U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Mac OS X vs Windows - Who survives the test of time?
Some version of OS X 33 38.37%
Some version of Windows 35 40.70%
Neither one 6 6.98%
Both 12 13.95%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:48 PM
 
1,443 posts, read 2,572,263 times
Reputation: 2049

Advertisements

From the article,

Quote:
Microsoft is getting beat up badly by Apple’s television advertising.
You mean the ads that tell me why I shouldn't buy a PC, yet fail to give me a reason to buy a mac?

Quote:
Macs are generally viewed as being more expensive than Windows PCs but that is not necessarily true. Apple focuses on high-performance, value-added configurations. When you compare similarly equipped systems, costs are comparable. Macs may be a good fit for users needing fast machines.
In terms of business, not every employee needs high end equipment. Most don't, they can get by with an average hardware. Why spend the money if you don't need it?

Quote:
Concerns about legacy applications are fading as Web-based technologies and desktop virtualization gain ground. Using a browser to interact with legacy systems makes the desktop platform irrelevant. Virtualization tools like Citrix and VMware make it possible to run multiple operating systems on a single machine so you can always revert to Windows, if needed.
A solid point about wbe based apps, they do make the desktop they are run less important. However, they don't work for everyone. The company I work for has 12,000 field users, web based apps won't help them one bit without a network connection. Even with all the wireless out there, it's still hit or miss. As for virtualization on a desktop, people are trying to be productive in their job and don't want to have to boot up another OS just to run an app.

Quote:
Supporting another computing platform requires training. However, any major transition, such as migrating to Vista, requires some amount of training.
More training will be required with a switch to mac than with an upgrade to Vista. Minimal training would be required for a Vista upgrade, where you'd have to provide some training to every employee with a switch to mac.

Quote:
Some of this pressure will come from recent college graduates, many of whom are Mac users. They will want to continue using Macs when entering the workforce.
Last time I checked, CIO's make the decisions, not entry level college grads. Companies aren't going to make a change just because some college grads want it.

Again, my point, the same as it has been throughout this thread is that the cost to switch a large company to mac is astronomical. In the unstable economy that we have, who is going to pay that price? Small-medium business, switching to mac is feasible. I've seen articles/case studies on companies that have made the switch and it worked out, good for them.

For a company to switch to mac you have more expensive hardware, the cost of making apps compatible on a mac or paying for a mac alternative(if there is one). The cost of labor to switch out every computer in the company. It all adds up pretty quick.

I'm not saying Microsoft is the answer. But there are cheaper alternatives to Windows than a Mac.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2008, 09:15 AM
 
5,115 posts, read 4,721,701 times
Reputation: 4380
Bull Winklus, we're going to have to agree to disagree about Mac virus vunerability versus PC virus vunerability. I'm willing to change my position...but I'm gonna need a reason.

I say it's because Macs don't have the market penetration so they aren't targetted for attacks.

You say it's because "no other OS has yet to establish a reputation for virus suceptability" as the Microsoft operating systems. I'd just wish that you'd point out exactly what it is in OS X that makes a Mac invulnerable. I'm not saying that there isn't a reason, I would just like to know what it is?

Convoluted? Guilty as charged! I do need to learn to be more concise and clear in my writing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2008, 09:29 AM
 
5,115 posts, read 4,721,701 times
Reputation: 4380
The other thing about Macs expanding in the business world - you've not actually made a return-on-investment argument for Macs instead of PCs, or for that matter, for a Linux variant. From my vantage point, you've just theorized a future Macintosh that's aimed at the business market.

What exactly is the financial reason for going Mac OS X (or a later variant) instead of Microsoft Vista or Microsoft Windows 7, or a Linux variant?

Apple doesn't do cheap. Never has.

I'm having a hard time seeing how a company that makes mid to hid end microcomputers somehow suddenly conquers the low end of the market.

Last edited by djmilf; 09-25-2008 at 09:51 AM.. Reason: typo 'conquer' -> 'conquers'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2008, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Seattle-area, where the sun don't shine
576 posts, read 1,689,009 times
Reputation: 191
I'd say Windows is winning for the moment, but I think it's losing momentum (Vista) and OSX is gaining momentum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 10:31 PM
 
Location: USA
701 posts, read 994,160 times
Reputation: 651
I don't think the Mac will ever reach the dominance of the Windows machines in the corporate world. At least not until they let other computer manufacturers license the Mac OS to install in non-Apple machines. Even if every Fortune 500 company decides to order Macs, Apple certainly can't supply all that hardware and probably can't afford to build more factories to satisfy that hypothetical demand.

