PC vs. MAC - Vista

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.
 
'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.
 
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.
 
mac only looks cool. too late for the macs. windows won!
 
Scream And Fly said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vci_9yaOZe4
Click to expand...
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.
 
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? :)
 
bbz_Ghost said:
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? :)
Click to expand...
He's talking about the software updater jumping up and down in the Dock. It's OS X, albeit an old version.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
tskiller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
cmputrnrd4lif said:
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.
Click to expand...
One can achieve a similar behavior in WinXP by running as a user that does not have administrative rights.
 
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…
 
OregonLAN said:
Now, if OSX were developed to run on Non Mac hardware, that would be a different story…
Click to expand...
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.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
tskiller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 F.U.D. 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>
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Ah, the dream of so many, and it ain't never gonna happen... gotta love how ironic it is...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
OregonLAN said:
...

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.
…
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
griffinhart said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Ah, the dream of so many, and it ain't never gonna happen... gotta love how ironic it is...
Click to expand...

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.
 
OregonLAN said:
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...
Click to expand...


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.
 
MrGuvernment said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where's the logic in that? Are you saying Windows is being "ripped apart"? I disagree with that statement.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Where's the logic in that? Are you saying Windows is being "ripped apart"? I disagree with that statement.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top