that situation is laughable.

[MrGuvernment]

What? :confused:

You need Windows-compatible drivers for hardware in Windows, just like you need Mac-compatible ones in OS X. The only real difference is that Windows has more drivers available, since there is a bigger market for it.


The real diff is there is more hardware for your PC then MAC, because MAC is closed platform. Apple decides what goes into their comps, and who writes the drivers, as said above if windows said, okay, you can only buy an x1900 or x1900XT, but no x800 pro's or 9800 Pro's or x1300 or radeon 7500's.... then fine, that is a hella lot less compatibility issues that can conflict and kill your os.

a while back i checked AT';s site, since their first cards i think mac had like 17 total cards to choose from - PC had over 50.

thas alot of diff hardware to write drivers for.

[Black Morty Rackham]

Apple decides what goes into their comps, and who writes the drivers, as said above if windows said, okay, you can only buy an x1900 or x1900XT, but no x800 pro's or 9800 Pro's or x1300 or radeon 7500's.... then fine, that is a hella lot less compatibility issues that can conflict and kill your os.
That's not how it works at all. ANYONE can write drivers for Mac OS X, just like with Windows. It works basically the same way: someone makes a piece of hardware, and they write some drivers for it. The only difference is that Windows gets a lot more attention in the driver department, since the market is a lot bigger.

The reason you can't buy a Mac version of this or that hardware isn't that Apple said "oh no, we don't want your cheesy hardware"; it's that the hardware mfg simply decided against spending the money on Mac drivers.

[wunderbaum]

Mac is too expensive, lacks software and lacks THE games. Why would I even try it?

[Black Morty Rackham]

Mac is too expensive, lacks software and lacks THE games. Why would I even try it?
Who the hell asked you, anyway?

[bbz_Ghost]

Who the hell asked you, anyway?

YEAH!!! How dare he actually tell us the truth, especially stuff everyone already knows. :p

[silz]

Nope not with bootcamp around. Only if MAC is not too expensive and allows greater upgradeability in the hardware department. It will totally win me over. At this time, buying new hardware is a pita and you have to endured dated graphic cards with your "old mac" where else your friends are drooling over a 8800GT or 9950GT.