That being said, I'm a very happy Mac user. My wife and son are too. We still have Windows XP machines at home, but they're dual booted with either Linux Mint or Ubnuntu which we now prefer on our desktop PCs. Windows XP is there for "just in case we need it". We barely use Windows at home now.

So, for now, I think the status quo will remain in the computer world: Windows being the dominant OS, the Mac and Linus machines slowly gaining market share.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 10:48 PM
 
Location: USA
701 posts, read 994,160 times
Reputation: 651
While I use Windows XP at work, I've often wondered about the "Windows is cheaper than Apple" mindset in the corporate world. I mean, sure, companies roll out housands of Windows PCs every year. But every year, companies also spend MILLIONS protecting and cleaning up their PCs and networks from crackers, virus, trojans, worms, etc... So how much cheaper is it really to stick with Windows machines compared to Macs or Unix machines? The last round of virus attack my company had to go through, we were laughing at the time and money they had to spend to patch the holes and cleanup. And the Macs on the network were not affected at all.

I'm really am curious about that. I personally know of only one company that switched totally from a Windows environment to a Mac environment. The network manager is a friend of mine. And he's very happy with the switch. He says they've cut maintenance and security costs tremendously and, after some adjustments, the employees actually seem to be more "productive". Don't know how he measured that.

As far as the argument that the Macs would be just as vulnerable as Windows given the same number of users, I'm not sure about that. That's basically saying: "Unix is just as vulnerable as Windows", which I think isn't true.

Personally, I believe Microsoft is an excellent software company for Office suites and development tools. And therein lies the rub - A lot of Windows-centric vulnerabilities probably has to do with the development tools Microsoft has provided: Visual Basic, VB Script, C++, C#, etc... There's potentially more crackers in the world because of this and they're more familiar with the Windows platform. Heck, you can google for virus generators and find hundreds on the web. One doesn't even need to be a REAL cracker to cause havoc on Windows, MS Office or Internet Explorer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2008, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Maryland not Murlin
8,193 posts, read 22,574,219 times
Reputation: 6168
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
I say it's because Macs don't have the market penetration so they aren't targeted for attacks.
This is only partially the reason. A good amount of viruses are written by people who do not like Microsoft and/or Bill Gates; some of which are ex-employees. Apple pissed off some of the more long-time hard-core Mac users when they went to Intel processors and the word on the street is that this move is going to provoke more attacks against Macs. But, it hasn't happened yet.

Two other things are the OS itself and the rather large and dedicated community of (mostly) hobbyist Mac coders. OSX has features built in that help combat viruses. Sort of like a firewall that makes the OS 'invisible' to viruses lurking over the internet lines. Apple also releases a security update every time a vulnerable spot in the OS becomes known. It is those hobbyists that usually find those spots, and then informs Apple about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
What exactly is the financial reason for going Mac OS X (or a later variant) instead of Microsoft Vista or Microsoft Windows 7, or a Linux variant?

Apple doesn't do cheap. Never has.
Apples are not cheap, but one thing is that they last a long time; if you say, bought a Mac Pro or the 24" iMac, five years down the road it will still be a good computer (except for the G5 line, which did have many problems). Apple computers also retain a rather high resale value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tada View Post
I'd say Windows is winning for the moment, but I think it's losing momentum (Vista) and OSX is gaining momentum.
I wouldn't say that OSX is gaining momentum as much as Apple as a whole is. I mean, if you want an Apple computer, you get OSX (it's rather pointless to run Linux on a newer Mac, so you really do not have a choice), and one of the reasons for Apple's recent spike in popularity is that you can now dual-boot a Mac into Windows (and from what I hear, Vista runs better on an Intel Mac then it does on most native PC's).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2008, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Detroit Downriver
620 posts, read 1,884,188 times
Reputation: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Bull Winklus, we're going to have to agree to disagree about Mac virus vunerability versus PC virus vunerability. I'm willing to change my position...but I'm gonna need a reason.

I say it's because Macs don't have the market penetration so they aren't targetted for attacks.

You say it's because "no other OS has yet to establish a reputation for virus suceptability" as the Microsoft operating systems. I'd just wish that you'd point out exactly what it is in OS X that makes a Mac invulnerable. I'm not saying that there isn't a reason, I would just like to know what it is?

Convoluted? Guilty as charged! I do need to learn to be more concise and clear in my writing.
Well, OK, but first a point of clarification. You ask me "what it is in OS X that makes a Mac invulnerable?" I'm not taking the position that Macs are invulnerable. My position is that they are much less vulnerable than Windows systems. So far, they appear to have been invulnerable to virus attack because there is no virus on the Mac being circulated in the wild. That could change. But even if it did, it would only signal that Macs are not invulnerable, which we already know. Windows installations, with their thousands of viruses in the wild, would still be the obvious prize winner for most vulnerable OS.

Now, as to the details... I'm no expert on viruses and why the Mac is less vulnerable to them. I've listened to experts write and talk about it for 20 years, so I'm no babe in the woods either. What I understand though, is that it is much easier [than on Mac OS] in every version of Windows up until Vista to execute root level code without the operator knowing about it.

So, in my own words as a non expert:
On Mac OS X, if any unauthorized code gets access to the processor by somehow inserting itself into authorized code, such as an infected game loaded from CD, before it can execute root level access an authorization pop up will request a password authentication. While any Mac or Windows operator can be fooled into clicking an authorization when they shouldn't, only a Windows operator should worry about the unauthorized code executing without the warning or request for authorization.

This situation is supposed to be much improved on Vista, however the Vista way is a bit over reactive and asks permission for nearly everything you can imagine to the point of becoming annoying.

As I stated, malicious code can be executed on the Mac if it can get started. But it is very difficult for code to get propagated, because the Internet and email is the only vector that spreads a virus fast enough to titillate script kiddies and to pay off big enough for criminals. Just as people learn not to click on SPAM email claiming to be their bank, they learn that access that requires a password authentication on their computer shouldn't be trusted to an unknown entity that is SPAMming them in their email. Even if one totally incompetent person does ignore the warning, give their password, and let the code wipe the HD and replicate itself to everyone in the email file, so many people wont do it that the propagation to other machines will never reach critical mass. It's just not an attractive environment for the antagonists to play in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2008, 10:10 AM
 
5,115 posts, read 4,721,701 times
Reputation: 4380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bull Winkus View Post
What I understand though, is that it is much easier [than on Mac OS] in every version of Windows up until Vista to execute root level code without the operator knowing about it.

So, in my own words as a non expert:
On Mac OS X, if any unauthorized code gets access to the processor by somehow inserting itself into authorized code, such as an infected game loaded from CD, before it can execute root level access an authorization pop up will request a password authentication. While any Mac or Windows operator can be fooled into clicking an authorization when they shouldn't, only a Windows operator should worry about the unauthorized code executing without the warning or request for authorization.

This situation is supposed to be much improved on Vista, however the Vista way is a bit over reactive and asks permission for nearly everything you can imagine to the point of becoming annoying.
So if I understand this, the feature that makes Mac OS/X (and probably earlier versions of the Mac OS) less susceptible to viruses and thus superior to the Microsoft earlier OS's has been implemented in Microsoft Vista, albeit in an extremely annoying way.

I've been tasked at my current job with migrating some of our company's old software to the Vista platform. The old software was written by a now-departed programmer who inadvertently violated many of the new security rules implemented with Vista. I know exactly how annoying the Vista security environment (aka User Account Control) can be when working with older software.

However, after the software has been reauthored to comply with the new security protocols the annoyance factor will go away. Eventually, all of the third party software developers in the Microsoft world will develop their new and upgraded applications to meet the new security requirements of Vista.

Once this happens, wouldn't the Mac OS/X edge vis a vis confirmation required for 'root level access' (or in Windows parlance, confirmation required for 'administrative access') be negated?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2008, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Detroit Downriver
620 posts, read 1,884,188 times
Reputation: 403
So it would seem, but then I'm only an egg when it comes to security concerns. Never had much call to deal with it. IT staff does that at work. Mac does it at home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top